Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 59

Proposed modification of WP:OR regarding figures
Should this addition be made to No_original_research?
 * "In the case of figures intended to illustrate text, even if nothing like a proposed WP figure exists anywhere else at all, it is acceptable on WP if it faithfully depicts text that is not OR. Whether a figure of this type constitutes original research is contingent only upon its accuracy in representing the accepted text it illustrates."

I understand the present policy to be consistent with this proposal. This addition would rule out explicitly a view such as "A diagram is not exempt from normal sourcing rules". Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments.

 * I believe there are a great many figures on WP that are completely original illustrations of accompanying text, and some of which are unrelated to any published figure. Nonetheless, there are misconceptions regarding WP policy in such matters, so an amendment is needed. The issue is not gray, but black and white - either a diagram on WP must approximate one in print (inviting copyright restrictions), or that is not necessary, and felicity to text is a sufficient criterion. Present policy says the latter, and suggesting policy is consistent with personal judgment about this requires a rewrite of policy. Brews ohare (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I oppose this change. Editors should use their best judgment in every case, which may include a very strict interpretation of verifiability in contentious articles. There are misconceptions in both directions here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted above this is a content dispute. You should not be trying to rewrite policy to help you win a content dispute; you've tried this many times before so should know this by now. Resolve the issue on the talk page, recruiting other editors perhaps on a project talk page if there are only two involved.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blackburne: You are wrong - you mistake a general issue with the instance leading to it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If this really has nothing to do with the dispute, then feel free to come back here a couple of months after that dispute has been resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth should a general issue have to wait for a minor dispute between two editors to end? Your reason presumably is because you cannot see that this is a general issue, even when it is stated in general terms that depend in no way upon this other matter. Brews ohare (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it is very difficult for editors to completely separate a proposed change from a particular instance, and it is impossible to avoid some people believing that it is an attempt at WP:GAMING. Additionally, the resolution of the particular, concrete dispute can provide some insight into how the community sees the matter in practice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This issue can be dealt with on a case by case basis according to appropriate policy and guidelines that already exists. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Steve: The appropriate policy is WP:OR. It encourages Editors to upload their own original figures. Now, this policy may be clear to some, but to others, any original figure is OR or SYN. Why do you not favor ending any perceived ambiguity by making policy explicit that an original figure illustrating some WP text is required to be an accurate depiction of the text, and the policy of original research applies to the text not to the figure illustrating it? Brews ohare (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No way I just posted at RSN where "is a map a reliable source?" was asked. The answer is no . For everyday "the sky is blue" questions, a map or diagram are fine as sources. For anything remotely contentious, a secondary source is required to interpret the document. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq: I wonder how this process you envision takes place. Here is a possible way to do this that you might comment upon:, An explanation is made in text, in words, with sources, and this text is critiqued to be sure it doesn't exhibit OR or synthesis. Then a figure illuminating this text is created, and this figure is then criticized as to whether it accurately portrays the text. Thus OR and SYN apply to the text, but fidelity to the text applies to the figure. I am sure this process works; do you have an alternative that might work too? Brews ohare (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, but coming here straight after the RSN section I linked above, my mind was directed towards a different issue from what you have raised. Sometimes an editor will say that a diagram they found somewhere verifies fact X (the diagram is given as a reference for X). I now see that the issue under discussion concerns when an editor-created diagram is original research. That's much more tricky. In general, everyday matters which do not raise objections are not original research and are good ("the sky is blue", or the diagrams at parabola). I do not think there is anything useful that can be said as a generalization regarding when a diagram is a faithful depiction of verifiable facts—it's yet another issue which would need to be discussed, if objections are raised. I have not looked at the background that you linked above, but I have struck my "no way" as that was a misunderstanding, and I might just sit on the fence, although from what I've just said I don't think any general text would really be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq: Thanks for a thought-out response. I feel that the application of OR and SYN to text is documented. On the other hand applying these policies to an original figure as allowed by WP:OR is nigh impossible, and is just a quagmire for unending dispute. You have said the same. My view is that for that subset of figures used to illustrate text, an approach based upon the figure's accuracy in depicting the text is a more straightforward way to proceed. Brews ohare (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think insertion of the proposed text will be read to imply that original images that are not based on text, but which can be verified by reference to reliable sources in some non-text media, would be disallowed. For example, there may not be any pictures of a living person who is the subject of a biography that have copyright licenses compatible with Wikipedia, but there are many such photos in reliable sources that can be viewed for verification. A Commons editor takes a photo of the article subject and puts it in the article. That is entirely compatible with existing policy, but the proposal would imply that it is not acceptable. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h: Thanks for the observation. You point out that a figure sometimes can be authenticated by comparison with published figures, for example an original photograph claiming to be that of a pigeon can be compared with published photos to ascertain that it is indeed a picture of a pigeon. The proposal doesn't intend to eliminate this kind of verification. But in cases where there is a completely original figure involved, and a similar figure is not available in print, an approach to verification is to compare the figure with the text it describes. This proposal is an alternative, not an exclusive, means for critiquing figures, and sometimes the only way to do it. Perhaps you could suggest some rephrasing of the proposal to make this point obvious? Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Leading section
I think that it is more clear if in the leading section the two words must exist are in Italic, in stead of only the word must right now. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be even clearer if we said must have been published and still be accessible to at least some members of the public. I've forgotten the details, but at some point we actually had a problem with someone claiming that his source "existed" (original copies of handwritten letters by his grandmother or something) and was therefore useable, even though it had never been published anywhere.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Revised proposal regarding OR and figures
An earlier proposal met with difficulties, so a revised version is presented below intended to meet those problems by carefully restricting the type of figure to which it applies.

Should this addition be made to No_original_research?
 * "In the very specific case of a figure in the form of a flowchart or graph illustrating a specific text in an article, such a figure is acceptable on WP provided it faithfully depicts the associated text, and that text itself meets WP policy on OR. Whether a figure of this type constitutes original research is contingent only upon its accuracy in representing the accepted text it illustrates. Of course, meeting OR is not the only possible criterion to apply in accepting a figure." Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As things stand at the moment, objections have been raised that figures that are a combination of published figures, or are variations of published figures are declared to be original research simply because of original elements or organization, even though these diagrams faithfully depict text established to be acceptable. Argument over these matters is directed by mistake at the originality of the figures themselves instead of their accuracy in depicting the text they illustrate. Brews ohare (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * There are a great many figures on WP that are completely original illustrations of accompanying text, and some of which are unrelated to any published figure. Nonetheless, there are misconceptions regarding WP policy in such matters, so an amendment is needed. The amendment makes clear that the OR issue is not gray, but black and white - either a diagram on WP must approximate one in print (inviting copyright restrictions), or that is not necessary, and felicity to text is a sufficient criterion. Present policy is sometimes interpreted as saying OR policy on such figures is open to personal judgment, but that is is too vague. Policy is governed by felicity to text, and not upon extraneous considerations. Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Will be interpreted to require removal of perfectly acceptable, uncontentious figures. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h: Would you please elaborate upon this scenario? Brews ohare (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The present policy is clear and fine. Whether any particular image matches the policy can be decided on a case by case basis, and disputes can be resolved the usual way. Frankly it comes up very rarely: images are far more likely to be removed for relevance or copyright/fair use reasons, or as better ones are found.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"deeds 17:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Brews ohare, Could you explain how the following excerpt from policy doesn't already cover what you are trying to add?
 * "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy."
 * Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob: Thank you for the opportunity to explain the need for this change. As I said myself, present policy is consistent with this proposal. However, as is abundantly clear from others' remarks here, there is a faction that thinks present policy leaves the matter open to 'interpretation' as to when OR or SYN has occurred in a figure, and that judgment has nothing to do with the text the figure illustrates. In my opinion, and in yours, there is no such thing as OR and SYN in a figure if it sticks to faithfully illustrating acceptable text. If the amplification of policy suggested here is included, that erroneous attitude would be eliminated, leaving one less breeding ground for the rancor it generates, and cases ArbCom must deal with. Brews ohare (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please consider the possibility that the problem isn't with the way policy is currently worded when it comes to a particular content dispute. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob: Thanks for another opportunity to elaborate the reasons for this proposed clarification. The origin of my objection, as you point out, has nothing to do with the possible value of this clarification. If the policy clarification would plead only a single special case, as Blackburne suggests, or introduce collateral damage that was unacceptable as Blueboar suggests, then no change should be made. However, the scenarios of Blueboar where unintended consequences could occur actually are not possible under the clarification, and the argument of Blackburne that the only case of its sort ever to arise is the one subject to this RfC is improbable in view of the opinion expressed by several here that applying NOR and SYN to figures is just fine even when they accurately reflect acceptable WP text. So in answer to your suggestion, yes, the problem is indeed with the way policy is currently worded. Brews ohare (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, if as you assert this is a widespread problem please provide links to the disputes. You may think it "improbable" that it's only come up once but as the editor wanting to change policy it is for you to provide evidence that there is a problem that needs addressing. If it is a serious problem it should be easy to find examples.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blackburne: I think clear arguments are presented that a minor clarification would make WP:OI more useful. Neither your objections nor Blueboar's discredit the proposal. Engaging in a dispute over whether problems are 'widespread' and just what criteria specify a 'real' example adds nothing to the discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - I think our current wording works best... specifically because it is flexible and doesn't try to spell out in detail what is and is not acceptable. In broad terms, I appreciate what Brews is attempting to say.  If a user created chart/graph/data presenting image sticks to simply illustrating the text of the article in graphic form, it should be OK (as long as the text itself is well sourced and not OR). However, it is very easy to unintentionally slide over the line into OR (especially SYNTH) when presenting data in pictorial form... even when we try to "simply illustrate the text".
 * This potential for OR makes it very difficult to write definitive policy statements about user created data presenting images... So much depends on examining the specific data presented in the image. For example, 99% of the information presented in an image might be absolutely fine, with only one small bit of data slipping into OR. Take that one bit out, and the rest of the image is acceptable.
 * And because so much depends on the specifics of the individual image, I don't think we can (or should) say more than we currently do. Each image has to be judged on a case by case basis.  As long as we focus on the principles that underlie WP:NOR when making those judgements, we generally get it right... attempting to create a more narrow definition of what is and is not acceptable, and in what situations, will just create more problems than it resolves. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: You express unease that a figure may 'slide over the line' into SYN or OR and WP needs a sufficiently 'flexible' policy to allow handling such cases. You example a figure 99% right and only 1% wrong, and thus slipping through the cracks. Does the suggested policy change facilitate such problems? No, it does not. If the data in the figure is represented in the text, then the error in the figure is also in the text. The proposal suggests that the erroneous text should be challenged and corrected. Of course, fixing the figure will follow the fixing of the text. On the other hand, if the figure presents material not in accompanying text, but presents information supplemental to the accompanying text, it is immediately clear that this figure does not fall into the category of the proposal, which is limited to figures faithfully illustrating accompanying text.
 * The problem with the present wording, Blueboar, as your comment illustrates, is that its 'flexibility' not only allows for incorrect interpretation, but invites it on a case-by-case basis. This case-by-case orientation suggest criticism that should focus on incorrect text should be directed instead at the accompanying figure, and this focus injects the notion that these figures can somehow be judged for OR and SYN independently of the text they faithfully illustrate. Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I should expand on my comment as I think it's relevant here. I think the current image policy exists mostly for two reasons. To allow for photos of e.g. buildings, people, animals, artworks to illustrate articles. These photos are easily created by editors and can also be found online with suitable licenses. And for diagrams, often ones that exist in books, such as textbooks used as sources. The diagrams can't be used directly, much as the text can't; while the text can be paraphrased the diagrams can be recreated.
 * In almost all cases the diagrams on WP are similar to those in textbooks, academic papers and similar sources; there is no OR as the editors can point to those sources. They rarely need to as those working on the topic will be familiar with the sources and so know what is appropriate and relevant. Editors rarely need to create diagrams unlike those in sources. If none exist, in any of the sources, then it is likely the topic does not admit to a graphical representation. This is the case in many mathematics articles, where the topic is to abstract to be easily diagrammed.
 * So whether an image is OR very rarely arises; almost always it's a photo or a diagram like those in sources. As such is is best resolved on a case by case basis, and doesn't need a change in policy. This might change if the issue arose again and again, so e.g. if there were many disputes over image OR that editors find it hard to resolve within the current policy. But I can't think of any, apart from the one preceding this discussion at Talk:Conceptualization (information science).-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are very many examples of original and acceptable figures that do not fit into your scenarios, Blackburne. Here are a few. The reason they have not been subject to ridiculous objections is just that there weren't ridiculous ill-informed editors to raise them. However, policy should be clarified to make sure the ridiculous does not happen. Brews ohare (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean instances of disputes over images. As for the rest of your comment: WP:NPA.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Brew's I suggest you redact (not strike) that remark fully, given your block history its enough to earn you another lengthy one.  The problem at the article concerned is that (in my opion) you are using the diagram to create a synthesis of material in several sources.  So you are not illustrating the material you are creating something original not fully contained in the test.  The fact that you keep coming here to try and get policy changes to support your position on a content dispute on an article is disruptive of itself.Snowded  TALK 06:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: It would be helpful if you read the discussion here. Besides other matters, it discusses the use of a figure to describe text. In such cases, many here feel the present policy is clear that 'original' figures are fine if they do not introduce controversial material without sourcing. In particular, if they simply illustrate text that is considered acceptable, the figures also are acceptable. Your approach is a clear indication that the policy is not clear to you, and for editors like you, a clarification would be helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop assuming that because people disagree with you that they can't have read the material. I have, including the multiple comments from editors who think there is no need to change policy.  I have also read the personal attacks and if you don't redact them I am going to raise an ANI report, or ask an admin who has handled you before to look at the issue.  Your call, but consider this fair warning. Snowded  TALK 16:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: Nothing you say above relates to the consideration of the proposed clarification. I reiterate that you do not understand the policy as written, and that this misunderstanding is very clear from your remarks about it. Therefore, a clarification would be helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see you redacting or apologising for the 'ridiculous ill-informed editors' comments. If you don't do that by tomorrow UK time I am going to raise it along with your various edit comment summaries.  Your call Snowded  TALK 20:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: This discussion is hardly the place for threats. If you interpret my remarks personally, that is upon you. Stick to the discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Difficult not to take "ridiculous ill-informed" other than personally Brews. Also its not a threat its a promise.  You have a long track record now of snide comments and direct attacks in edit summaries and elsewhere.   It matches behaviour for which you have previously received both blocks and topic bans.  Your call where you take this.  I am going to bed, but will put time into a report tomorrow if needed Snowded  TALK 22:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Another thought... consider the following situation... an article contains a complex chain of information in the text. It combines information from several sources, but in a way that does NOT violate NOR.  Then someone comes along and says "you know, we could make all this much easier for the reader to understand if we present it in graphic form".  He/she creates an image.  At this point that image would meet Brews's proposal... faithfully illustrating acceptable non-OR text.  Now, lets say another editor says "Wow...yeah... that is much easier to understand.  In fact... it is so much easier, why do we even bother trying to explain it in written words?  Why not just present the information in graphic form." So, that editor removes the complicated chain of text that the image was illustrating.  Does the image suddenly become unacceptable OR because it no longer illustrates information presented in the text?  If we accept Brews's proposed language, I could see someone arguing that it would.  That bothers me.  Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: You raise the important point that history can enter into the use of policy, and the policy must think ahead. The example you suggest is that a figure that was once included under the proposed change can, through later editing, become a stand-alone figure if the text is removed as a result of the 'one figure is worth 1000 words' principle. However, once the text is stripped away, the remaining figure is no longer within the category of 'figures faithfully illustrating accompanying text', so the newly stand-alone figure must stand or fall under OR and SYN applied to itself. Any policy change must make this point clear. Brews ohare (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems likely that a stand-alone figure challenged on the basis of OR or SYN will result in some supporting text being added to supply sources where the information underlying the figure can be found. That will bring the figure back into the category of 'figures faithfully illustrating accompanying text'. The discussion is then brought back to a consideration of text. Brews ohare (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What should not happen is that a figure be labeled SYN because it illustrates points raised in several sources (for example, definitions) or OR because it uses a graphical organization somewhat different from published figures (for example, bars instead of pies). Such 'artistic license' is explicitly allowed by policy if it is clarified that all the figure must do is correctly illustrate an acceptable WP text. Brews ohare (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Meta comments
Brews, have any of your proposals for NOR ever been accepted? It seems like there's a new one every time I turn around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He only comes here when he has a content dispute elsewhere :-)  You could also ask him if anyone has ever responded to his multiple RfCs etc. etc.  Snowded  TALK 05:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you two care to take a little time off your food fight to comment regarding improving policy in this area? Brews ohare (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the policy. What is wrong is trying to change policy to win a content dispute. To do this repeatedly, despite being already warned about it, is disruptive.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blackburne: Unwarranted unsubstantiated pure bull. The discussion stands on its own as a clarification of policy, and your spite and bile have no place here. Brews ohare (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, this isn't spite and bile, at least not on my part. The question is about your effect on this page.  You seem to make a lot of proposals here, and I can't remember any of them having any result other than a refusal.  If my impression is accurate, then it would probably be best overall for you to stop making policy-related proposals.  (By "best", I mean that you would quit wasting your time making these doomed proposals, and multiple other people would quit spending hours refusing to accept any proposal that you make.)  I'd rather have this be voluntary, but we could look into an RFC/U or see whether ArbCom is willing to consider expanding your existing TBAN.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa there! There's no earthquake here, no seismic activity, no Amazon butterfly's wing causing chaos in Kansas. No need for venting or vomit. It's just a proposal for a tweak of policy. No hidden conspiracy, no unholy contagion. WP:AGF, bro. Brews ohare (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith, Brews. (And I'm "ma'am", not "bro".)  But I'm beginning to lose my ability to assume competence.  Being a useful encyclopedia editor does not make you a capable policy writer.  It's a different skill set.  If you're not very good at writing policies (e.g., if you've noticed that your proposals are never accepted), then it would be efficient for you to give up on policy proposals.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my mistake in gender. My assessment is that changes in WP policy hardly ever occur. I don't think this rigidity stems from a lack of good proposals for change, or a lack of need for change. But despite the situation, one can try to clear things up so unending Talk page disputes can be reduced by having very clearly stated policies that don't require ArbCom actions to settle them. If things on WP were different, those with more skill in drafting policy could help to address a problem when one surfaces. Instead we have this kind of flack. Brews ohare (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I helped improve a guideline just the other day, based on a good talk-page suggestion from an unregistered editor. On the same talk page, there's another editor griping about how it's impossible to get consensus to make any changes to that particular guideline.  I don't think it's impossible to change guidelines and policies.  I do it fairly regularly.  It depends more on the proposals you making.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... it does tend to be hard to make changes to our core policies (like this one). Even small changes can require a lot of discussion and debate before a consensus forms to either accept them or reject them.  Of course, I happen to think that is a good thing.  Our core policies shouldn't change easily. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please help to conclude discussion about numerical data
The discussions about WP:CALC and summaries of numerical data are on hold: the detailed rules and recommendations are "in consolidation and review" here.

Please collaborate with critiques, editions, etc. at the essay About Valid Routine Calculations.

--Krauss (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About Valid Routine Calculations
Someone has started an essay About Valid Routine Calculations intended to augment WP:CALC. Ostensibly it seems to me to be much more permissive than the WP:CALC, and to disregard the consensus of many past discussions on this talk page. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah... it does seem a tad more permissive than was intended by CALC. I would suggest either working with the essay's author to amend that, or starting a "counter-viewpoint" essay of your own, to express your interpretation of the policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Justifying "widely" by using numerous sources
Often an article says "X is widely regarded as Y", without providing a reference that actually says "widely", in whatever words. Instead, some number of references are supplied, each saying "X is Y" or "X is regarded as Y". It is left to the reader to judge whether this number of references equates to "widely".

IMHO, merely providing a bunch of references, then saying "widely" should be regarded as Original Research. (After all, an equal number of references saying "X is NOT Y" could possibly be found.) Also IMHO, the definition of Original Research should be expanded to explicitly include this situation. Lou Sander (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific as to what you are referring to. Sometimes X really IS widely regarded as being Y. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's normally considered original research to determine that something is "widely" the case without good sourcing that says so. Formerip (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I would go even further: it is not even OR; it is a typical WP:WEASEL: how widely? why says so? how widely the 'opposite-X' is regarded as 'Y'? etc. Sounds seriously but in fact close to useless as fact under close inspection. Of course, we may not be able to prevent wikipedia from entering such weaselisms from sources, but better not multiply them ourselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I find that this problem is best addressed by all the editors doing an open-minded review of the available sources, and then honestly asking themselves whether this description is accurate. If it is, then they should accept it in the spirit of accurately summarizing the entire corpus of sources (i.e., what editors are supposed to be doing here); if it's not, then they shouldn't permit it.  You simply aren't going to find an explicit statement for some things, e.g., that the current US President is "widely regarded as being a US citizen" or "the Earth is widely regarded as being mostly round" because these facts are so widely accepted that nobody felt it necessary to expressly say so:  they just say that he is a US citizen and that the Earth is round.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think anybody would want to put the two your explicit examples into wikipedia either. I stand to my point that "widely regarded" is "mostly widely weasel". Case in point: your first example: the phase "the current US President is widely regarded as being a US citizen" may sound rather ridiculous for one who is aware that POTUS is a CITUS by definition of the office, unless one have heard you know what. But in the latter case the "widely regarded" may sound as a snide remark, rather than encyclopedic information. And in fact, a complementary statement would be encyclopedic instead: "some attempted to argue that the current US P to illegally occupy the office". And most surely both your and mine statements about POTUS can be readily supplied with solid refs, if challenged. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Therefore I'd rather reuse yours: "the editors doing an open-minded review of the available sources and then honestly asking themselves," why would anyone write "widely regarded"? Is there a significant dissent? Was there a small but vocal controversy? etc. If an answer on one of these provocative questions is "yes", then it is probably a topic of a paragraph or two, and while writing one will readily come with both good references and more sensible phrasing. Otherwise your version of "open-minded review" is plain post-factum OR (WP:SYNTH). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that saying "widely", etc. without a source that also says it, should be specifically identified as Original Research (though maybe it's enough to call it weaseling). The specific activity that I've often seen is to say "widely", then support it with a bunch of citations, none of which says "widely". The second paragraph of Rupert Sheldrake contains an example. Lou Sander (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually (IMHO) the use of "widely" in the second paragraph of Rupert Sheldrake could be OK, because the secondary sources cited in support do make statements about the general view among scientists. The sources cited say, "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash." and "...most biologists considered Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance hogwash...".  As long as the sources used are reliable (I haven't checked), that use of "widely" is supported.   03:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually in is not OK. I am sorry to rephrase myself for the third time, but please, please try to remember that the words "widely" and "general view" are way not the same. (I trust you may find 10 differences and a partridge in a pear tree yourself.) And there is no reason to substitute one for another, especially with these sources cited at hand. Of course, there are legitimate usages of the word "widely". There are even cases when 29% is wide enough to be "widely". At the same time English language is flexible enough in expression: "vast majority", "significant majority", "a large number of", "vocal minority"... -- all of them may be collapsed into "widely", but will it be informative? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

, if I were doing a GA review of an article and saw such a use of the word "widely" like that I'd flag it as WP:WEASEL and ask for it to be corrected. WP:WEASEL gives "it is widely thought" as an explicit example. It can be a WP:OR problem as well, as laid out in the original question (who is doing the counting of the sources? how are we sure all the most authoritative sources are being reviewed?) but WP:WEASEL should stop it in its tracks before we even have to worry about that. 02:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Historical inaccuracies" sections
A recent thread on the OR noticboard ("The White Queen (TV series)#Historical Inaccuracies") has brought up an issue that has been bothering me for a long time. It is quite common for articles on historical novels, films TV shows etc to have sections about historical inaccuracies. It has long been asserted by some editors that it is WP:SYN to list such alleged inaccuracies unless they have been noted by WP:RS with specific reference to the film, novel etc in question. In other words, the argument is that it is not enough to cite a reliable source on the historical facts themselves. I want to question this, because I think it's one of those areas in which anti-OR dogmatism damages the project. The point of WP:OR is to prevent people presenting their pet ideas as though they are accepted fact, are more significant or have more justification than mainstream opinion asserts. In this case, the effect is actually to suppress mainstream opinion in order to leave deviations from historical fact unchallenged. This is because the content of the novel or film can be described without citation, but comment on it cannot. I have long felt that this is a kind of perversion of the spirit and intent of WP:OR and that we should stop repeating the mantra that reliable sources have to have directly commented on "inaccuracies" in films and TV shows with historical content before we can note these.

As far as I can see cases like this are similar to the issue of whether making arithmetical calculations (WP:CALC), or writing translations, are OR. If there is nothing to dispute then the concept of OR is inappropriate because there is in fact no "synthesis" occurring. If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film/novel shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original research, because no new idea is being "sythesised". It's not a new idea that the battles did not happen in the same year. Now, I accept that there are ambiguous cases, but uncertainites about the facts are a separate issue. By adopting the approach advocated by some editors we damage the encyclopedia by excluding information that is verifiable and which serves the purpose to inform. In addition, as I said above, this is actually one of those aspects of historical fiction that people are most interested in, for perfectly good reasons. They want to know how much of it is true. We do not serve readers by excluding information that is not in dispute. I think we need a clarification of OR policy similar to WP:CALC to address this issue. Paul B (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a very real and good point here, although I see one possible problem, even if it is a minor one. There are a lot of "alternate history" fiction out there, like that of Harry Turtledove, which is more or less based on the "what if" scenario. Articles on such works of fiction could easily be bogged down with the specific details regarding how they deviate from reality. Also, the same could be said about a lot of contemporary fantasy, including a lot of comic books, like say Aquaman, which seem to be based on what is more or less the real world, with some variations, like, with Aquaman, the existence of his Atlantis. Personally, I wouldn't want anyone to think Braveheart is historically accurate, it isn't, but I don't know how much space in our content to give such material in general. Having said that, personally, I wouldn't find making it possible to add a little material along the lines of "a fictionalized account of (whatever)" in a lot of cases of this type, although, I suppose, in at least some cases, the movie or whatever might be based on a seriously "alternative" (or fringe) theory which isn't necessarily "fictionalized." And I don't know how many might qualify as that. I agree there is a problem, but be damned if I myself know how to rewrite things to address it. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Historical inaccuracies sections, like "differences from the book" or the like, fall into WP:TRIVIA and even if obvious (like a show stating an event happened in one year when there's universal agreement it happened in a different year), should only be included if other sources have pointed them out, unless, as John Carter points out, this is intentionally part of the show's fiction, a "what if" show if certain events happened in different ways. (I can't think of any immediate clear examples, but one close case that comes to mind is the alternate universe in Fringe (TV series) where certain events happened differently and shaped that universe in a different fashion that leads to the fundamental premise of the show. However, at the same time, these differences have been noted in sources so there's no guesswork here). So unless the historical inaccuracy is critical to the show's plot, such sections should be avoided unless called out by sources. --M ASEM (t) 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * strongly support Masem. "historical inaccuracies" in a work of fiction are only important in an encyclopedia article if we can include a an answer to a "Why should we care?" or "What was the impact?"- and both of those require that third party sources have noted the inaccuracy and its impact. If inaccuracies are important and relevant to an encyclopedia article, then reliable sources would have covered them. We do not do the investigation and research, we merely aggregate what professionals have already published about the topic. CALC covers a very different situation from what is being suggested. I dont believe there is any way to write guidance about interpretations of history or cultural programs that can effectively identify clear cut boundaries.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These responses are, I think, to some extent addressing a separate issue. Yes, articles can be bogged down in pointless detail when people want to list too many of the deviations-from-fact, and there is a tendency for such sections to grow out of control like those "in popular culture" ones. That's also true of the "differences from the book" sections, as you say. But that's a quite different question from the matter at issue: which is what constitutes WP:OR. I wouldn't want to add pointless material like "King Fred was 5 foot tall, but the actor portraying him in the film is 5 foot 6". Of course that's silly, but that's an issue of undue weight, not of OR. Where the historical context is significant and relevant I think we should be able to add content without being accused of WP:SYN. Re John's comment about rewriting, I don't think the SYN section needs to be rewritten, but we could have a clarification paragraph like WP:CALC. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (e-C) You're right, but the hard part there can be determining in some cases if there is someone out there somewhere who honestly thinks that the movie might be presenting "the truth" as they see it. So, for example, I could see something like "the movie presents a fictionalized account from the perspective of a person not known to history" for some movies about history told from the viewpoint of an unknown, like Forrest Gump or Apocalypto, or maybe "the story presents a version of the Battle of Trafalgar in which the Egyptians win" or "promotes the view that Richard the Lionheart was a bisexual" or some similar phrasings like those. I can certainly see maybe allowing some such constructions in instances when the context is significant to the work in question. But there might well be all sorts of problems in determining how significant they have to be.
 * Regarding the addition about a clarification paragraph, I could agree with that, if we had RS which indicated the "nonstandard" nature of the ideas being discussed. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we can do it for these cases, what's different about doing it for fringe stuff such as Where Troy Once Stood? Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We really have three situations here:
 * 1) Historical Fiction... ie purely fictional stories set in the past. We don't expect fiction to be historically accurate, so pointing out where some work of fiction gets history wrong really is TRIVIA.  That said, in the case of Alternate History fiction (or "what if" fiction) to note the point of divergences (as these are important to the plot.)
 * 2) Biographical fiction... ie novels and movies that claim to present the life of a historical person. We do expect a biography to be accurate... but we also understand that biographical fiction may take liberties.  So pointing out where a work of biographical fiction gets it's history wrong is appropriate if the error is a doozy... but don't note minor trivial errors.  To prevent OR, only note errors that have been highlighted in sources.
 * 3) Pseudo-scholarship... ie books where the author is at least claiming to present fact... actual history. We expect scholarship to get facts right...  and if the author does not, I don't think it wrong to highlight it. For example, if an author makes a big point of saying that King Athelstan traveled to York on a given date... and reliable sources say that Athelstan actually was in Winchester at the time, note the disagreement and cite the reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have always thought to correct approach to historical inaccuracies in fiction was simply to link to articles on the actual historical figures/events. Readers who want to learn the actual history will follow the links. People do not read about a fictional TV series to learn about history, and if they do, we can't help them. The same goes for lists of "scientific inaccuracies" in the articles of some sci-fi movies. If the inaccuracies are so significant that journalists/historians/scientists have written about them, then they may be appropriate to mention. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a bad approach, but it presents a problem regarding what Blueboar above calls pseudo-scholarship, including some of the whack-job pseudoscience. I know for a fact, for instance, that there have been a lot of recent popular books regarding the field of early Christianity which have put forward ideas which have little if any support in the fields of biblical studies/ancient near east studies/christian studies, but which have gotten generally neutral-to-favorable reviews along the lines of "interesting idea," but may not be submitted to any academic journals. So, the library reviews might say "recommended" because the conspiracy theory people like books like these, even though the academic journals, if the works were submitted to them, might call them unfounded, irrational, highly speculative, or, well, nuts. In such cases, yeah, the material based on the independent reliable sources under the current structure would be generally positive, even if, unfortunately, the ideas presented in the works are, maybe, held to be about as reliable as saying that the Greek or Egyptian equivalent of John F. Kennedy was the bastard descendant of their equivalent of Abe Lincoln by their equivalent of Sally Hemmings. In a lot of material of that type, the existing library journal reviews might basically say, "could be" (because no one knows enough to say it can't be) and "interesting" (because it is interesting and appealing to those who find such appealing), and might even recommend that libraries buy it. But that don't mean anyone in the relevant academic community thinks the writer said anything worthwhile. And, unfortunately, that sort of situation happens more than I think a lot of us would like. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about articles on pseudoscholarship-related topics, or the use of pseudoscholarship sources? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably, to some degree, both. Some editors probably know more about this than me, but at least in the broad fields where history and religion interact there have been claims in the past when people have attempted to use a recently released popular book as evidence of some new and groundbreaking theory, and in some cases, like Zoroastrinaism, let's say, which doesn't get a lot of coverage, it can be really hard, and sometimes impossible, to say that a popular book by an academic might not be in some way reflective of an idea gaining broader acceptance. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR/WP:SYN and retroactive use of new names
FYI, I have started a discussion here about whether or not using a person's new name when discussing periods of their life during which they were known by another name violates wp:Verifiability, wp:No original research and/or wp:Synthesis (as some have claimed).

The note at the top of this page suggested I post this to WP:NOR/N, I but decided that because it pertained to a phenomenon (the retroactive use of a new name), not just to any specific instance of the phenomenon, it made the most sense to leave the notice here.

-sche (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at how we deal with cities that have changed their names... we refer to St. Petersburg for most of the article, but use Petrograd and Leningrad where historically appropriate. I don't think there would be a problem doing this with people. Blueboar (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Historical inaccuracies" sections
A recent thread on the OR noticboard ("The White Queen (TV series)#Historical Inaccuracies") has brought up an issue that has been bothering me for a long time. It is quite common for articles on historical novels, films TV shows etc to have sections about historical inaccuracies. It has long been asserted by some editors that it is WP:SYN to list such alleged inaccuracies unless they have been noted by WP:RS with specific reference to the film, novel etc in question. In other words, the argument is that it is not enough to cite a reliable source on the historical facts themselves. I want to question this, because I think it's one of those areas in which anti-OR dogmatism damages the project. The point of WP:OR is to prevent people presenting their pet ideas as though they are accepted fact, are more significant or have more justification than mainstream opinion asserts. In this case, the effect is actually to suppress mainstream opinion in order to leave deviations from historical fact unchallenged. This is because the content of the novel or film can be described without citation, but comment on it cannot. I have long felt that this is a kind of perversion of the spirit and intent of WP:OR and that we should stop repeating the mantra that reliable sources have to have directly commented on "inaccuracies" in films and TV shows with historical content before we can note these.

