Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 7

Discussion about NPOV, NOR, Verifiability etc. on Talk:Fedora Core
I have been asked to mention this discussion here. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary information as "research"
If my interpretation is correct (and I believe that it is, judging from the spirit of the rule as it has been applied in existing articles), the name of this policy may be misleading. I suggest that mention may be added to the policy page of the distinction between what is commonly considered research and the term "research" as it is used by the policy.

Hypothetical example: Historical Individual was tried in 1763, and a large quantity of commentary exists in the form of contemporary primary documents indicating that this happened on May 3, 1763 in Specific Place. This information is available to Editor and is non-controversial in that it is not disputed among secondary sources. Editor sees that the article on Historical Individual does not mention the date or place, or does so incorrectly. Perhaps Editor even brings this to the talk page to verify, if indeed the information is incorrect. Is Editor permitted to make the addition of this information if it is not available in any known secondary sources?

The answer would seem to me an obvious "yes", but I really can't say whether this qualifies as original research as per the WP standard any more than does "researching" secondary sources. This seems to me an ambiguity, and I think it should be clarified in the policy article. Because the policy is so established (and because it would be impractical), I don't recommend a name change (such as to "original data or analysis"), but I think some visible, official clarification would do the job just as well. Fearwig 06:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see "original research" versus "ordinary" research as a continuum depending on the amount of interpretation that you apply to your source. If you see a photo of George Bush waving and state that George Bush waved, that's just research. If you see a photo of George Bush waving and claim that it's symbolic of his inner turmoil, that's original research. On the other hand, if you find an article by a researcher claiming the same thing, then you can write that and cite it. OR is defined by the "gap" between the source and the claims in the article. How wide a gap is too wide? It's highly subjective and I would expect a lack of consensus over certain items. Deco 06:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would, too. Which is why I brought this forward--I'd like to hear more on the topic. I still think "original analysis" is a better description of what is inappropriate (again, if I do not misunderstand). Fearwig 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may be right that "original research" can be misread: it might be read as saying "You are not permitted to go to the library, research a topic, and post changes to the article based on that research". That's clearly not what NOR is about.  We would encourage this kind of research, especially when citing the primary sources.  I think the reason "original research" is the term is that the original main purpose of this policy was to stop the many physics cranks on Usenet from posting all their theories here as fact; "this theory is the product of my original research into how to build a perpetual motion machine."


 * Not sure if "original analysis" is a better description. An example of "original research" that isn't "original analysis": I happened to be a guest at the White House, and I heard the president go on a 5-minute, profanity-full tirade against broccoli.  I was the only witness.  I posted about this to the president's article, the broccoli article, and a new article I authored called Presidential hatred of broccoli.  Actually a more accurate term for this would be "original reporting" rather than "original research".  Tempshill 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept the policy as an attempt to maintain the reliability of Wikipedia, as I accept laws as attempts to protect society from harmful acts. However, it is not compulsory for those who enforce policies/laws to arbitrarily enforce their technical letter in all cases.  If a town has a jaywalking prohibition, an officer would be right to ignore a technical violation at 2AM where full visability and absence of traffic would make compliance silly (as in waiting several minutes for a light to change).  I hope that both editors and enforcers will use common sense.  Abstrator 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the Wikipedia should include the facts of Individual experience, of understanding, of "original research," thereof. Referenced material is merely of a consensus and we all know (or should know...) that that has been refuted (by referenced material...) time and time again as a fact of science, "inductive" science, thereof. Sure, it may be bulky, even messy, the facts, but where does it say science is beautiful, and/or of a referenced consensus? See Consensus science (vs. conclusive [compelling? ...] science). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Individual1 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Science is more fundamentally of the senses, of the experience and conscience of the feelings, of understanding, as of the individual, thereof, of that and only that which is capable of understanding. Science starts with the individual, thereof, and need go no further than that except of opinion, (and to limit science to a manageable artform?) which in and of itself would not be scientific, I feel, as understand, as a fact, of the facts, thereof. 1 05:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC) [Originally, as with the above paragraph, of approx. June 23rd, or so, 2006]


 * A great deal of material on Wikipedia is primary material for which no better source exists. I find that Wikipedia has become an outstanding source for historical information on the computer and software industries, largely because the people that were involved in the technologies themselves have written histories of the projects they were involved in. What would a "verifiable source" be in such cases? For some well known projects, especially those that have either succeeded or spectacularly failed (Apple iPod, Apple Newton), books have been written. But frankly, what the insiders know and can contribute is far more accurate. I rewrote the history of one of Apple Computer's "failed" projects of the 1990s, Kaleida Labs, because I had worked on it for so many years. A few days research in the archives of the San Jose Mercury News would probably bring up a score of references, but most of them would be rehashed press releases written by Kaleida's public relations firm. The real guarantee of the accuracy of such material is that the other 250 who worked on the project can read it here and edit it or comment on it, and they have the rest of their lifetimes to do so. --Metzenberg 05:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Altered photos
I was discussing with Shawnc a photo he had altered (Image:395px-Keratoconus1-800-edit.png) when he called my attention to an altered photo and a "synthetic animation" that have been promoted to Featured quality:


 * Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif
 * Image:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg

As stated here at WP:NOR, altered photos are not to be used to illustrate the main Wikipedia namespace, as they are essentially original research. These two examples are both extremely beautiful, but they should not have been promoted to Featured quality for this reason. They should also not be used to illustrate Wikipedia articles.