As far as I can see cases like this are similar to the issue of whether making arithmetical calculations (WP:CALC), or writing translations, are OR. If there is nothing to dispute then the concept of OR is inappropriate because there is in fact no "synthesis" occurring. If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film/novel shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original research, because no new idea is being "sythesised". It's not a new idea that the battles did not happen in the same year. Now, I accept that there are ambiguous cases, but uncertainites about the facts are a separate issue. By adopting the approach advocated by some editors we damage the encyclopedia by excluding information that is verifiable and which serves the purpose to inform. In addition, as I said above, this is actually one of those aspects of historical fiction that people are most interested in, for perfectly good reasons. They want to know how much of it is true. We do not serve readers by excluding information that is not in dispute. I think we need a clarification of OR policy similar to WP:CALC to address this issue. Paul B (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a very real and good point here, although I see one possible problem, even if it is a minor one. There are a lot of "alternate history" fiction out there, like that of Harry Turtledove, which is more or less based on the "what if" scenario. Articles on such works of fiction could easily be bogged down with the specific details regarding how they deviate from reality. Also, the same could be said about a lot of contemporary fantasy, including a lot of comic books, like say Aquaman, which seem to be based on what is more or less the real world, with some variations, like, with Aquaman, the existence of his Atlantis. Personally, I wouldn't want anyone to think Braveheart is historically accurate, it isn't, but I don't know how much space in our content to give such material in general. Having said that, personally, I wouldn't find making it possible to add a little material along the lines of "a fictionalized account of (whatever)" in a lot of cases of this type, although, I suppose, in at least some cases, the movie or whatever might be based on a seriously "alternative" (or fringe) theory which isn't necessarily "fictionalized." And I don't know how many might qualify as that. I agree there is a problem, but be damned if I myself know how to rewrite things to address it. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Historical inaccuracies sections, like "differences from the book" or the like, fall into WP:TRIVIA and even if obvious (like a show stating an event happened in one year when there's universal agreement it happened in a different year), should only be included if other sources have pointed them out, unless, as John Carter points out, this is intentionally part of the show's fiction, a "what if" show if certain events happened in different ways. (I can't think of any immediate clear examples, but one close case that comes to mind is the alternate universe in Fringe (TV series) where certain events happened differently and shaped that universe in a different fashion that leads to the fundamental premise of the show. However, at the same time, these differences have been noted in sources so there's no guesswork here). So unless the historical inaccuracy is critical to the show's plot, such sections should be avoided unless called out by sources. --M ASEM (t) 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * strongly support Masem. "historical inaccuracies" in a work of fiction are only important in an encyclopedia article if we can include a an answer to a "Why should we care?" or "What was the impact?"- and both of those require that third party sources have noted the inaccuracy and its impact. If inaccuracies are important and relevant to an encyclopedia article, then reliable sources would have covered them. We do not do the investigation and research, we merely aggregate what professionals have already published about the topic. CALC covers a very different situation from what is being suggested. I dont believe there is any way to write guidance about interpretations of history or cultural programs that can effectively identify clear cut boundaries.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These responses are, I think, to some extent addressing a separate issue. Yes, articles can be bogged down in pointless detail when people want to list too many of the deviations-from-fact, and there is a tendency for such sections to grow out of control like those "in popular culture" ones. That's also true of the "differences from the book" sections, as you say. But that's a quite different question from the matter at issue: which is what constitutes WP:OR. I wouldn't want to add pointless material like "King Fred was 5 foot tall, but the actor portraying him in the film is 5 foot 6". Of course that's silly, but that's an issue of undue weight, not of OR. Where the historical context is significant and relevant I think we should be able to add content without being accused of WP:SYN. Re John's comment about rewriting, I don't think the SYN section needs to be rewritten, but we could have a clarification paragraph like WP:CALC. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (e-C) You're right, but the hard part there can be determining in some cases if there is someone out there somewhere who honestly thinks that the movie might be presenting "the truth" as they see it. So, for example, I could see something like "the movie presents a fictionalized account from the perspective of a person not known to history" for some movies about history told from the viewpoint of an unknown, like Forrest Gump or Apocalypto, or maybe "the story presents a version of the Battle of Trafalgar in which the Egyptians win" or "promotes the view that Richard the Lionheart was a bisexual" or some similar phrasings like those. I can certainly see maybe allowing some such constructions in instances when the context is significant to the work in question. But there might well be all sorts of problems in determining how significant they have to be.
 * Regarding the addition about a clarification paragraph, I could agree with that, if we had RS which indicated the "nonstandard" nature of the ideas being discussed. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If we can do it for these cases, what's different about doing it for fringe stuff such as Where Troy Once Stood? Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We really have three situations here:
 * 1) Historical Fiction... ie purely fictional stories set in the past. We don't expect fiction to be historically accurate, so pointing out where some work of fiction gets history wrong really is TRIVIA.  That said, in the case of Alternate History fiction (or "what if" fiction) to note the point of divergences (as these are important to the plot.)
 * 2) Biographical fiction... ie novels and movies that claim to present the life of a historical person. We do expect a biography to be accurate... but we also understand that biographical fiction may take liberties.  So pointing out where a work of biographical fiction gets it's history wrong is appropriate if the error is a doozy... but don't note minor trivial errors.  To prevent OR, only note errors that have been highlighted in sources.
 * 3) Pseudo-scholarship... ie books where the author is at least claiming to present fact... actual history. We expect scholarship to get facts right...  and if the author does not, I don't think it wrong to highlight it. For example, if an author makes a big point of saying that King Athelstan traveled to York on a given date... and reliable sources say that Athelstan actually was in Winchester at the time, note the disagreement and cite the reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have always thought to correct approach to historical inaccuracies in fiction was simply to link to articles on the actual historical figures/events. Readers who want to learn the actual history will follow the links. People do not read about a fictional TV series to learn about history, and if they do, we can't help them. The same goes for lists of "scientific inaccuracies" in the articles of some sci-fi movies. If the inaccuracies are so significant that journalists/historians/scientists have written about them, then they may be appropriate to mention. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a bad approach, but it presents a problem regarding what Blueboar above calls pseudo-scholarship, including some of the whack-job pseudoscience. I know for a fact, for instance, that there have been a lot of recent popular books regarding the field of early Christianity which have put forward ideas which have little if any support in the fields of biblical studies/ancient near east studies/christian studies, but which have gotten generally neutral-to-favorable reviews along the lines of "interesting idea," but may not be submitted to any academic journals. So, the library reviews might say "recommended" because the conspiracy theory people like books like these, even though the academic journals, if the works were submitted to them, might call them unfounded, irrational, highly speculative, or, well, nuts. In such cases, yeah, the material based on the independent reliable sources under the current structure would be generally positive, even if, unfortunately, the ideas presented in the works are, maybe, held to be about as reliable as saying that the Greek or Egyptian equivalent of John F. Kennedy was the bastard descendant of their equivalent of Abe Lincoln by their equivalent of Sally Hemmings. In a lot of material of that type, the existing library journal reviews might basically say, "could be" (because no one knows enough to say it can't be) and "interesting" (because it is interesting and appealing to those who find such appealing), and might even recommend that libraries buy it. But that don't mean anyone in the relevant academic community thinks the writer said anything worthwhile. And, unfortunately, that sort of situation happens more than I think a lot of us would like. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about articles on pseudoscholarship-related topics, or the use of pseudoscholarship sources? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably, to some degree, both. Some editors probably know more about this than me, but at least in the broad fields where history and religion interact there have been claims in the past when people have attempted to use a recently released popular book as evidence of some new and groundbreaking theory, and in some cases, like Zoroastrinaism, let's say, which doesn't get a lot of coverage, it can be really hard, and sometimes impossible, to say that a popular book by an academic might not be in some way reflective of an idea gaining broader acceptance. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR/WP:SYN and retroactive use of new names
FYI, I have started a discussion here about whether or not using a person's new name when discussing periods of their life during which they were known by another name violates wp:Verifiability, wp:No original research and/or wp:Synthesis (as some have claimed).

The note at the top of this page suggested I post this to WP:NOR/N, I but decided that because it pertained to a phenomenon (the retroactive use of a new name), not just to any specific instance of the phenomenon, it made the most sense to leave the notice here.

-sche (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at how we deal with cities that have changed their names... we refer to St. Petersburg for most of the article, but use Petrograd and Leningrad where historically appropriate. I don't think there would be a problem doing this with people. Blueboar (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for new policy
(This proposal was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines, but I was asked to post it here and at WT:RS.)

Limitations of RS+NOR, with a solution:

The motivation for this discussion is my frequent annoyance over the years with articles that don't explain things well, or don't give enough information, because experts can't simply write what they know, due to NOR and the need for RS.

An example is Sailing faster than the wind, where section "BOLD EDIT NOTICE" of its Talk page presents an excellent explanation (the analogy of a geared transmission) that couldn't be included in the article due to NOR and lack of RS. Note that I don't care if this explanation is correct or not: that is immaterial to the problem I wish to discuss here. I'm giving this as a motivational example, but I am discussing WP policies and guidelines here, not details of the example.

Now to get to it: reliance on the availability of good RSs leads to a good encyclopedia, but this technique has limitations. Once in a while a Talk page provides some NOR explanation that is clearer that the one given in the article. This example, I believe, is such a case. While this isn't the purpose of a Talk page, it is a very valuable service for WP readers who read the Talk pages as well the articles, as I do.

It also shows an inherent limitation of the RS+NOR policies, as applied to articles. An improved WP policy, and the solution I'm offering for discussion here, would be to allow NOR explanations or knowledge in articles and Talk pages, without a reference, until someone provides a good NOR reason to object to them, or an RS is found that supports a good replacement.

This would be an additional policy, modifying the RS and NOR policies, or would be a modification of the RS and NOR policies themselves (I'm not proposing which). David Spector (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the above comments and proposal.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. What is the threshold for a "good" reason for objecting? As things stand, material which is in contention is kept out of an article until doubts are resolved. I'd be concerned that this proposal would result in bad, unsourced content remaining in articles while discussion about whether it should be removed goes round and round in circles without consensus. Formerip (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose the Talk page amendment due to the inevitable unintended consequence of the WP:NOTAFORUM problems it would allow. Besides, the practical current application of WP:NOR to Talk pages already allows questions based on speculation like you're describing.  The second part of this, allowing WP:OR in articles until someone objects, is basically how it works now.  Questionable unsourced material stays in articles until it's challenged, and then it has to come out. There is no need to change the policy.    13:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Re David Spector's comment "an excellent explanation ... that couldn't be included in the article due to NOR and lack of RS. Note that I don't care if this explanation is correct or not: that is immaterial to the problem I wish to discuss here." — If there's uncertainty about whether it is correct, then it seems like a poor example to support what you want for WP:NOR.   Note that the purpose of an explanation is to make something more clear and that introducing uncertainty works against that goal. The purpose of NOR is to keep out material that may be misinformation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - requiring that everything published here be able to be WP:CITEd and WP:VERIFYed without debuting any type of novel research in any form has been at the core of several of the project's permanent cornerstones from the beginning. Not a chance anyone could change it like this. On the other hand, I hear that there is a Wikimedia project at V: where original research is allowed and encouraged. You may like that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not see any insurmountable objections to my proposal. Here are my responses to all previous responses. Interspersing them would interfere with their flow, so I've grouped them all here. Please feel free to continue the discussion. David Spector (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

David Spector (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gautier lebon, Thank you.
 * Formerip, I don't understand your "threshold" comment, but I do agree with your next point. If needed, the proposed policy could be augmented by a clarification that material in contention should be kept out of the article during Talk discussions. My proposal applies only to uncontroversial material.
 * Zad68, I agree that the proposal must not introduce discussion of edits into articles, but if you want such discussion to be kept out of Talk pages, I would have to disagree. The content of articles should be discussed in their Talk pages. But note also that my proposal applies only to uncontroversial material. As soon as the OR material is revealed to be controversial, it is forbidden without RS, as at present. "Talk pages already allows questions based on speculation like you're describing." That's true, but current policy forbids moving the results of such discussions into the article without RS, which may not exist or be difficult to find. That's the whole point of the proposal.
 * Bob K31416, "If there's uncertainty about whether it is correct, then it seems like a poor example to support what you want for WP:NOR." Good point. Sorry, I worded that poorly. I feel rather certain that the explanation of why a boat sailing downwind can sail faster than the absolute wind speed is correct. I was trying to emphasize that when the proposed policy will be invoked, it may not be known by all readers that the material is correct. That certaintly may only be held by the person making the edit. Other editors still must agree that it is correct.
 * Til Eulenspiegel, I hope you are not implying that CITE and VERIFY apply to external Web references inward to WP articles. They do not. As to CITE, my proposal does not change it. Citations still must conform to stated requirements, without any novel research. Nor does my proposal allow unrestricted OR in WP. However, your concern about VERIFY is correct. My proposal would change VERIFY in the same way it changes NOR and RS. I will add my proposal to WT:V as well, modifying it to include VERIFY.

I realize at this point, with mostly Oppose votes, that my continued defense is not worthwhile. If I'm seeing value in the proposal, but no one else is, the probability is that I'm wrong and everyone else is right. I therefore yield to the vast majority and sincerely thank everyone for considering my ideas. I know that present policies are not quite good enough to encourage some with good personal knowledge to offer it, so maybe I'll be back here again someday with a better and less objectionable proposal. David Spector (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources required for music
Hi all, can anyone advise on whether sources are required when describing music? If I can hear a flute in the excerpt of a tune freely available at iTunes, is it Original Research for me to state there is a flute in that tune, if I can't cite a documentary source? I couldn't see a rule on this in the Talk Page archive, although it is discussed in the last ten paragraphs in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_28#I_Challenge_the_Following. (The reason I ask is the reversion of my 6 Sept edit to Sven Väth). (Chorleypie (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC))
 * if you were just stating there was a flute in a flute solo, the knowledge of what a flute sounds like is probably common enough knowledge that it probably wouldnt need a source (although, today synthesized flutes make the actual identification pretty difficult). However, your edit inserts quite a bit more than "there was a flute solo" and would need a reliable source to support that depth of analysis and commentary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To me, the edit is the same depth of analysis as stating a genre in the infobox, yet I've not seen a single citation for any genre in any musical article; so maybe they should all be deleted. (Chorleypie (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC))
 * It probably wouldn't serve you well to rush out and do so. But, yes, if the genre classification is ever challenged, the editor wishing to restore it is supposed to provide a source to back their claim. And if the genre is sourced in the body, it does not need to be specifically sourced again in the infobox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Identifying the main genre for a work is akin to noting a flute in a flute solo - it should be intuitively obvious and sourcing not really required (but helpful). On the other hand, to identify sub-genres that are not obviously would be identify a flute instrument in the lead but backed by a full orchestra, that its presence no longer is obvious by sound alone to the untrained ear, and thus should have sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 01:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for new policy
(This proposal was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines, but I was asked to post it here and at WT:RS.)

Limitations of RS+NOR, with a solution:

The motivation for this discussion is my frequent annoyance over the years with articles that don't explain things well, or don't give enough information, because experts can't simply write what they know, due to NOR and the need for RS.

An example is Sailing faster than the wind, where section "BOLD EDIT NOTICE" of its Talk page presents an excellent explanation (the analogy of a geared transmission) that couldn't be included in the article due to NOR and lack of RS. Note that I don't care if this explanation is correct or not: that is immaterial to the problem I wish to discuss here. I'm giving this as a motivational example, but I am discussing WP policies and guidelines here, not details of the example.

Now to get to it: reliance on the availability of good RSs leads to a good encyclopedia, but this technique has limitations. Once in a while a Talk page provides some NOR explanation that is clearer that the one given in the article. This example, I believe, is such a case. While this isn't the purpose of a Talk page, it is a very valuable service for WP readers who read the Talk pages as well the articles, as I do.

It also shows an inherent limitation of the RS+NOR policies, as applied to articles. An improved WP policy, and the solution I'm offering for discussion here, would be to allow NOR explanations or knowledge in articles and Talk pages, without a reference, until someone provides a good NOR reason to object to them, or an RS is found that supports a good replacement.

This would be an additional policy, modifying the RS and NOR policies, or would be a modification of the RS and NOR policies themselves (I'm not proposing which). David Spector (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the above comments and proposal.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question. What is the threshold for a "good" reason for objecting? As things stand, material which is in contention is kept out of an article until doubts are resolved. I'd be concerned that this proposal would result in bad, unsourced content remaining in articles while discussion about whether it should be removed goes round and round in circles without consensus. Formerip (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose the Talk page amendment due to the inevitable unintended consequence of the WP:NOTAFORUM problems it would allow. Besides, the practical current application of WP:NOR to Talk pages already allows questions based on speculation like you're describing.  The second part of this, allowing WP:OR in articles until someone objects, is basically how it works now.  Questionable unsourced material stays in articles until it's challenged, and then it has to come out. There is no need to change the policy.    13:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Re David Spector's comment "an excellent explanation ... that couldn't be included in the article due to NOR and lack of RS. Note that I don't care if this explanation is correct or not: that is immaterial to the problem I wish to discuss here." — If there's uncertainty about whether it is correct, then it seems like a poor example to support what you want for WP:NOR.   Note that the purpose of an explanation is to make something more clear and that introducing uncertainty works against that goal. The purpose of NOR is to keep out material that may be misinformation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - requiring that everything published here be able to be WP:CITEd and WP:VERIFYed without debuting any type of novel research in any form has been at the core of several of the project's permanent cornerstones from the beginning. Not a chance anyone could change it like this. On the other hand, I hear that there is a Wikimedia project at V: where original research is allowed and encouraged. You may like that. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not see any insurmountable objections to my proposal. Here are my responses to all previous responses. Interspersing them would interfere with their flow, so I've grouped them all here. Please feel free to continue the discussion. David Spector (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

David Spector (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gautier lebon, Thank you.
 * Formerip, I don't understand your "threshold" comment, but I do agree with your next point. If needed, the proposed policy could be augmented by a clarification that material in contention should be kept out of the article during Talk discussions. My proposal applies only to uncontroversial material.
 * Zad68, I agree that the proposal must not introduce discussion of edits into articles, but if you want such discussion to be kept out of Talk pages, I would have to disagree. The content of articles should be discussed in their Talk pages. But note also that my proposal applies only to uncontroversial material. As soon as the OR material is revealed to be controversial, it is forbidden without RS, as at present. "Talk pages already allows questions based on speculation like you're describing." That's true, but current policy forbids moving the results of such discussions into the article without RS, which may not exist or be difficult to find. That's the whole point of the proposal.
 * Bob K31416, "If there's uncertainty about whether it is correct, then it seems like a poor example to support what you want for WP:NOR." Good point. Sorry, I worded that poorly. I feel rather certain that the explanation of why a boat sailing downwind can sail faster than the absolute wind speed is correct. I was trying to emphasize that when the proposed policy will be invoked, it may not be known by all readers that the material is correct. That certaintly may only be held by the person making the edit. Other editors still must agree that it is correct.
 * Til Eulenspiegel, I hope you are not implying that CITE and VERIFY apply to external Web references inward to WP articles. They do not. As to CITE, my proposal does not change it. Citations still must conform to stated requirements, without any novel research. Nor does my proposal allow unrestricted OR in WP. However, your concern about VERIFY is correct. My proposal would change VERIFY in the same way it changes NOR and RS. I will add my proposal to WT:V as well, modifying it to include VERIFY.

I realize at this point, with mostly Oppose votes, that my continued defense is not worthwhile. If I'm seeing value in the proposal, but no one else is, the probability is that I'm wrong and everyone else is right. I therefore yield to the vast majority and sincerely thank everyone for considering my ideas. I know that present policies are not quite good enough to encourage some with good personal knowledge to offer it, so maybe I'll be back here again someday with a better and less objectionable proposal. David Spector (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources required for music
Hi all, can anyone advise on whether sources are required when describing music? If I can hear a flute in the excerpt of a tune freely available at iTunes, is it Original Research for me to state there is a flute in that tune, if I can't cite a documentary source? I couldn't see a rule on this in the Talk Page archive, although it is discussed in the last ten paragraphs in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_28#I_Challenge_the_Following. (The reason I ask is the reversion of my 6 Sept edit to Sven Väth). (Chorleypie (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC))
 * if you were just stating there was a flute in a flute solo, the knowledge of what a flute sounds like is probably common enough knowledge that it probably wouldnt need a source (although, today synthesized flutes make the actual identification pretty difficult). However, your edit inserts quite a bit more than "there was a flute solo" and would need a reliable source to support that depth of analysis and commentary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To me, the edit is the same depth of analysis as stating a genre in the infobox, yet I've not seen a single citation for any genre in any musical article; so maybe they should all be deleted. (Chorleypie (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC))
 * It probably wouldn't serve you well to rush out and do so. But, yes, if the genre classification is ever challenged, the editor wishing to restore it is supposed to provide a source to back their claim. And if the genre is sourced in the body, it does not need to be specifically sourced again in the infobox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Identifying the main genre for a work is akin to noting a flute in a flute solo - it should be intuitively obvious and sourcing not really required (but helpful). On the other hand, to identify sub-genres that are not obviously would be identify a flute instrument in the lead but backed by a full orchestra, that its presence no longer is obvious by sound alone to the untrained ear, and thus should have sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 01:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Routine Calculation
Can high school mathematics and formula derivation be considered as routine calculation?

Leungcwd (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally nothing more complex than basic addition / subtraction / multiplication / division. Converting into percentages.
 * If you are talking about high school pre-calc, no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Routine Calculation
Can high school mathematics and formula derivation be considered as routine calculation?

Leungcwd (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally nothing more complex than basic addition / subtraction / multiplication / division. Converting into percentages.
 * If you are talking about high school pre-calc, no. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Genoa, Italy was where Christopher Columbus was born.
No one is truly sure of where Christopher Columbus was born because many say Genoa, Italy but some say Ireland and Germany!
 * and some say the earth is flat.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Genoa, Italy was where Christopher Columbus was born.
No one is truly sure of where Christopher Columbus was born because many say Genoa, Italy but some say Ireland and Germany!
 * and some say the earth is flat.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR and article structure
As a matter for general discussion I'd like to solicit comments regarding a particular form of WP contribution, a form common in academia, but perhaps not so well accepted on WP. An example can be found in a typical section of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It takes the form of a series of statements supported by citations to various sources, often primary sources.

This form of contribution is subject to various reservations. Most noticeable are these two
 * 1. Has the source been fairly represented, or is its position oversimplified or otherwise misstated?
 * 2. Have the chosen sources been selected to convey the full spectrum of opinion, or have they been cherry-picked to represent a particular view of the subject?

Now it seems to me that answers to these queries should take a detailed form:
 * Query (1) is is best approached by a skeptical WP editor on its Talk page by referring to the source in question and discussing various possible alternative quotations from that source, or with quotes from other works by that author, to determine whether the author's position has been adequately presented. Or, by quoting from a general survey that summarizes that author's position.
 * Query (2) is best approached by a skeptical WP editor on its Talk page by citing other sources that espouse a different viewpoint. Alternatively, a review article or encyclopedia article can be cited that shows a wider spectrum of opinion exists.

However, I find that WP editors often do not approach the matter in this way. Instead the matter is approached with one of these statements:
 * A. The contribution uses primary sources, and that is inadmissible according to WP:Primary.
 * B. The contribution is in conflict with WP:OR simply because this particular selection of sources is the contributor's choice (regardless of whether that selection is objective and wide-ranging, which assessment is taken to be simply irrelevant).
 * C. Such contributions are on the very face of it inadmissible by WP:OR unless they are a paraphrase of 'third-party' treatments and use the same sources. (According to the definition of 'third party' in WP:THIRDPARTY as "one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered", reviews like those comprising the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy do not qualify as third-party sources, because they are written by experts in the field, who are far from 'independent' of the subject, but instead are most often actively contributing to the literature they review. In short, 'third-party' sources are largely a chimera, an unrealizable dream.)

By using approaches A - C the skeptic can short-circuit the possibly lengthy Talk page interactions that the previously suggested detailed approaches might entail. Instead the skeptic can use a short in-line editorial comment like Violates WP:OR or Violates WP:Primary and revert the contribution without further comment. A protest by the contributor is met with the reply Read the policy, a rather baffling rebuttal that refuses further engagement, and is actually a misuse of policy. Such 'hit-and-run' reversions are extremely common on WP, and I think they are damaging the encyclopedia by making it unduly difficult to add to articles.

I would like the policy to be worded explicitly so that cursory rejection of such academically structured contributions can be forced instead to provide the more detailed and source-oriented response that this type of contribution deserves. Brews ohare (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would send the following notice to every editor (especially the new ones)...
 * YOU JUST GOT REVERTED... NOW WHAT? Wikipedia has lots and lots of policies, guidelines, and rules... and, sooner or later, you will contribute something that another editor thinks violates one of these Policies, guidelines and rules. When this occurs your contribution will be reverted.  This is part of the normal give and take of editing Wikipedia... so DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY.  Everyone gets reverted eventually.  If you have had a contribution reverted:
 * 1) DON'T PANIC. All the hard work that went into your contribution has not been lost forever.  Your work has been saved in the article's history, and can easily be retrieved (just ask an experienced editor for assistance).
 * 2) DON'T SIMPLY UN-REVERT. Instead, find out why you have been reverted and try to resolve the concern.  If you do not understand why your contribution was reverted... go to the article talk page (or to the other editor's talk page) and ASK for clarification.  If you are lucky, the other editor will take the time to fully explain his/her concerns... but, more often, he/she will start off by simply pointing you to the relevant policies and guidelines... Read them... and then (if you still don't understand) come back and ask further questions until you are clear as to what the other editor's concerns are.
 * Finally 3) see if your contribution can be amended or adapted in a way that resolves his/her concerns. Work with the other editor, not against him/her.
 * If after reading the relevant policy page and a discussion with the other editor, you still do not understand why you were reverted, you can often get additional guidance from neutral uninvolved editors, by asking questions at the relevant policy talk pages and noticeboards.
 * If a notice like this were posted to every new editor when they first log into Wikipedia, it would do a lot to help editors realize that being reverted is not the end of the world. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

My purpose here was not to lament the end of the world, but to point out a misuse of the one-line edit summary in a manner intended to shut off discussion by peremptory reference to WP:OR or WP:Primary without further explanation beyond Read the policy. In more detail, for the type of contribution considered here, namely an academic presentation of a variety of sourced opinion about a topic, I would like to see comment upon modifying the policy WP:OR to explicitly caution against a fallacious rush to reversion based upon items A-C listed above. Brews ohare (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Academic writing has as its intended purpose the author taking Fact A + Fact B to lead the reader to a novel conceptualization of the world not specifically identified by A or B.
 * That purpose and method is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's core policies. And one line edit summaries cutting off endless talk page about something that is not allowed in Wikipedia is probably a good thing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TheRedPenOfDoom: The purpose of some academic writing, as you point out, is for the author to state some background and then go on to make their original contribution. That is not the subject here. The subject here is contributions that attempt to summarize a topic and support the accuracy of that summary with citations. Such activity is nature of most encyclopedias (for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, and so on) and WP is not an exception to this. However, the one-line edit summary is easily (and often) misused to make cursory reversion of such contributions, usually based upon the erroneous justifications A-C listed above. Avoidance of such events is the topic of this discussion, and it is not what you are talking about. Brews ohare (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, to be truly honest, what's happening is your method of additions and what you believe is proper encyclopedic material conflicts with what WP considers to be true. As Red points out above, academic writing is free to introduce hypothesis and analysis - we cannot - we have to stop at summarizing sources and need to avoid the next step of even potentially directing the reader to a novel conclusion not given in sources. Further, the issues you have with limited edit summary use are out of line. Given that nearly all your edits over the past month have been on Dilemma of determinism and its talk page (and thus expected to have a reasonable handle on what has been discussed on the talk page before), and that you are established editor that should have a good handle on how editing and talk pages work, being reverted with a simple "see talk page" is completely reasonable - that means you should either find established discussion or a new section by the reverting editor to explain the reasoning for the change. (It would be bitey if it was a newer user). Further, you tend to break the WP:BRD cycle a lot, so even on 2nd and beyond reverts, short summaries are completely appropriate since the message was given in the earlier ones. I don't see this as an OR issue, but a behavioral one. --M ASEM  (t) 22:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I have tried to be extremely clear about this matter in my response to RPoD, and I will repeat myself to you. There is nothing in what is under discussion that involves original research. Nothing at all. There is no introduction of hypothesis unless that hypothesis is that of a published author in a reliable source. There is no analysis except that published in a a reliable source. There is no construction of novel conclusions not found in published sources. The presentation of a WP editor's personal hypothesis or personal analysis are clear violations WP policy and there is no argument about that here.
 * I am not interested in reducing this discussion to the particulars of my experience on Dilemma of determinism. I am interested in fixing WP:OR as a matter of general policy, independent of the peculiarities of any one example, where there are multiple complicating red herrings of personality, past history, and deafness of ear that muddy the waters.
 * This all being so, can we discuss the issues that are actually raised about the misuse of the excuses A-C to justify erroneous reversions? Brews ohare (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the policy which needs 'fixing', or at least you have not identified any. Nor is there anything wrong with BRD. It should be used with care with new editors not familiar with it but you are not a new editor and are very familiar with WP's guidelines and practices, or should be. They have been explained to you many times before, you do not need a detailed explanation every time you ignore them. Finally you are no position to advise other editors how to use edit summaries given your repeated refusal to use them properly yourself. You persist in using meaningless single word and blank edit summaries when making content edits, even though the guidelines on this are clear and have been pointed out to you many times.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 07:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blackburne: No comment has been made here so far about WP:BRD. Rather, the issue identified above is the listed A-C misuses of WP:OR to support cursory reversion of contributions of a specific structure, a structure like those used in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. The suggestion up for discussion is that invalid excuses like A-C be made explicitly and obviously unusable by appropriate rewording of WP:OR. You are yourself a champion of the 'hit-and-run' reversion technique based upon the cryptic one-line edit summary, so I understand your reluctance to address the real issue here and, instead of being on topic, devote your remarks to my chastisement. Brews ohare (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, a core policy is not going to be changed because you don't like it. If you really feel you have valuable content to contribute, but WP's guidelines prevent you, there are many other places you can contribute it to, from general encyclopaedias like Citizendium to endless specialist ones such as those hosted on Wikia. But the guidelines aren't going to be reworded, i.e. rewritten, to accommodate you. It's simply not going to happen.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 15:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are clearly here because you can't get your way at Dilemma of determinism where you've been told repeated that your additions, though not "wrong", aren't in the spirit of our polices on OR. The fact that you have repeated added the same point over and over and repeat the arguments ad infinitum (as you also did for Whaam! and its FAC) despite the rest of the participants saying "no" is just beating a dead horse, and so when you go add again' the same information, a curt edit summary is completely fair. You're trying to change this policy to win your battle there'' to make it difficult for your additions to be reverted without a detailed summary, but that's exactly why we use talk pages, since the edit summary only has so many usable characters. --M ASEM  (t) 14:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: No thanks for the accolade. Again you divert the discussion to a discussion about myself, and avoid the topic raised. Your assumptions about my motivations are bogus, and violate WP:AGF. BTW, your last sentences appear a bit incoherent. Yes, I am against misuse of the in-line summary, so consequently, although you seem to think my position is different, I support a Talk-page discussion (based upon the listed 'Query 1' and 'Query 2'), but one that is not erroneously based upon the fallacious reasons A-C. Maybe you could be clearer? Brews ohare (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you gave no context for your original statement, I had to go back to your user contribution history to figure out possibly where this was happened as to why you've brought it up here (a common action anyone would do if they found themselves stuck in an argument over policy on a talk page). And when I see pages after pages of the same article and its talk page as the only contributions from you from the last month-ish, and reading those contributions, it's clear why you brought the topic up here. The points A-C are all present in that article, but your statement here lacks context. For example, there is no restriction against point A about using primary sources - they can be used to supplement secondary and tertiary sources. But you can't take a primary source and one or more other sources and make novel claims from that, which, reading through the Dilemma's discussion, is part of why you are being reverted. Especially in the case of Dilemma where most of the data is going to be qualitative and not quantitative, editors are going to be very careful of introducing novel thoughts. The same applies with B+C too. There are reasons on articles that are about metaphysics to stay as close to the sources as possible. And actually I'm assuming AGF in what you're doing - you're free to raise the issue and which you did on the talk page which is completely correct - the problem is that you can't back away from the discussion and continue to beat the dead horse after being shown consensus against your additions. --M ASEM  (t) 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: Thank you for your more temperate response. Of course, my concern over this matter has an origin in my history, and the events on Talk:Dilemma of determinism are part of that. However the issue as I have proposed it, whatever its inspiration, exists in the abstract, and is independent of the circumstances of its birth.
 * As I understand you, you agree that points A-C are incorrect interpretations of WP:OR. I believe that your points about correct criticism of the type of article I am discussing is indeed of the form listed as 'Query 1' and 'Query 2'. You have not, however, offered any opinion upon the advisability of changing WP:OR to make such misinterpretation less likely.
 * As for beating a dead horse - this is of course, your advice about how I should conduct Talk-page discussion. I would be happy to engage further with such advice on my Talk page if you would be interested to do that. In particular, I would like to discuss with you whether 'beating a dead horse' is really what is going on there. I'd argue that my 'beating a dead horse' is my repeated exhortation that editor Snowded actually engage. Further discussion of these events is not germane to this thread, however, and I invite your attention (and Snowded's, should he so desire) on my Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree A-C are "wrong", but again, you didn't have context and I had to look back, and its clear from the discussion that you oversimplified what their replies were to the situation. Yes, they told you primary sources can't be used, but that was in relation to making a novel thought, for example (and highlighting that for a primarily metaphysical topic like that, its very easy to introduce novel thoughts). And again, I see the same behavior there on Dilemma as I saw on the FAC with Whaam - you make a suggestion (which is good), you're told that's not appropriate, and then you continue to argue the point. The reason Snowded hasn't bothered to engage more recently is that you've made the same points over and over, and they've responded back at the start, and thus there's no reason to repeat the arguments over and over, and hence why the reverts have terse change messages.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: Whatever the merits of your assessment (and I would debate them elsewhere), the gist of your comment as it applies to this thread appears to be that although the proposed A-C are incorrect uses of WP:OR, their misuse does not arise on WP, so there is no reason to change WP:OR. If I wish to proceed with my advocacy, I must come up with enough examples to demonstrate a statistically meaningful problem and not just a possible problem. These examples will then be dissected one by one to establish that they are indeed examples, and not just my imagination. Cases from my own experience are not to be counted, as they automatically exhibit a conflict of interest. If enough cases survive this winnowing process to seem an issue, then some policy change can be discussed. Have I got that right? Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This section starts out unclear and then hops all over the place making it very hard to know what it is actually about. I think that some here have been ignoring or deflecting or seeking to disparage  Brews ohare's intelligent  points  with the "you're just angry that you didn't get your way at an article" bit.

A couple comments on Brew's initial point, and this is without any knowledge or analysis of the situation that it may have arisen from.

The backbone of well-written articles (which is intelligent weighted summarization of what is in sources) is illegal under a strict interpretation of wp:nor / wp;synth. If the summarizaiton looks problematic or if someone doesn't like it, they will invoke policies to knock it out. If not, it gets left in. While it sounds like I am describing a very hypocritical or screwed up situation, it actually works 95% of the time. It would be such a difficult and complex task to fix it that most first attempts would do more harm than good. For example, if you require that people have to "make the case" in order to remove material (vs just citing policies)(as is I think your main point) then you will tip the balance and have Wikipedia quickly fill up with crap. For years I have argued for what would be a good solution, that, in areas like this, someone would need to also voice (voice, NOT defend) a non-policy concern about the material when knocking it out but so far no success. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Blueboar: I also think Brew's points to new editors could be very useful. If I can understand his other points. I agree that often intelligent discussion is shut down with one line invocations to policy. This kind of thing is often the narrowest view and as such can support inaccurate content in articles.I could point out a couple of examples right now. What needs to be looked at is the volume of sources from authors, and comparisons of what is said in those sources. Then, decisions made about what sources most accurately represents the accurate viewpoint. At the same time there is room to include more fringe to this "mainstream" view point especially if the fringe views are in line cited. The problem I've seen is that many editors use the narrow view to support their POV versions and are afraid to venture into a larger discussion where their POV text would be dissolved in rational discussion. In my experience, I have only twice in all of my time on Wikipedia seen editors in a discussion approach an article in this more intellectually strenuous way. One was in Yogo Saphire and the  other Grace Sherwood, both discussions led for the most part by Pumpkin Sky.  It requires trust in and for all of the editors, and, well, maturity. I am thankful Brews brought this up. but as long as we have editors who use the policies narrowly to support POV content rather see the policies as the guides they are  to create accurate content, and an accurate representation of the topic/subject, I don't see  a way to bring  two kinds of editors  together.(olive (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC))
 * These are both completely valid points, in that there can come issues of OWN-type reactions to removing material that doesn't fit, and there's a fine line between removal because of OR concerns and removal because of IDONTLIKEIT reasons. It is important to understand that Brews' comments above came after the volume of talk page discussion on the Dilemma page (which for me I have zero interest in), which is a topic that can only be described in the qualitative sense and a subject of expert opinion without a lot of distinct facts. It would be far different if we were talking something much more tangible and less subjective, where if the matter being added met WP:V/WP:NOR/etc, and the editors removing it were doing it because they just didn't like it. But my impression on the Dilemma talk page is that the main editors there are carefully walking a tightrope on what is appropriate to include within the topic and what goes off kilter. Fortunately, there's not be editing warring here over it, just a lot of discussion following BRD-type inclusion by Brews, and reading through the highlights of that, I get the impression that the material that Brews wants in there is being appropriately removed to avoid disrupting the balance (I have no statement if that's factually correct or not since that's nowhere close to my knowledge base). In general, I would agree that if material added by an editor is removed and the reason for that removal is not clear to the editor that added it (that is, this would not include obvious vandalism poor/unsourced statements, or misinformation), then a good edit summary or a talk page discussion should be started to explain it, or for that user to add it. That way, it should become clear if the removal was due to OR concerns, due to IDONTLIKEIT, or other subtle reasons. --M ASEM  (t) 18:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am so happy that Littleolive oil and North8000 have recognized the issue and made substantial comments. Apparently Masem found your comments useful too.
 * Masem: Your belief that somehow a topic like Dilemma of determinism is different from another topic like, maybe Idée fixe (psychology), is correct as to differences in subject. However, there is no 'tightrope' requiring careful admission or denial of sources for philosophical subjects. There is no 'fine line' providing an opening for objecting on the basis of a cryptic reference to WP:OR to support an editor's personal gut feeling of "I don't like it". The correct approach to sources is (i) present the full spectrum of opinion and (ii) support those views with sources. If the sources are provided, and if the various POV's all are presented, the main objections available are about emphasis or selection of sources. Neither of these objections is a violation of WP:OR, or can be adequately summarized in a one-line edit summary. I suspect you agree with these remarks, but your preamble above seems to leave some kind of elbow-room for a merely opinionated objection, without reference to adequate sourcing but relying upon cryptic reference to WP:OR. Without even a specification of how it is violated,  or what material is supposedly in violation. That kind of stone-walling is what I have objection to. Can you be more clear about how your views fit in? Brews ohare (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews you have a track record of trying to use policy forums to win content battles. Editors who have not had to deal with you, or who have not checked your lengthy record of blocks for disruptive editing may not immediately realise this, but it is pretty self evident.  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 21:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, in the Dilemma talk page, you rightly presented some alternative sources and viewpoints to include after you had been reverted (rightfully following BRD). But those viewpoints were rejected as not being appropriate to the topic of that article and trying to take the article in a direction that would call for creating OR to diverge from what the editors considered the topic to be.  This is partially because of the metaphysical topic and highly subjective, and thus editors like Snowded are trying to keep a rein on the article going to weird places. But they did argue this point and did not ignore your initial statements, but you keep pushing which is the problem here. --M ASEM  (t) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: You raise an interesting point, which is the decision about what is relevant to a topic. That subject is, of course, outside the scope of WP:OR and so apparently is a side issue for this discussion. However, to engage in this diversion for a moment, it would seem that a skeptical editor could avoid the entire issue at stake here, and not resort to an erroneous appeal to A-C, but simply suggest that the material, however factual, is irrelevant. Now how is that to be settled? If there is a source that contends the material is part of the discussion of a topic, presumably that takes precedence over the opinion of the skeptical WP editor. Whatever decision about relevance is made, however, there should be Talk page discussion, and a willingness to compare notes. A WP editor should not rely on the one-line edit summary to settle such an issue.
 * To return to the proposal here, unrelated to evaluation of relevance of a contribution, the issue is whether to revise WP:OR to make clear that A-C are not valid uses of this policy. It seems to be agreed that this is so; the question then is whether policy can be rewritten to do that without running up against the issues raised by North8000 of making rejection of material too difficult. Frankly, if the policy has to be so loose in order to work that it allows a skeptical WP editor to invoke A-C as if that were a matter of interpretation of WP:OR, it is a problem, and an unnecessary one. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW (as one of the editors involved at Dilemma of determinism) I agree that what Brews here calls A-C should not be considered valid responses to a new contribution in and of themselves. However, I do not believe those are the kinds of responses that have been made at the article which prompted this request, so I am not sure that any change of policy is required. An OR-based reversion of the kinds of contributions Brews is trying to protect should supply more reason than just "that's OR", and in this case those kinds of reasons have been provided: reasons exactly like what Brews here calls "query 1" and "query 2". However, an objector to a new edit should not have to engage the new contributor in an unending debate about whether the new contribution accurately and neutrally summarizes the sources it is citing. Other editors saying "you are applying a biased or inaccurate interpretation to this material" should be enough.

I don't want to make this discussion about the content debate at Dilemma of determinism, but it provides a clear example of what concerns me: it appears to me that Brews does not understand the material that he is citing. He cites relevant authors with accurate quotes, but uses those to support a position that, speaking as someone well-versed in the subject, the quoted material simply does not in any way appear to support, unless by gross misunderstanding of what the quoted material is saying. Supplying counter-quotes would be a futile endeavor because the material I would quote to show what the author is really saying is the same quote Brews has already provided.

So to echo North8000, not all "intelligent weighted summarization" should be automatically rejected with nothing but an "original research" objection. But if one person's "intelligent weighted summarization" proves contentious, the relevant policy to cite for an objection to it is WP:OR, and the burden of proof should then on the new contributor to convince the other editors that his "intelligent weighted summarization" is indeed accurate and balanced, and if continued edits and reversions occur, citing WP:OR and previous objections on the talk page should suffice; it is, in effect, saying "you've still not presented anything new to convince us this is an accurate and balanced summary".

For an analogy to another policy: while you don't need to cite that the sky is blue, as soon as someone honestly doubts the veracity, in that context, of the assertion that the sky is blue, WP:V becomes a valid reason to object to the addition of that assertion, and the burden is then on the contributor to supply what objecting editors will accept as a verifiable citation that the sky is blue (as that statement is meant in that context), or else modify the statement to one that nobody finds controversial. Likewise, while you shouldn't have to simply regurgitate summaries that other sources have already written, and well-balanced and accurate summaries of fields cited to primary sources should in broad principle be as allowable as an uncited claim that the sky is blue, as soon as someone honestly doubts the accuracy, weight, relevance, etc, of the original summary, WP:OR becomes a valid reason to object to the addition of that summary, and the burden is then on the contributor to supply what objecting editors will accept as an accurate and well-balanced third-party summary, or else modify the summary to one that nobody finds controversial. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest: The possibility of my personal gross misunderstanding of material related to the Dilemma of determinism is not pertinent here, as you recognize but still introduce here, and that possibility is a matter for discussion on that Talk page.
 * What is your relevant point in the context of the present thread? It appears that you are introducing what may be taken as a hypothetical situation in which a contributor refuses to accept a judgment arrived at after due Talk page discussion, and insists nonetheless to introduce material in main article that overrides the opinion on the Talk page. That is, of course, a matter for concern. You suggest that WP:OR has a place in rejecting such a disputed addition. In effect, you are raising Masem's point about relevance, and suggesting with Masem that WP:OR is useful to reject such additions. Technically a claim of 'original research' cannot be applied to sourced and sound material, whether or not it is irrelevant, and WP:OR should never be interpreted as applicable to arguments about the relevance of sound and sourced contributions. WP:OR is not about relevance.
 * It may be very difficult to demonstrate that an aspect of a topic should not be discussed in the article about that topic. It boils down, not to WP:OR but to two different things: (i) demonstrating clearly by argument or sources that this aspect is not properly part of the subject (that is, it is not an aspect at all), or (ii) demonstrating that mention of this aspect is a violation of WP:UNDUE. For sound and sourced material, I'd suggest that it is improbable that complete removal of all mention of an aspect is necessary to satisfy WP:UNDUE, and that probably any such 100% censorship is a violation of WP:NPOV. I do not think questions of how to establish 'relevance' belong in this thread.
 * You bring up WP:BLUE, perhaps as a counter theme? Can you elaborate upon the connection to this proposal?  Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, we're trying to make this not about the particular article, but if we ignore it / not learn the particular case, then I don't see a specific proposal in the above. And we're bringing up the blatantly non-existent missing-from-Wikipedia (or missing from wp:npov) degree-of-relevancy guideline. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000: The specific proposal is that A-C are invalid appeals to WP:OR. It would seem from opinions assembled here, that this assertion is taken to be valid. That might suggest the policy is clear on this matter, were it not that some, like Masem and possibly Pfhorrest, take the view that sometimes they are OK, and the entire matter is one of that ephemeral quality, WP editor judgment. As for revision of WP:OR to take this matter out of the hands of WP editor interpretation, I take your previous comment as saying any attempt to explicitly deny the validity of A-C would be counterproductive in facilitating introduction of poor contributions. So it seems there is an issue here, and it is not dependent at all (IMO) upon Talk:Dilemma of determinism. Brews ohare (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What happened on Talk:Dilemma is critical to understand what you're asking for. Take your A case "The contribution uses primary sources, and that is inadmissible according to WP:Primary." Out of context, that of course is a wrong statement - we do allow primary sources.  In context, however, it was clear the editors were saying "you're making this connection from a number of primary sources, that's wrong", which is correct per SYNTH. We're missing half the story by your original post, and thus when we go back to see what that context is, its obvious that you're trying to change policy to counter the established consensus and their careful handling of potential OR on a touchy topic. I absolutely agree on the larger point that when reverting on claims of OR, what those OR claims should be obvious or otherwise discussed, but there's really no need to change OR based on what you've posted here and reading the discussion there. --M ASEM  (t) 18:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: The way forward here is definitely not to become embroiled in a specific example. Whether some particular argument on some particular talk page can be interpreted as you wish to interpret those matters is irrelevant. The way forward, taking your complaints into account, is to formulate the abstract argument better. If the wrong statements A-C can in fact sometimes be correct in some (still to be identified) situations, a position not so far established, then some change of phrasing is needed to avoid that problem. Your underlying argument is not this one, but is again that unless changes are proven necessary by assembling a list of vetted examples, changes are not needed. Brews ohare (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then propose the change in wording you think needed. Then editors can say yay or nay, and it will be clear whether there's support for it or not. If you think this policy needs changing say how. This talk page is meant to be for discussing changes to the policy, not abstract discussions about policy.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 19:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My point that you're missing is that your three bullets, A-C, were never used alone as arguments. You pulled those out of context. Yes, they are, in general, wrong statements, but they are wrong because this or other policies already address them. As John just notes above, you need to prescribe language that you think it better suited to your concerns, but my caution here is that knowing what happened in context of the Talk:Dilemma discussion, this is not an issue with how OR is written. --M ASEM (t) 19:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way - you are absolutely right that there is a right way and a wrong way to revert additions under the claim that it fails OR. I don't think the issues raised require policy changes but it would make for a good essay (possibly guideline), along the lines for Blueboar's comment, of how to properly revert OR additions and to respond to such. --M ASEM  (t) 19:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll think about some phrasing of a revision. However, if that is to meet your objections, Masem, I need to understand the circumstances in which you think A-C can be a correct use of WP:OR. I can't think of one, but you and Pfhorrest seem to suggest that it can fill in for WP:UNDUE or some other (unnamed) criterion for rejecting material entirely because it is deemed to be not pertinent to a topic by some editors. North8000 seems to think collateral damage introduced by denying use of A-C will make that change too difficult to even attempt. Any suggestions? Brews ohare (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are missing my point again. With no other context to understand why the statements were evoke, then yes, A-C are not correct in light of OR and other policies - our policies spell that out, and thus there's no need to change it. But we also do say that Primary sources may never be used for synthesis, which is the context that was used in the talk page; you reduced that argument here to just "Primary sources may never be used." This is why context is very important when you make these claims. --M ASEM  (t) 21:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Brews, you wrote above: "What is your relevant point in the context of the present thread? [...] You bring up WP:BLUE, perhaps as a counter theme? Can you elaborate upon the connection to this proposal?"

The analogy to WP:BLUE is my relevant point. WP:BLUE is to WP:V as your proposal is to WP:OR.

To echo North8000 again, under the strictest of possible interpretations of OR (and V) Wikipedia could only regurgitate exactly what existing sources reporting on the same level as Wikipedia (i.e. other encyclopedias) have said, as anything else would be synthesis. That would obviously not be a good state of affairs as it would leave this project adding nothing of value to the world. BLUE is about making common-sense relaxations of V and not requiring citations of obvious and uncontroversial statements. I.e. it is not good editing practice to revert an addition simply for the sole reason that no citation was given; the reversion should be made because there is some honest doubt about the veracity of the addition. But when that doubt is raised, the appropriate defense of the addition's inclusion is to provide a citation in satisfaction of V, and when the addition is being reverted until that is satisfied, the relevant policy to cite is V. (Or of course you can propose a different addition which is not so contentious and so per BLUE does not demand a citation).

Likewise, you could write a BLUE-like essay about making common-sense relaxations of OR and not requiring an existing third party source to have already summarized exactly the information you are trying to summarize. Something to the effect that it is not good editing practice to revert an addition simply for the sole reason that nobody else has summarized the exact particular things you're summarizing before; the reversion should be made because there is some honest doubt about the accuracy, balance, relevance, etc, of the summary. But when that doubt is raised, the appropriate defense of the addition's inclusion is to find an existing (well-balanced and neutral) third-party summary of the issue to paraphrase and cite, and when the addition is being reverted until that is satisfied, the relevant policy to cite is OR. (Or of course you can propose a different summary which is not so contentious and does not demand a third-party source to have already said it for you). --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)Brews, my general comment is that primary sources are such that any editor can create or summarize anything they want out of them that they want to.  In the fuzzy Wikipedia system, if that summary is obvious and neutral, people will probably let it stand.   If it is creative, objectionable  etc. someone is going to use the rule to knock it out, roughly following A-C.  (even though you mis-wrote A).    I don't see any practical alternative.     If you are saying that they need to discuss and win the debate in order to take it out, you are tipping the balance to filling Wikipedia up with crap.  While people can go overboard with wp:burden (and I have butted heads with them), on the whole I think that the way that it tips the balance is essential.
 * Regarding the mechanics of your proposal (and how people are asking you to get more specific) logically you haven't really made a proposal. You have just sort of said that a particular three step reasoning which you listed is not to be a valid basis for removal. How would that read?     Anybody who uses (all of) those exact three steps doesn't get to remove material?   None of those steps is a valid reason for removal?   Etc.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone WP:SNOW close this. Its obvious there is nothing like the consensus needed to alter policy and that the discussion such as it is, is leading nowhere fast. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TRPoD: It has taken a while, but it seems things are beginning to gel. To close the discussion down at this point would be a mistake. However, I will be unavailable for a few days, so it will be a while before I can propose an amendment. Brews ohare (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR and article structure
As a matter for general discussion I'd like to solicit comments regarding a particular form of WP contribution, a form common in academia, but perhaps not so well accepted on WP. An example can be found in a typical section of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It takes the form of a series of statements supported by citations to various sources, often primary sources.

This form of contribution is subject to various reservations. Most noticeable are these two
 * 1. Has the source been fairly represented, or is its position oversimplified or otherwise misstated?
 * 2. Have the chosen sources been selected to convey the full spectrum of opinion, or have they been cherry-picked to represent a particular view of the subject?

Now it seems to me that answers to these queries should take a detailed form:
 * Query (1) is is best approached by a skeptical WP editor on its Talk page by referring to the source in question and discussing various possible alternative quotations from that source, or with quotes from other works by that author, to determine whether the author's position has been adequately presented. Or, by quoting from a general survey that summarizes that author's position.
 * Query (2) is best approached by a skeptical WP editor on its Talk page by citing other sources that espouse a different viewpoint. Alternatively, a review article or encyclopedia article can be cited that shows a wider spectrum of opinion exists.

However, I find that WP editors often do not approach the matter in this way. Instead the matter is approached with one of these statements:
 * A. The contribution uses primary sources, and that is inadmissible according to WP:Primary.
 * B. The contribution is in conflict with WP:OR simply because this particular selection of sources is the contributor's choice (regardless of whether that selection is objective and wide-ranging, which assessment is taken to be simply irrelevant).
 * C. Such contributions are on the very face of it inadmissible by WP:OR unless they are a paraphrase of 'third-party' treatments and use the same sources. (According to the definition of 'third party' in WP:THIRDPARTY as "one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered", reviews like those comprising the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy do not qualify as third-party sources, because they are written by experts in the field, who are far from 'independent' of the subject, but instead are most often actively contributing to the literature they review. In short, 'third-party' sources are largely a chimera, an unrealizable dream.)

By using approaches A - C the skeptic can short-circuit the possibly lengthy Talk page interactions that the previously suggested detailed approaches might entail. Instead the skeptic can use a short in-line editorial comment like Violates WP:OR or Violates WP:Primary and revert the contribution without further comment. A protest by the contributor is met with the reply Read the policy, a rather baffling rebuttal that refuses further engagement, and is actually a misuse of policy. Such 'hit-and-run' reversions are extremely common on WP, and I think they are damaging the encyclopedia by making it unduly difficult to add to articles.

I would like the policy to be worded explicitly so that cursory rejection of such academically structured contributions can be forced instead to provide the more detailed and source-oriented response that this type of contribution deserves. Brews ohare (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would send the following notice to every editor (especially the new ones)...
 * YOU JUST GOT REVERTED... NOW WHAT? Wikipedia has lots and lots of policies, guidelines, and rules... and, sooner or later, you will contribute something that another editor thinks violates one of these Policies, guidelines and rules. When this occurs your contribution will be reverted.  This is part of the normal give and take of editing Wikipedia... so DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY.  Everyone gets reverted eventually.  If you have had a contribution reverted:
 * 1) DON'T PANIC. All the hard work that went into your contribution has not been lost forever.  Your work has been saved in the article's history, and can easily be retrieved (just ask an experienced editor for assistance).
 * 2) DON'T SIMPLY UN-REVERT. Instead, find out why you have been reverted and try to resolve the concern.  If you do not understand why your contribution was reverted... go to the article talk page (or to the other editor's talk page) and ASK for clarification.  If you are lucky, the other editor will take the time to fully explain his/her concerns... but, more often, he/she will start off by simply pointing you to the relevant policies and guidelines... Read them... and then (if you still don't understand) come back and ask further questions until you are clear as to what the other editor's concerns are.
 * Finally 3) see if your contribution can be amended or adapted in a way that resolves his/her concerns. Work with the other editor, not against him/her.
 * If after reading the relevant policy page and a discussion with the other editor, you still do not understand why you were reverted, you can often get additional guidance from neutral uninvolved editors, by asking questions at the relevant policy talk pages and noticeboards.
 * If a notice like this were posted to every new editor when they first log into Wikipedia, it would do a lot to help editors realize that being reverted is not the end of the world. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

My purpose here was not to lament the end of the world, but to point out a misuse of the one-line edit summary in a manner intended to shut off discussion by peremptory reference to WP:OR or WP:Primary without further explanation beyond Read the policy. In more detail, for the type of contribution considered here, namely an academic presentation of a variety of sourced opinion about a topic, I would like to see comment upon modifying the policy WP:OR to explicitly caution against a fallacious rush to reversion based upon items A-C listed above. Brews ohare (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Academic writing has as its intended purpose the author taking Fact A + Fact B to lead the reader to a novel conceptualization of the world not specifically identified by A or B.
 * That purpose and method is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's core policies. And one line edit summaries cutting off endless talk page about something that is not allowed in Wikipedia is probably a good thing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TheRedPenOfDoom: The purpose of some academic writing, as you point out, is for the author to state some background and then go on to make their original contribution. That is not the subject here. The subject here is contributions that attempt to summarize a topic and support the accuracy of that summary with citations. Such activity is nature of most encyclopedias (for example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, and so on) and WP is not an exception to this. However, the one-line edit summary is easily (and often) misused to make cursory reversion of such contributions, usually based upon the erroneous justifications A-C listed above. Avoidance of such events is the topic of this discussion, and it is not what you are talking about. Brews ohare (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, to be truly honest, what's happening is your method of additions and what you believe is proper encyclopedic material conflicts with what WP considers to be true. As Red points out above, academic writing is free to introduce hypothesis and analysis - we cannot - we have to stop at summarizing sources and need to avoid the next step of even potentially directing the reader to a novel conclusion not given in sources. Further, the issues you have with limited edit summary use are out of line. Given that nearly all your edits over the past month have been on Dilemma of determinism and its talk page (and thus expected to have a reasonable handle on what has been discussed on the talk page before), and that you are established editor that should have a good handle on how editing and talk pages work, being reverted with a simple "see talk page" is completely reasonable - that means you should either find established discussion or a new section by the reverting editor to explain the reasoning for the change. (It would be bitey if it was a newer user). Further, you tend to break the WP:BRD cycle a lot, so even on 2nd and beyond reverts, short summaries are completely appropriate since the message was given in the earlier ones. I don't see this as an OR issue, but a behavioral one. --M ASEM  (t) 22:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I have tried to be extremely clear about this matter in my response to RPoD, and I will repeat myself to you. There is nothing in what is under discussion that involves original research. Nothing at all. There is no introduction of hypothesis unless that hypothesis is that of a published author in a reliable source. There is no analysis except that published in a a reliable source. There is no construction of novel conclusions not found in published sources. The presentation of a WP editor's personal hypothesis or personal analysis are clear violations WP policy and there is no argument about that here.
 * I am not interested in reducing this discussion to the particulars of my experience on Dilemma of determinism. I am interested in fixing WP:OR as a matter of general policy, independent of the peculiarities of any one example, where there are multiple complicating red herrings of personality, past history, and deafness of ear that muddy the waters.
 * This all being so, can we discuss the issues that are actually raised about the misuse of the excuses A-C to justify erroneous reversions? Brews ohare (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the policy which needs 'fixing', or at least you have not identified any. Nor is there anything wrong with BRD. It should be used with care with new editors not familiar with it but you are not a new editor and are very familiar with WP's guidelines and practices, or should be. They have been explained to you many times before, you do not need a detailed explanation every time you ignore them. Finally you are no position to advise other editors how to use edit summaries given your repeated refusal to use them properly yourself. You persist in using meaningless single word and blank edit summaries when making content edits, even though the guidelines on this are clear and have been pointed out to you many times.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 07:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blackburne: No comment has been made here so far about WP:BRD. Rather, the issue identified above is the listed A-C misuses of WP:OR to support cursory reversion of contributions of a specific structure, a structure like those used in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. The suggestion up for discussion is that invalid excuses like A-C be made explicitly and obviously unusable by appropriate rewording of WP:OR. You are yourself a champion of the 'hit-and-run' reversion technique based upon the cryptic one-line edit summary, so I understand your reluctance to address the real issue here and, instead of being on topic, devote your remarks to my chastisement. Brews ohare (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, a core policy is not going to be changed because you don't like it. If you really feel you have valuable content to contribute, but WP's guidelines prevent you, there are many other places you can contribute it to, from general encyclopaedias like Citizendium to endless specialist ones such as those hosted on Wikia. But the guidelines aren't going to be reworded, i.e. rewritten, to accommodate you. It's simply not going to happen.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 15:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are clearly here because you can't get your way at Dilemma of determinism where you've been told repeated that your additions, though not "wrong", aren't in the spirit of our polices on OR. The fact that you have repeated added the same point over and over and repeat the arguments ad infinitum (as you also did for Whaam! and its FAC) despite the rest of the participants saying "no" is just beating a dead horse, and so when you go add again' the same information, a curt edit summary is completely fair. You're trying to change this policy to win your battle there'' to make it difficult for your additions to be reverted without a detailed summary, but that's exactly why we use talk pages, since the edit summary only has so many usable characters. --M ASEM  (t) 14:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: No thanks for the accolade. Again you divert the discussion to a discussion about myself, and avoid the topic raised. Your assumptions about my motivations are bogus, and violate WP:AGF. BTW, your last sentences appear a bit incoherent. Yes, I am against misuse of the in-line summary, so consequently, although you seem to think my position is different, I support a Talk-page discussion (based upon the listed 'Query 1' and 'Query 2'), but one that is not erroneously based upon the fallacious reasons A-C. Maybe you could be clearer? Brews ohare (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you gave no context for your original statement, I had to go back to your user contribution history to figure out possibly where this was happened as to why you've brought it up here (a common action anyone would do if they found themselves stuck in an argument over policy on a talk page). And when I see pages after pages of the same article and its talk page as the only contributions from you from the last month-ish, and reading those contributions, it's clear why you brought the topic up here. The points A-C are all present in that article, but your statement here lacks context. For example, there is no restriction against point A about using primary sources - they can be used to supplement secondary and tertiary sources. But you can't take a primary source and one or more other sources and make novel claims from that, which, reading through the Dilemma's discussion, is part of why you are being reverted. Especially in the case of Dilemma where most of the data is going to be qualitative and not quantitative, editors are going to be very careful of introducing novel thoughts. The same applies with B+C too. There are reasons on articles that are about metaphysics to stay as close to the sources as possible. And actually I'm assuming AGF in what you're doing - you're free to raise the issue and which you did on the talk page which is completely correct - the problem is that you can't back away from the discussion and continue to beat the dead horse after being shown consensus against your additions. --M ASEM  (t) 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: Thank you for your more temperate response. Of course, my concern over this matter has an origin in my history, and the events on Talk:Dilemma of determinism are part of that. However the issue as I have proposed it, whatever its inspiration, exists in the abstract, and is independent of the circumstances of its birth.
 * As I understand you, you agree that points A-C are incorrect interpretations of WP:OR. I believe that your points about correct criticism of the type of article I am discussing is indeed of the form listed as 'Query 1' and 'Query 2'. You have not, however, offered any opinion upon the advisability of changing WP:OR to make such misinterpretation less likely.
 * As for beating a dead horse - this is of course, your advice about how I should conduct Talk-page discussion. I would be happy to engage further with such advice on my Talk page if you would be interested to do that. In particular, I would like to discuss with you whether 'beating a dead horse' is really what is going on there. I'd argue that my 'beating a dead horse' is my repeated exhortation that editor Snowded actually engage. Further discussion of these events is not germane to this thread, however, and I invite your attention (and Snowded's, should he so desire) on my Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree A-C are "wrong", but again, you didn't have context and I had to look back, and its clear from the discussion that you oversimplified what their replies were to the situation. Yes, they told you primary sources can't be used, but that was in relation to making a novel thought, for example (and highlighting that for a primarily metaphysical topic like that, its very easy to introduce novel thoughts). And again, I see the same behavior there on Dilemma as I saw on the FAC with Whaam - you make a suggestion (which is good), you're told that's not appropriate, and then you continue to argue the point. The reason Snowded hasn't bothered to engage more recently is that you've made the same points over and over, and they've responded back at the start, and thus there's no reason to repeat the arguments over and over, and hence why the reverts have terse change messages.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: Whatever the merits of your assessment (and I would debate them elsewhere), the gist of your comment as it applies to this thread appears to be that although the proposed A-C are incorrect uses of WP:OR, their misuse does not arise on WP, so there is no reason to change WP:OR. If I wish to proceed with my advocacy, I must come up with enough examples to demonstrate a statistically meaningful problem and not just a possible problem. These examples will then be dissected one by one to establish that they are indeed examples, and not just my imagination. Cases from my own experience are not to be counted, as they automatically exhibit a conflict of interest. If enough cases survive this winnowing process to seem an issue, then some policy change can be discussed. Have I got that right? Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This section starts out unclear and then hops all over the place making it very hard to know what it is actually about. I think that some here have been ignoring or deflecting or seeking to disparage  Brews ohare's intelligent  points  with the "you're just angry that you didn't get your way at an article" bit.

A couple comments on Brew's initial point, and this is without any knowledge or analysis of the situation that it may have arisen from.

The backbone of well-written articles (which is intelligent weighted summarization of what is in sources) is illegal under a strict interpretation of wp:nor / wp;synth. If the summarizaiton looks problematic or if someone doesn't like it, they will invoke policies to knock it out. If not, it gets left in. While it sounds like I am describing a very hypocritical or screwed up situation, it actually works 95% of the time. It would be such a difficult and complex task to fix it that most first attempts would do more harm than good. For example, if you require that people have to "make the case" in order to remove material (vs just citing policies)(as is I think your main point) then you will tip the balance and have Wikipedia quickly fill up with crap. For years I have argued for what would be a good solution, that, in areas like this, someone would need to also voice (voice, NOT defend) a non-policy concern about the material when knocking it out but so far no success. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Blueboar: I also think Brew's points to new editors could be very useful. If I can understand his other points. I agree that often intelligent discussion is shut down with one line invocations to policy. This kind of thing is often the narrowest view and as such can support inaccurate content in articles.I could point out a couple of examples right now. What needs to be looked at is the volume of sources from authors, and comparisons of what is said in those sources. Then, decisions made about what sources most accurately represents the accurate viewpoint. At the same time there is room to include more fringe to this "mainstream" view point especially if the fringe views are in line cited. The problem I've seen is that many editors use the narrow view to support their POV versions and are afraid to venture into a larger discussion where their POV text would be dissolved in rational discussion. In my experience, I have only twice in all of my time on Wikipedia seen editors in a discussion approach an article in this more intellectually strenuous way. One was in Yogo Saphire and the  other Grace Sherwood, both discussions led for the most part by Pumpkin Sky.  It requires trust in and for all of the editors, and, well, maturity. I am thankful Brews brought this up. but as long as we have editors who use the policies narrowly to support POV content rather see the policies as the guides they are  to create accurate content, and an accurate representation of the topic/subject, I don't see  a way to bring  two kinds of editors  together.(olive (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC))
 * These are both completely valid points, in that there can come issues of OWN-type reactions to removing material that doesn't fit, and there's a fine line between removal because of OR concerns and removal because of IDONTLIKEIT reasons. It is important to understand that Brews' comments above came after the volume of talk page discussion on the Dilemma page (which for me I have zero interest in), which is a topic that can only be described in the qualitative sense and a subject of expert opinion without a lot of distinct facts. It would be far different if we were talking something much more tangible and less subjective, where if the matter being added met WP:V/WP:NOR/etc, and the editors removing it were doing it because they just didn't like it. But my impression on the Dilemma talk page is that the main editors there are carefully walking a tightrope on what is appropriate to include within the topic and what goes off kilter. Fortunately, there's not be editing warring here over it, just a lot of discussion following BRD-type inclusion by Brews, and reading through the highlights of that, I get the impression that the material that Brews wants in there is being appropriately removed to avoid disrupting the balance (I have no statement if that's factually correct or not since that's nowhere close to my knowledge base). In general, I would agree that if material added by an editor is removed and the reason for that removal is not clear to the editor that added it (that is, this would not include obvious vandalism poor/unsourced statements, or misinformation), then a good edit summary or a talk page discussion should be started to explain it, or for that user to add it. That way, it should become clear if the removal was due to OR concerns, due to IDONTLIKEIT, or other subtle reasons. --M ASEM  (t) 18:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am so happy that Littleolive oil and North8000 have recognized the issue and made substantial comments. Apparently Masem found your comments useful too.
 * Masem: Your belief that somehow a topic like Dilemma of determinism is different from another topic like, maybe Idée fixe (psychology), is correct as to differences in subject. However, there is no 'tightrope' requiring careful admission or denial of sources for philosophical subjects. There is no 'fine line' providing an opening for objecting on the basis of a cryptic reference to WP:OR to support an editor's personal gut feeling of "I don't like it". The correct approach to sources is (i) present the full spectrum of opinion and (ii) support those views with sources. If the sources are provided, and if the various POV's all are presented, the main objections available are about emphasis or selection of sources. Neither of these objections is a violation of WP:OR, or can be adequately summarized in a one-line edit summary. I suspect you agree with these remarks, but your preamble above seems to leave some kind of elbow-room for a merely opinionated objection, without reference to adequate sourcing but relying upon cryptic reference to WP:OR. Without even a specification of how it is violated,  or what material is supposedly in violation. That kind of stone-walling is what I have objection to. Can you be more clear about how your views fit in? Brews ohare (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews you have a track record of trying to use policy forums to win content battles. Editors who have not had to deal with you, or who have not checked your lengthy record of blocks for disruptive editing may not immediately realise this, but it is pretty self evident.  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 21:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, in the Dilemma talk page, you rightly presented some alternative sources and viewpoints to include after you had been reverted (rightfully following BRD). But those viewpoints were rejected as not being appropriate to the topic of that article and trying to take the article in a direction that would call for creating OR to diverge from what the editors considered the topic to be.  This is partially because of the metaphysical topic and highly subjective, and thus editors like Snowded are trying to keep a rein on the article going to weird places. But they did argue this point and did not ignore your initial statements, but you keep pushing which is the problem here. --M ASEM  (t) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: You raise an interesting point, which is the decision about what is relevant to a topic. That subject is, of course, outside the scope of WP:OR and so apparently is a side issue for this discussion. However, to engage in this diversion for a moment, it would seem that a skeptical editor could avoid the entire issue at stake here, and not resort to an erroneous appeal to A-C, but simply suggest that the material, however factual, is irrelevant. Now how is that to be settled? If there is a source that contends the material is part of the discussion of a topic, presumably that takes precedence over the opinion of the skeptical WP editor. Whatever decision about relevance is made, however, there should be Talk page discussion, and a willingness to compare notes. A WP editor should not rely on the one-line edit summary to settle such an issue.
 * To return to the proposal here, unrelated to evaluation of relevance of a contribution, the issue is whether to revise WP:OR to make clear that A-C are not valid uses of this policy. It seems to be agreed that this is so; the question then is whether policy can be rewritten to do that without running up against the issues raised by North8000 of making rejection of material too difficult. Frankly, if the policy has to be so loose in order to work that it allows a skeptical WP editor to invoke A-C as if that were a matter of interpretation of WP:OR, it is a problem, and an unnecessary one. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW (as one of the editors involved at Dilemma of determinism) I agree that what Brews here calls A-C should not be considered valid responses to a new contribution in and of themselves. However, I do not believe those are the kinds of responses that have been made at the article which prompted this request, so I am not sure that any change of policy is required. An OR-based reversion of the kinds of contributions Brews is trying to protect should supply more reason than just "that's OR", and in this case those kinds of reasons have been provided: reasons exactly like what Brews here calls "query 1" and "query 2". However, an objector to a new edit should not have to engage the new contributor in an unending debate about whether the new contribution accurately and neutrally summarizes the sources it is citing. Other editors saying "you are applying a biased or inaccurate interpretation to this material" should be enough.