The reason for the rule is that an altered photo purports to illustrate something that is not true. It captures a moment in time that never occurred. It is false. When the photo retoucher performs his work, he is creating a fact, by himself. This is a clear violation of what the NOR rule is supposed to prevent.

The debate over altered photos is of course not original to Wikipedia; altered photos have been an interesting topic in journalism ethics classes for several decades; see the article "Faking images in photojournalism" from 1988. I will expand the rule here on NOR to try to explain 'why' but it sounds like word of the rule needs to be spread to the people who frequent the featured photos discussion. Tempshill 06:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have a grave misunderstanding of WP:NOR and its implications. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Less cryptic, please. Tempshill 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The image in question is Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif, and is used on Tap (valve) and Drop (liquid) where it illustrates both articles quite adequately. Each frame in the animation is assembled from a sequence of many cycles of water dropping from a tap, so that consecutive frames do not show the same droplet.  It's a reasonable technique and illustrates droplet formation under free fall quite well. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The image is not presenting an original theory of how water droplets fall or form, only aiming to illustrate the conventional understanding of the subject in a visual way. If it were OR to illustrate conventional understanding, it would be OR to write about it in a new or creative way as well, which is pretty much all we do. Deco 05:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. If one's position is that Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif is an illustration, then it is of course acceptable.  If one's position is that it is a movie of an actual water droplet falling, then it is not acceptable, because it isn't.  A compromise that preserves the integrity of the articles might be to label each instance as an 'illustration' or the like.  Tempshill 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All pictures on Wikipedia are used as illustrations; if they were used as evidence of something, they would be original research, regardless of whether they were claimed to be genuine or not. Presenting images as factual evidence might be appropriate on Wikisource, but not here.  Of course, not only are all the images discussed here used as illustrations, but the fact that they were digitally altered is clearly documented on their image description page.  Thus, there should be no problem here.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree; the above paragraph includes a good deal of wishful thinking about the way that a reader considers a photograph. A photo is evidence of something.  People have been conditioned to believe this from decades of reading the newspaper, reading magazines, and watching TV.  A photo illustrating a Wikipedia article will be taken to be evidence.  An altered photo, then, misleads the reader.  This is no different from an altered photo in a newspaper misleading the reader. Tempshill 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above. This is a ridiculous suggestion. "A known disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo" I think is the excerpt you are basing this on? Well I think a key word is "distort". Image editing can certainly be used to manipulate a photo to enhance the illustrative power of the image. This is not distorting it in any way. --Fir0002 11:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Untrue. When National Geographic moved the pyramids closer together to "enhance the illustrated power of the image" on their cover, this was a distortion of reality and is not allowed. Tempshill 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We have several paintings, drawings, and diagrams on Wikipedia which capture a great deal less reality than a real photograph with the top of somebody's head Photoshopped on. But they illustrate what's going on and add colour to the page. If people say "it's in a picture, so it must be true" then that's sad, but Wikipedia is not responsible for other people's incredibly lazy scholarship. And it's certainly not original research to present an illustration of something in an article, no more than it's original research to write the same article in your own words. Lord Bob 12:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not certain what you're trying to say here. Illustrations are fine.  Altered photos are not.  Tempshill 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's just ensure that the caption and image description properly describe its nature as a constructed illustration and not as a movie taken using high speed film. Deco 06:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was stating that 1) altered photos depict as much or more as an original illustration, 2) they are basically the same thing in OR terms, 3) I think it's all good in OR terms. At least, I think it was. It was a few days ago. Lord Bob 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're a bit too obsessed with the idea of Wikipedia as a compendium of all knowledge of all events that ever occurred. If you are simply trying to avoid a slippery slope that would lead to something like the National Geographic cover you mentioned, don't worry. Everything is fine in small doses, and that is true of altering images; all images can be altered within reason. Whether the alteration of an image is unreasonable will be determined one-image-at-a-time, not by executing an overly-restrictive policy of not altering any images.... &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-06-21 16:52

Evidence....
Will evidence of innacuracy or problems be shown in place of edited material? Call someone a liar or disprove a fact then another fact has to replace it.

--G-Spot 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you asking a question? Jkelly 17:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that if secondary sources conflict, what you have is a scholarly controversy and not "disproof". So both sides should be documented and both sides should cite sources. Fearwig 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This policy must be destroyed
This policy must be destroyed, and have its rotten corpse dragged through the dirty streets, for the good of Wikipedia.

Where do I sign? I'm almost sure that there is a "destroy the WP:NOR policy" committee already. If not, I sign here.