I don't want to make this discussion about the content debate at Dilemma of determinism, but it provides a clear example of what concerns me: it appears to me that Brews does not understand the material that he is citing. He cites relevant authors with accurate quotes, but uses those to support a position that, speaking as someone well-versed in the subject, the quoted material simply does not in any way appear to support, unless by gross misunderstanding of what the quoted material is saying. Supplying counter-quotes would be a futile endeavor because the material I would quote to show what the author is really saying is the same quote Brews has already provided.

So to echo North8000, not all "intelligent weighted summarization" should be automatically rejected with nothing but an "original research" objection. But if one person's "intelligent weighted summarization" proves contentious, the relevant policy to cite for an objection to it is WP:OR, and the burden of proof should then on the new contributor to convince the other editors that his "intelligent weighted summarization" is indeed accurate and balanced, and if continued edits and reversions occur, citing WP:OR and previous objections on the talk page should suffice; it is, in effect, saying "you've still not presented anything new to convince us this is an accurate and balanced summary".

For an analogy to another policy: while you don't need to cite that the sky is blue, as soon as someone honestly doubts the veracity, in that context, of the assertion that the sky is blue, WP:V becomes a valid reason to object to the addition of that assertion, and the burden is then on the contributor to supply what objecting editors will accept as a verifiable citation that the sky is blue (as that statement is meant in that context), or else modify the statement to one that nobody finds controversial. Likewise, while you shouldn't have to simply regurgitate summaries that other sources have already written, and well-balanced and accurate summaries of fields cited to primary sources should in broad principle be as allowable as an uncited claim that the sky is blue, as soon as someone honestly doubts the accuracy, weight, relevance, etc, of the original summary, WP:OR becomes a valid reason to object to the addition of that summary, and the burden is then on the contributor to supply what objecting editors will accept as an accurate and well-balanced third-party summary, or else modify the summary to one that nobody finds controversial. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest: The possibility of my personal gross misunderstanding of material related to the Dilemma of determinism is not pertinent here, as you recognize but still introduce here, and that possibility is a matter for discussion on that Talk page.
 * What is your relevant point in the context of the present thread? It appears that you are introducing what may be taken as a hypothetical situation in which a contributor refuses to accept a judgment arrived at after due Talk page discussion, and insists nonetheless to introduce material in main article that overrides the opinion on the Talk page. That is, of course, a matter for concern. You suggest that WP:OR has a place in rejecting such a disputed addition. In effect, you are raising Masem's point about relevance, and suggesting with Masem that WP:OR is useful to reject such additions. Technically a claim of 'original research' cannot be applied to sourced and sound material, whether or not it is irrelevant, and WP:OR should never be interpreted as applicable to arguments about the relevance of sound and sourced contributions. WP:OR is not about relevance.
 * It may be very difficult to demonstrate that an aspect of a topic should not be discussed in the article about that topic. It boils down, not to WP:OR but to two different things: (i) demonstrating clearly by argument or sources that this aspect is not properly part of the subject (that is, it is not an aspect at all), or (ii) demonstrating that mention of this aspect is a violation of WP:UNDUE. For sound and sourced material, I'd suggest that it is improbable that complete removal of all mention of an aspect is necessary to satisfy WP:UNDUE, and that probably any such 100% censorship is a violation of WP:NPOV. I do not think questions of how to establish 'relevance' belong in this thread.
 * You bring up WP:BLUE, perhaps as a counter theme? Can you elaborate upon the connection to this proposal?  Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, we're trying to make this not about the particular article, but if we ignore it / not learn the particular case, then I don't see a specific proposal in the above. And we're bringing up the blatantly non-existent missing-from-Wikipedia (or missing from wp:npov) degree-of-relevancy guideline. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000: The specific proposal is that A-C are invalid appeals to WP:OR. It would seem from opinions assembled here, that this assertion is taken to be valid. That might suggest the policy is clear on this matter, were it not that some, like Masem and possibly Pfhorrest, take the view that sometimes they are OK, and the entire matter is one of that ephemeral quality, WP editor judgment. As for revision of WP:OR to take this matter out of the hands of WP editor interpretation, I take your previous comment as saying any attempt to explicitly deny the validity of A-C would be counterproductive in facilitating introduction of poor contributions. So it seems there is an issue here, and it is not dependent at all (IMO) upon Talk:Dilemma of determinism. Brews ohare (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What happened on Talk:Dilemma is critical to understand what you're asking for. Take your A case "The contribution uses primary sources, and that is inadmissible according to WP:Primary." Out of context, that of course is a wrong statement - we do allow primary sources.  In context, however, it was clear the editors were saying "you're making this connection from a number of primary sources, that's wrong", which is correct per SYNTH. We're missing half the story by your original post, and thus when we go back to see what that context is, its obvious that you're trying to change policy to counter the established consensus and their careful handling of potential OR on a touchy topic. I absolutely agree on the larger point that when reverting on claims of OR, what those OR claims should be obvious or otherwise discussed, but there's really no need to change OR based on what you've posted here and reading the discussion there. --M ASEM  (t) 18:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: The way forward here is definitely not to become embroiled in a specific example. Whether some particular argument on some particular talk page can be interpreted as you wish to interpret those matters is irrelevant. The way forward, taking your complaints into account, is to formulate the abstract argument better. If the wrong statements A-C can in fact sometimes be correct in some (still to be identified) situations, a position not so far established, then some change of phrasing is needed to avoid that problem. Your underlying argument is not this one, but is again that unless changes are proven necessary by assembling a list of vetted examples, changes are not needed. Brews ohare (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then propose the change in wording you think needed. Then editors can say yay or nay, and it will be clear whether there's support for it or not. If you think this policy needs changing say how. This talk page is meant to be for discussing changes to the policy, not abstract discussions about policy.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 19:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My point that you're missing is that your three bullets, A-C, were never used alone as arguments. You pulled those out of context. Yes, they are, in general, wrong statements, but they are wrong because this or other policies already address them. As John just notes above, you need to prescribe language that you think it better suited to your concerns, but my caution here is that knowing what happened in context of the Talk:Dilemma discussion, this is not an issue with how OR is written. --M ASEM (t) 19:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way - you are absolutely right that there is a right way and a wrong way to revert additions under the claim that it fails OR. I don't think the issues raised require policy changes but it would make for a good essay (possibly guideline), along the lines for Blueboar's comment, of how to properly revert OR additions and to respond to such. --M ASEM  (t) 19:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll think about some phrasing of a revision. However, if that is to meet your objections, Masem, I need to understand the circumstances in which you think A-C can be a correct use of WP:OR. I can't think of one, but you and Pfhorrest seem to suggest that it can fill in for WP:UNDUE or some other (unnamed) criterion for rejecting material entirely because it is deemed to be not pertinent to a topic by some editors. North8000 seems to think collateral damage introduced by denying use of A-C will make that change too difficult to even attempt. Any suggestions? Brews ohare (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are missing my point again. With no other context to understand why the statements were evoke, then yes, A-C are not correct in light of OR and other policies - our policies spell that out, and thus there's no need to change it. But we also do say that Primary sources may never be used for synthesis, which is the context that was used in the talk page; you reduced that argument here to just "Primary sources may never be used." This is why context is very important when you make these claims. --M ASEM  (t) 21:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Brews, you wrote above: "What is your relevant point in the context of the present thread? [...] You bring up WP:BLUE, perhaps as a counter theme? Can you elaborate upon the connection to this proposal?"

The analogy to WP:BLUE is my relevant point. WP:BLUE is to WP:V as your proposal is to WP:OR.

To echo North8000 again, under the strictest of possible interpretations of OR (and V) Wikipedia could only regurgitate exactly what existing sources reporting on the same level as Wikipedia (i.e. other encyclopedias) have said, as anything else would be synthesis. That would obviously not be a good state of affairs as it would leave this project adding nothing of value to the world. BLUE is about making common-sense relaxations of V and not requiring citations of obvious and uncontroversial statements. I.e. it is not good editing practice to revert an addition simply for the sole reason that no citation was given; the reversion should be made because there is some honest doubt about the veracity of the addition. But when that doubt is raised, the appropriate defense of the addition's inclusion is to provide a citation in satisfaction of V, and when the addition is being reverted until that is satisfied, the relevant policy to cite is V. (Or of course you can propose a different addition which is not so contentious and so per BLUE does not demand a citation).

Likewise, you could write a BLUE-like essay about making common-sense relaxations of OR and not requiring an existing third party source to have already summarized exactly the information you are trying to summarize. Something to the effect that it is not good editing practice to revert an addition simply for the sole reason that nobody else has summarized the exact particular things you're summarizing before; the reversion should be made because there is some honest doubt about the accuracy, balance, relevance, etc, of the summary. But when that doubt is raised, the appropriate defense of the addition's inclusion is to find an existing (well-balanced and neutral) third-party summary of the issue to paraphrase and cite, and when the addition is being reverted until that is satisfied, the relevant policy to cite is OR. (Or of course you can propose a different summary which is not so contentious and does not demand a third-party source to have already said it for you). --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)Brews, my general comment is that primary sources are such that any editor can create or summarize anything they want out of them that they want to.  In the fuzzy Wikipedia system, if that summary is obvious and neutral, people will probably let it stand.   If it is creative, objectionable  etc. someone is going to use the rule to knock it out, roughly following A-C.  (even though you mis-wrote A).    I don't see any practical alternative.     If you are saying that they need to discuss and win the debate in order to take it out, you are tipping the balance to filling Wikipedia up with crap.  While people can go overboard with wp:burden (and I have butted heads with them), on the whole I think that the way that it tips the balance is essential.
 * Regarding the mechanics of your proposal (and how people are asking you to get more specific) logically you haven't really made a proposal. You have just sort of said that a particular three step reasoning which you listed is not to be a valid basis for removal. How would that read?     Anybody who uses (all of) those exact three steps doesn't get to remove material?   None of those steps is a valid reason for removal?   Etc.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone WP:SNOW close this. Its obvious there is nothing like the consensus needed to alter policy and that the discussion such as it is, is leading nowhere fast. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TRPoD: It has taken a while, but it seems things are beginning to gel. To close the discussion down at this point would be a mistake. However, I will be unavailable for a few days, so it will be a while before I can propose an amendment. Brews ohare (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What can go wrong
I'm breaking up this long thread to reply to North8000, who has some sensible reservations about explicitly banishing the erroneous use of WP:OR based upon the incorrect interpretations expressed in A-C.

North: I think some back-and-forth about your concerns would be helpful. As a start, let's look at your first sentences above. They read:
 * "Primary sources are such that any editor can create or summarize anything they want out of them that they want to...If it is creative, objectionable etc. someone is going to use the rule to knock it out, roughly following A-C."

Of course, primary sources can be misused, and I suggested two ways a contribution using primary sources could be questioned:
 * 1. Has the source been fairly represented, or is its position oversimplified or otherwise misstated?
 * 2. Have the chosen sources been selected to convey the full spectrum of opinion, or have they been cherry-picked to represent a particular view of the subject?

Now I wonder if you have some additional concerns beyond these two?

Sticking with these two abuses, they are about adequacy of coverage: adequacy in stating the views of selected sources and adequacy in selecting the sources themselves.

Now, misstating a source's view by quoting some phrases out of context is not a violation of WP:OR, but it is objectionable. Presumably a critique would consist of providing the context of the misappropriated quote that shows it is wrongly interpreted. That critique is not based upon WP:OR. Perhaps you can help me identify what policy governs mistaken quotation? If the WP editor states a view that cannot be supported by a properly selected quotation or source, then that unsupported view is open to a charge of WP:OR.

Selecting sources on a parochial basis is a different kind of abuse that is a violation of WP:NPOV and can be attacked on that basis by providing sources that express alternative views.

So, going back to your assertion: "Primary sources are such that any editor can create or summarize anything they want out of them that they want to...", it seems to me that I've outlined two ways of preventing this kind of abuse. They do not depend upon the erroneous use of WP:OR via the excuses A-C. If you think the above two methods for limiting abuse are insufficient, and that in fact the incorrect A-C have to be allowed, perhaps you could elaborate further? If A-C are to be allowed, BTW, then WP:OR should be rewritten to make their use clearly a part of policy.

For the sake of easy reference to them, I'll repeat the incorrect interpretations of WP:OR below:
 * A. The contribution uses primary sources, and that is inadmissible according to WP:Primary.
 * B. The contribution is in conflict with WP:OR simply because this particular selection of sources is the contributor's choice (regardless of whether that selection is objective and wide-ranging, which assessment is taken to be simply irrelevant).
 * C. Such contributions are on the very face of it inadmissible by WP:OR unless they are a paraphrase of 'third-party' treatments and use the same sources.

Brews ohare (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet another different abuse of sources is over-weighting one point of view compared to the rest. This abuse is addressed by WP:UNDUE, and also does not rely upon the mistaken reasons A-C. Brews ohare (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This reads more like a NPOV issue than NOR issue, but I don't think its also as cut and dried as "are all sides of the argument fairly represented". Particularly on these subjective topics, there may be several different viewpoints. An article covering one of those viewpoints in detail may be omitting the other viewpoints, and that may seem an NPOV issue, but if there's also separate articles for all those other viewpoints, as well as an encapsulating article that covers the larger topic, then there's no reason to discuss the alternate viewpoints in that first viewpoint article. (eg: I'm not checking, but for example, I'd expect that we'd have articles on Creationism, Evolution, and Intelligent Design, as well as a comparison of these three (if not more); as such I would not expect to have to talk about Creationism in the Evolution article and vice versa). --M ASEM  (t) 23:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But again this is not a proposal. It's another page of hard to follow text that seems to be quibbling over a minor point: which policies can be applied when reliable secondary sources aren't used, as they should be. But that is not a topic for this talk page which is changes to this particular policy. Absent such a proposal or anything like one I second the call to close this.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 23:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is about my last 5 minutes on the internet before I go off the grid for about 9 days. Brews, briefly, it is not a matter of objectively summarizing what a primary source said, it is that they are "raw material" which is subject to cherry picking and interpretation in any way that anyone pleases. IMHO the Wikipedia system says that it's better to have someone else (and who has the imprimatur of having been published and in a way that has been theoretically subject to review by somebody else) do the selection/cherrypicking and summarization than the Wikipedia editor.   This is an imperfect system that often mis-fires, but I think that that is more a problem with a lack of metrics to assure that a wp:rs is actually reliable (with respect to the item which cited it) than a problem with the limitations on the use of primary sources.  What DOES go wrong, is that people often quote non-existent urban legends of what the policies are rather than what they actually are.  The most common case of this with respect to primary sources is for people to pretend that they can disparage /deprecate them in general, (and use that as a basis for knocking out material) even when they are properly used within the limits defined by Wikipedia policies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem: Of course you are right that situations can arise where separate articles are needed to adequately cover various viewpoints. Again, that is not what this is about. What it is about is using A-C to incorrectly justify reversions as though A-C were what WP:OR actually means. I don't think you disagree with this point, but you are wandering off-issue here. Am I right? Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Blackburne: Yes you are right, this proposal concerns the use of primary sources. But it is not about misuse of these sources, but about the misuse of WP:OR to block use of these sources with the erroneous reasons A-C. I don't agree that the role of primary sources is as a poor substitute for secondary sources, and I don't think that attitude is a reason to use WP:OR incorrectly to support suppression of primary sources using A-C. Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

North8000: I'm sorry you will be unavailable for an extended period. You repeat your worry about cherry-picking sources and misreading them or incorrectly reporting their content. Of course, abuses can occur but there are a few ways to contain such abuses. The way to do that does not include incorrectly interpreting WP:OR by using the wrong arguments A-C. I don't think you disagree with this point. You raise a different point involved in rejection of material based upon primary sources - rejection by a believer in an 'urban myth' about the content of these sources, leading the reverting editor to the impression these sources have been misconstrued when it is the urban myth that is wrong. Of course, as you point out, WP policy already disallows such bias, and would suggest that some Talk page discussion of the original source should occur. Were it a perfect world, as you say, this discussion would reveal the inaccuracy of the urban myth. While this example shows the futility of good policies, I don't think that means revision of WP:OR to clearly denounce A-C is a futile effort. Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change in WP:OR
Pursuant to the various discussions above, a concrete wording is suggested below for a revision to WP:OR. The revision concerns primary sources, so this proposal should fit into the section WP:Primary. Below is the pertinent section of WP:OR as it now stands:
 * Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

Here is a proposed additional paragraph:


 * A common format for encyclopedia articles states or summarizes the views on a topic provided by reliable sources, including WP:Primary sources, and documents those statements with citations identifying those supporting sources. This type of contribution, however, is particularly prone to violations of WP:Syn and WP:NPOV. Thus, it is a violation of WP:Syn to string sources together with an original narrative thread, like beads on a necklace. Any narrative thread must itself be sourced. Likewise, it is a violation of WP:NPOV to cherry-pick sources and ignore alternative viewpoints, and a violation of WP:Undue to overweight any particular view. It may also be noted that such a contribution can be a stand-alone article only if it satisfies WP:Notability, but there is no such requirement for an addition to an existing article.

Comments on the above

 * The existing paragraph quoted at the top can be read as supporting the proposed paragraph. However, as the discussion earlier on this Talk page shows, there is need for greater clarity regarding this particular form of contribution, particularly as these abuses involve not only WP:OR but other policies as well. Several participants have suggested that the abuse of this format is common, so identifying polices commonly abused is useful.
 * On the other hand, WP:OR can be used incorrectly to reject such contributions that are not violations. For example, by insisting that primary sources are inadmissible without a secondary source that describes that primary source. The proposed addition makes clear that primary sources can be used alone, provided the narrative connecting them is not original research.
 * I'd suggest as a possible shortcut for this paragraph, WP:Necklace . Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Likewise, it is a violation of WP:NPOV to cherry-pick sources and ignore alternative viewpoints..." is not really correct. This should be the overall aspect of WP as a whole, but when applied at an article level, it doesn't work. Case in point: I would not talk about Creationism in an article about Evolution or Intelligent Design, or vice versa, but that statement suggests that we would have to. But in actuality, I would expect that considering all articles on these three subjects, all under the concept of the development of life on earth, the coverage of all three would be reasonably fair and balanced.
 * Also, I would argue that where it may be appropriate to include alternate viewpoints that those only coming from primary source (eg where that alternate viewpoint hasn't been supported by secondary sources) is also then not appropriate to include. That is, without requiring some secondary source to note that viewpoint, a lot of fringe theories would "have" to be included but supported only by primary sources. Once you've established the viewpoint with the secondary source, expanding on it from primary is just fine, but that secondary has to be there. --M ASEM (t) 17:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Masem raises the point that some topics by their very nature do not satisfy WP:NPOV, and mentions Creationism as an example. Of course, within the topic of Creationism itself there may be a variety of views, and what this proposal intends is that WP:NPOV be applied within the topic, and no one school of creationism should be unduly advantaged. If that is a possible ambiguity, wording could be changed slightly to make that clear. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem also suggests that, within an existing main article, it is improper to introduce a different point of view that is supported only with primary sources, because that would open the door to minor or fringe points-of-view that aren't sufficiently important to be included. However, WP:Undue covers undue emphasis, not WP:OR. To quote undue: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". Accordingly, it is not necessary to establish notability by citing a secondary source for a nuance of the main topic; primary sources are fine. As neither WP:OR nor WP:Notability suggest this need, I'd like to know if there is any policy suggesting a primary source is an inadequate basis for bringing up a viewpoint missing from an established article. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * With the first point, the idea is to understand that sometimes editors have chosen specific bounds for a topic, understanding that there is more that could be covered in a border level, and thus it may not be appropriate to pollute that carefully chosen balance with issues of other viewpoints. If a idea or theory is supported by 100s of blogs - but these are otherwise not experts or the like in the field, and that theory is not covered any further by secondary sources, we now would never include it, but your language would allow it permissible. There is a reason that we use secondary sources to make any claim that is otherwise OR for us to make. --M ASEM (t) 21:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I agree with your point that blogs are not reliable sources. That is not an issue here. You also are concerned with WP:Undue, and perhaps that policy needs to be elaborated upon to avoid the 'imbalance' issue. The proposal here is clearly restricted to reliable sources as governed by WP:RS and to observance of WP:Undue. As a modification of WP:OR, this proposal does not deal with improvement in those policies. It also is entirely consistent with WP:Notability, and I think you are attempting here to rewrite that policy to require secondary sources in a manner inconsistent with WP:Notability as it is presently written. To claim that any statement based only upon a reliable primary source is inadmissible without a secondary source to establish notability is not policy. Brews ohare (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From this policy: Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Secondary sources is significant to this, and it's not an attempt to introduce notability to this. We should only be including alternate viewpoints on a topic if they are discussed in secondary sources as a significant alternate viewpoint ; once you've shown that, then primary sources can be used to expand (appropriately) the discussion of that viewpoint but without that initial secondary reliable source that assures its a viewpoint to consider, we need to veer away from it. --M ASEM  (t) 19:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: We are not speaking here of analytic of evaluative claims, but merely what a primary source says. Of course, it must be made clear that it is the source that is being summarized or quoted and so it is, obviously, the opinion, claim, conclusion or whatever of that source. I think the policy is cautioning against the WP editor themselves making general claims, which can be made only based upon a source showing they have general acceptance. It is not a caution about reporting points of view of specific reliable primary sources. Brews ohare (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim being made is not so much what the viewpoint says, but that if it is a significant viewpoint to start with, and appropriate to include. This is, for example, what WP:FRINGE basically prevents again; a fringe theory may have numerous secondary sources about theory, but none that connect it as a reasonable viewpoint to include in the discussion on a topic. --M ASEM (t) 23:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I appreciate your discussion, which raises some interesting questions. For example, how should Creationism and Evolution interact? I think you object to the proposal here because it would allow each article to include a sub-section on the other, even though each regards the other as a 'fringe' theory. At present the word 'evolution' does not appear even once in Creationism, a purity of purpose you would be gratified to see, while the word 'creationism' does appear in Evolution, but only in a sub-section Social and cultural responses, which inclusion you might regard as an unfortunate contamination of an aesthetic 'balance' in Evolution. So the possibility of introducing a 'fringe' topic has been realized in one of the two articles, even without the proposed change. This proposal actually doesn't make the situation worse. After all, all that is proposed here is some text that emphasizes what is already the policy in WP:OR. Brews ohare (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a good example because the reason not to talk about evolution in creationism and vice versa is not because there aren't sources to talk about the other being a different theory, but that those individual articles are already too large to have that, and that we actually have at least one article Creation–evolution controversy that compares and contrasts (at an encyclopedic level). To simply this, say I have a topic Q that can be easily covered in one page; however the reason why Q happens is not known (as is the case of many philosophical topics, but can also be on science or the like); there are a number of theories though that postulate why Q happens. Presently, the only ones of these theories that can be be included are those that give weight in secondary sources as a theory, while those only supported by primary sources should not be included. Your language would allow those to be included, regardless of how fring-y they are simply because they are coming from primary sources. --M ASEM  (t) 05:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This point about how to determine if an addition is a 'fringe' matter, and whether that can be established only via a secondary source, is perhaps more intricate to answer than simply the question of whether the proposal here really is an extension or modification of WP:OR, or is only an elaboration or example that illustrates the use of WP:OR for the type of article found in so many Encyclopedias (for example, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy). I believe the answer to this question is that this proposal is simply a specific explanation of WP:OR as it presently is intended, as applied to such articles. The intent is to suggest that such articles are allowed on WP so long as they do not contain editor remarks that violate WP:Syn WP:Cherrypicking WP:Undue and other WP policies.

I believe that present policy is consistent with the use of primary sources in such articles, the point that you object to. You have suggested that in this context WP:OR in its present form insists that no primary source can be used in such articles unless it is part of a discussion that has been anchored by a secondary source. Rather than refer to policy, you have suggested some practical complications of allowing this practice: (i) the possibility of introducing 'fringe' points of view that would not be possible if secondary sources were needed to provide notability, and (ii) a disruption of 'balance' that may not violate WP:Undue but destroys the coherence of an article, and (iii) the possibility of increasing the length of an article without adequate justification.

If it is your belief that these reservations of yours are not policy at the moment, but are valid concerns that should be addressed by policy changes, perhaps you could make that clear? On the other hand, if you believe that present policy is being contradicted by this proposal, can you point to the policy statements that show that is the case? Brews ohare (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My statements are already based on policy (primarily OR and its dependence on secondary sources to make original claims), and to point out that your proposed changes would weaken that stance, since you're saying that one can include counter-points to a topic even if only primary sources discuss those points. --M ASEM (t) 16:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: The only policy statement to be mentioned so far is from WP:OR on secondary sources: Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. So let's look at what that policy means via an example. If we look at Kevin Timpe's article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Free will It begins: "According to David Hume, the question of the nature of free will is “the most contentious question of metaphysics.”" Now one might expect that a reference to some one of Hume's works (a primary source) would be an adequate source for this statement. But from your stance, the better source is Kevin Timpe's statement because it establishes that Hume's viewpoint is notable? It seems clear that this sentence makes an evaluative claim about the “the most contentious question of metaphysics”, but maybe not. Maybe this sentence is making the claim that Hume said this, and for that statement a citation to Hume's work where this statement is made is the best source.
 * So it would seem we can get all tangled up in trying to establish whether a statement by a primary source is an evaluative claim and therefore inadmissible, or if the text is merely a statement that this opinion was voiced by this particular primary source and therefore OK. How would you approach this issue? Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that one could always phrase a statement from a primary source carefully so that one doesn't say A is true but rather Source X says A is true. Then we are not making an evaluative claim, but asserting that a particular source has a particular view. Whether the issue of "who cares what X says?" is addressed by the WP:OR statement quoted above is ambiguous, IMO. And the interpretation of this statement as saying "We cannot say ‘X said this’ unless we have established X is a notable source" would be in conflict with the statements in WP:Notability.  Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a good way to remove one step of OR to say "X says A is true", which you can source with primary sources from X. The issue is, what makes X's opinion significant to include? There's either two ways. First, if X is a leading, well-known expert in the field of discussion, then implicitly that opinion probably should be included.  But if the expertise of X towards the topic is even questioned a bit, then we need to have other sources identify X's position as significant, and that bit of OR is going to need a secondary source to make it a proper viewpoint to include. Also, please note that just because I mention secondary sources does not mean I'm imposing notability; secondary sources are required by WP:NOR for novel claims, and the claim "X's viewpoint is significant" is such a novel claim if X is an otherwise unknown or previously-unconnected person to the field. (And it would be extremely helpful if you used preview to build out your replies instead of editing them endlessly; this is like the 5th edit conflict I had trying to reply to the above) --M ASEM  (t) 17:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that my second thoughts are making your editing difficult. I think you are saying the statement ‘X said this’ is admissible according to WP:OR only if editors can agree among themselves that X’s opinion is worth mentioning. And the value of X’s opinion can be established best by showing that X’s opinion has been mentioned in a secondary source. Is that your view? And, is that really policy? Brews ohare (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that if X has written up their opinion in a reliable source, like a book or journal article, that would establish that their opinion was worth noting without a requirement that some other party thought it was worthwhile to discuss their book or article. Brews ohare (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Notability: The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. You argue that you are not intruding upon this policy with your requirements on establishing that X has a worthwhile opinion, but I find your distinction hard to follow. Brews ohare (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * First, on notability - no, we're not talking about proving notability for a separate article. We are trying to say "Is this viewpoint one of significance"; you don't need to show significant coverage of that viewpoint as you would if you were trying to create a standalone article. Both OR and Notability use secondary sources, but for different purposes, so there's zero to do with notability here. Just because I'm talking secondary sources is in no way a evoking notability here.
 * Remember, the novel statement of concern is "Is viewpoint A a recognized viewpoint on this topic?", not the details of viewpoint A which I am presuming are published and documented in primary (and possibly more) sources; we can talk about the specifics of viewpoint A without any issue with OR. To determine if viewpoint A is really significant, you need to some way to make that claim to avoid the OR that it is. As noted, if a leading expert stated that, then sure. Another possibility is that maybe a peer-reviewed journal invited anyone to offer viewpoints on a topic and they published the ones they found of interest - then that would be another claim. But just because any person published a viewpoint that may be relevent regardless of where doesn't mean it is appropriate to include. If you can't show the pedigree of the author or how it was published, the only way to make the claim "viewpoint A is a recognized viewpoint on this topic" without OR is to use a secondary source that makes that for us, as required by WP:NOR. Your language, which basically is saying "as long as the claim published, it should be included", breaks this. Remember, for maybe something like free will there's only a few possible theories, but you are talking a policy that works across the board, and when you start getting into the stuff of fringe science, there are a LOT of crazy theories out there, published in self-published blogs, all primary sources but completely inappropriate to include. --M ASEM (t) 19:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: It's neither here nor there, but Free will has dozens of positions and hundreds of sources. To the point, we are not considering 'self-published' blogs or books, but a reliable source. If a philosopher X is published in a peer reviewed journal like Mind, that is a reliable source, and I don't think we have to do any further validation of the significance of stating "X says this". The journal editors' judgment that it is of sufficient interest to appear in Mind is enough. So maybe what is needed in this proposal is to elaborate upon what kind of 'primary source' is allowed? Brews ohare (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Primary: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia...Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Of course, I agree entirely that a WP editor's interpretation of a source of any kind needs substantiation; but that is unnecessary for statements like "Source X says so-and-so in Mind". Brews ohare (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Being published in a peer-reviewed journal only assures reliability, not expertise. Some journals, yes - a position paper published in Nature or Science, due to the nature of those journals, likely can be considered a significant opinion, but I would consider those the exception. Remember, most academic papers are by the primary source submitting the paper to be published, the peer review process rarely rejecting anything. There are invited journals, and that's certainly where your idea would make sense, but most aren't. (I have no idea how Mind fits into the heirarchy of sources).  But again, to point to the language you are trying to include, that would completely make this aspect ignorable - you're saying as long as its a published primary source, the viewpoint, if applying to that topic, should be included on that topic, and that's just not workable.
 * And again, you are missing the point. I don't deny we can use primary sources written by X to say "X says this..."; that avoids original research on understanding X's viewpoint. The issue is whether X's viewpoint is really a significant viewpoint in the larger topic. That's the OR that you need to avoid now. --M ASEM (t) 20:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: Your picture of how academic journals work is very different from my own. I was Editor-in-Chief of IEEE Electron Device Letters for years and the rejection rate was about 30%-50%. Nothing got in there without the OK of three external experts on the topic of the letter submitted. Rewrites and resubmissions to meet critiques were par for the course. The same was true of other journals like Physical Review : A, B, & C, Applied Physics Letters and so forth. Generally the criteria applied were, of course, accuracy, but even more important was that there was something new and interesting in the report. So I'd reiterate that a statement like "Source X says so-and-so in Mind" is already guaranteed to be worth mentioning if it appears relevant to the WP article, and no consideration has to be given to whether X is an author worthy of mention or whether they have a significant viewpoint.
 * I would say this however - that the statement "Source X says so-and-so in Mind" should refer to the thesis of the journal paper, and acceptability may not apply to any and every peripheral comment the author makes that does not pertain directly to their thesis. Brews ohare (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I recognize not all journals are the same, hence why I call out Nature and Science as high level; and I've done enough to recognize Applied Physics Letters as also having high value. But there are also journals that do not have the same rigor. Hence why where a work is published is not as strong an indication of how important the work is (whether as a viewpoint here or for other factors). Mere publication in any peer-reviewed journal is not going to be an acceptable factor on whether the viewpoint is important. --M ASEM (t) 21:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, I cannot vouch for all scholarly journals either. I don't think that WP wants to set up a list of 'reliable scholarly journals', which probably would be a pretty acrimonious deal. I think WP will have to agree that all 'peer-reviewed' scholarly journals are reliable sources, and all scholarly books published by recognized presses are reliable sources. That may let some stuff through the cracks, but not a flood. Brews ohare (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's little question that a peer-reviewed academic journal is a reliable source; but the question remains if the mere act of a paper being published in one confers importance to the viewpoint expressed in that paper. That's why we simply can't say "if the viewpoint's primary sources are published reliable sources, it should be included", as your rewrite suggests. --M ASEM (t) 04:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I would not argue that if a paper appears in a reliable source it should be included. What I think I would say that is that if a WP editor thinks a topic is relevant within an article, and wishes to include a primary source that appears in a peer-reviewed academic journal that discusses that point, it should be allowed without any song and dance about establishing the significance of that viewpoint using a secondary source.
 * So then we may imagine a situation where one WP editor wishes to include a point that is made in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and another WP editor thinks the point is too wide of the topic, or adds more detail than the topic is worth. I have run into this situation more often than once. The addition is obviously not original research - it simply reports that "Source X says so-and-so in Mind" . The fact that Mind decided this paper merited attention enough to publish it indicates that Mind felt it contributed to its mission (to publish the best new work in all areas of the subject, including epistemology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, and the history of philosophy) so they have in fact voted for its significance within one or more of their fields of interest.
 * Nonetheless the issue is raised by a skeptical WP editor that this point has to be supported by a secondary source to show it is significant. As you know, the articles in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy are not written that way. They are written by experts in their fields that also contribute to the literature in their fields, and so are not arm's length from their subject. It can be debated whether they are primary or secondary sources, and almost no sources can escape from this possible conflict of interest. If the secondary-source criterion is applied rigorously to most WP articles, a large number of them would collapse to fractions of their present length. Their value to the WP reader also would be greatly reduced, because the article would no longer mention many important points of view and significant sources, and so fail to be a guide to the thought on the topic. IMO the argument that secondary support is necessary before allowing inclusion of statements like "Source X says so-and-so in Mind" provides a very blunt instrument for the skeptic to hack down perfectly fine articles to the point they are little more than dictionary entries. If this criterion were applied to  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy they would not only have very much shorter and fewer articles, they would have next to no-one interested in writing for them.
 * So I solicit your help in revising the proposal to achieve its aims without too much collateral damage. Brews ohare (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

First, let me be clear, many articles on WP don't have "viewpoints", they are pure facts, so this doesn't become an issue. When viewpoints do come into play, then unless the author of that viewpoint is an established expert in the field, then we need something to assure that the viewpoint is appropriate to include. This is actually how most of our articles on WP work. I can point to several examples from the video game field - we have receptions for games that typically only include references that we have determined to be experts in terms of reviewing video games (as outlined at WP:VG/S). There's no shortages of other opinions, but we do not include them because they are not established experts. That said, in at least one case, for Civilization V, the experts all were highly praising of the title, but if you followed user reviews, there was a very different story to tell (issues that the experts may not have encountered). We struggled with this because while there was a plethera of those user reviews that all said the same thing, as that we could "reproduce" their problems, their viewpoint was not consider expert or significant per sources. Only until one expert source late in the cycle reiterated these were we able to include that more-negative opinion about the game. That approach works across the board, and currently properly described through WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE, and partically WP:FRINGE. That's why I don't think there's any way to reconcile your proposal because the focus on saying "if it was in primary sources it should be included" is counter to all this to start. --M ASEM (t) 05:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: First, I have explicitly stated my opposition to the "if it was in primary sources it should be included" position. The decision to include the sub-topic itself is a Talk page decision, but it should not be excluded on the basis that only primary sources in peer reviewed academic journals discuss it, and some 'secondary' source is needed (which often will lead to endless debate over whether that source qualifies as a 'secondary' source). The inclusion of a viewpoint should be based upon whether the topic is a facet of the main article subject, and if that is decided to be the case, that facet should be included provided sources can be found, even if the only sources are those in peer-reviewed academic journals.
 * Second, the notion of a 'viewpoint' that you describe is not what I am talking about. A viewpoint in a scientific or philosophical matter is not simply a matter of taste or opinion or a popularity or market contest. It is a reasoned position that is convincing within some framework of principles and hypotheses, but there are alternative positions that are in competition. The purpose of presenting 'viewpoints' is not to favor one or the other, but to illustrate the various approaches, and indicate the settings where one may work better than another. If there are primary sources in peer-reviewed sources that have dealt with a particular view, one that editors agree is a facet of the main topic, that viewpoint deserves some attention. Brews ohare (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From an OR standpoint, there is no difference between a scientific viewpoint and a commercial product review - they are both statements of opinion that cannot be made by a WPian directly and require a source to make that claim. Second "The inclusion of a viewpoint should be based upon whether the topic is a facet of the main article subject, and if that is decided to be the case, that facet should be included provided sources can be found, even if the only sources are those in peer-reviewed academic journals" simply cannot work, because this demands that as long as it's published and remotely connected, it should be included, and knowing several of the past editing wars you have gotten into on this very subject, this ends up diluting the topic. Again, being published in a peer-reviewed journal, as a metric on its own, is nothing of value to determine if the viewpoint is one of significance. (Being published in a short-list of high quality journals like Nature might be, but that's not really advice to codify into policy). We need either the pedigree of the viewpoint's authorship to stand up for the viewpoint, or that the viewpoint has been identified as one of significance by another source, period. There's no way to fix your language with the ideals that you are trying to describe because that breaks what OR means to WP. --M ASEM  (t) 14:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I am sorry to conclude that we are at an impasse. In my opinion, that is due to our coming from very different backgrounds and bringing quite different experience to bear. The articles in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy are very superior to anything in WP, and your approach to articles makes it impossible to achieve anything like that quality on WP. WP is, effectively, doomed to a form of censorship that will not allow good quality coverage of scientific and philosophical matters. Brews ohare (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd add to the above, with a potential for irritating you, that I do not think WP:OR supports your position, and that your interpretation is your own. Dilution of a topic is a judgment for Talk pages, not WP:OR, and reliability of a position is adequately established by its publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal.  Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said that articles published in those two specific works are not appropriate to use to assert sufficient authority to consider a viewpoint appropriate to include on a topic. Specifically I said: mere publication in any arbitrary peer-reviewed journal is not sufficient for this. If consensus for a topic agree that a specific journal has high quality control and that being published in one is an indication of expertise and validity, then yes, then that's a reason to include viewpoints published in that journal (but there may be other reasons to exclude such as keeping the article focused). But that's going to vary journal to journal. I cannot provide my opinion on your specific examples outside. --M ASEM  (t) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say anything about your views upon the adequacy of The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy as 'secondary sources', although I have run into editors who do dispute that matter, and the WP articles about these two sources suggest ambivalence. Apparently you wish to leave a large gray area open to interpretation about the quality of sources and the relevance of sub-topics. Which is fine, except such discussion is subject to immediate derailment if a skeptical editor is allowed to say that WP:OR denies the presentation of views that are supported only by primary sources. That is a tactic of Snowded, for example. It appears to me that you also would use WP:OR in this way, and I object to that use. Brews ohare (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Apparently you wish to leave a large gray area open to interpretation about the quality of sources and the relevance of sub-topics." Guess what - that's how WP works normally. Sources have to be evaluated per topic as to whether they are appropriate or not. The OR aspect here is, in light of being a tertiary source, "is this viewpoint a significant one". There's no question peer-reviewed publication allows us to discuss a viewpoint to meet WP:V, but that doesn't implicitly meet the OR aspect of whether that really is an important-enough viewpoint to include in a summary work. --M ASEM  (t) 16:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I am not arguing with you about this 'gray area' and I said that is was perfectly OK by me, EXCEPT all discussion is terminated if a skeptical editor can simply deny a contribution on the SOLE BASIS that WP:OR won't allow material that is based entirely upon primary sources, even if that primary source is in a peer-reviewed academic journal. It doesn't matter if the viewpoint is pertinent, critical, definitive or whatever: a primary source is inadmissible BY ITSELF. A 'secondary source' is MANDATORY. That interpretation of WP:OR is objectionable, limits discussion, and curtails articles content severely. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source" is difficult to understand? --M ASEM (t) 16:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source" is subject to interpretation. We went over this before. If the WP article says "A is true" that is evaluative of A and is making a blanket assertion of truth, and requires a secondary source to show that it is the generally accepted view. If the article says "Source X says A is true", that is not an evaluative claim, it is a statement of what X has asserted, and makes no evaluation of whether X is out to lunch or not. We went from that point, which we both accepted, to asking whether X′s claim was worth anything, which you approached by saying that insertion of "Source X says A is true" implies the statement "X is a noteworthy source", which you claim violates WP:OR unless we have a secondary source saying, I suppose, "X is an authority on A". That does shift the burden away from whatever proposition is contained in A to establishing the credentials of X. Establishing credentials for X is different from evaluating A, of course. We can then ask a question like: "How can we establish the credentials of X?" Is publication in Mind sufficient? Is a 'secondary source' describing X as a philosopher with a prolific publishing record sufficient? Must we find a published report by one of X′s grad students that says "X′s position on A is definitive."?  Does all this sound familiar?  Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's exactly how this works. We can't add viewpoints about a topic from any random source (even if it is a peer-reviewed journal); inclusion would violate OR in claiming that it is a significant viewpoint. Hence either evidence that the person stating the viewpoint is an expert, or other secondary sources showing that as an important viewpoint in the discussion of the topic. Again, this is because we are an encyclopedia and trying to summarize information; if this were a thesis, yes, we would want to be including any valid viewpoint that is published in reliable sources which we would likely then comment on, but we're not allowed to do that, so we have to follow what the sources consider to be the most important ones. Publications in certain journals may confer expertise/importance, but we have no way to generalize that in policy, and that needs to be a decision to be made at the talk page. And yes, that means viewpoints only sourced to primary sources can be rejected if editors do not believe that the sources given are either noted by others or given by experts in the field. That's completely acceptable for us being a tertiary source to keep our articles at a high-enough level.  --M ASEM  (t) 18:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, with that in mind, I think that in the section on WP:Primary we need some additional wording to bring out the distinction between A is true and X says A is true, the first requiring a secondary source, and the second needing only a primary source, but with the caveat it requires establishment of whether X is sufficiently credentialed to make the assertion. That will be a 'gray area' that is to be settled on a case-by-case basis in a full-fledged Talk-page discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not really a "grey area"... its simply the overlap between two different policies. WP:NOR limits what we (Wikipedia editors) write... not what our sources write.  So, if X actually does say "A is true" then it is not Original Research for us to note that he says it.  However, X may not be a reliable source for statements about A.  If this is the case, then someone can still challenge the statement on reliability grounds, even though it passes NOR.  In other words... NOR is not the be-all-and-end-all of inclusion.  Something can pass WP:NOR and yet still be excluded because it does not pass one of our other policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: It's been a long thread. Other policies were brought up: WP:Notability, WP:Undue, WP:RS, WP:Fringe, WP:NPOV and so on. I hope it is clear that this discussion is about the use of WP:OR and does not undertake to critique other policies, but simply to elucidate what are incorrect uses of WP:OR, and in particular WP:Primary.
 * Given the hypothesis that it already settled that a statement like "Source X says A is true" is pertinent to the WP article if X has an opinion worth listening to, its inclusion, as you note, is not original research. This statement is verified simply by citing a primary source where X says A is true, or a quote to that effect from another source.
 * The issue, then, is not whether A is true or not, but whether X is worth listening to. Then the gray area is one pointed out by Maxem: namely, there are many approaches to establishing whether X′s opinion matters, and they depend so much upon details that vary greatly from one case to another, that perhaps it is best left to a Talk-page discussion to decide which avenue is going to be followed, which policies may need to be invoked, which journals are considered reliable and so on. Brews ohare (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You miss my point... the reason why the WP:NOR policy does discuss the issue of "whether X is worth listening to" is that the worthiness of X has nothing to do with the concept of original research. It is an issue that is appropriate to discuss in other policies, but not this one. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, Blueboar, "worthiness of X has nothing to do with the concept of original research is exactly what I have said to you above above. My wording is "if X has an opinion worth listening to, its inclusion, as you note, is not original research". Of course, it also is true that if X is not worth listening to, it still is not original research, just an irrelevancy. In any case there is no misunderstanding about this point. Brews ohare (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But you want to add language to weaken this policy by letting us rely on primary sources for this, and that's just not going to work in isolation of other concerns. --M ASEM (t) 02:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this remark, Masem. How is WP:OR being weakened? We all agree that a claim that "Source X says A is true" is adequately supported by a primary source and if one can be found it is not original research. We all agree the issue of inclusion then turns upon X′s credentials. We all agree that is not a matter for WP:OR, but a matter of examining credentials, things like X′s publication history, status in the field, acceptance by peer-reviewed scholarly journals and on and on. We all agree that kind of examination is complex and individual and so not a good arena for some blanket policy, but perhaps requires examination of several different polices and a possible myriad of other considerations. We all agree that for that reason, examination of X′s credentials should be taken to the Talk page where all the intricacies of policy, reliability of sources, and so forth can be sorted out on a case-by-case basis. Is there a problem here? Brews ohare (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made a new attempt. Brews ohare (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Other views

 * Oppose. "Narrative thread" is way to broad. It would prevent comparing any two items that have never been compared before. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jc3s5h has suggested that this proposal would make it impossible to compare two items that are not compared by any single source. I don't think any straightforward comparisons (New York is larger than San Francisco, say) would be affected by this proposal. On the other hand, if the comparison is considered to be less than straightforward by some skeptics, sourcing can be requested on the basis of a possible violation of WP:OR. So it seems to me a policy allowing a request for sourcing of a narrative line is necessary. If there is a different kind of problem in mind, perhaps one could be suggested?  Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose this: "it is a violation of WP:Syn to string sources together with an original narrative thread". That is actually a description of every article that uses multiple sources.  WP:Syn is only violated when the narrative introduces analysis or conclusions that are not provided by the sources.  I realize that the word "original" is there to capture that aspect, but it is too imprecise and easily missed. Zerotalk 12:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Zero0000: I understand that the description of an 'original thread' is imprecise. Can you improve upon this text? Brews ohare (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Replacing "original" by "innovative" would be a big improvement, but I still have to be convinced about the need for change. Zerotalk 00:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Brews has attempted to edit along the lines he proposes on several articles.  Each time all other engaged editors have rejected it as OR or synthesis.  He is now coming here to try and change policy to allow him to do so.  OK he has that right but the level of persistence in arguing cases on multiple articles despite getting zero support is becoming problematic. <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 13:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: The 'problematic' issue here is your consideration that disagreement with you alone (there being nobody else around in the philosophy workgroup that takes any interest) constitutes a lack of support. Your views are abundantly clear from your comments on Essays, which show an intolerance for contributions that do not agree with your predilections. Brews ohare (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Useful link Brews if only to allow other editors to contrast what is said with how you interpret criticism. However I do (after months of this) realise that no matter how often you are sanctioned by the community, no matter how many times you gain no support on a policy board or RfC; you are still in your own eyes in the right.  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 02:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose No problems have been identified with the current policy and that poorly written and unclear paragraph would simply confuse things.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 14:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed problems have been pointed out, so I'd guess Blackburne is requesting evidence based upon verbatim transcripts of problematic occurrences? Perhaps the confused reactions to this proposal exhibited in this and the preceding threads constitutes clear evidence that WP:OR is seen by many as being consistent with statements like A-C above that are in fact clear misinterpretations of WP:OR? If the proposal is poorly written and unclear, perhaps some suggestions could be advanced to improve the text? Brews ohare (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Another attempt
Following the above criticisms of a first draft of a possible additional paragraph in the section WP:Primary, it seems to be time to try again. Below is a new attempt:


 * A common format for encyclopedia articles is to state or to summarizes the views on a topic provided by reliable sources, including WP:Primary sources, and to document those statements with citations identifying supporting sources.  It is, however, a temptation for a WP editor to use sources as bricks to build their own house, without paying adequate attention to sourcing the underlying structure or thesis. The general acceptance of a thesis must itself be established using a WP:Secondary source. This type of contribution is particularly prone to violations of WP:Syn, WP:NPOV, WP:Cherrypicking, and WP:Undue.
 * In this connection, it should be kept in mind that if an editor makes a statement such as ‘A is true’, that assertion implicitly includes the idea that this proposition is generally held, and requires a secondary source to establish that generality. On the other hand, a statement such as ‘Professor X says A is true’ is adequately sourced by citing a source where Professor X actually says that, even if that source is a WP:Primary source. In this case, however, there is the implied idea that Professor X has a noteworthy opinion. Objections to incorporating the statement ‘Professor X says A is true’ then leads to establishing Professor X's credentials, and the reliability of the source cited. These are not issues addressed by WP:OR, but they may very well be addressed by other policies such as WP:RS, WP:Notability, WP:Fringe, WP:Undue and so forth.

Brews ohare (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments on new attempt

 * It is hoped that this version takes into account the kind of changes proposed by comments upon the earlier version. It is my hope that this addition would lead to a more judicious use of the correct policy in criticizing contributions of this type, and reduce the abuse of WP:OR (and particularly WP:Primary) as a blunt instrument where it really does not apply. Brews ohare (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're completely missing the point. There is no difference, from an OR standpoint, from the statement "X is true" sourced a primary work written by A, and "A says 'X is true'" which also uses the same source. The latter only helps to make our writing appear less like opinion and more like a summary, and drastically helps when introducing anything that may appear as original research. The reformulation of the statement gives no special change to if the statement should be included or not.
 * And to comment again, the way this is so narrowly worded, it seems to me that you want to be able to insert the sources/viewpoints that you want without having anyone to have the ability to contest them with codification into policy. As we've said, what viewpoints get included should be a subject of discussion, with more weight given to those either discussed by secondary sources or established experts in the field. --M ASEM (t) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I agree with your statement about no difference, but it is not what is said. What is said is that the statement "A is true" requires a SECONDARY source and the statement "X says A is true" is more relaxed, adequately met with a PRIMARY source. It goes on to outline in this last example what the additional requirements for inclusion are. Brews ohare (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe your second paragraph about 'subject to discussion' is addressed as well in the second paragraph above outlining the issues and the possible policies that may be involved. Brews ohare (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're completely missing it. If they are sourced to the same article, the statements "A is true" and "X says A is true" are equivalent statements, in regards to whatever OR issues they carry; we only prefer the latter as a matter of writing prose that separates us, the editors, from the person speaking the opinion. Include of either form is a separate question. --M ASEM (t) 14:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: You continue to postulate your own formulation and ignore the one I have written about. The statement "A is true" (citing, maybe, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) is acceptable as a generally received view, while the statement "X says A is true" (citing, maybe, X's paper in Mind) is only X's view. I thought we both agreed on this point. From the OR standpoint, the first statement requires the encyclopedic secondary source because it is a general claim, while the second requires only X's paper because that actually is where he made the comment. Thus the OR reservations about these two different approaches are quite different. I thought we both agreed on this point too. The last sentence of your remark is about criteria for incorporation, and I agree with you entirely that this is not an OR issue, and the paragraphs I have written make that very clear.
 * I am left with the impression that you have not actually read the new version but have skimmed it quickly and arrived at the conclusion that it has not changed in any significant way. That is not the case, and I would like you to re-read it with more attention. Brews ohare (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm exactly clear, you're missing the point, or more exactly, you're trying to create policy that might describe what we do now but can be wikilawyered to force inclusion or protracted discussion. Taking X's opinion about A and writing it as "X says A is true" with the primary source does not magically confer any special importance to that viewpoint; it simply is a better way in prose to present that viewpoint to separate our authorship from X's authorship. You do note, properly, that you still need to establish why X's view is important, but this is already part of policy and guideline (between OR and UNDUE), either by showing that X is an established expert, or that others have discussed X's view in secondary sources.
 * And this is part of the problem - we should not be looking at individual sources and viewpoints and trying to bubble them up into the larger topic, but instead consider the broad coverage of the topic and identify what viewpoints are commonly discussed and only including the most significant ones, as part of being a tertiary source. That's why you are getting a lot of resistance here - your approach may be right for an academic review paper where every viewpoint that you can find would help fill it out, but we're not that. We should be including only the information that is broadly covered, and not struggle to include every little side viewpoint. --M ASEM (t) 15:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You say, Masem, "Taking X's opinion about A and writing it as "X says A is true" with the primary source does not magically confer any special importance to that viewpoint". Of course, I am not making any such assertion. You apparently agree that is indeed the case, and notice that I have said "that you still need to establish why X's view is important, either by showing that X is an established expert, or that others have discussed X's view in secondary sources." So far so good. We completely agree. So any possible difference in views is confined to your second paragraph.
 * Your second paragraph raises the thorny issue of what should be included and what ignored. For simplicity we can consider the incorporation of some statement ‘X says A’ referred to a reliable primary source. Your proposed argument, in this simple case, is that even if X is a noteworthy author, their assertion of A may be a minor point so far as the WP article is concerned, and should be included only if it has been mentioned by a secondary source. That mention would confer some weight toward the importance of assertion A.
 * Although a secondary source would be helpful, I'd suggest that this argument goes way out on a limb. First, the presumption is made that the skeptical WP editor who thinks A is immaterial is a better judge of content than the expert X that thought (along with the editors of the journal and the referees of the paper) that A was worth publishing. Second, the skeptical WP editor is disagreeing with the contributing WP editor who agrees with X that A is worth including. There is, IMO, no basis here at all for denying the contribution. It is an arbitrary exercise of taste. Brews ohare (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The overall problem with this and your other proposals is that is doesn't work for a tertiary source that is meant to be top-down summaries of topics, and not bottom-up detail oriented. If we have a topic that has many possible viewpoints, it is not our job to index and give discussions on every viewpoint (as your approach is seeking to do by validating the inclusion of a specific viewpoint), but summarize what the broader sources point to and include only the viewpoints that have gained wider attention. Effectively, trying to say "we need to include this viewpoint", via whatever means to assessing that, and that its clear that that viewpoint sits in isolation from other viewpoints in terms of broader sourcing, then that's just too much detail for a tertiary source. In other words, the language you're trying to suggest is all for pushing in specific sources, and not appropriately looking at the broader picture that all sources on the topic provide. --M ASEM (t) 18:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: Well, of course you have a viable approach to articles, but not the only one. A complicated topic may have many aspects, and perhaps some of them are not notable enough for a page of their own. But that doesn't mean they should be ignored. The decision on whether to include them or not we had decided should be done on Talk pages, and not by summary dismissal. Just how do you propose to handle disputes over whether or not a sub-topic 'sits in isolation' or is one of 'wider attention'? Are we going to say topics with 1000 Google hits are in and those with less are out? Are we going to say anything Einstein said about a sub-topic is in, but we aren't interested in reporting on cutting edge sub-topics that don't have famous spokespersons? Isn't it the case that one person's nugget that displays the fascination of the subject is another person's boring indulgence? Brews ohare (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're assuming we should include every viewpoint, but as a tertiary source, that by necessity is impossible. The decision on where to draw the line on what to include should be based on what reliable, secondary sourcing suggests about the topic, along with consensus. "Are we going to say anything Einstein said about a sub-topic is in, but we aren't interested in reporting on cutting edge sub-topics that don't have famous spokespersons?" Yes - that's the entire idea about expert sources (though I would not say that every word Einstein says is appropriate for inclusion, just that his opinions would be more likely included over others who are simply not noted as experts.) --M ASEM (t) 01:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I see from WP:Tertiary source that is one that "summarizes primary and secondary sources", and I suppose 'summarize' means that the article on Free will will not come close to duplicating the 1,470,000,000 hits on Google. However, WP:Tertiary source supplies no guidance in the matter of what topics should be included, and 'summary' indicates only that their treatment will be brief in comparison to the presence on Google. If we were to decide that assessment of just whose opinions were worth including and just which topics to include are difficult subjects (which they are), I'd say that the recommendation in the vast majority of cases would be to take it to the Talk page and try to set up some criteria for sifting things through.
 * Now, my impression is that very few WP editors actually want to engage in anything like that process. Even if reversions of vandalism are excluded, the vast majority of edits on WP are 'hit-and-run' reverts with one-line summary edit statements like "Read WP:OR". That may be OK sometimes, but it can be simple laziness. As a practical matter, in the interest of improving articles on WP, this kind of abrupt and non-engaging editing needs to be reduced, and more of the kind of editing that actually involves working together to construct contributions needs to be encouraged. But I sense that we may have opposite ideas of the value of directing matters to the Talk page, and that sense of the political realities is influencing your views here. Brews ohare (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See Bold, Revert, Discuss. Reverting a bold change is, as that says, part of a proactive method of reaching consensus. It is not for everyone. Some will prefer to discuss first, or leave such challenges to others. It should be used with care, especially with new editors who would benefit from a note on the article talk page or their own. But between experienced editors it's a positive and efficient way of moving towards consensus. So no, it's not laziness, or any other pejorative term for editors or their edits. It's editors trying to find the most efficient and effective way to improve the encyclopaedia.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 02:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And in specific instances for Brews here, you're getting the revert with the short "OR" change after you've been participating in the discussion on the page, at which point its assumed you know why things are being reverted. And if you don't know why OR was claimed, asked at the talk page. There is no easy flatout solution that removes the need to discuss inclusion of minor viewpoints. --M ASEM (t) 02:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, you two. Let's leave constructiveness behind and start in on my defects. WP is perfect, except for me. Well, I'm just an old codger. OK. Bye. Brews ohare (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We never said it was perfect, but the way that you want to take it with these proposals is against how WP handles inclusion of material and discussion of it. We do not work the same as an academic environment because we have difficult goals from that. --M ASEM (t) 06:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Masem: I am sure you think that way. I suppose you think of The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy as an 'academic' environment. To my mind there are several differences from WP : (i) 'expert contributors' are not recognized on WP, and (ii) the only referee process on WP is consensus among those that take an interest in the article, a process very unlike an expert peer review process. The first difference is compensated for (in principle) by careful sourcing, but unlike traditional encyclopedias, careful sourcing is not guaranteed because authorship by an expert familiar with the key sources in a field is not recognized on WP. So WP is faced with sourcing by the lay person whose impressions are likely to be skewed because they don't have great knowledge of the subject and pick it up by reading sources they stumble upon. However, the encyclopaedic goal is the same for both, though they labor under different handicaps.
 * Now, Masem, probably you don't disagree with any of this. But where we do disagree is what the implications are for optimizing article content under the WP limitations. Even there we both understand what is going on. But you wish to err on the side of little content, and I'd rather err on the side of too much. There really is no downside in having too much in an article. If it gets really big, parts can be split off into their own pages. For the content that remains, we have a table of contents and good organization will allow readers to find what they want and skip the rest.
 * While you may have in mind the reader that just wants the bare minimum, often found in the introduction to the article. But WP can aim higher than that, to alert readers to things they never thought about when they looked up the article, and to guide them to even more sources for deeper understanding if they are so inclined. This latter reader needs more than you want to give them. IMO, your approach to this proposal for elucidating the role of WP:OR is (i) contrary to the policy as it is presently written, and (ii) inimical to development of what WP should be becoming. Brews ohare (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the difference in environment that I am talking about, it is the difference in the ultimate outcome. A work written for an academic field is by necessity typically going to be written from the bottom up, focused on getting to the fine details and then providing the broader context.   We by being a tertiary are purposely top down and avoid going into details (both factual and subjective) that would not be part of a general reading of an article - WP:NOT is evidence of that. We are supposed to reflect broadly what sources say - not itemize every single source but provide the broadest or most expert sources to mirror how the topic is treated in the literature, and drawing lines where we shouldn't be getting into more detail lest we lose the focus on being a tertiary work. This means that individual viewpoints that may only be published in a handful of primary sources will be lost to the noise among more widely-discussed ones. Where the line is drawn is editor discretion and that means working towards consensus for each topic on that. --M ASEM  (t) 13:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: Well, as I'm sure you agree, WP:NOT does not suggest WP as somehow aiming at a different result than an encyclopedia. Your stated process for writing articles in what I imagine you think of a 'academic' encyclopedias, like The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, as  "typically going to be written from the bottom up, focused on getting to the fine details and then providing the broader context", is entirely imaginary and contrary to what one finds in them, as a look at these works will show immediately.
 * Your notion that their goal is to "itemize every single source" is very wide of the mark. Even scientific technical review articles that are intended as surveys in detail of the nuances of cutting edge research do not pretend to do that, and these encyclopedias don't come within a mile of that. Surely every encyclopedia tries "to mirror how the topic is treated in the literature", and of course they all try very hard to keep details from clouding the gist of their subject.
 * Your characterization of 'academic' encyclopedias like The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is a strawman that you are using to support what you think is a necessary curtailment of content on WP, but that approach is not found in these 'academic' encyclopedias, whose content is far superior to the corresponding WP articles, and one that is not implied by your interpretation of  WP policies. They are superior because they are more clearly organized and more complete on the IMPORTANT things that WP articles leave out or get wrong.
 * Masem, your personal intuitions about what is involved in writing for WP correctly identify the necessity to keep "individual viewpoints that may only be published in a handful of primary sources" under scrutiny so as not to drown out the gist of more widely-discussed ones. However, that goal does not in fact lead to the Draconian use of the one-line edit summary citing WP:OR and other policies to clamp down on sub-topics that some editors think are digressions, and others do not. The correct process for deciding content is to use Talk pages to construct articles that are clear, but not overly exclusionary. That is what WP policies try to do, and I think you are advocating an extrapolation of them beyond their envisioned roles. Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that is entirely consistent with WP:OR as written today and merely emphasizes certain aspects in greater detail. Sp far no-one has produced any evidence of contradiction or extrapolation. Your concerns are not really about what WP:OR says or whether  expresses WP:OR, but are concerns that articles will become bloated if people use WP:OR seriously, instead of using it as a bludgeon. Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "They are superior because they are more clearly organized and more complete on the IMPORTANT things that WP articles leave out or get wrong." That is your OR argument that you're looking for, that WP's article on the topic is missing out because it is not complete without the "important" information from these sources. To stress: I am in no way questioning the reliability of these sources, only that if the only place a specific viewpoint is documented is one article in these sources, that probably means that the viewpoint is not as important or necessary to understanding the topic as you think. --M ASEM  (t) 16:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Masem, I don't have your hutzpah to say that articles in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy are replete with facets of their subjects that WP readers have no use for. I've found that the writers of articles in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy have a very good idea of their subjects, especially compared to me, and by-and-large also write more coherently and with better documentation than virtually any editor on WP. I guess we two will not come together over this matter of using WP:OR seriously, instead of using it as a bludgeon? Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are oversimplifying what I have said. I never said that we can't include a viewpoint from those specific works. But, if we have a topic that has multiple possible viewpoints to consider, and the only source for one viewpoint is a primary source from those journals, while many other viewpoints are documented in secondary sources, that singular viewpoint is probably not appropriate to include, regardless of how "important" you may believe it is to the reader. Saying that that viewpoint is important without having any other sources to back that up is the original research that is at issue here. On the other hand, if a topic has maybe two or three viewpoints, all based on a few key articles, including those from those works, then it probably is reasonable to include along with the others. Basically, at the end of the day, what is worrying about these proposals of yours is the attempt to justify inclusion one viewpoint backed only by a handful (or even one) primary source, among a number of secondary and other sources; that simply can't work in a tertiary source that is supposed to reflect what the sources say. It is not meant to slight the authors' work and writing on that viewpoint, only that WP is tertiary source and we can't include every thought that may be relevant. --M ASEM  (t) 18:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any oversimplification. I hadn't the idea we were talking about ideas with only a handful of known sources to back them up. I thought the sticking point was that they had only primary sources to back them up. What's important is that evaluating such topics requires some work, requires digging up sources and reading them carefully, and comparing notes. With an expert author and expert refereeing, as is found in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, these sources are known to both. On WP that isn't so, and some reduction in the tendency of some skeptical editors to use WP:OR with one-line edit summaries as a wrecking ball, instead of going to the Talk page and discussing sources and weighing and clarifying points, is a possible benefit of the proposed elucidation of WP:OR. Brews ohare (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are mixing two problems here; one is convincing editors that the viewpoints in those sources (albeit them reliable) are considered significant, and what an editor that has been involved in editing a page or in talk page discussion should reasonably be doing when in the middle of discussion about adding material. The former is all the stuff we've talked about so far. But, in the latter case, going specifically back to the Dilemma article, you had edited the page, got reverted, got involved with extensive talk page discussion (where it was pointed out that the additions were considered OR for listed reasons), and the proceeded to edit again at which point you get reverted with the curt "OR" edit summary by a person involved in the talk page discussion. That is not a problem - you should know exactly why it was reverted because of your involvement to date. I mentioned this before, if you really have no idea when someone reverts one of your edits with a simple "OR" claim, ask on the talk page. You're trying to make policy against behavior that is actually normal when there are slow edit wars going on, and that you're not going to find an admin that will take action against that; you're involved in that talk discussion, so you are expected to understand the issues at play.   --M ASEM  (t) 13:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I object that what is under discussion here is an abstract issue, and does not depend in any way upon your understanding of what transpired at Talk:Dilemma of determinism, an understanding that I heartily disagree with. It is not pertinent here whether I have tried in every conceivable way to get past Snowded's stubborn refusal to consider sources and development of text, hoping to get from Snowded something other than clamor that his hundredth appeal to Read WP:OR!! constitutes some kind of explanation. Let's keep this discussion to the point: namely, Why not implement the proposed elucidation of WP:OR? Brews ohare (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I have to bring up Dilemma is to point out that the resolution of that problem is not solved by changing OR, but by following dispute resolution - its a behavior, not policy, issue. The separate issue - whether primary sources can be used to justify inclusion of a viewpoint, is already codified between NOR, NPOV, and other policies (and I will point out that effectively, no policy specifically excludes them, but demands good evidence for why they should be included). The way you have reworded it weakens that approach, as stated. Then we have to add to the fact that you have specifically introduced after getting into the argument on Dilemma, as opposed to showing this as a broader problem on WP; for all purposes of WP:DUCK, you're trying to change policy to win an edit war, which is just not acceptable practice. Mind you, if you can show there's broader problems than just on Dilemma, great, but I think the resistance to use your changes shows that many don't think this is a problem that needs fixing. --M ASEM (t) 14:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: There do exist a number of behavior issues there, and some could be resolved if it were possible to limit blanket referral to WP:OR as an excuse for avoiding substantive development of material. However, your claim that I am trying to solve an edit war via this discussion violates WP:AGF, and is just a way to duck the general issue by reducing it to a mere quarrel. You also are reintroducing the notion of Blackburne that a gallery of demonstrable problems is necessary to warrant a policy change, which, when said in so many words, is silly because it simply disconnects the brain and substitutes a disputable list of diffs.
 * I know it is your position that the proposed elucidation of WP:OR "weakens" the ability to control contributions considered by some to be tangential to the main topic. My view is that the proposed elucidation of WP:OR is just that, an elucidation of present policy, not a change of present policy. There has been no support in this discussion for the view that the proposed elucidation extends or contradicts WP:OR. What it might do is is make it transparent that WP:OR using the excuse of reliance upon primary sources is not useful for dismissal of contributions, and that, instead, serious work has to be done on the Talk page to evaluate such contributions. In other words, WP is better served by building articles than by making potshots.
 * At this point I am becoming clear that, having no genuine arguments to refuse the proposed elucidation, you are grasping for every possible excuse to avoid this change. Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I and others have pointed out that what you feel is simply an elucidation of policy is actually weakening it. Remember, OR + primary sources are oil and water. They can be mixed, but you have to be extremely careful, and your wording ignores that in favor of getting a process that you want but that no one else believes is a problem. And I'm not assuming bad faith - your past editing history shows you tend to be tenacious and difficult to let a topic drop until you get resolution that you want, and that's just what's happening here. You've been told "no" by several and you keep fighting it. I've tried to explain all the problems here but you're not understanding what's wrong, just that you claim you've been slighted and WP:OR needs to be fixed to remedy that. That's not how WP works. --M ASEM (t) 16:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No there are not behaviour issues, or at least you have not identified any. The practice of reverting before discussion is common and accepted, so much so it has it's own page describing it, WP:BRD. Besides, as has been pointed out, the reasons for reverting your changes have been explained to to you many times, on the talk pages of the articles. Your claim that editors are using a 'blanket referral to WP:OR' is simply false. If there's any behaviour problem it's this: your repeated refusal to get the point, your repeated accusation of editors of bad faith when they fail to see it your way, your repeated misrepresentations and falsehoods about other editors behaviour, and your repeated attempts to change policy to override the clear editing guidelines you refuse to accept.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 16:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to do here is to get you two to address the issues. That is like herding cats. Keeping you both on point and addressing the issues is nearly impossible. In this thread the proposed elucidation has eluded attention more often than not, and the main substantive statement made about it was this comment by Masem, which was dealt with and abandoned. It was made clear by Blueboar what the issues are here. Settling that then led to multiple digressions that don't address the proposed elucidation itself, but consist of various conjectures about my motives, about what you two believe is going on at Talk:Dilemma of determinism, about differences between the Stanford Encyclopedia and WP, about assembling a gallery of complaints to justify change, and on and on. This erratic behavior is not my "repeated refusal to get the point" but my repeated attempt to get to the point. Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You've been told several times that the problem is that your "elucidation" is a significant change that weakens the position of OR on the aspect of primary sources for purposes of promoting a given viewpoint. Then you argue that the issue is that you don't want editors to revert your changes with a simple "OR" in the edit summary. You're mixing up policy and behavior. Blueboar's points are great as essay material on how to handle being reverted, but they don't have room in policy since they are about how to behave, not details of OR. At issue is that you're looking at too narrow a focus to get what you feel is right without looking at the bigger picture. --M ASEM (t) 17:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: YOU have told me that the proposed elucidation is "a significant change that weakens the position of OR on the aspect of primary sources for purposes of promoting a given viewpoint". You are welcome to think that of course, but you have advanced no argument to support this opinion of yours other than Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.. That point was dealt with and led you off into speculation about how academia was incompatible with WP. Eventually, I thought, we did decide that Talk page discussion was an important aspect of forming a contribution and that the proposed elucidation would facilitate such discussion. Unfortunately, your opinion is that it would lead to too much Talk page discussion, and make it so hard to control contributions that WP articles would simply bloat. Of course, you might be right, but these kind of hunches are speculation. What is not speculation is that this could happen right now except for one fact: WP:OR is used as a wrecking ball in conjunction with the opaque one-line edit summary and a refusal to go to the Talk page. According to WP:OR as it is now, that already shouldn't happen, of course, but you are unwilling to shine further light on aspects of WP:OR that would (possibly) make this kind of thing less likely. Not a CHANGE in policy, just a CLEARER statement of policy. Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have not shown any evidence of people using a simple edit summary of "OR" and refusing to talk about it on the talk page. Again, to try to find evidence I had to go to your history of contributions and found the situation at the Dilemma article where while your additions were being reverted with simple "OR" changemessages, it absolutely wasn't the case that there was no talk page discussion - a month of your singular contributions were part of that discussion. So you have provided no evidence that people are using OR as a wrecking ball and refusing to discuss it. They have discussed this, so we have no basis on what, if any, changes to OR need to be made here. But that all still points to a behavior, not a policy issue. --M ASEM (t) 17:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * CLARIFICATION of existing policy is NOT a behavior issue. CLARIFICATION of policy does not require the debatable analysis of diffs to show that abuse exists: it's just clarification. Brews ohare (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "If it's not broke, don't fix it." You have not shown evidence that something is broken, so there's nothing to fix. To understand if something is broken, you need to point to those problems, otherwise we're going to have to guess from your contributions where the problem might be. You've well-explained that you feel that some primary sources that continue counter-viewpoints to articles are being excluded, but you haven't pointed to where this is a problem that exists in the absence of talk page discussion, so the best we can tell, there's nothing wrong that needs fixing. --M ASEM (t) 18:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If amending a policy requires a statistically significant set of approved diffs documenting existence of a problem in order for a change in wording to occur, even for changes that don't affect the policy, but only fix its wording, I don't see any evidence of that as a standard approach on policy Talk pages. Brews ohare (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have said editors have done this, but you don't even give a single diff. We're not asking for a statistically significant sample, we just need something so we can judge if there is a true issue, in light of no one else coming to say this is a problem. You can't just say, "We need to change policy, take my word on it". --M ASEM  (t) 19:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't say that this very long exchange had no high points, but probably I would have bowed out much earlier if I knew that I would have to go into diffs on Talk:Dilemma of determinism and demonstrate to your satisfaction, despite your reservations about myself, that a cure to those difficulties would ensue from a minor clarification of WP:Primary. Brews ohare (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How else do you expect policy to be changed without showing where it is failing? Or at least, after several others opposed your addition, instead of pointing to cases they have seen that supported your position, you need to be more explicit what needs to be fixed. And you keep categorizing it as a minor clarification when several others pointed out this is a significant deviation, which is going to need that evidence for it to be fixed. --M ASEM (t) 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And to restate this again: as you provided no clear indication of what actually was happening, I looked back to your past edits in good faith to see what I could find, and found the Talk:Dilemma stuff - while I can't dispute that your additions were reverted with terse "OR" edit summaries, I cannot miss the huge amount of talk page discussion that resulted, which is contrary to your initial assertion of the problem. --M ASEM  (t) 21:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem: I do give you credit for engaging in this back and forth. I know that getting any policy change on WP is almost impossible. Virtually every evasive maneuver known to humanity has been tried out. This last barrier to change you have finally settled upon would involve a blow-by-blow diff-by-diff analysis of who-said-what-when and what-did-it-mean and was-it-behavior or was-it-policy that no sane individual would attempt. And after all that it would have to be assessed whether the change to WP:Primary would fix the problem, or is it a special case? And what would be the hypothetical long-term effects of a change? So after a few weeks of that, probably involving acrimonious charges and counter-charges from Snowded,  nothing would happen. So thanks for the exchange and your patience.  I hope we can find something more profitable to do together another time. Brews ohare (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Should concept maps be removed because they are original research or synthesis?
This guideline states