 * 1) Dabljuh 12:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you care to explain why? If we removed the original research policy Wikipedia would have to take every crank theory and unproveable assertion. No article could be relied on. It seems like a wise princip[le. I suspect you'll have to come up with some fairly convincing reasoning to persuade many people of this view... Gw e rnol 12:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, Wikipedia can not ever serve as a stand-alone, authoritative source of information, which is what "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" means, as long as everyone is granted the right to freely edit every article. That simple fact just destroys any sort of authority Wikipedia might want to claim - And thus, shouldn't. Instead, Wikipedia should just try to be a "good" source of information, not an authoritative (encyclopedic) one. For further info, see User:Dabljuh/Politics.
 * Secondly, the policy does not do the job it was implemented for. IIRC, Jimbo created the policy as a means to deal with crank physics theories, whose inventors tried to add legitimacy by having it appear on Wikipedia. WP:Verifiability as well as WP:Reliable source keeps most of the total nonsense out. Also, WP:NPOV Gives fringe theories their share: Stuff like Flat earth is allowed, as long as the article makes it clear that the theory in question is a fringe view and not accepted by the general (scientific) mainstream.
 * Thirdly, in conjunction with WP:Copyrights, which is not-negotiateable international law, WP:NOR can be used to censor almost all information on Wikipedia. If a censor wishes to act within the system, and wishes to censor a bit of information, he can variously invoke either policy to have that bit of information removed. Because, if consequently and anally used, WP:NOR would mean that nothing on Wikipedia that isn't largely a carbon copy of a WP:RS is allowed. And WP:Copyrights prevents carbon copied stuff from almost all sources except those in the public domain, such as the US Government. So WP:NOR means the only allowable content on wikipedia are carbon copies of US government statements.
 * Finally, since NOR isn't doing the job it's supposed to do (keeping nonsense out), it is used by various censors and POV pushers as a tool to censor information and harass legitimate users - i.e. keeping the good stuff out. Let me give you a real world example: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision
 * Summing it up: There's a paper from a WP:RS that says that surgical operations (cuts, wounds etc in a hospital environment) to infants would greatly increase the risk of MRSA infection, a highly anti-biotics resistant and dangerous strain of bacteria. Now, circumcision is quite a cut, and is most commonly done to infants, so a responsible writer would of course want to add that bit of information to the Medical analysis of circumcision article. But oh wait - The censors (who try to keep out any bit of information about circumcision that makes the practice look less favorable) find: While the article talks of all manners of surgical operations performed on infants as a risk factor, he does not specifically name circumcision as one of them. Of course many reliable sources as well state that circumcision is a serious surgical operation, especially when done to an infant - But to combine these two items would violate WP:NOR - Thus one can not state in the circumcision related articles that neonatal circumcision may facilitate an MRSA infection, due to WP:NOR.
 * Now, even when one finds a quality source online that actually does that thought (geniuses, huh) and publishes this, the source is rejected as being POV. This should tell you that WP:NOR isn't the only problem, and that there is a lot of shit going on near the Circumcision articles, but it still illustrates how WP:NOR has become mainly a tool to harass and censor, and does not at all serve the interests of Wikipedia (being a good source of information). Dabljuh 15:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * NOR does not prohibit all original interpretation or combining of sources - whether research is original research depends in a qualitative and subjective way on the degree of interpretation applied. We necessarily engage in some degree of interpretation in the course of ordinary presentation of facts. I would personally consider your particular case acceptable, but others might not. Anyone can cite a policy to try to win an edit war, but that doesn't mean the policy is wrong. Deco 17:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I said this was but one particular case. It is not the only one, I believe that WP:NOR is fundamentally flawed and ultimately more than just harmful - outright dangerous - to the integrity of Wikipedia. And that is why this policy must be destroyed. I can see it use as a friendly, although redundant recommendation not to try to publish original research on Wikipedia, but as a policy that - if taken strictly - prohibits writers from their journalistic duty to interpret and present - then that policy has to go. And that is just how the policy is used right now, and that is how it will continue to be used if the policy is not removed. Allowing journalistic integrity is paramount to the continued function of wikipedia, and any policy that just as much as touches this must be revoked as soon as its harmful possibilities can be recognized. And WP:NOR doesn't just touch journalistic integrity, it rapes it, murders it, and pees on its corpse. Not necessarily in that order. Dabljuh 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not journalists. Jkelly 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He didn't say we were; he said we had a journalistic duty, which I think is close to the mark. Actually it's an editor's duty. I think Dabljuh's concern can be addressed by modifying the policy; NOR doesn't have to be destroyed to allow what you are talking about.  I do agree to some extent, by the way, on your concern, and think NOR could use some modification in this area, and the overlap with WP:V should be eliminated.  Incidentally, and I know this is the wrong page to discuss it, I would say that in the circumcision debate linked to above that seems to have inflamed your hatred, I find the argument powerful that the MRSA link must be marked as purely speculative - but I would call this an RS argument and not an OR argument. Tempshill 18:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The MRSA link *is* purely speculative as the relationship with neonatal circumcision and MRSA has not been investigated yet (MRSA being a very young danger). But even making it clear in the article that this is, as of now, a speculative link would be prohibited by WP:NOR. Dabljuh 19:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the WP:NOR policy is misrepresented in these arguments, just as is the concept of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is, if you work with the premise that every statement is a subjective argument, a collection of arguments and their justifications (in the sense that the theory of gravity is an argument--just a very, very popular one). As such, NOR prevents WP from being hijacked by editors as a means of disseminating new arguments. NOR is crucial to maintaining NPOV, because (at least in theory) the representation of existing arguments as just that produces a neutral work, one that is a compilation rather than a collection of novel syntheses. This is very much in line with notions of journalistic integrity, and I would argue that it is a superior (or at least more exclusive) standard. What it comes down to is this: Wikipedia could be a source of original analysis, but that would redefine its purpose entirely. Everything2 is an example of a source of original analysis, and its mission is quite distinct from that of Wiki. The example you cited, Dabljuh, is to me not an example of truly original research but rather the superficial application of existing commentary into a discussion. If circumcision = surgery and surgery = a cause of this problem, then circumcision = a cause of this problem (but if any of those relationships are suspect or unverifiable, the entire thing becomes OR). It's a gray area, and I think it's one that should be elucidated by the NOR page. Not everyone would agree with me, but I think it comes down to a question of the "spirit of the rule". Fearwig 18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a gray area - WP:NOR is very clear on the matter:
 * ''An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:
 * ''It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * ''It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