 * Because of copyright laws in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy....

Now there has been a concept map (see discussion ) similar as other illustrations, if you compare it at Google images. Yet this picture is now removed ,with the argument Sorry its original research or synthesis... Find a source before you restore it. Is this a new policy? Can somebody please explain. -- Mdd (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there should be discussion before removal. Are the components of the concept map and their relationship to one another supported by sources? This would have to be discussed, perhaps in an RfC. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In this particular matter there are clearly multiple links to existing sources:
 * In the summary of the image (see here) the author has explicitly stated that he "was inspired to create this graphic after reading" two books.
 * The terms in the concept map relates to terms used in the field. There is nothing original about it.
 * The concept map lay-out is in a cycle, which is similar to other published concept maps
 * What more can you add as prove? The requirement Find a source... seems rather irrational here. -- Mdd (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree that with the links to what "inspired" the graph and that it does not seem exceedingly far off from those, that the image is okay; the image may be "novel" but it is based on what appears to be readily accepted terms and correlations for that field, as well as using similar imagery; it is no more novel than us using a text description to summarize and describe the concepts themselves from available sources. I would definitely add the two sources as references in the article in question to the image caption to be clear it is not OR. --M ASEM (t) 19:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A discussion on this subject has to be specific. What specific objections can be articulated? Can those specific objections be responded to? I don't think we can resolve this until at least one specific objection is articulated. Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The general element in this discussion-item is the question, if you can remove any concept map in Wikipedia just by using the argument First find a source...? And what kind of extra source can one possibly ask for, when the "inspired on...", "resemblance with...", and "no original terms" is already given?
 * I don't understand, what is asked for? The image cannot be a copy of an existing image. Neither can it be extracted from one other existing image, because in both cases there will be a copyright violation.
 * Keep asking First find a source..., seems like asking for the impossible..!?. -- Mdd (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To my mind, a map (whether user created or not) should always illustrate things mentioned in the text of the article... and since the text of the article should be supported by citations, there should be no need to cite the map - because what it illustrates should already be cited in the text of the article. To put this another way... it is not always OR to include a user created image.  It's only OR if the image introduces things NOT discussed (and cited) in the text of the article.
 * Now... in attempting to illustrate the text, a specific map may contain errors or biases. THAT is a flaw with the map that would need to be fixed... but that flaw has more to do with our WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view policies than with our WP:No original research policy.  The map may be erroneous or biased,  but the research that went into creating the map isn't original. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blueboar. Another thing that could be said is that if the image makes a point beyond the text.  If it supports a conclusion not cited,  eg the concept map displays a symmetry, or a cyclicity, or that one part is central and another is peripheral, only then are you getting into dangerous WP:SYNTH ground, and if the article then mentions this thing seen in the user-created image, then you have crossed WP:SYNTH.  I think this would not be typical.  Normally, a concept map illustrates connections that are not in doubt, and they can be considered to be similar to a table of contents.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A diagram is just another way to summarize information. The information in the diagram is subject to WP:V. In practice the relevant citations might appear in the article text, or if that is implausible (as in most cases of a geographical map) the map should have a source. The question in this case is whether the diagram presents novel information. It isn't OR if it is a fair summary of reliable sources but those sources should be provided in order to make the information verifiable. Zerotalk 00:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If I read a different two books I could produce a different diagram, I could even produce a different diagram from my own published and referenced material on the subject. The diagram in question is selective, confuses two concepts (systems dynamics and complexity theory) and in general is a pretty primitive image.  For a diagram to summarise a field it would need to be sourced to secondary material.  The whole article is in bad need of a major rewrite, removing misleading diagrams is one step in that process.  I have read the two books by the way and the diagram does not summarise what they say  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 02:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded's opinion here that the diagram is misleading should be substantiated by a careful comparison with the text. If the text is wrong, and the diagram duplicates the text, then both have to be changed. Snowded's opinion that a diagram requires a secondary source is not valid. Under his criteria many diagrams on WP would not be acceptable until they were so close to published figures that a copyright waiver would be required. WP:OI explicitly allows original configurations for figures - all that is required is that they correctly describe the accompanying WP text, and that the accompanying text itself is not a violation of WP:OR. That seems to be Blueboar's opinion as well. Brews ohare (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You tried that view in respect of one of your own diagrams on another article and didn't get support Brews. Its not just that it has to reflect the text (it doesn't) but also that the text has to be representative of the field (it isn't).  Your argument that any primary source can be used is being rejected at the moment on another panel  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 06:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that a diagram is similar to prose in the respects that matter in this discussion. We want to know if the diagram makes an assertion that is not supported by reliable sources. What assertion in the diagram is not supported by reliable sources? Such an assertion would of course be original research. A difference here is that it is easy to change a sentence or two in a paragraph. It is more difficult to alter a diagram. Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bus stop: There are two broad classifications of of figure: the stand-alone figure that imparts information not contained in the WP article's text, and the accompanying figure that is intended simply to provide a visual interpretation of its accompanying WP text. The question of WP:OR is different for each. It seems you are directing attention to the stand-alone figure, which, as you point out, is very difficult to document if it has no accompanying text and is an original work. It is much easier to deal with the accompanying figure, because its only requirement is that it faithfully represent the accompanying text. That text can then be critiqued using WP policies, and if the text is given a green light, and if the figure faithfully depicts that text, a green light for the figure is there too. Of course, the figure can be critiqued for artistic merit and explanatory power, but that is different from requirements like WP:OR. Brews ohare (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that Blueboar's and Zero's comments represent good approaches on this issue. In general that the contents of these are subject to wp:ver, and that if the diagram simply illustrates what is in accompanying text (that meets wp:ver) then it is OK in this respect. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sound fair enough. In this specific matter of a concept map, this can be operationalized by making a comparison between the terms mentioned in the diagram, and the subjects involved. See for an example here. -- Mdd (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If a concept map illustrates the properly referenced text in the article then per several comments there can be no legitimate objection. However in this case it does not - that discussion however belongs on the talk page of the article itself.<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This becomes a never ending story, when an editor refuses to acknowledge that a "diagram simply illustrates what is in accompanying text": In this particular case that a concept map around the term "Complex Adaptive behavior" indeed relates to Complex adaptive system. -- Mdd (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I had the same issues with Snowded when trying to introduce this simple figure that illustrates the relation between a few items of vocabulary. Brews ohare (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Brews ohare—you mention stand-alone figures and accompanying figures. Is there ever a good reason for stand-alone figures? I am not saying they should be disallowed. I think they are the equivalent of an assertion in prose form for which a source is not provided. Obviously a source need not be provided for every assertion. But if an assertion is challenged by another editor then the response should be to try to find a source which provides support for the assertion. But an additional problem I think is that a complaint should be specific. A diagram is the equivalent of several sentences. It is less common for a whole paragraph to be considered original research than it is for one sentence to be considered original research. Therefore a complaint should be focussed and specific if a diagram is being challenged. A specifically articulated complaint can lead to a redrawn diagram. Or it can lead to proper sourcing in accompanying text. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, I agree with you that complaints about figures or text should aim at specific improvements, rather than playing the three stooges. However, some editors are more into the latter. Brews ohare (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Drop the personal attacks please. First, the concept map should only reflect the text of the article "that depicts suggested relationships" so again to avoid any OR those suggested relationships also need to be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dougweller: There is nothing 'personal' here. Just the general and obvious statement that some WP editors don't have making an encyclopedia as their top priority. Your observations on the issue about OR have been enunciated three or four times, and apply to accompanying figures. It appears that you wish to exclude stand-alone figures from WP, perhaps on the basis that they are too difficult to analyze in terms of WP:OR, and other policies for that matter? Or, maybe you are restricting your remarks to concept maps? Brews ohare (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying that some editors are "playing the three stooges" is hard to interpret in any other way. And why shouldn't I agree with other people? As for stand-alone figures, it would be useful to discuss some examples, but of course they would have to be sourced. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the latest in a long series of personal attacks Doug. Brews is frustrated in that over a series of articles he has not managed to get consensus for more or less all his edits. Every RfC he has raised has seen his ideas rejected.   He is rapidly approaching a position on Philosophy articles where he is exhibiting the same behaviour that won him a permanent ban from all Physics articles.  His latest approach is to try and change policy to permit his particular idiosyncrasies license; the most recent example of this is above around the use of primary sources and as you can see he goes on and on and on ......   In parallel with that he is making a series of general (indirect and direct) attacks that any editor who has the temerity to oppose him is not interested in the making an encyclopaedia and the like.  There are some more personal remarks as well if you look at his edits.  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 03:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mdd, I have made specific points which demonstrate that the diagram does not reflect the text of the article let along the subject matter. Those points are made on the talk page of the article and you seem unable to do anything more than assert an opinion.  Brews you have the same problems with multiple editors, arbcom and the whole wikipedia community.  Forgive me if I find it difficult to take you seriously <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded—can you point out one or more specific assertions that you feel the diagram is making that you feel are untrue? Bus stop (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have on the talk page of the article Bus stop, but if you want a quick summary then the diagram represents a limited perspective. If you check on the talk page you will see references to key aspects omitted from the diagram which make it misleading.  I have also pointed out there that the diagram clearly does not represent the text of the article itself.  This is not a policy issue, it is a content issue for the talk page of the article <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 03:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You say that "the diagram represents a limited perspective". That is too general, in my opinion. A diagram can certainly transgress our policy against WP:NOR. The question here is how we know whether or not a diagram has transgressed that policy. It is my contention that a potentially successful challenge to a diagram on these grounds (WP:NOR) calls for an articulated complaint that an assertion is not supported by any source. That is why I posed my question above: "can you point out one or more specific assertions that you feel the diagram is making that you feel are untrue?" If we are analyzing a diagram for possibly being in violation of WP:NOR we have to be able to scrutinize its assertions. There are always more than one assertion in a diagram. A diagram can be thought of as being akin to a series of sentences. Indeed the diagram we are discussing contains words, arrows, and other symbols representing relationships between concepts. It is my contention that a successful challenge to a diagram on the basis of WP:NOR should be based on challenges to specified assertions found within the diagram. This can also help to rectify a salvageable diagram. It may not be the case that the entire diagram has to be discarded. Discussion of WP:NOR problems found within a diagram can lead to reformulation of an only partially problematic diagram. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is an introductory phrase Bus stop, I go on here and more specifically in the article talk page to provide detail. I referenced that earlier if you check. If you want me to summarise fine. I have read both the books that the diagram's author claims to have used and I can't see how it relates to the material there. That aside those books are not remotely representative of the field and are not really used in the article. The article uses material from several people, notably Axelrod and Cohen and there is nothing in the diagram which illustrates that material (or much of the rest of the article). I have also made specific reference to several key aspects of CAS which are not present in the diagram which is misleading. Its historical dross that has needed a clear out for some time.<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 06:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking more about this, what is the purpose of a concept map in an article? Surely it is to present as a diagram the concepts or ideas expressed in the article or part of the artice. It would normally, I presume, work in some ways as an elaborate info box. This presents technical problems of course because articles change, with new concepts added, perhaps old ones reworked, etc. But as I've said before (and been jumped on for repeating it), any diagram needs to reflect the article, and that includes the sources used in the article. I can't see any reason for it to rely on sources not used in the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There seem to be many here that think the principles governing an accompanying figure are clear: it should accurately reflect the WP text, and if that text is compatible with WP policies, then so is the figure. Snowded has seen the writing on the wall here and now wishes to move the discussion back to the article Talk page where such a comparison can be pursued. It is to be hoped that in this instance my own experience with Snowded that raised the same issues when trying to introduce this simple figure will not be repeated on this article's Talk page, where the audience is smaller and the principles behind acceptance of the concept map are more easily buried by obfuscation of this agreed-upon principle. Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One observation, I believe that concept diagrams contain a large amount of assertions. For example, lines in them (or lack of such) can be claims of equivalence  or non-equivalence, of cause-effect relationships, a "has no effect on" claim, of groupings, of "is a subset of" "is not a subset of", "is a superset of",  "is not a superset of", "is an instance of" and "is not an instance of"  claims.  Recognizing this, I think that a standard as high as it would be for those claims made in text would apply, and the most practical way would be to require (on otherwise-contested diagrams) that they only make assertions which are included in the text which has been subject to wp:ver. <font colour ="#0000cc">North8000 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with North8000. A diagram is de facto subject to the same tests of validity as is text which has been the point all the way through.  That has not been disputed, so questions as to this particular diagram belong on the talk page of the article.  Brews NO ONE has ever supported you on your pleadings on text or diagrams over multiple articles,  You have started to use policy forums as an alternative and again NO ONE has supported you.  Now you are adding or rather extending your use of personal attacks.  I encourage you to look at your block history and reflect.  Much more of this and a permanent ban from editing all articles to do with Physics could be extended to the whole of wikipedia. <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 04:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A summary?
What I see here is a whole lot of people voicing or agreeing with the general concept first espoused here by Zero and Blueboar. Basically that if it (only) shows what is clearly in article text which itself is in compliance with wp:ver, then it is OK with respect to wp:OR concerns. And I would note that this is a relatively high standard. (and maybe wording to this effect should be put into wp:nor?)(possibly with the burden for showing that in response to specific challenges placed on the person that wants to retain?)  I also see that that respondents here are NOT giving a reading on the particular article/case/dispute and would not want the above to be interpreted/claimed as such such a reading. But perhaps, at the article, the above could be used to guide sorting it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000: A key part of your comment is that the proponent of a figure should provide a "response to specific challenges". In practice, this suggestion often has proved difficult to follow because specific challenges have not been forthcoming. In accordance with the basic premise of your lead into your comments, namely, "if it (only) shows what is clearly in article text which itself is in compliance with wp:ver, then it is OK with respect to wp:OR concerns.", it would appear that a 'specific challenge' would take the form such as: "The figure shows x, but x is not part of the accompanying text that it illustrates", or, maybe, like: "The figure does not show x, but x is a key concept used in the text." Such specific challenges provide the illustrator with a clear idea of how the figure should be adjusted to arrive at compliance with the accompanying text. But blanket, vague challenges like Sorry its original research or synthesis... Find a source before you restore it. do not fit the description of a specific challenge. In fact, this particular instruction is contrary to your summary in wrongly suggesting that the issue is not compliance with the accompanying WP:VER text, but compliance with some WP:RS outside source. Brews ohare (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't follow everything that you wrote but I think that it is a good point. What I intended in the summary was trying to find the "middle ground" between the comments reflecting this.  At one extreme would be someone just citing policy without expressing any other concerns, and considering that to be sufficient grounds to force removal.  At the other extreme would be be that the challenger must express some concerns and then win the ensuing debate in order to get it removed. This was trying to find the middle ground by saying that the challenger must raise some issue (other than just citing general policy)  but that once that has occurred, the burden is on the "keep" person to prevail in the debate in order to keep it.   But either way,   I put it in parenthetically and with a question mark because I didn't intend to present it as being a part of the summary of the discussion.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A position that permits an editor to remove a figure with the edit remark "Sorry its original research or synthesis... Find a source before you restore it." is unacceptable to me for two reasons. One — it provides no clue about what needs to be fixed. Two — it suggests that it is policy that a figure illustrating WP text requires support from an outside source, which is contrary to the view that such a figure has only to correctly fit the accompanying text, and it is that text that requires support from an outside source. Apparently I misread your summary, and you do not support my view of WP:OI, which says: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." Obviously an accompanying figure that faithfully illustrates policy-compliant accompanying WP text fits this statement and is exempt from any challenge as WP:OR. Brews ohare (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was followed by a detailed explanation on the talk page Brews and it was accurate as the diagram did not relate to the text of the article (or its claimed sources for that matter). Try and see the whole picture, not just the bits that seem to support your view of yourself as victim  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 21:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Snowded: The example comment "Sorry its original research or synthesis... Find a source before you restore it." seemed to illustrate well some possible issues. Apparently you authored it, but that is not the point. I am comforted to understand from your comment that there was "detailed explanation on the talk page" indicating that the peremptory tone of this remark was softened with your further Talk-page discussion of the issues for that particular case. Brews ohare (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The other one has bells on it Brews <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 05:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am confused... are we discussing whether a diagram should or should not have been deleted?... or are we discussing whether an edit summary accompanying the deletion was too blunt? Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: Let me try to straighten that point out. We are not at all worried about etiquette and diplomacy here, but in edit summaries accompanying figure deletion that (i) are unhelpful and (ii) misstate WP:OI as a justification for incorrect deletions.
 * The issue of circumstances warranting deletion has come up. For the case of accompanying figures, whose purpose is to illustrate a companion WP text, it seems patently clear to me that WP:OI says that it is the text not the figure that is subject to WP:OR challenges, and if the text passes, and if the figure is an accurate representation of that text, then the figure is immune to challenges of violating WP:OR. That view, which I regard as a no-brainer, is disputed by Snowded, and North8000 takes the view that it is some kind of compromise position between more extreme interpretations, which extremes, IMO, all are clear violations of policy. Brews ohare (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not what I said Brews, but I've never seen you accurately describe another editors position over multiple articles. A concept map can illustrate the text, but it must not add meaning that is not in the text, or purport to summarise the field when it only represents a small part of the text  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 23:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK... first, could we please not use the word "deletion"... "deletion implies that it is gone forever, and that is not the case. The figure was removed from the article (and removal is not necessarily permanent).  Now, edit summaries are a courtesy... they are not required.  So an edit summary is unhelpful the solution is to go to the talk page and ASK for clarification.  And... If you feel an edit summary misstates a policy or guideline, the correct action is to go to the talk page, explain why you think the policy or guideline does not apply, and make the case to return the figure.
 * Finally, nothing in Wikipedia is EVER immune from challenges or removal. NOTHING is "safe".  Consider this... the challenge may well indicate that there is disagreement about whether the figure accurately illustrates the text or not ... you might think it does accurately illustrate the text, but another editor may disagree with your assessment and be just as positive that it does not.  That's when you need to bring in other editors and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Snowded is partially correct: I have never succeed in describing his positions, partly because they are seldom articulated and partly because, when they actually are stated, they change grounds immediately upon response to them. Brews ohare (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in good company then Brews; every other editor on your many failed RfCs not to mention Arbcom. I can live with that <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 07:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: Your remarks immediately above are 'motherhood and apple pie' and do not come to grips with the following problem: these marvelous precepts are often not followed. So what can we do about that? The suggestion here was to amplify some aspects of WP:OI so that abuse was less likely. Namely, to say clearly that an accompanying figure is subject to criticisms about its fidelity to the companion WP text, but it is this companion text that must pass policy requirements, not the figure. The accompanying figure is subject to fidelity to the text.
 * This limitation upon grounds for refusal does not isolate a figure from criticism or removal. It does defend the figure from nonsensical claims that it must agree with a secondary source or it violates WP:OR. Brews ohare (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Implementation for new images versus earlier published images
The above discussion there is an understanding that: If an image (only) shows what is clearly in article text which itself is in compliance with wp:ver, then it is OK with respect to wp:OR concerns.

When it comes to the implementation of this guideline in conflict resolution, there is a difference between dealing with existing earlier published image, and newly created image:
 * 1) The earlier published images is never OR, only the placement in the article can be considered OR (if the topic of the image is not similar to the topic of the article). In conflicts you only have to establish whether of not the topic is the same.
 * 2) New created images can be considered OR, if particular elements of the image don't respond to what is explained in the text. In conflicts the specific contradictions should be expressed, so that the creator of the image can alter the image.

This way, there is an essential difference between the two situations. Adding earlier published images to an article, is like adding a quote. There is no need to bargain about that content. It is just appropriate or not. -- Mdd (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * However, you may have copyright issues. Brews ohare (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the image needs to be properly released or from a PD source. -- Mdd (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

wikt:template:original research
FYI "template: original reasearch" on English Wiktionary has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in the discussion. -- 70.24.251.36 (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it OK to claim that 14 is more than 16?
Some sources claim that 14 is the biggest number in some set. There are academic sources proving that the file contains the number 16.5. Shall I accept that 14 is more than 16.5? Xx236 (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You probably want WP:NORN (the noticeboard; this page is for discussing the policy). When you post there, please provide context with at least a link to a section on a talk page where the issue is discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One's own personal eye witness information
I understand the underlying concept behind the policy.

But I am wondering to what extent eye witnesses can just post information or corrections.

The wording of policies seem to imply that someone has to start a web site, put the sentence on that web page, and then (ooooh) cite that web site, in order to simply say "I was there, it was Thursday, not Friday."

This is usually in reference to cultural events, not rigorously definable things like the principles of biochemistry, or contentious issues like the Irag war.

Every so often I come across something that I know is wrong, from first person observation, but I don't want it to be pulled for "No Original Research", even though wikipedia cites eye witnesses as amongst the best sources.

Thanks for any clarification on this.


 * Nope... you can not add information based on your own personal observation. The rest of us have no way to verify that you actually were there... and we are not going to take your word for it that the event happened on Thursday, not Friday.  (and... even if you start a webpage to say "it happened on Thursday, not Friday"... it would probably not be considered a reliable source.)
 * However, depending on the circumstances you might be able to convince others to remove inaccurate info based on your personal observation... it's rare, but I have seen inaccurate information removed because someone said "I was there and I know for a fact that this is wrong". In almost every case the challenger stuck to saying that the inaccurate info should be removed... without saying that his/her "accurate" original research be substituted.  Effectively: "I do understand that the article can't say it happened on Thursday (that's OR)... but could we at least remove the inaccurate statement that it happened on Friday?  I would rather the article gave no day of the week than the wrong day of the week." Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand your distinction.

However, from a "philosophy of knowledge" viewpoint, I think Wikipedia is making some distinctions that are just conventional wisdom from our culture - rather than actual scientific distinctions.

For example, suppose that John B. Doe graduates from Harvard Law and gets a job in the White House. He works there for 8 years, and then writes a book "My years in the White House". In the book, he says "... while newspapers reported that Bush gave the order on Friday, in actuality I saw first hand that the order was given on Thursday. "  Later, someone adds that information to Wikipedia with a ref to pg 318 in "My years in the White House" by John B. Doe.

Okay, now imagine that John B. Doe doesn't get the White House job at all. He goes through a variety of miscellaneous jobs, and is laid off early in the recession. He has a lot of spare time, so he reads Wikipedia and notices a line "Bon Jovi only played this song live once at the concert in NYC on Friday, August... " and he changes it to "Thursday" because he was there - and he knows it was Thursday, because he had to miss the weekly Thursday poker night at his friend's house.

The first case has more of an "aura" of importance and validity, but scientifically, both are first-hand recollections.

(By the way, where I find the first-hand information would be useful, is in areas where the Wikipedia article(s) are very sketchy and have little or no information at all. Either someone could post some first-hand information, or else no one will ever know about these details - because they are not of enough general interest to warrant a book or even an article. Perhaps what is needed to allow first-hand information whenever there is no information, but allow it to be "trumped" by anyone with information viewed as more reliable.) 76.209.221.203 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The major difference is between John B. Doe-1 is an author of a book and user:John b. Doe-2 as a wikipedian. In the case of the book we know the author; we know how book was received, so we may conclude shall we believe this book or not. Please notice we don't believe every rant published. In the case user:John b. Doe-2 we know nothing about the person who hit the keyboard. Even in some cases when the editor's real persona is known and we know that he is to be trusted in this respect, we still need a reference to verify the validity of the statement, because without readily seen reference it is technically very difficult to establish that user:Very I. Person added this phrase into wikipedia 7 years ago. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Original use of images
I suggest the following paragraph be added to WP:OI:

Images that are used to illustrate points in an article should be used in proportion to the way in which reliable sources about the subject use similar images. Special care should be exercised when using images to illustrate fringe theories, especially since captions of prosaic images can be inappropriately used to promote alternate interpretations.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please give a specific example of a (real or potential) misuse? Because right now my answer would be: probably this is already covered by our overall NOR policy. First, what do you mean under "prosaic images"? WP:OI talks about self-drawn images. Second, captions themselves may be censored for WP:NOR. For example an image of a monkey with a caption "This image clearly shows that a human cannot descend from a monkey" is very easy to deal with.  "Alternate interpretations" are (you said the word!) interpretations, and hence they are either OR or may be sourced. For example, the mentioned example of the caption for a monkey may be validly amended as follows: "Creationists say[17] this image clearly shows that a human cannot descend from a monkey."


 * So, please be more specific . Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Aquatic ape hypothesis was embroiled in a huge controversy over this and may still have some problematic images that relate to this (see the swimming baby and wrinkled toes on that page). Other pages that have been affected in the past include almost anything listed at List of pseudosciences whenever advocates come through. UFO has been a classic case. While fringe POV-pushers often are unsuccessful at getting their ideas in writing included on the page due to this policy, some have discovered that they can use images to skirt WP:SOAP. If you don't want to include this here, I think a place could be found at WP:FRINGE, but we really need to address this issue. jps (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no OR issues with the images of the baby and the toes. They clearly are being used to illustrate the claims that are discussed (and sourced) in the sections they are attached to.  That's not Original research.  What's more, the caption clearly attributes the claim being illustrated to the person who made the claim.
 * As to the broader point that "a picture is worth a thousand words" and so can give fringe viewpoints undue weight... That is not really a WP:NOR issue... it should be discussed at our WP:NPOV policy page. I have started the conversation (see: WT:NPOV) Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why the baby and the toes? The choice of what to illustrate and how is clearly an editorial call, and in the case of Aquatic ape hypothesis, one need not look too far in the past to see a collection of images pulled from all over that is clearly being used to make both illustrative and rather original points. jps (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverse original research
I'd like to add a section about "Reverse original research" - "Deleting relevant, reliably sourced, neutrally worded material from articles should be avoided, unless you have reliably sourced information which solidly refutes it. It is often better to leave conflicting reliably sourced information in articles than to edit war over which version or account should remain in an article. Deleting reliably sourced material without any reliable sources to support your deletion, because you personally don't like, agree or believe something, is reverse original research." Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No way. Verifiability is no guarantee of inclusion. Material may be removed on the basis of good writing, regardless of how reliable the information may be. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information regardless of how verified the material is. --M ASEM (t) 23:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ghostofnemo does raise a legitimate concern, though. It would be possible to breach WP:NOR by taking a balanced article and deleting all the information that's unfavourable to one particular side, as sometimes happens in highly political topic areas such as Israel and has been attempted in Scientology-related articles in the pastso subtracting information from an article really could create a NOR issue.  This may be the behaviour that Ghostofnemo is concerned about?  Fortunately, Wikipedia does already have the relevant policy section.  It's in the WP:Editing policy under WP:PRESERVE.  I think it would be reasonable for us to have a discussion about whether WP:PRESERVE should be mentioned in WP:NOR.  Ghostofnemo, is there a specific incident that has given rise to this post?— S Marshall  T/C 09:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Some examples. The first example is a discussion which FINALLY resulting in inclusion, after repeated deletions. The others are diffs of deletions, which as far as I know remain deleted:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Harry_Truman
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=405170520&oldid=405158745
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=482102967&oldid=482101670
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories&diff=529672499&oldid=529654789
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nicknames_of_United_States_presidents&diff=487201463&oldid=487199503
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Mandela&diff=585300836&oldid=585294103
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=578931729&oldid=578657087
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_British_words_not_widely_used_in_the_United_States#armalite Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything there that seems to need an edit to a policy. I do see some reverting from a user who occasionally needs reminding that other people are allowed to edit articles too, but I think that's an issue with the user rather than an issue with Wikipedia's policy setup, and every one of those reverts was logically defensible in context.— S Marshall  T/C 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * S Marshall - Re: It would be possible to breach WP:NOR by taking a balanced article and deleting all the information that's unfavorable to one particular side.  Um... I don't think unbalancing an article would be an issue for the WP:No original research policy ... that would be covered by our WP:Neutral point of view policy.  It's still wrong to do... just not within the scope of NOR.
 * As for PRESERVE... We absolutely are allowed to use some editorial judgement and "remove verifiable information"... we do it all the time. Whether we should remove a specific bit of verifiable information (or not) is a very different question.  A question that can only be answered at the article level.
 * A lot depends on how relevant or significant the information is within the context of a specific article. For example, the fact that George Washington wore dentures is certainly verifiable... but that fact is also fairly trivial.  It certainly isn't something that is significant enough to mention in either our George Washington bio article, or our article on Dentures.  Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can envisage that presenting one side of the evidence and not the other in order to influence the conclusion would breach NOR (as well as NPOV). WP:PRESERVE says "preserve appropriate content" (which is, incidentally, my wording and I like it a lot), so obviously if there's a consensus that a piece of content is not appropriate for the article then it should be removed; I'm not sure if there's some sense in which you're disagreeing with me or if you're just restating the policy.— S Marshall  T/C 18:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Washington's dentures. Funny that you gave this example. Our GW article does talk about them. :-) And your actions would be...? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh... wasn't there the last time I read that article (but then it has been a while). My recommendation would be to remove the paragraph as being trivial information. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Content must satisfy various policies (WP:NOR being merely one of them) in order to be even OK to put in, and then once that is met the question of whether or not it should be in is a whole additional conversation. IMHO putting something into a policy that says it should be included if it complies with this particular policy would be an unthinkable and illogical mess.  North8000  (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this should not be covered here. In fact a lot of editors claim WP:RS already when there biased, trivial content is removed. It is already difficult enough to convince them that reliably, sourcing of trivial content, or reliably sourcing of only marginally relevant content to support a non neutral pov in an article needs to be removed for other reasons than WP:RS or WP:OR. Let's not add arguments in these policies to make these kinds of edits even easier. Evidence for relevance needs to come from the editor adding it, and WP:OR / WP:RS is only a supportive argument for addition, not a central argument. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Meeting wp:ver/wp:nor is one of the requirements for inclusion, it's not a force for inclusion.  North8000  (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, deciding what is relevant and what is not, what is trivia and what is not produces a rather broad gray area with original research, since it is based on  wikipedians' judgement. And there is no way we can have 100% detailed instructions on this. That's what Consensus for. We introduce a new policy to deal with actual problems. The list of diffs above: were all these issues resulted in heated debates/wars? Only about the first one some indirect hint was given.