And that is technically exactly what "circumcision = surgery and surgery = a cause of this problem, then circumcision = a cause of this problem" is. There is nothing gray or shady about it. And there is no reason to believe that this simple, logical thinking would be false - it simply violates WP:NOR. Now of course one begins to wonder, what the hell are you supposed to write in wikipedia then if you may not even draw the most obvious conclusions from given, verifiable data? When you are forbidden from stating the obvious? I told you: Carbon copies of US government statements in the public domain. Dabljuh 19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is obvious, the connection will have been made before. Summarise it encyclopedically, citing reliable sources.  Jkelly 19:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And that, in summary, is what an encyclopedia is: the collection of all the information from reliable sources, nothing more, nothing less. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to the extent that it follows WP:V and WP:OR. You want to create something that is not an encyclopedia. You are of course free to do this, just not here. Gw e rnol 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Failing that, if a relationship is absolutely implicit, I don't think it violates the spirit of NOR. I would even venture to say that this occurs tens of thousands of times in Wikipedia's million-odd articles, but that it's only really a problem when the conclusions are controversial. Which is probably a good thing--if it's controversial, a more careful inspction (and a stricter interpretation of NOR) is probably valid. As it is, I don't think the rules are too strict--I just think people take them as gospel, valid in every possible circumstance, when they are really just principles, tools editors can use in disputes to ensure that a valid approach is being taken in addressing the topic. My interpretation, of course. Fearwig 20:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"If it is obvious, the connection will have been made before." Not necessarily. The big, big advantage Wikipedia has over classical paper encyclopedias is that it is most up to date. This is one big reason why Wikipedia is successful. The threat of MRSA in this example is a very new one - and despite its obvious ramifications with circumcision, it may take months or years until someone writes a paper detailing circumcision risks of MRSA. I mean, if I'd ask a doctor, any doctor, if he'd write a paper detailing MRSA and neonate circumcision, it'd be something like "Hey, yeah, circumcision facilitates MRSA infection" - That is not really anything new. We knew that already. Because it is so obvious. The time of doctors is limited and when things are very obvious, there is just no incentive at all to release a paper that states the obvious, unless one wants to assault his peers with boredom. Lets make a different, fictious example. "Marilyn Monroe was a white woman". Original research! Can't say that unless you find me a *medical* peer reviewed journal that says so. Yeah, there's her picture and all that and she's very obviously white (although not necessarily blonde) but looking at the picture and drawing the conclusion that she must have been white is original research by the very meaning of the policy. Even more, even though we could presume that if she was white, her birthparents must have been white too, that's original research. The policy commands pure madness and does nothing to improve the objective and subjective quality of wikipedia articles. Drawing conclusions is one of the most important jobs of a journalist, judging sources, weighting different sources against each other, and making sense of all the gibberish. This is even more important for an encyclopedia. Mind you, it'd be perfectly ok to state something like "Pluto is Mickey Mouse's dog. Pluto is Donald Duck's dog" when we could find WP:RS for both. It doesn't make sense - contradictions like that leave the reader confused, making the article, and Wikipedia less useful. The objective assessment "Pluto is a character in the Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse series comics" would first have to found in a reliable source that explicitely and decisively states so - without any room for interpretation. And that doesn't happen a lot I tell you. An article on Wikipedia or any real encyclopedia absolutely MUST be more than just randomly gathered sentence fragments or carbon copied public domain material. But exactly this is the result of WP:NOR. Now I want to throw a challenge: Give me a hypothetical or real example where WP:NOR would actually improve the quality of Wikipedia, that is, where _no_ other policies and guidelines are sufficient to avoid compromising the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. Dabljuh 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. If one believes there is a legitimate question as to the usability on Wikipedia, it can be discussed on another web forum and placing a note there helps to notify interested parties who may want to contribute to a site intent upon the merging of such nonsense - just not wikipedia. This a encyclopedia content matter and, this being a free encyclopedia whose summaries are based solely upon based facts able to be referenced, we should take it seriously. No killing of these policies. I would suggest that, if you think about it, you'll realise that you're not talking about the point of wikipedia at all but a free for all blog with no restrictions to keep questionable content to a minimum. Engaging in personal research and round about composistions isn't what this site is about at all. -ZeroTalk 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hallucinations! Fever dreams! WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and all those other fun policies are still in effect. You have yet to give me one example where those other policies would not be sufficient to keep "questionable" content out. Dabljuh 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Numerous policies are in effect to sustain content and prevent editors from gaming the system in cases where a policy doesn't happen to say they can't do it. The policies aren't going anywhere. We don't take unnecessary risks. -ZeroTalk 19:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That would imply you would be in favor of the "You may not add any content, ever" policy. Dabljuh 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My contributions imply enough by themselves. With over 12,000 edits, a large amount brand new articles, I think that's a grossly misleading statement. -ZeroTalk 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey I think everyonen has a point here. This policy needs to be in place to prevent people from including unfounded comments, theories or beliefs. But what this policy effectivly does is restrict wikipedia. See my article on Somers, Victoria it is 100% origional research, yet it is quite a good encyclopedic article and anyone who would want to know about the subrub of Somers will find out all they need and want to know. I included references, key word references places where my first hand original research came from, I didnt just pull this stuff out of my ass. Comments and observations are noted for the reasons why they have been observed that particular way, if anyone disputes the way I see the beach or the way I read the names of the roads in the street directory then they can discuss it on the discussion page and we resolve any disputes to further refine the information. Isnt this the point of Wikipedia?! With this policy the way it is structured it restricts everything on Wikipedia. I do have a tertiary education but I can't spell well and I don't know my timestables! Just because your educated dosent make you this high and mighy being whos judgment and opinion rules over so much. If no one was alowd to do original research then we wouldnt have recorded history at all! You have original research to thank for even know what happened in the year 1706!