In any case, even if it is decided we don't need a new rule in this page, it might be a good idea to clarify the scope and give helpful references, something like "this policy is about the addition of information into an article. Deletion of information is handled by the following policies and guidelines <...>" Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In my view WP:OR is only one of the condition for addition of information. That the new addition does not contain any original research is an essential but not sufficient condition for addition, Besides fulfilling the OR policy, the addition should also comply to WP:NPOV and WP:TRIVIA and other policy. So I would disagree with placing the ball for deletion with the editor opposing trivia as your suggestion implies (at least to me) Arnoutf (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. Was not thinking clearly. Indeed, sounds weird. I will think more. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From the examples provided above: "FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted to a Senate panel that the Bureau had been warned by an agent in the summer of 2001 that Moussaoui "could fly something into the World Trade Center." Is this really trivia? Is the fact that Harry Truman is the one who had the final authority over the dropping of the atomic bombs trivia? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course someone is going to think that some well-supported fact belongs in a particular article, and someone else is going to think it doesn't. That does not justify putting in a rule that every well-supported fact may be put in an article if one editor feels like it. Frankly, when I've seen editors urging a policy change to force their favorite fact into an article, those editors usually turned out to be editing in a biased manner. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll just note that we already have policy/guidelines that tell us how to resolve disagreements over whether some verifiable fact belongs in an article... see: WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Dispute resolution. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the excuses I've heard for these types of deletions is that inclusion is "against consensus". Which implies that if a majority of editors want to omit a reliably sourced, relevant and NPOV fact from an article, like the fact that more than 1,000 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new 9/11 investigation, they can, which would seem to violate WP:NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That may be the case, but that has nothing to do with this specific policy but with Consensus and NPOV policies, and should be resolved for those reasons. It seems the thread has gone off topic and is now discussing other policies than this one. Arnoutf (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, my point is that if putting things into articles without any reliable sources is original research, and considered to be a no-no, why is it ok to remove reliably sourced information? Isn't that also a form of original research - removing something reliably sourced without providing any other reliable source to show that the original information was false, misleading, outdated, etc., just because they personally don't feel it belongs in the article? Seems like a strange double standard. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I could use the flat earth analogy. If I put a reliably sourced line in the article "Flat earth theory" to the effect that since humans have orbited the earth and taken pictures of a round earth, the flat earth theory has essentially been disproved, is it ok for someone to delete that information if a majority of the editors of that page agree? Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The "strange double standard" of which Ghostofnemo complains is simply a matter of logic, which is that the converse of a true statement is not necessarily a true statement. It is true that, according to Wikipedia policy, the insertion of unsourced material is original research.  It also violates Wikipedia policies on verifiability and reliable sources.  It does not follow that the converse is true, that all removal of sourced information is also original research.  That isn't a "double standard".  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Everyone who writes based on anything other than pure imagination, uninformed by any sources or experience does research. The variety of research that reports new experimental results, new theories, and the like is original research. Wikipedia expands the definition of original research to any new work that is not attributed to a reliable source, even if the editor adding the material is not the one who discovered it.


 * Another variety of research is source-based research, which summarizes and organizes material in reliable sources into a cohesive, well-written whole. That is the type of research done by Wikipedia editors. It includes excluding reliable material on a variety of grounds. Such grounds include the material being too detailed for the article, or not being closely related enough to the topic of the article. The word "original" in original research is crucial. You seem to be arguing that Wikipedia editors don't do research, which is flat-out wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "If putting things into articles without any reliable sources is original research, and considered to be a no-no, why is it ok to remove reliably sourced information?"... because the decision to include/exclude a particular bit of information is not purely an Original Research issue... nor is it purely a Verifiability issue... it is based on multiple factors that all have to be considered at the same time. Some of the other factors we have to consider are Due and Undue weight (does mentioning the information give Undue weight to a particular viewpoint?) and Relevance (is the information really relevant to the topic), and Triviality (is the information worth mentioning, or is it essentially trivia?).  And there are other factors as well.  As the Verifiability Policy itself notes: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding is this proposal is to prevent someone from removing reliably sourced information. The proposal looks bad, when its meant to be a solution for a real problem here. Putting in, its ok to remove information if a contradicting source appears, opens up a new can of worms, that the proposer may not like either (it may be turned against what you wish to do). Also, there may be reliable sources for conflicting points of view. An editor can rightfully make reverts if any reliably sourced information is removed. This is a NPOV issue. A lot of editors here use Wikilawyering to avoid neutral point of view, and enforcement of npov is a better answer. - Sidelight 12 Talk 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose Closure
I propose to close this section as discussed and dismissed. The original argument used by the original poster is a logical fallacy, an argument from an inverse. The inverse of a true statement is not necessarily true. Original research should be deleted, but the fact that information that has been added is not original research does not mean that it should be retained. As noted by several posters, there are other reasons why such information may nonetheless require deletion, such as that it is not verifiable, or that the source is not reliable, or that, while verifiable, it is not notable. The whole concept of "reverse original research" is an erroneous argument from an inverse, and this section should be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I'm referring to the deletion of relevant, reliably sourced, notable information that can currently be deleted at will, without any evidence to support its irrelevance, unreliability or non-notability, on the basis of an editor's PERSONAL OPINION that it doesn't belong in an article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's where WP:BRD and WP:3RR come in. If you add "sourced" material and someone else deletes it believing it improper, you discuss it on the talk page. If long-standing material is deleted, you can re-add it and ask why the material was deleted on the talk page. The point is that there is no way will codify a policy to outright prevent the removal of sourced material, just to use standard editing approaches to delete with how to keep it or not. --M ASEM (t) 01:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First, it is unfortunately common for an editor who has been involved in an article content dispute, possibly with associated conduct issues, to go to a policy forum, discussion forum, Help Desk, or noticeboard and pose a "hypothetical" scenario to try to get abstract support for their view. (Often the "hypothetical" scenario is presented in a slanted way, sometimes actually a mendacious way.)  Some of the regular editors at these forums have learned to decline to respond and to ask what the actual dispute is.  It appears that Ghostofnemo is using this fallacious argument as a hypothetical.  I haven't yet reviewed his or her posting history to see what the issue is.  In any case, he or she is apparently proposing, based on a logical fallacy (that the statement implies the converse), trying to rewrite a well-established policy to lock in challenged edits.  Second, if the original poster has a valid case with regard to the article content dispute that prompted this, they haven't made the case here, because their argument relies on a logical fallacy.  They would be better to describe what the specific article content dispute is, and ask for a third (or fourth or fifth) opinion, or go to WP:DRN or some other forum, or post an article content Request for Comments, rather than waste time using a flawed argument to change a policy to justify their position.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a legitimate issue, but the proposal looks bad and it can be turned against what the proposal's intent was. This is a NPOV issue. No, people can't remove information just because they don't like it. On the other hand, information may become obsolete or proved wrong, which this tried to address. Ghostofnemo, do you have an example? I can imagine this problem scenario without an example, but one may help. Neutral point of view and its noticeboard may be of help. If someone removes reliable material without an explanation to cause an edit war, it could be a case of gaming the system. It seems like there's already a policy for this somewhere. Content removal somewhat addresses your concern. - Sidelight 12 Talk 04:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ghostofnemo provided quite a number of specific examples above.— S Marshall T/C 12:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that Ghostofnemo provided multiple examples above. It appears that Ghostofnemo has a history of making controversial edits which are then reverted or removed.  It appears that the edits may have to do with conspiracy theories.  (A typical hypothetical question has to do with one actual content dispute.  This editor appears to have had multiple content disputes about attempts to add questioned material.)  Conspiracy theory references are typically sourced, but there are questions about the quality of the sources and the neutrality of the point of view.  I think that the original proposal, to modify a core policy, has been discussed at sufficient length, and has no consensus, and this discussion can be closed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I skimmed it. So far, few of your edits were legitimate, but others had problems. Problems: Youtube isn't an acceptable source, unless its uploaded by an otherwise reputable source; find the original video of the documentary in order to include it. The Washington Times may be a good source, AIA might be ok only as an accomplice to the Washington Times, but the other references used with it aren't. Using a mock name Ronald 'Rayguns' is unacceptable, there are policies about that. Another problem, the link to the cnn video doesn't link to the said article. The edit on Mandela's article has the issue of being a POV push, one reference was bad, but someone fixed it and made it neutral. - Sidelight 12 Talk 16:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think this discussion will lead to an edit to a policy, but I do think it's rather illuminating. WP:PRESERVE's original intent was a general presumption against removing sourced information from the encyclopaedia.  Sometimes there's a good case for moving the information to a different article, or for changing the prominence with which it's presented or reducing the word-count associated with it, but the WP:PRESERVE attitude is that if a decent source has confirmed something then it's likely that the encyclopaedia ought to cover it somewhere.— S Marshall  T/C 12:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly, there is no consensus for the proposed change to policy (which, if I understand it correctly, would render sourced edits, regardless of the reliability of the sources, locked in), and there appears to be a consensus against it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

OR/SYNTH contravention?
Statistics Canada publishes demographic census data on visible minorities. The order it presents the minority groups are as follows, based on largest to smallest populations: South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Arab, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean and Japanese. My inquiry is two-fold: The concern about #1 is that some editors may reorder the groups to match their preferences for whatever reason, or it can be perceived that they have been intentionally ordered to align with someone's preferences. An example of #2 is using "African" rather than "Black", or using "White" rather than "Not a visible minority", or in the case of Demographics of Canada, aggregating "like" groups into greater groups (like rolling Chinese, Korean and Japanese into "East Asian"). For your background, consider this discussion that triggered this inquiry. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it contrary to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to present this data within tables in an order of groups inconsistent with the order published in the StatCan source? If no, would it more likely be a contravention of WP:NPOV?
 * 2) Is it contrary to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to use different terms for the groups than those published in the StatCan source?


 * Note the other editor involved just made a change. My inquiry above was made on behalf of both of us. Hwy43 (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with you and Skookum1. UrbanNerd's concerns should be disregarded.— S Marshall  T/C 10:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks . His concerns aside, can you confirm the above are technical violations of SYNTH/OR? Hwy43 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * They're certainly in the topic area that SYNTH/OR touch upon, and I definitely wouldn't want people changing the terms for ethnic minorities willy-nilly. However, I feel that in this case they're not violations.  I feel that a key aspect of SYNTH/OR is when you go beyond the sources to suggest conclusions that the sources don't imply.  I don't feel you're doing that, so I don't feel that a technical violation is taking place.— S Marshall  T/C 19:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be concerned about declaring people who pass for being white as actually having European origin, since they might not. You could misrepresent the source that way.  But in this context, you could probably use Black and African interchangeably, since white Africans (e.g., Afrikaaners) aren't actually "visible minorities" in the sense that they're talking about in the source.  This sort of change falls under the category of "explaining the source" rather than "materially misrepresenting the source".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you have just made a classic common American centric blunder, the peoples north of the Sarah are just as African as as those from sub-Sahara, yet I suspect that people from such an ethic background are more likely to be classified by the Canadians as Arab rather than Black as they say it is based on visibility. Whether or not that is true using African for Black distorts the survey. In the same way are not Arabs "West Asian", if not what does "West Asian", encompass? For reasons like this, if the authors of the Canadian survey have not defined precisely what the terms mean, is is probably best to leave the wording as is. -- PBS (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is a Canadian survey on what people look like is exactly why I believe that their category of "African" excludes non-Black Africans (from Afrikaaners to Berbers to Arabs and more), and includes all dark-skinned people, even if their ancestors immigrated two centuries ago. Also, they probably include immigrants from Jamaica and other Carribbean countries in this category, even though many of them don't see themselves as being from Africa.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We frequently enable users to reorder data tables, so I see no problem with orders. Terms is a more difficult question, though. Aggregation becomes more problematic, it seems like synthesis to me. SamBC(talk) 00:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your insights. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Third party sources and tertiary sources, Hitler and Mussolini (OR rules)

 * Simple question - 1. Are a third party source and tertiary source the same ? And a second longer question - A :DVD-documentary about Mussolini includes a speech that this Italian dictator held in Bari in 1934, after the murder of :Austrian dictator Dolfuss. Mussolini says (it is subtiteled sound film, and a part of the documentary)
 * "With a serene contempt can we reguard some doctrines from the other side of the Alpes, doctrines which has been created by a people that even didn't knew the art of wrighting, and couldn't write their own history at the same time as Rome had Caesar, Vergilius and Augustus ! It is indeed at the shores of the Mediterranian Sea that they all have been born, the great religions, the great philosophers, the great writers and an Empire which has made an indelible impact on the history of all civilized peoples !"
 * Can this be used as a source for instance in a historical (and relevant) article to support a statement like "Mussolini :wasn't very fond of eighter the Nazists or Germany from the beginning of the Third Reich" ? And finally - 3. May a statement (at a relevent location) like "Hitler hated Jews" and use some phrase from "Mein Kampf" as source be OR or wrong in any other sence ? Appriciate serious answers. Boeing720 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can this be used as a source for instance in a historical (and relevant) article to support a statement like "Mussolini :wasn't very fond of eighter the Nazists or Germany from the beginning of the Third Reich" ? And finally - 3. May a statement (at a relevent location) like "Hitler hated Jews" and use some phrase from "Mein Kampf" as source be OR or wrong in any other sence ? Appriciate serious answers. Boeing720 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Question 1: As far as I know not. A primary source is someone giving their opinion or eyewitness report. Examples are the speech by Mussolini, and blogs. A secondary source is an analysis of a finding (or a primary source). Most academic papers are secondary analyses of an observation A tertiary source is a source where the body of knowledge is aggregated and made accessible to a larger audience. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, as are many textbooks use for classes.


 * Re question 2: The actual speech by Mussolini is a primary report. The statement you suppose is an interpretation of that primary speech by Mussolini and would likely count as original research as it is not what Mussolini actually said. The same goes for your Mein Kampf statement. If you find a quote which state "I hate jews" in Mein Kampf it would be a primary source, if you interpret phrases it would probably be original research indeed.


 * In any case both examples would build heavily on primary sources, which is not to be preferred, especially for a topic where there are literally thousands of secondary and tertiary sources that provide the claims you want to make. So basically you don't need any of this in this example (so why bother). Arnoutf (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanx! So if the narrator in the documentary (or an author of an analyzing historical book) uses this speech as an example, then the statement would be OK (the statement by the narrator or author, not the Wikipedia-editor, to be absolutley clear) ? Boeing720 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The narrator would be a secondary source; and using that is not Original Research. Whether the narrator should be listed a RELIABLE secondary source, is another issue. Arnoutf (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I sooner ment the narrated text. The reliable person(s) must be the editor and/or the (executive) producer, I assume. Boeing720 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Boeing720, I think you'll want to read WP:Party and person and WP:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Counting -- possible addition to WP:CALC
Has there been any discussion about the possibility of adding "counting" to WP:CALC as not being "original research" ? Just looking to be more clear. In other words, do I need to have a source that says Tom and Carol Brady have 6 kids combined, or can I just look at Greg, Peter, Bobby, Marcia, Jan, Cindy ... and count up to 6 without sourcing it? I think so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not add that to WP:CALC. This is simply a question of understanding/reading a particular source and about different ways to summarize it correctly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that needs adding – it comes under 'routine calculations' to me, so is already covered, and is only one of many examples of such and we don't need to go adding every variant. If 'routine calculations' seems vague then that's by design: what is routine is determined on a case by case basis by consensus among editors.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 14:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I once asked if calculating population density for an area is OK, based upon area and population. Even adding some areas their population, and calculating the overall population density. This was OK. I also recall that if the article´in question is of mathematical type, a higher degree of math may be alouded as NOR. If this was to any help Boeing720 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is more one example where (or it is possible to imagine) a new or an isolated wikipedist lost good contribution because some one other wikipedist, use self interpretation of WP:NOR or WP:CALC rules, for delete good contributions at Wikipedia. I started About Valid Routine Calculations (today an abandoned essay but we can rewrite and restart it) for this cases: an essay is a "consensus reference" for any one, without the support of an "expert", show or check what is wrong with your own text, or what kind of abuse the another wikipedist is doing. --Krauss (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that even simple counting can be abused. For example, we all agree blueberries are fruits, and so are watermelons. But counting 1 blueberry and 1 watermelon up to two pieces of fruit in the context of daily intake of food is nonsensical. The current vague routine calculations would allow consensus to block such cases while it creates no problem for regular counting. Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that you cannot formulate 100% foolproof guidelines, that is guidelines protecting against any conceivable form of abuse. Any guideline can be abused and any guideline is subject to interpretation (to a degree). In doubt it is up to involved editors to decide in an individual case (usually via consensus) whether a source is used according to guideline (in doubt in its spirit rather than its literal reading if every single sentence) or not. If such such consensus is not possible then there project pages where you can request the assessment of univolved editors/rd opinions.
 * The longer and more detailed a guideline gets, the lower are the chances of editors actually reading and heeding it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as the specific example is concerned:- if I have a source that says Tom and Carol Brady's children are called Greg, Peter, Bobby, Marcia, Jan and Cindy, then it would be reasonable to say "Tom and Carol Brady have six children" and cite it to that source. That's not original research.  It's simply summarising the source, which is the encyclopaedist's most basic task.— S Marshall  T/C 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My point exactly!--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I felt the need to put together an essay. Counting and sorting are not original research.  Please take a look and comment/change/modify:  it's a community essay of course!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The important point is that counting is not OR unless it is reasonably disputed. You should feel free to simply count up Barack Obamas children.  However, there is nothing "simple" about counting up the number of Clint Eastwood's children (for example).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor clarification add "primary"
''Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.'' It's straightforward from the examples (i.e. summarizing a book requires access to the book (primary source), interpreting the book requires a secondary source that interprets the book). The policy is referring to the primary source, not a source of special knowledge. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

List of American beach volleyball players
What's your opinion on List of American beach volleyball players... I know very little about beach volleyball, so who decides that this is a list of well known players? Says who? Should it be sent to AfD? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks fine as a typical list. While I didn't look at all the entries, it appears that they are all notable, American, beach volleyball players. The sourcing is in the respective articles on the individuals. Any entry that doesn't meet the inclusion criteria should be removed.
 * However, there's a category that it is duplicating. I'm not sure what the consensus is on categories vs lists covering the same topic. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Explaining rejections?
WP policies like WP:OR are intended to facilitate the presentation of good content and reject mere speculation, or OR. A militant rejection of 'crank' content is necessary because there are many attempting to promulgate their own views, which is unacceptable unless these views also are those of reputable sources.

It is my observation that WP rejections are tending more and more toward overly brief in-line editor comments and a resistance to more complete explanations. I wonder if there is a place in WP policy for a recommended procedure to be followed; a sequence of steps that could direct discussion toward sources and prevent descent into put-downs and arbitration? For example, in the case of rejection of a submission it could be recommended that:
 * 1) Rejection should be polite;
 * 2) Rejection should cite the policy that has led to the rejection and supply some indication of what is in violation;
 * 3) Rejections with an in-line edit should assume that further discussion could go to the talk page, and suggest that possibility;
 * 4) If a talk-page discussion takes place, the rejecting editor should identify specifically what caused the rejection, and exactly how it contradicts the cited policy; not just blanket-reference the entire contribution, and admonish the contributor to "read the policy".

Possibly these steps are too obvious to require elaboration in WP policies, or perhaps it is felt that these steps are already present in existing policy? Often in-line edit statements strike me as peremptory, and when a contributor requests more information a confrontational atmosphere shows up right at the beginning. Brews ohare (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This may conflict with WP:BOLD, possibly even WP:DR.
 * It would be nice to see more emphasis given to focusing on content and focusing on the sources (which should be detailed somewhere in our policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that your post covers about 6 much-needed different areas of good behavior, and I don't see any that concern the specifics of this policy; I think that they actually are about a missing policy.  North8000  (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * PS when you noted that this policy exists for a reason, I thought you were going there (i.e. to note the reason when deleting and not just the policy) but I don't think that you did. Sincer3ely,  North8000  (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * When an editor has attempted to insert material over multiple articles and not gained consensus for any of them the patience of others wears thin. When policy has been explained to that editor many times but they simply don't listen it wears thinner.  When they go to policy discussion groups (this is the third time) to try and win the argument another way it finally goes.  Any review of Brew's history on Philosophy articles (and his permanent ban from editing all physics articles) will show the pattern of behaviour.  Put simply if you have explained policy and content issues once, but an editor refuses to accept that then short edit summaries are reasonable.  When the editor calls an RfC and gets no support but carries on anyway the edit summaries just get shorter and shorter  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 06:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Snowded doesn't like the process of content development, which is too demanding of his time and intellect, requiring reading and assimilating sources and actually formulating summaries of them. So he has taken the route of claiming my attempts to fix the uncountable gaffes in philosophy articles as a kind of plague rather than a necessary clean-up operation. Brews ohare (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:CANVAS violation, and inappropriate use of this forum.
 * There are some good points in the initial comment, but they have nothing to do with WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ronz: I agree about the misuse of this forum to engage in extraneous debate. To get back to work, the proposal is indeed more general than WP:OR although WP:OR is a policy very often invoked in rejections. Can you suggest a better venue for this discussion? Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC).
 * I already pointed out WP:BOLD and WP:DR, especially noting WP:FOC, which is a part of WP:DR. WP:FOC begins with a link to WP:EP. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ronz: Thanks for these links. I wonder if you agree with me that these links basically cover the territory, although perhaps an itemized list would add some emphasis? Unfortunately, these policies are not followed, so one has to wonder if it is clarity that is the issue. Brews ohare (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you choose one of the talk pages to the policies/guidelines listed, and discuss the matters there. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ronz: I wasn't aware of all the attention to these issues already in the links you provided. I am going to drop the subject, as I'm now persuaded that policy is not the problem on WP; it is the failure to follow policy. Brews ohare (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OI
(At least to me) WP:OI isn't as clear as it could be.

Currently the central sentence reads as follows:

Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.

To my judgement, that comes more or less down to the tautology:

Content created by a Wikipedian is not considered original research, so long as it is not original research.

As far as I can see, the same rules apply to adding images (or graphics) to an article, that as well apply to adding text to an article: Created content is most welcome (as in self-made photos/graphics or self-written text), but it has to be verifiable by a published source.

How about changing it to something along the following line, and making it the first in the WP:OI paragraph:

Adding self created content to further the coverage is most welcome at Wikipedia. Content like photos or graphics ("Original Images") created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as the content is verifiable by a published source.

If there are any exceptions with regards to NOR and images, then they should be spelled out more clearly – at the moment I can not see any exceptions, and in my view the same NOR-rules that apply to text apply to images as well.

My mastery of the English language is not the best, and in addition I am not very good in navigating all the WP rules, so I would ask if someone more knowledgeable could think about this, and make some changes to that paragraph if deemed useful.

I see at least one caveat: There are potentially quite a few original images of places used in Wikipedia (e.g. images from small towns or publicly not accessible places) that are possibly not verifiable by a published source at the moment (e.g. no StreetView coverage). Tony Mach (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree for graphics; the problem with the many current graphs is that when challenged in relation to them being original research, creators of graphics frequently refuse to provide sources; so in my view some stricter verifiability criteria for graphs would be very welcome. For photos it is a bit trickier. E.g. a photo of the Statue of liberty is not easily verifiable, nevertheless such a photo would be easily "recreatable"; so perhaps a slightly different phrasing there. Arnoutf (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This text would pretty much ban all photographs. It's not just places.  What's your published source for saying that this selfie is actually a picture of you?  That this thing on a microscope slide is actually the thing that it looks like?  That this picture of something that looks like an apple really is an apple?
 * Our goal with photos isn't to get something that's verifiably "the thing". It's to get something that shows the reader what the thing looks like.  We don't want disputes from AIDS denialists about whether we can find a published reliable source that says this exact picture is a picture of HIV.  We just want something that looks like what we're claiming it is.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutral notification of ongoing discussion at Talk:Bradbury Building
In lieu of starting a full-blown RfC I would like to invite interested editors to comment on an ongoing discussion between myself and at Talk:Bradbury_Building. It's been open for a while and no one else has weighed in. It involves issues related to this policy, so I am dropping this note here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Interviews clarification
WP:NOR defines "(in some contexts) interviews" as primary sources. In what contexts would an interview not be a primary source? 88.75.174.246 (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, if you interview the local history professor on the radio and say, "So tomorrow's a big anniversary in history, so why don't you tell our listeners about it?", and he replies, "Sure. Tomorrow is the 400th anniversary of our town being spared destruction during a religious war, because the mayor could really chug wine.  Mayor Nusch slept for three days afterwards."
 * An interview that tells someone's own ideas is primary; one that is basically a talking textbook lesson is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To qualify as a secondary source, it must contain secondary analysis. From WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." For example, a 60 Minutes investigative interview piece would be secondary to the extent that it mixes their own fact-checking, analysis and other content along with subject's own words.


 * But a 60 Minutes-style interview with some genuine secondary content is pretty rare. When all the questions are just variations on "tell us more about yourself / what you think / what you've done / what you plan to do / something technical / ..." and the only real content is the subject's own words, that is always WP:PRIMARY as regards the interviewee and would not, e.g., be suitable for establishing notability of that individual.  (Fundamentally, you can't make yourself notable just by writing more or talking more.  Other people have to talk about you.)


 * But even if an interview is a primary source as regards the interviewee, it might still be an appropriate secondary source for a different topic. For example, an interview with an author of a how-to book on programming would be primary as regards the author but could be secondary regarding the software topics discussed.   Msnicki (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What do cautions about primary sources mean?
The policy WP:OR states:
 * "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed."

Later, regarding sources,
 * "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material"
 * "In general, the most reliable sources are:
 * peer-reviewed journals
 * books published by university presses
 * university-level textbooks
 * magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
 * mainstream newspapers"
 * ": Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."

Clarification is requested here about the meaning of "used with care" and "misuse". In a conversation with editor Snowded,12 I suggested this phrase "with care" is a caution that it is easy for a WP editor to slip into synthesis not found in the sources, or into statement of the WP editor's personal interpretation. However, any rejection of a presentation of this material is not to be based upon the controversial nature of the subject, but upon any misrepresentation of the sources, for example, by failure to note there is controversy surrounding the subject, or by ignoring some aspects of the subject that should come up."

In short, material that is controversial or rapidly changing is not excluded as OR simply on that basis, so long as accurate presentation of what is contained in reliable published sources is adhered to, and care is taken to present all sides of any controversy.

Does that seem to be what the policy requires? Brews ohare (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In the policy on primary sources the sentence after the one you quote is this: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
 * So using primary sources, in particular devising an 'accurate presentation' of them, requires a reliable secondary source or sources. Without a secondary source your presentation might be quite different from another editor's selection and presentation. So any presentation should be based on secondary sources.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 00:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That isn't how I read it Blackburne - I'd write this line as follows:
 * "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
 * The 'interpretation' that cannot be made is a WP editor's personal interpretation of what the primary source said, in contrast to what the source itself has to say. That is, I'd take it that only a secondary source is allowed to interpret what a primary source said.
 * Thanks for bringing up this point for further clarification. Brews ohare (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Selection is interpretation <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 05:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd understand that simply reporting what a primary source says is not 'interpretation' unless it reports the source inaccurately. Of course, an improper selection, like taking a line out of context, can be removed on that basis. Brews ohare (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Brews, if you take (as you have many times) strings of quotes with some minor commentary between them then, aside from the stylistic issues, you have determined which quotes and which authors.  Recently you suggested that half a loaf was better than one and that rather deleting your quotes more material should have been added.  The role of an encyclopaedia is not as a recording device for notes for people studying the subject, it is to fairly and accurately summarise the field <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 06:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is another way of looking at it. Just quoting primary sources is unencyclopaedic. I.e. an article that consists just of a quote, or a list of quotes, is not really an article. Any section similarly consisting just of quotes is not encyclopaedic. Adding text giving the source, e.g. "this is a quote from A" doesn't change that and is redundant as that's what references are for – readers can follow the links to them so there's no need to clutter the article with such attributions. Anything else, such as saying "this source is important", "this source is controversial", "this source is contradicted by this other source" is commentary, and as such must be based on reliable secondary sources or it's original research.

So using just primary sources is either unencyclopaedic or original research. Articles should be based on secondary sources, and once these are used and the article is properly written based on them then there are relatively few uses for primary sources. Quotes when the quote is being discussed. Examples of language when the use of language is being discussed. Plot/chapter summaries for creative works that are the main subject of the article. But actual encyclopaedic content should be based on secondary sources.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 12:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Selection of sources, and deciding which information from sources to include in an article, is not original research, it is source-based research. Source-based research is the method used to write Wikipedia; without it, Wikipedia cannot exist.


 * The full sentence about misinterpreting primary sources is "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." From this we see that the caution against interpreting primary sources does not apply to the ordinary process of reading: scanning with the words, understanding the meaning of the words with the brain, deciding what is relevant, and restating the meaning in the editor's own words. The caution against interpretation applies to more advanced forms of interpretation, which is described as "original analysis", that is, reaching a conclusion by combining material from various parts of the source, or by comparison of material in the source with material in other sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The issues raised by Snowded and Blackburne about the use of quotations are a side track: the use of quotes is not the subject here. Brews ohare (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you Brews. Quoting is in practice about the only way to fairly use a primary source (as anything else would be interpretation). But providing a long list of quotes is distinctly unencyclopedic; so the quoting discussion is fairly central to the use of primary sources. Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no difference in how to properly use a secondary source or primary source. It's just that since primary sources are more apt to be one-sided or promotional, a greater effort must be made to maintain a neutral point of view in the article. The adoption of Arnoutf's understanding would destroy Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the policy. As you state it there is almost no difference between them, as secondary sources can be biased and only give one side of an argument. But the policy is clear: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." (emphasis as given). Primary sources should not be used the same way as secondary sources.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 19:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well it hasn't destroyed it yet, we normally expect secondary sourcing to validate what is chosen or used as material.  Primary sources, with care, can be used to expand that.   There is also a major difference, a secondary source is peer reviewed, a wikipedia editor even being careful is not <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For purposes of this policy, the no original research policy, there is no difference in how to properly use an individual primary or secondary source. For purposes of the notability policy, there certainly is; that is the most direct reason for not basing an entire article on primary sources. The NPOV policy is apt to make it inadvisable to base long passages on primary sources. But there is no difference in how to properly paraphrase or summarize a source, whether it is primary or secondary.
 * The statement that secondary sources are peer-reviewed is simply not true as a general statement; some of them are, and some aren't. Likewise, some primary sources are peer-reviewed, and some aren't. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Having been through the process from both sides and in both cases there is a very big difference between a peer review for a secondary source and a primary one and it relates to purpose. The purpose of a secondary source is to summarise a field (in the main) which is why we use them.  A primary source generally advocates a position within that field.  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 05:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Quick plug: WP:Secondary does not mean independent and WP:USEPRIMARY cover a lot of important background information on figuring out what a primary source is.  (And Jc3s5h understates the case; most peer-reviewed articles are not secondary sources (which are mostly review articles—the names are confusingly similar).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Arnoutf's claim here is wrong. It's also not representative of Arnoutf's practice, because here we see him adding a primary source to an article, without quoting anything.  That's not cherry-picked; that's just the last time he edited any article.
 * We have two main problems with primary sources. One is the person who uses a perfectly decent primary source as a jumping-off point for his "special" theory (e.g., "this source says that pouring oil directly on cancer cells will kill them, so I wrote that petroleum products cure cancer patients").  That's pure OR, and we really want to discourage that.  The other is the person who uses a biased/unrepresentative primary source.  That's actually a WP:DUE problem, but it's a DUE problem that is far more likely to occur with primary sources than with secondary sources.  We really want to discourage that, too.
 * The net result of these two separate problems is that we really, really want to discourage people from using primary sources, and that's why this section has been phrased so strongly. There have been discussions in the past about splitting this off into its own policy.  If it were on a separate page, the fact that "primary = caution" might make more sense.  The need for caution is not OR-specific.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Two things to this: (1) I was quoting an article in a quality newspaper and not the press release by NS (which would be the primary source here) (2) I never stated quoting was the only way, but it often is the only way to use a primary source when there is potentially disputed information. For undisputed facts there is no difference between type of source (and I have not yet encountered a single editor complaining). I may have phrased my earlier comment somewhat strongly on that account though. Arnoutf (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most newspaper articles, especially ones that basically regurgitate press releases, are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or the footnotes on the policy.  It's not a matter of counting WP:LINKSINACHAIN.  The press release is a non-independent primary source; the newspaper article that non-analytically repeats the information in the press release is an independent primary source.  (News analysis, which is ignored by this policy, is a secondary source.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding editor discretion in selecting primary sources, what really happens (and a common unspoken practice in Wikipedia) is that where there is no objection, it is editor discretion. If I'm writing about a ship and 2 sources give it's length at 827' and the other gives it as 8,270' (a ridiculous number) I'm going to pick one of the two "827'" sources, and nobody is going to drag out the rule saying that that editor discretion was improper. If I start trying to POV an article by saying "polls say" and then inserting and summarizing my cherry picked poll results, someone is going to pull out the primary source rule and remove my material, and rightly so.  North8000  (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Editor discretion in using primary sources is limited by WP:OR in a number of ways. The preamble in this policy is:
 * "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."
 * As pointed out by Jc3s5h policy says:
 * "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors ." (Underline added)
 * The policy apparently supports the use of primary sources as long as the WP editor doesn't tinker with the gist of the source or add the WP editor's original input. That seems to be contrary to the view that the policy takes the stand that "we really, really want to discourage people from using primary sources" or that "Quoting is in practice about the only way to fairly use a primary source (as anything else would be interpretation)". As Jc3s5h has put it, paraphrasing the policy regarding source-based research:
 * "the caution against interpreting primary sources does not apply to the ordinary process of reading: scanning with the words, understanding the meaning of the words with the brain, deciding what is relevant, and restating the meaning in the editor's own words."
 * He adds the remark, which seems quite correct to me, "Selection of sources, and deciding which information from sources to include in an article, is not original research, it is source-based research. Source-based research is the method used to write Wikipedia; without it, Wikipedia cannot exist."
 * A good deal of the resistance to this policy stems from a reluctance to get involved in the work of writing WP. Clearly, if a contribution is a WP editor's best effort to summarize the sources they are aware of, a criticism of the contribution will engage the critic in discussion of the way sources are presented, and possibly in the introduction of other sources known to the critic. That is going to be a talk-page engagement that editors trained in the brief "one-line edit comment" reversion of crank contributions are unprepared for. A much briefer engagement is feasible if the critic can simply say that nothing but (preferably verbatim) descriptions of primary sources taken from secondary sources are permissible. Brews ohare (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * However, as has been observed, WP articles are not intended to be a brief version of those summaries already to be found in secondary sources. A restriction like that would chop most WP articles down to a superfluous and largely out-of-date treatment of most of its topics. Brews ohare (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia system is fuzzier than most imagine, including the rules and definitions of terms. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes that's a bad thing. In this case I think that the rules and definitions are a bit fuzzy but that they mostly work reasonable well.  North8000  (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "a reluctance to get involved in the work of writing WP" please stop imputing motives to other editors simply because they oppose you writing personal essays Brews. It doesn't help <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 17:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Following the above discussion, I don't see much fuzziness in the portion of this policy under discussion. That is why I wonder about interpretations that conflict with its wording, and straying away from the topic at hand instead of staying on point. I don't see these divergences as a concerted effort, but more as an instinctive reluctance against becoming involved in talk-page development of content that can become extended and tedious, however necessary it is. Brews ohare (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering NOR Revision--Debate; Baseball bats and car windows
{{{archivetop|This lengthy set of complaints and vaguely stated proposals is going nowhere.}} I would like to, I suppose you could say, "formally" open up a debate regarding this policy. See, I have found through the years that "published" doesn't necessarily mean "true", and "unpublished" does not necessarily mean "false". There are many facts that are found by people that are never published due to the powers-that-be. If I walk outside and hit a baseball bat against a car window with all my strength, the window will break. This is "original research" but it is just as true as if I find an article that says "New Evidence Found That Hitting Car Windows with Baseball Bats Breaks Them". Please note that the example is very extreme, but listed to make a point. It is an absolute disrespect to someone if they research something and find that doing "x" to "y" on a consistent basis will produce results "z"! In the beginning of Wikipedia, NOR was very meritable and needed; however, Wikipedia has grown since then and so has technology, so we should take this into account. If I research a topic, and video-record the experiment or research done, that source should be treated as NO. LESS. RELIABLE. than a secondary or tertiary source. It is one thing to delete information from someone who claims a statement and cannot back it up--it is an entirely different thing to delete information from someone who claims a statement, then shows proof that what they are saying is indeed true, a simple example of this could even be taken from my earlier statements regarding baseball bats and car windows. I also find that experts should be given due credit in ANY subject area (yes, I have seen WP:EX). It is ludicrous for an 18 year old college freshman to be able to counter the views and findings of a well-learned doctor of 20 years (examples!). Now that being said, we would need to add CRITERIA to be an "expert" we do not wants anymore Essjays, and I don't just mean site "rules". I mean that in order to be an "expert" on here, you would need to 1.) send in a (physical) copy of your degree(s)/certification(s) to our headquarters along with a copy of their birth certificate; 2.) wait for a response from Wikipedia regarding the degree/certification 3.) disclose your real identity to the WMF (not the community) 4.) only claim expertise in the area(s) you sent in for 5.) be willing to list video proof of anything you do regarding your expert-field edits, should they be Original Research 6.) be willing to politely discourse with fellow experts in the subject matter, should they disagree with you and 7.) be willing to answer any challenges by other editors with proper, comprehensible information 8.) be willing to list their credentials on their user page and 9.) be willing to state the number of years experience post-university that they have. At this point, the Arbitration Committee should designate the account with an "Expert in the field of ..." tag that everyone could see.