Use some common sense whoever is writing this policy. Nick carson 06:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate this policy and I also think it should be destroyed. I think wikipedia would be better if we were allowed to do original research. People would be able to get their own information instead of finding it off the internet or from a book--Taida 01:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There's some discussion already at Village Pump. Consider an example where someone is described as female and a lawyer, but the source doesn't explicitly say "female lawyer". Is it OR to call them a female lawyer?

Of course, you might argue that you should be able to find a source which says "female lawyer" explicitly, but you probably won't find a source which says "... is a female lawyer who is born in 1965, lives in Pleasantville, New Jersey and has been involved in so-and-so case...." At some point, you're going to have to take two statements about the person, and deduce from "this person is A" and "this person is B" that "this person is A and B".

Figuring out that the person is "A and B" involves making a deduction, just like going from "all infant surgery has this problem" and "circumcision is infant surgery" to "circumcision has this problem". Only a rule of logic is used to get from the premises to the conclusion. It seems ludicrous that such things are banned, and even more ludicrous when the decision about which to ban is purely arbitrary. Ken Arromdee 16:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I might add that I don't necessarily think the circumcision information should be in Wikipedia. In the mediation, someone brought up the point that all surgery can't literally mean all surgery; the way it was worded it could apply even to pinpricks, which it obviously doesn't.  I have no problem with removing it; however, it should be removed for reasons other than OR.
 * In other words, the circumcision information should be allowed by a "reasonable inference" rule, but would fail on the grounds of using a quote out of context. Ken Arromdee 16:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This policy allows WP to be highjacked by sensationalist publishing
"If it bleeds, it leads" is the philosophy of the media. They're not interested in telling uninteresting stories, so if the truth is dull and uninteresting (which it often is), it often never sees print or airing, and thus becomes uncitable. Too often, it thus becomes unavailble to WP, according to WP:NOR. That's a problem.

WP:NOR, as you all know, essentially demands that something be printed or published somewhere else, before being put in WP. Original research or personal facts can be included, to be sure, but only if they're seen print somewhere else first. But getting the boring truth printed is not easy. Publication costs money. That money comes from somewhere. This causes bias. WP:NOR inevitably causes WP to follow that systemic bias.

That problem will continue so long as this policy is in place. The reason is that one can always get a reference for "man bites dog" because it's news and somebody will have printed it. But if you want a print reference for "dog bites man" you may well be in trouble, even if you're the man the dog bit. And if you want one for "dog didn't bite man", forget it. Again, even if you're the man the dog was erroneously supposed to have bit. Nobody will be interested. It doesn't sell papers. It doesn't attract advertising dollars.

WP, the FREEEEE encylopedia, consisting only of factoids originally printed because somebody wanted to sell a book, a journal, a story, a newspaper, or some kind of advertising. And untroubled by skepicism of same, because its editors must maintain a NPOV about this stuff, and cannot question it on their own. No matter how wacky it is, if it's in print, it's citable, and if the obvious problems with it are not in print, too bad. Sbharris 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First I think you're really complaining about verifiability not original research, though of course the two are intimately related. Either way, an encyclopedia is the collection of knowledge published elsewhere. That's why these two cornerstone policies are there. Remember its about verifiability not truth. Yes, that means that there will be some articles that can't be written (yet), but what's the alternative? Well, the alternative is to open the floodgates and allow anything to be written here with absolutely no way to tell if its true or reputable.