Example: User:DeltaXpufF wants to be recognized as an expert in the field of medicine research. He must first send a copy of his doctoral degree with his name "Robert Jones" and his birth certificate stating he was born May 7, 1970 to the WMF and wait for their response. He must put on his user page that he studied at Harvard Medical University and is a doctor certified in pharmaceutical medicine. After getting confirming that they have received his information, the Arbitration Committee would designate his account with the medical rod and snake in the top corner of his page (next to where the semi-protected/fully protected locks go) and when someone hovers over this, it will bring up a message stating "DeltaXpufF is an expert in pharmaceutical medicine who studied at Harvard Medical University. This user has 15 years of experience in this field". At this point he would be allowed to make DOCUMENTED original research on topics in his field. So let's say he adds to our Effects of cannabis article that "Cannabis has a strong possibility of curing cancer"; at this point, if he could show a video (or set of videos), uploaded elsewhere stating his name (so we know it is indeed him, not some random person) showing some white lab mice infected with cancer being given cannabinoid treatments and the cancer dying in multiple subjects on multiple occasions, he would have no problem on here.

Why the birth certificate? For age-experience verification. If I have a birth certificate that says I was born in 1987, there is no way that I could have "30 years of experience" in a subject field! Right? I will be adding more to this later, but wanted to open up the debate. Please note, this should be a CIVIL debate, no hostility or bad faith. I want answers, not fights. Thank you!  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   21:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that WP had instituted a cadre of certified 'experts' who can throw their expertise at us to avoid the usual WP squabbles. Although I appreciate expertise, I don't have any confidence that a WP panel is capable of determining that someone has it, and I have no confidence that experts (however vetted) outside of their habitat are free from crank opinions.
 * You seem to argue that WP should admit lab exercises like videos of 'bats breaking windows' as adequate verification for contributions. That strikes me as putting the 'so-called experts' in complete control of WP as they alone could rule that a video was good evidence and that the experiment satisfies professional standards. A video would be more likely to be evidence if the results were vetted in a professional journal where there really are experts on these matters.
 * Your efforts if adopted might make WP a version of You-Tube, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Original Post here is an "interesting" idea that is contrary to the way Wikipedia has been implemented. This falls in a list (which I don't have the acronym for handy) of perennial proposals that will never be implemented.  In particular, proposals for editors to document their real-life identities and proposals to establish panels of experts have repeatedly been considered and rejected.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's actually been tried. Except (as this is the only thing that's workable - you can't have two classes of editors) where every editor has to submit their academic résumé under their real name, but it otherwise works like WP. It's called Citizendium and is a spectacular failure. One look at that will convince you it's about the worst idea possible for a free encyclopaedia.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In practice, Citizendium has abandoned all pretense of relying upon expertise. It's main difference from WP (so far as qualifications is concerned) is that real identities are used for its authors, which has very clearly reduced stupid squalor, unlike WP where editors feel free to indulge their invented avatars without repercussions under cover of anonymity. Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One can debate how successful Citizendium's model has been at maintaining quality - the proliferation of detailed unsceptical articles on e.g. fringe medicine while core articles on real medicine are missing has led it to be labelled a crank magnet – but its a complete failure as an encyclopaedia, in the sense of providing encyclopaedic coverage, largely due to its policies keeping editors away. WP's anyone can edit policy lets in a lot of vandalism but lets in much more in the way of valuable contributions.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 00:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion is wandering. However, the real problem with CZ is not its model, but it was too late, and like AT&T lost out with the integrated circuit, CZ never got off the ground. Instead of patting itself on the back about how great it is, like GM before its debacle, WP should be looking to improve the atmosphere for cooperative contributions. It should be actively trying to improve its policies and learning how to engender article building on talk pages using sources instead of pecking-order aggrandizement among editors and using policies as aids to discussion instead of bludgeons to cut it short. Brews ohare (talk)


 * I was simply using the "baseball bats and car windows" as an example of what might qualify as "proof" of something (id est if I take a video of me smashing a bat into a window and the window breaks, then I can say that I can "prove" that the window will break if struck [at the right force] with a bat). Now then, my idea is not to give any "expert" power to judge what was and was not cyclopedic. The idea is that their credentials would be listed where other editors could see why they have any kind of above average say in the matter and if they stated something that was Original Research, it would not automatically get thrown out. This would be similar to a Barnstar, except it would be verifiable information (as long as you trust the WMA...and if you don't trust them to provide reliability, then I question your purposes here at Wikipedia). I do apologize if I made it seems like I was referring to giving these people [extra] power!  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   09:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, one would not need to reveal their real identity to any of the other editors (a.k.a. the community), only to the people that the information was sent in to.
 * On the last point that is really unworkable. As soon as an editor said/wrote "I can do this, I'm qualified" then other editors would ask them to prove it, and wouldn't accept vague assertions, only actual evidence. So it would need to be posted publicly. But that's not the main problem, just setting up a cadre of "expert" editors would lead to no end of conflict and bad feeling among those editors unable or unwilling to be approved as experts, finding themselves overruled by experts in content disputes. The only way to avoid conflict would be to require all editors to use their real names and be approved. But we can see how well that's worked at Citizendium, and it would be the end of Wikipedia.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 12:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "It is ludicrous for an 18 year old college freshman to be able to counter the views and findings of a well-learned doctor of 20 years"
 * That happens all the time in the real world. A mid-career doctor may be relying on what he half-remembers from school two decades before, or may not have had time to read up on the latest research.  User:WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole idea of WP is an experiment to find out if an undifferentiated bunch of amateurs and experts can make an encyclopedia. So far WP is not viewed as a reliable reference, but as a quick lookup to identify a hodge-pudge of aspects that one must verify before relying upon them for any important purpose. This situation could improve if WP had in place a viable plan to evolve. That would focus upon discovering how to make talk pages into places where useful collaboration on contributions occurred. So far, however, talk pages are catch-as-catch-can encounters that often are pointless exchanges of barbs and sarcasm. No evolutionary mechanism exists to drive talk pages toward better functionality by benefit of experience. Brews ohare (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, an aspect of such an evolution is the modification of policies like WP:OR to reduce debate over their applicability and what they mean and how they are to be used. At the moment, it is almost impossible to achieve even small changes in wording in WP policies, and there is no concept of trying things out to see how they work in practice. Clear policies would reduce fruitless argument on talk pages about the use of policies. In the case of WP:OR, it should be broken up into individual policies so reference to a policy is a narrowly focused effort. For instance, WP:SYN could be made a policy separate from WP:OR, WP:OR could be reduced to WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and the extensive description of WP:RS and other policies reduced to See also links without any description of these other policies that can lead to conflict of interpretations. Brews ohare (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The policies work for the majority of editors and they've worked just fine for the last decade. There's no reason to modify them for edge cases, particularly when what is claimed to be wrong is based on a very personal experience and not the broad experience for all editors. --M ASEM (t) 18:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you think the policies are as good as need be, even if not as good as they could be? Brews ohare (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a loaded question. Where do you see Masem claims that " policies are as good as need be"? E.g., just above he wrote "worked just fine", which is not the same. And there is a generic principle in engineering "if it works, don't fix it". Of course it is a tongue-in-cheek rule, but surprizingly useful. As applied to wikipedia, we do know that our policies are not perfect, but they work, and we "fix" them only when a reasonable harm is provable. And of course they will never be "as good as they could be", simply because nobody can know how good they can be. This does not preclude suggestions of improvements nor rejections of the suggestions, nor even beating dead horse :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly with . As for your actual suggestion, that policies should be "broken up" it's so vague as to be unactionable. How, exactly? For articles we have BRD but for polices it's normal to propose the actual change first on the talk page. So where's your draft(s) of this proposed breaking up and restructuring, overhaul and rewrite? (for that's what it's be).


 * But before you start, be advised it's a very bad idea for one simple reason. We don't need multiple policy documents on the same policy WP:OR. The dangers with multiple policies is they get out of sync, so offer contradictory advice, and by each being less comprehensive they are less helpful, with editors more often only reading part of the policy and so not picking up on all of its nuances. Or they read all the documents but think they are separate, so they dispute WP:SYN saying WP:OR doesn't apply as it's a different policy. Except they are the same and so should appear in the same document. Breaking WP:OR up would be massive amount of work for no benefit – it would only make things worse in a number of ways.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 02:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Staszek Lem: Where do I get from Masem that policies are "good as need be"? Well, you say that when Masem says "they've worked just fine for the last decade" that's not the same thing. It's close enough for me. What he is saying is there is no need for change. And as for "fixing them only when a reasonable harm is provable", that is a convoluted way of saying no major change ever will happen. The reason for there being no change is that there is no evaluation process to collect data to properly assess policies, and no mechanism to experiment with changes to see what works better than present policy. (In this connection, I seem to recall that on some pages with particular troubles, editors on those pages have tried to set up something of this kind for those pages, but it was handicapped by having no official support.) The present WP set up is rigid, and however good or bad it may be, it cannot become better.
 * Blackburne: You misread my suggestion. I suggested that WP:OR be broken up into policies dealing with specific issues, for example, WP:SYN and WP:STICKTOSOURCES could be broken off, and quite possibly tightened up because they aren't part of a huge smogasbord. The confusion you identify is what happens now because reference to a violation of WP:OR is not specific, and in some cases doesn't even refer to any conceivable understanding of "original research".
 * However, it doesn't matter what the suggestion is. The reaction of you two is not surprising, and shares the general malaise. You exhibit the usual lack of curiosity about keeping WP evolving, and don't see a need for adaptation. Maybe because change is hard, or the path uncertain, who knows why, exactly. Brews ohare (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We're nearly a decade into WP's work. The experimentation on how best to handle issues around original research have been worked and and stablized for many years into a form that works best for the wide variety of topics and editing styles. Drastic changes will simply upset that boat. Further, the more we tinker with policy, the more we go contrary to our goals of not being a bureaucracy. We're not rule-driven, we're consensus-driven. --M ASEM  (t) 14:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Masem, but this comment of yours strikes me as hilarious. Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, I've gotten over that. Seriously, it is difficult to see the WP back and forth on talk pages as a model of cooperative crafting of contributions. It is also hard to see it as the 'best that it can be'. So the issue is: what mechanisms might make the contribution of material to WP less combative and more cooperative? One way to do that is to reshape policies so they are less likely to be involved in disputes. If there is concern that a change could cause an unforeseen seismic event, it would be entirely possible to identify a quarrelsome topic and set up a local environment with different rules for that topic only to see what works. At a minimum one would have some actual feedback from such an experiment that would be a big improvement over armchair incantations. Brews ohare (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd add that breaking the smorgasbord of WP:OR into pieces dealing with individual problems, in particular, breaking off WP:SYN and WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and WP:NPOV, and moving the WP:OR section on reliable sources to WP:RS so we don't have the possibility of conflicts of interpretation, is hardly going to cause panic in the streets, and would not require a 'try out' to see what happens. Brews ohare (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely wrong. Policies are not "laws" save for a limited number of cases (eg BLP), they are how we build up consensus in discussions. Policies carry weight into these discussions but can always be override by consensus. You cannot separate policy from consensus building as you are suggesting. Further, there is zero need to break out policy into multiple pages. Our goal should be to reduce the number of policy pages with using Guidelines to outline examples and interpretations. --M ASEM (t) 17:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem: You have a genius for changing the subject and arguing with yourself. There was no such discussion of using policy as laws and separating policy from consensus. And you simply assert that we should reduce the number of policy pages, when experience already shows that leads to problems. An example is the one-line edit summary: "Violates WP:OR", a meaningless statement given the huge smorgasbord of issues in WP:OR. Of course, the summary could be more precise, like "Violates WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE", which would be much more helpful, but the hit-and-run revisionist usually opts for the 'everything is wrong' designation, for whatever reason. If challenged on the Talk page, acrimony is likely before it is determined what aspect of WP:OR to settle upon. Brews ohare (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several suggestions above besides the break-up of WP:OR that you have not commented upon. Brews ohare (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You said: "One way to do that is to reshape policies so they are less likely to be involved in disputes." That statement is putting policy over consensus, which will not happen on Wikipedia since that destroys the whole nature of it (and this has been your thread of thought in all recent discussions, you don't want consensus overriding policy). And I did address the idea of breaking out policy by noting we should be striving to reduce the number of policy pages we have. --M ASEM  (t) 17:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Masem, now I see what you are talking about. It is a misunderstanding. My meaning was not that policies should have no role, but that their wording should not cause disputes simply because they are easily misunderstood. Brews ohare (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A blanket assertion that WP should have as few policy pages as possible is a bit like saying there should be one NYC phone book that includes all the boroughs. WP:OR is a step in that direction, already containing a  section on reliable sources that has no reason to be there instead of in WP:RS, and other irrelevant policy issues as well. Might as well put all WP policies in a big article WP:Policies, don't you think? Brews ohare (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that RS is a guideline, not a policy page. This is an example of what we should be desiring - few policy pages that are more about near-absolutes (But not fully prescriptive), referencing to guidelines that are more causal about specific interpretations, applications, and other aspects, far more descriptive about practice than policy. We should still seek to minimize policy to avoid being too prescriptive. Also, this points to your question on making policy less of a dispute-causing thing. We can't make policy prescriptive - we should expect policy to lead to appropriate discussion. If it is clear that a certain policy causes a lot of problems with numerous editors in terms of interpretation, then we approach to improve the policy to make that interpretation cleaner based on consensus. --M ASEM  (t) 18:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A laudable set of goals, but what effort is made to determine that "it is clear that a certain policy causes a lot of problems with numerous editors"? And just how do we go about an "approach to improve the policy to make that interpretation cleaner based on consensus"? It seems at the moment, the first step, establishing a 'clear' need at most results in some diffs that defenders of the status quo call 'anecdotal' and 'non-representative', and 'consensus' is just 'gut' feelings based upon unconscious leanings, and usually results in a variety of non-consensual views leading to Brownian motion, and no results. Is that the best one can imagine? Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The status quo works, for all aspects of discussion here. Yes, things lead to discussions and debates about various things but that's the core of how an open wiki has to work, otherwise you will have vigilante editors going around without heading advice. You are suggesting changes that require a complete rework of process on WP. --M ASEM (t) 19:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem: You're leery of progress. You imagine adaptation as a very painful process, but its postponement is probably going to be worse. Brews ohare (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Adapt to what? WP still stands as working exactly of open-wiki knowledge collection better than other experiments like Google's Knol, balancing the nature of open editing and proper academic interests. If we were failing to keep up with another site, I may call for the need to change, but "if it's not broke, don't fix it" applies. --M ASEM (t) 21:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem: WP has a number of advantages, and so it can sit on its laurels, at least for a while. But I have the impression that you have an incorrect impression of how good the environment is for creating new content, and choose to ignore the discouragement that is often found. It might give you a little to think about if you look at the the article histories for philosophy articles, for instance. The bulk of these were begun around 2006 or 2007 and although there are lots of minor 200-300 byte changes over the years since, basically nothing has happened since their creation. I don't know if WP keeps any stats on things like this, but significant changes to scholarly articles are rare and new articles are becoming non-existent. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is much more active than WP in terms of new articles and being up-to-date than is WP. The philosophy workgroup is dead.
 * Now, there may be ways to keep wearing the rose-colored glasses. However, my unsupported view of this is that WP doesn't give a damn about any of this, and is making no attempt to stay on top of monitoring and thinking about its situation. Yes, it is a leader for people who want quick answers to "What is that?", or "Who is that?", or "Where is that?", but nobody trusts it beyond a source of suggestions, on sitcoms it is a laugh-line to say "I read it on WP", and as a source for essays and thought pieces it is under a black cloud. That situation may be good enough, but WP could do better, and could undertake processes to insure an improving image and to be the 'go to' place for contributors, not just for idle curiosity. Brews ohare (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment To answer what someone elsewhere had said about how to "designate" who was qualified and who was not—I thought I had clarified this by saying that it could be something added to their page by the WMA in the same area where the "Page Protected" icon goes. As for the so-called "arguing", this would be mitigated by the fact that, as previously stated, no "expert's" opinion (or even a "panel" of experts' opinions) would hold any more de facto weight than a non-"expert" editor (or group of normal editors). Anyway, that's not too big of a problem. I digress to the more pressing issue, regarding change. The only reason I mentioned "expert" information is to make Wikipedia more professionally acceptable. I have been on Wikipedia for many years now (granted, I had not made an account until recent) and the one the thing that constantly irked me was EVERYWHERE in the educational world deeming Wikipedia as "unreliable". This I find extremely preposterous, as we require people to use "reliable" sources...and that still has not worked! To you saying that these are "policies" and not "laws", I challenge you, good sir—I challenge you to break some of these "policies" and see if they are not fought for just as fiercely as one would fight for the upholding of a law! Wikipedia is an experiment...let us not forget that by its very definition, an experiment tries "out new concepts or ways of doing things." Our "policies" need to be regularly discussed on their talk pages, the same way this one is being discussed so that we can make appropriate evolutions to them! I am a firm believer in consensus as the go-to mandate of Wikipedia; however, I question how de jure this policy really is (its de facto existence is, of course, undeniable).  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   09:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this has been answered adequately above. But to give you two more reasons. Wikipedia does not set out to be a reliable source. It's the encyclopaedia for everyone, which means everyone can edit and enjoy it. It's not just for a minority who need (or think they need) Wikipedia to be more reliable. It is remarkably successful in this given Wikipedia's popularity. Second to make WP 'professionally acceptable' will require more than just a real names policy. It requires money, to persuade experts to put in the many hours required. They already contribute as much of their free time as they're willing, if you want them more involved and investing more you need to pay them. And it stops being a free encyclopaedia and becomes yet another paid/subscription service.


 * Again something like what you want has been tried, Citizendium, and it's a failure. If you can see where they went wrong you could try and do better yourself. WP's software is free, you can freely reuse all its content. But it's not going to happen on Wikipedia.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 13:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Blackburne: You cast WP in the role of an "unreliable encyclopedia" that everyone can enjoy, and see no need to do better. Then you go on to say that even an improvement like a real-name policy is contrary to keeping WP free and is beyond the capability of volunteer labor. Another example of general apathy and rose-colored glasses. მაLiphradicus   Epicusთე  has it entirely right that this is an irresponsible, though prevalent, attitude, making necessary adaptation an impossibility. Brews ohare (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Being an "open" encyclopedia, and being "reliable", are contrary ideas on the Internet today. We have to choose one, and given the Foundation's goal, we're going with "Open". We're doing as best we can to stay open while improving reliability (eg the current version control tests) but we cannot achieve the latter while we remain "open". --M ASEM (t) 14:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem: The idea that 'open' is contrary to 'reliable' is a total capitulation that isn't necessary. The underlying concept of WP (as I see it, anyway) is that a process can be put in place such that the input of a variety of editors with varying views can be reigned in by deference to reliable sources to produce an accurate report of what published sources say on a topic. Over time, missing points of view and missing sources supporting those views will be uncovered and included. Assuming the success of this process, WP article will be as reliable as the sources upon which they are based, and any unreliability will be reduced over time.
 * The discussion here is over this 'process' and how to make it work better. It is disappointing that a number of editors wish to avoid engagement in such discussion on the basis that the process is 'already working fine' or that 'change is beyond the capacity of WP' or that such a process is a nonstarter because 'open' and 'reliable' are incompatible goals. Brews ohare (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a pertinent quotation:
 * "I have found over and over again that the acceptance of a new point of view...has much less to do with the validity of that point of view than with (one’s) readiness to consider any alternatives whatsoever." (Schein 1987) Brews ohare (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving On
This discussion is not directly related to the policy against original research and appears to be a combination of another perennial proposal to change the nature of Wikipedia and another complaint about how poor the quality of Wikipedia is. Is this discussion getting anywhere, or should it be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion directly concerns modifications of WP:OR that are being resisted on the basis of dubious generalities. Whether it is getting anywhere is hard to say, given the willingness of some parties to exercise any subterfuge to avoid the issues. Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This should be closed. This is more of the same peren's that you mention, and would require a larger scope of consideration than just WP:OR to be made to support the concept even if it had some consensus. --M ASEM (t) 15:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion has become more wide ranging than WP:OR because of the generalities used to oppose proposed changes. The possible failure of these misconceptions, and an unwillingness of those bringing them up to defend them any further is a poor excuse for closing discussion. However, I'd say that there is no indication that a genuine engagement with the issues will occur, and that failure is a reason to close discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be that this dismissive attitude toward improvement is really a defense of WP as enjoyment in the escapism of avatars, and opposition to rules that would make it a more serious enterprise. Brews ohare (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes close it. The original question/proposal/criticism has been more than adequately answered, and has hardly to do with WP:OR, while the digressions are going nowhere.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 17:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliably published
Both this policy page and WP:V take pains to define a "reliable source" and also what "published" means. So does the content guideline WP:RS. However, I don't find anywhere a definition of "reliably published", which is used twice in this policy. If it is supposed to mean "reliable and published", we should correct that abuse of the English language and change it to "reliable, published" as in several places on policy pages. But I suspect it isn't supposed to mean that, and rather the word "reliably" is extraneous and we just need "published" here (since that is a defined concept). At the moment, primary and tertiary sources need to be "reliably published" but secondary sources only need to be "published". That makes no sense. Zerotalk 08:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My guess "reliably published" is a shortspeak for "published in reliable sources". Just like with any legalese, in looks ambiguous or weird ( “Redirect, Mr. Goldman?” ) unless you know the tradition. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suspect this does allow for the case of where an author which normally has published material in unreliable sources (like a personal blog), ends up with a work that is published (with appropriate editorial control) in a reliable source. A hypothetical example would involve someone with a fringe theory being asked to write as part of a larger course of material to example numerous viewpoints related to that topic in a major work. This is not saying that the reliable work is necessarily giving factual claim to that view, just that we can now possibly site that fringe theory, as claimed by that person, based on this source, instead of hand-waving at the personal blogs. --M ASEM (t) 19:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Staszek, the problem with writing about (reliable?) sources published in (?reliable) sources is that it gets too convoluted and I don't think that is the intention. Take the example "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful..." — does it have a different meaning from "Reliable published tertiary sources can be helpful..."?  Zerotalk 00:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please give me the quote which implies this "two-storeyed" term ("reliable sources published in reliable sources"). May be I am a bit tired now, but I don't see it in this policy. Still, I agree my remark was ambiguous. My intention was to say "statement published in reliable sources". Now, the policy does say "primary sources reliably published". (Sorry, I did not read the "primary source" ( policy:-) before answering.) Here goes my amended suggestion: the policy indeed must either clearly say "primary source published by a reliable publisher" or define "reliably published" as "published" by a reliable publisher, while defining a reliable published be (a) peer-reviewing, (b) faithful to the published material, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dreadful phrase, isn't it? And confusing.
 * It's basically supposed to mean "not self-published", with a side order of "it'd be nice if they employed proper editors, who didn't have a COI about the material". Daily newspapers are "reliably published"; the neighborhood newsletter that your neighbor e-mails to everyone is not.  A book published by Random House is "reliably published"; a book published through a vanity publisher is not.  Stuff on a professionally curated website is "reliably published"; stuff collected  by a computer algorithm on an aggregator site is not.  Product reviews Consumer Reports or Cook's Illustrated are "reliably published"; product reviews at Amazon are not.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, in most cases a reliable source means a combination of (a) reliable work (a) reliable author and (b) a reliable publisher. See WP:RS. I agree that for the purposes of hair splitting (eg. the abovementioned case of a kook published in Proc. Royal Acad. Sci.) we may want to clarify both the terminology and defilition. But... shall we move this discussion into WT:RS? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well i wouldn't consider the daily yellow press as "reliably published", since they have track record of having more than average inaccurate descriptions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "reliably published" was first introduced in this policy with this edit after a brief discussion on the Talk page. As one can see from that talk page discussion and the context of the corresponding version of the project page, the meaning of "reliably published" was "from reliable sources". Would anyone care to change the current version of the policy text accordingly to avoid the use of the phrase "reliably published"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid your first diff is not what you intended. The phrase "reliably published" was used in previous verisions. "Reliably pulished" is but one prong of being "reliably sourced". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding my first diff you're right, thanks. It was about "reliably sourced" whereas I intended it to be about "reliably published". I'll try again:
 * The phrase "reliably published" was first introduced in this policy with this edit . Here's the excerpt in which it appeared.
 * "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
 * It looks like "reliably published" refers to the publisher of the work, for example "a university press or mainstream newspaper". --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding a recent edit that attempts to clarify "reliably published" by making it a wikilink to WP:RS, I don't think that is clear. Perhaps the clarification "(for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper)" should be restored? (It was deleted in 2010 by this edit  as tightening.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be efficient to ask User:Blueboar what he intended to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The mentioned "recent edit" links to a section withe the definition "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process". If anything unclear about source reliability, the clarification must go into the WP:RS page, not here. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that "No original research" is a policy while "Identifying reliable sources" is a guideline. It's ok to refer to a guideline from within a policy for a non-critical definition, but critical definitions should be kept within the policy. I'm not inclined to think the definition of "reliably published" is critical; the meaning seems apparent to me. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. Then the policy to be fixed is Verifiability. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's some excerpts from comments made earlier in this discussion regarding "reliably published".
 * "Just like with any legalese, in looks ambiguous or weird...unless you know the tradition.", Staszek Lem.
 * "Dreadful phrase, isn't it? And confusing.", WhatamIdoing.
 * "that abuse of the English language", Zero
 * With a recent edit on a guideline, similar phrases are spreading elsewhere, like a metastasizing cancer. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I am reverting this change. So, what is your suggestion? For starters, do you agree that sometimes we have to distinguish "reliable author" and "reliable publisher"? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrase in question used in this guideline twice: The question is why they cannot be written clearer: Arguments: We have had a long chat already and the majority seems to dislike the phrase. So, another call: Any other reasons to keep it? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (1a) "primary sources that have been reliably published"
 * (2a)"Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful"
 * {1b) primary sources published by a reliable publisher
 * Longer phrase because eg the eyewitness may be mistaken about the facts
 * (2b) Reliable tertiary sources
 * No need to split hairs between reliable author and reliable publisher
 * A1: "It's basically supposed to mean 'not self-published',"
 * But this is what "reliable source" means. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A2:A hypothetical example by Masem of a kook given pages in a serious journal
 * But an opinion of a kook may does not change its validity or correctness of its rendering regardless where the kook published it. Hinting that a serious publisher gives some kind of legitimacy to kook's statements is dangerous.
 * A3: Splitting hairs between "reliable author" and "reliable publisher" (My suggestion).
 * Beyond Masem's "hypothetical example" I don't really see it is necessary. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Staszek Lem's phrase "{1b) primary sources published by a reliable publisher" seems OK. But the argument that reliable source means not self-published is wrong. Self-published sources written by an expert in the field are reliable to some degree, as explained in "WP:Identifying reliable sources". Jc3s5h (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggest:
 * (1b) reliable primary sources
 * (2b) Reliable tertiary sources
 * The suggested (2b) is the same as suggested by Staszek Lem. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * re: 1b : Actually, for historical primary sources it is important to have a reliable publisher. It is not unknown that someone with agenda may publish excerpts taken out of context, even distorted or mistranslated. For example it is a well-known anti-Semitic trick. But on the second thought, a shorter "RePrCo" phrase mostly covers it all. As I noticed in several discussions, people are quick to pinpoint quotations of historical documents rendered by partisan websites.  Staszek Lem (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume "RePrCo" has a typo and what was meant was "RePrSo" for "reliable primary sources". If that's the case, I think "reliable primary sources" covers the reliability characteristic, as do "reliable secondary sources" and "reliable tertiary sources". --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I made the edit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Experts Excluded
This policy seems like it would exclude the editing of Wiki articles by experts in the field covered by the articles. They may have published their work, and their work may even be regarded as definitive in it's field, but if they cite it themselves they are, by definition, citing original research. In science this would be the gold standard of information.

If Albert Einstein had wanted to contribute to the article on Relativity, would he really have had to get Joe Blow, the plumber from Kokomo to quote from his work in order to get it into Wiki?

Is it really the intent of Wikipedia policy to exclude from its pages what might be the most expert information available on a given topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * To some extent yes.


 * Albert Einstein's ideas were in his days not uncontroversial. As all good scientists he nevertheless stubbornly defended them and convinced the scientific community, resulting in a paradigm shift. However, he was also troubled by the next (uncertainty in quantum) paradigm shift, as evidenced by his statement that God does not throw dice see Copenhagen_interpretation; so his edits on that topic might have been problematic. And in this case we are talking about one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century operating in a natural science.


 * If we are considering less great scientists (99.99% of those around) and we look at sciences with less absolute truths than physics (e.g. social sciences) there are many more theories that are all in competition, and there is no clear "winner" in the field. In the mind of the scientist his/her ideas/theories/explanation would be superior as they should be as that is the only way to keep motivated to further them. However, that makes such a scientist well suited to further scientific research through engaging in the debate in primary and secondary sources but not necessarily to contribute to an encyclopedia which aims to be a tertiary source.


 * So indeed scientists may not be the best people to have the final say in articles close to their own ongoing work/theory development (says the guy who is an academic researcher himself ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The policy on original research means that original research that has not appeared elsewhere should not be included in Wikipedia articles. But if it has been published elsewhere, it doesn't violate the no original research policy to describe and cite it here, even if the person who wrote the external article is the one adding it to Wikipedia. However, siting one's own publications might run afoul of the conflict of interest policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for referring to potential conflict of interest, that relates to the problems I listed above; but much shorter. Arnoutf (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the use of the material would otherwise be appropriate, citing your own work is permitted. This is explicitly stated at WP:SELFCITING and WP:A. It should be noted that there are issues with citing your own work for which care should be taken (some mentioned here, others described in links).
 * The contributions of experts in their field are desired and encouraged. However, there is a big difference between writing for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia and publishing academic or research papers. The differences include a significantly different way of thinking about the work, goals for the work, intended audience, etc. Another big difference is that the Wikipedia article is not the work of single person. It does not rest upon, nor contribute to, the reputation of such a person. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream newspapers
So The Daily Mail is a reliable source but The Morning Star isn't? 86.42.121.148 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail is consistently considered an unreliable source at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard; see its archives on the topic. It's not unreliable for everything, though. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The reliability of Media sources has to be viewed in the context of what they are reporting. I doubt there is a single media outlet in existence that has never gotten a story wrong, and when they do, we consider that specific story unreliable.  It also goes the other way... even the National Enquirer (normally not considered reliable) has occasionally won awards for its journalism.  In other words... no media outlet is 100% reliable, nor is any media outlet 100% unreliable.  I would classify the Daily Mail as "often unreliable". Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)