 * Personally I think the tradeoff is the right one and WP:V and WP:OR are essential to Wikipedia. Gw e rnol 21:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, why again would removing WP:NOR open the floodgates to allow anything? WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS would still be in place. Dabljuh 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I believe Sbharris (and you) are really arguing against WP:V not (simply) WP:OR. The two are complements of each other. Remove one and you remove the other (and therefore WP:RS as well). Gw e rnol 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, speaking for myself, my problem is verifiability and reliability are not exact complements of each other, or equally important, even though WP treats them a two equal legs of a policy which otherwise supposedly would not stand up. I have no problem, for example, with much of what is said in WP:RS--- I think it is fairly wise. For example "Avoid the popular press as a source". However, it does not go far enough. Worse still WP:V seems to go over the same ground and regards the popular press as an acceptably verifiable source to get around NOR, even though its reliability score is (admitadly) very bad. But the reasoning for this wallows around between RS and V in a very confusing way, as though somebody can't make up their mind why it's okay to quote newsprint.


 * The WP:V site, for example, spends time talking about reliablity when it's supposed to be talking about verifiabiity: It has this to say:


 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.


 * My reaction to this statement is that the phrase "for that reason" does not follow logically. For what reason? That anyone can do it? Odd to hear from WP! It is certainly true that few people and institutions have the resources to buy and control their own large newspapers or television stations, but it does not THEREFORE follow that the few who do, are somehow more credible ipso facto, than people with less money. What, wealth and power buys integrity?  How's that again? Say what?


 * History is full of bad examples of media which are utterly controlled by a certain POV and are unreliable in one or more areas. One thinks of propaganda outlets like Pravda or Völkischer Beobachter, or examples of Yellow Journalism in the US. But there are less obvious examples, such as the pro-Mormon coverage of the Deseret News and KSL in Salt Lake City, and so on.


 * Peer-reviewed publications tend to be more reliable due to the review process itself, but the fact that they are (or may be) print publications or radio or TV channels, does not guarantee such a process. They may be Christian channels. Or Fox News, fair and balanced. Or the journal may be an organ of the pharm industry or some other industry. Some journals exist to publish Creationist "research" articles. Who owns these journals? Who advertises in them? Such a process may occur on any scale, in print or on the web. Size and money is not good proxy for it, and WP should abandon the idea that print is a marker for ANYTHING. It's pernicious. All it's a marker for, is that somebody has money enough to kill trees. They may be a few trees, and give a low V.  The person killing the trees may have a crazy agenda, and there may be a low RS. The fact that a tree died to produce something, really means nothing.


 * I'll stop there for other's comment, but I can't resist amplifying the thought that TRUE verifiablity has the same problem with overlap. Remember "reliablity" is how likely the source is to be high quality (for ease of discussion, "true"). Verifiablity V only refers to how easy it is to check to see if the source is a "genuine" source, and not a made-up one. But now we run into two questions: why should we care about the "genuiness", V, of bad or unreliable sources? If they are utterly unreliable, couldn't we just as well make the same statement without source? Isn't using a source of poor reliability (RS) worse than having no source at all, since a source with both poor R and poor V may be at the same time difficult to check, and wrong as well? Current WP policy assumes that standard media (at least printed publications) are ipso facto more verifiable than web sources, but this is no longer always true, and in the future it's going to be blurrier still. Okay, you can cite your printed source as the Welsley Poetry Quarterly, v. 10, 1972.  How easy is that to check vs. some webpage which is mirrored in a dozen worldwide archives, and which couldn't be erased even if everybody made a concerted effort to do it. Do YOU want to find that old back issue of that dinky puff poetry journal, in some basement of some dusty library?  Verifiability is a different thing in practise than in theory. And there's no reason to single out electronic sites for special skepticism, on that basis alone. If they're hard to change and easy to check, they're verifiable. Not the same thing as accurate or reliable, but not meant to be. Sbharris 04:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly. The original spirit of the rule (prevent crank physics theories) is implemented by WP:V alone - You can't post real original research on Wikipedia since it is not verifiable. We don't need WP:NOR for that. See, there's this other rule, that most people don't even need to be told: WP:SENSE - use common sense. Now for example something like "circumcision -> surgery, surgery -> infection, thus circumcision -> infection" would appear as common sense to pretty much anyone. WP:V doesn't keep people from stating the obvious because we have WP:SENSE. WP:NOR however does that, and exactly that. WP:NOR intentionally limits the general, conscious freedom people have about what to post and what not - by taking away their right (and duty) to interpret facts and present them in a sensible manner. WP:V works well on it's own. We don't need WP:NOR to keep crackpot ideas out of wikipedia, but we essentially can't write quality articles that conform to policy with WP:NOR. Dabljuh 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I am talking about. The obvious, even if without a doubt true, must not necessarily be found in WP:RS - especially with recent developements. Should Wikipedia state the obvious? I'd say, tongue-in-cheek, that stating the obvious is the only real task of any general encyclopedia. Dabljuh 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If this policy 'allows' sensationalist publishing (which I don't believe is the case) then removing the policy would do nothing to disallow it. DJ Clayworth 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your right, removing it would do nothing, it must be refined and taken from a different angle. Original research must be allowed, however, some major guidelines must be put in place on the original research, for an example the article Somers, Victoria is 100% original research. Nick carson 06:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree: original research must not be allowed. Otherwise every crank in the world will use Wikipedia to push their mad theories. Just zis Guy you know? 07:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nick, there seems to be a misunderstanding about original research. It was not (as far as I understand - I didn't write it) intended to prohibit basic editing activities - collecting information, organising it, summarising it and editing it into a form appropriate for an encyclopedia. Those operations are the only ones I can detect in the Somers, Victoria article. What the policy is intended to prevent is the proposal of new theories, or new interpretations, within Wikipedia. There is a section further down where we are talking about making a policy amendment to make this explicit. DJ Clayworth 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple question.
I've been reading the debate and would like to focus on one basic question:

Are there any cases where WP:NOR is needed to prevent the insertion of text that doesn't belong, and the other rules do not suffice? Al 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * . Jkelly 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably only a few hundred thousand such cases exist on Wikipedia. Seriously though, NOR is about making sure the articles are about existing information, not information put forth by the editors. It's about Wikipedia being a collection of notable information and not a blog site. Fearwig 02:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, our goal is to prevent editors from making shakey connections and questionable inferences. Unfortunately, it's being used to silence obvious and solid syllogisms. In the example you link to above, there links made were sketchy, so I can see why there's a problem. Even there, the solution is to either find attribution or tone down the strength of the alleged links, not to remove the entire section. WP:NPOV and WP:V would suffice to prevent this sort of thing, without any need for a specific WP:OR rule.

How can WP:NOR be abused? Let me quote myself from a recent RFM that went nowhere:
 * I'm beginning to wonder if we need a rule for No Original Desynthesis. We have one source saying there's a link, but you won't allow it because they're an activist group.  We have a newspaper offering incidents that strongly suggest a link, but you won't allow it because it's not a medical study.  We have a medical study that admits that any cutting is linked, but you won't allow it because it expects doctors to know that circumcision involves cutting.  We have a site that mentions all three pages, but you won't all that because, once again, the site is considered partisan, even though it includes the opinions of doctors.  We could point out the links ourselves, but you won't allow that because it would be original research (even though, in fact, it's not at all original). Round and round we go... to extraordinary lengths to avoid mentioning the obvious.
 * I'm sorry, but I find this ridiculous. We have verifiable facts here and yet there is opposition.  I can't explain it while simultaneously assuming good faith, so I'm just going to throw my hands in the air. Either you are misunderstanding the rules or the rules do not apply here. Al 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean? Al 04:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me as though these people have legalistically abused or just misinterpreted the rule. If it exists in legitimate print, it is a source, because you can say: "Medical Journal states in (issue) that infant shaking may cause global warming." This is encyclopedic. It is not biased, even though it's nonsense. Similarly, "CEI believes the moon is made of dogs, and is an active advocate of this position. They also claim responsibility for the Martian holocaust." It's all about the phrasing. Put out what people say, not what you think, no matter how supported it is, and your edit will survive and continue to be useful. In doing so, you're not compromising... you're being clear. And accurate. You don't even have to make the link if you think the readers can do it themselves (e.g. posting legitimate statistics on infant surgery--this lets the reader decide whether you have to cut something in order to circumcize it, no matter how obvious). A partisan site can still be a good source, too--an article isn't POV as long as the source in question is indicated as a source of opinion, and not a source of say, scientific, journalistic or scholarly opinion. Fearwig 05:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As it turns out, I endorsed inserting a single sentence to the effect that a named group of doctors has suggested a link, followed by SIX citations. The text attributed the idea to this group, did not claim their idea was true, and was heavily cited.  It has been opposed, to the point of a failed RFM and multiple blocks. Now can anyone tell me why NOR still exists?  Al  22:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No. When the BMJ states that the moon is made of earwax, we don't have to say the same thing or treat it as truth, when we believe it to be obvious nonsense. It would be irresponsible to simply spread outrageous claims from any source without cross-checking.

What we always can do, regardless of truth value, is to quote them directly. We can state "in a 2004 published statement, the BMJ explained that the moon was made from earwax" rather than "the moon is made from earwax". There is a very distinctive difference there - We, Wikipedia, treat the latter statement (*X is*) as objective truth, and we post it because (we believe in good faith) we can verify it with reliable sources. The premier one (*Y say X*) is merely a quote - we do not treat it as the objective truth, but merely as the (noteworthy - subjective judgement) opinion of a group. It doesn't matter if it's right or not - we can quote them in a manner that does not infer either, and the only thing that decides whether that quote can go into the article is whether we find it notable enough or not. The problem is that articles full of "These say this" "those say that" quickly becomes incomprehensible to a reader that just wants clear information. Thus, overuse of this technique is rightfully discouraged, and conflicts between sources is what WP:NPOV is all about - We have to separate mainstream and fringe views and indicate which is which and give them their due respect.

In the example with the Circumcision-MRSA link, it would have been perfectly appropriate to state something like this:
 * "MRSA is a new strain of highly antibiotics resistant bacteria occurring in hospitals that especially endangers children that undertake pediatric surgery. *cite* DOC, a group that opposes circumcision, raises concerns about how infant circumcision, as a surgical procedure done to infants could faciliate MRSA infection *citedicite*" 

We state the surgical danger of MRSA endangers children. This is, objectively and verifiably the truth, or at least what we should note as truth. We furthermore quote and relativate DOC, not saying necessarily anything about the truth value of their statement (although in this particular case it would be obvious). Yes, opposition to such an addition to the article does not contribute to wikipedia, it prevents the article from getting better, and is the sad work and harrassment of POV warriors.

The question is, iff there was NO notable source reporting the latter jump to conclusion, should we, or should we not, be able to state this rather obvious (and notable) conclusion because of the sheer obviousness? Mind you, this IS an obvious example. I would not bring it up if anyone could raise serious doubts about the validity of the conclusion. Yes this is a subjective matter - But we make subjective judgements already when we decide over what constitutes a reliable source for example. There is simply no way to remove subjective judgements from the editing process. The idea is, that we work out our differences - Consensus is found in debate and thus again, subjective judgement. I have already explained that we must judge all the time, and that we have a ethical duty as editors to keep our articles as accurate and good as we can possibly make them. WP:NOR deliberately keeps us from doing so, while doing nothing to help us other than redundantly reminding us that Wikipedia wants verifiable sources and therefore doesn't like unpublished original research.

Alienus and I have now both asked for a concrete, specific example of a situation where a malicious disruptive addition could not be kept out from Wikipedia by WP:V and WP:NPOV alone. That is, a specific incident where only WP:NOR - and no other policy - could have been used. Simply stating that there would be thousands of incidents, yet then not detailing a single one of them, does not sound very convincing to me. Dabljuh 09:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me add my voice (making it now three of us) asking what NOR does that isn't already done by a combination of V, RS, and NPOV. Just posting it on a Wiki ONCE gives it a presense on the web which is good as long as there are servers and archives, and thus a better V than many an old newspaper of small publication in a morgue file. But when this is pointed out, the opponents readily switch from wanting to argue V to wanting to argue RS. Okay, let us argue RS. Why is (say) my private synthetic opinion on a scientific or medical matter not as "reliable" as (say) that of your average science journalist, and his or her desk editor? Suppose I'm a working physician and/or scientist with many publications in science journals, and they aren't? We've all seen errors in popular science publications. Some are pointed out by readers the next month. By contrast, errors in science fact get found and fixed much faster on WP. So RS is less of a problem on WP than many places elsewhere (skip favorable comparison of the content of WP to other encylopedias, but you all know they're fairly comparable). We are told in WP:RS not to trust newspapers for science information. So.... why does this not suggest trusting individual science professionals for their opinion over newspapers and most other media?


 * Answer: Back comes the objections from WP:V. How does anybody verify personal opinion statement on WP? (this is separate from the question of their accuracy). Well, answer: again because old Wipidedia entries have high V, as noted. Then, because WP:RS can no longer be used as an argument, we come down to the REAL reason for NOR: It's the argument of last resort to the above challenge when somebody is finally done flipping back and forth between bludgeoning somebody with WP:V and WP:RS. It's the last refuge of certain people who really feel in their heart of hearts that the writings of professional journalists are more to be trusted than are the writings of professionals of all other kinds.Sbharris 03:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Appear to advance a position
I'm not sure that this revert was an improvement. RJII's phrasing was easier reading, and we should probably not have incoherent arguments that are WP:NOR either. Jkelly 04:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My objection has been adequately addressed.Timothy Usher 04:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The point behind my edit was that new syntheses of concepts to advance an argument is original research. But, so is new syntheses of concepts NOT used to advance an argument. The sentence seemed to restrict original research to only those new syntheses or novel interpretation which are used to advance an argument. I don't even know if I fixed it. It's an awkward couple of sentences. RJII 04:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll look at it more in a bit, style-wise, but...while your edits that I'd reverted scared me (what? advancing original arguments is now okay???), I no longer have that feeling. You're on the right track, substance-wise.Timothy Usher 05:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to place this in some context, it turns out that User:RJII has a pretty obvious motive for modifying WP:NOR. You see, he's engaged in an ongoing battle to get his favorite writer listed as a "major philosopher" on List of philosophers. When his efforts failed, he tried to get the article deleted. That's not working, so now he's trying to modify WP:NOR to shift the balance towards his goals. In short, anything he does here should be evaluated in the context of these goals, and reacted to appropriately. Al 05:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ever heard of Assume Good Faith? In consulting this article in the midst of that conflict, I simply noticed that the definition was akward and a bit misleading. Regardless, my edits stand on their own regardless of my motivations. I think everyone here is bright enough to recognize that. By the way, Ayn Rand is far from my "favorite writer." I know little about her philosophy and haven't even read anything but a few excerpts. I'm not sure if I even like her writing. You really need to watch yourself. RJII 05:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my edit comment, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Al 05:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Alienus, I take this very seriously, but am sadly too tied up in a number of discussions to review Ayn Rand, List of philosophers, etc. at this moment. Can you summarize your assertion for the readers of this page?Timothy Usher 05:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Briefly, RJII has shown through his edits that he is an advocate of novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. Unfortunately for him, her name keeps getting removed from the list of major philosophers at List of philosophers, primarily because Rand has no academic credentials or credibility.  She's omitted from multiple 1000+ philosophical encyclopedias that manage to find room to mention many minor philosophers and all major ones.
 * Once he realized he couldn't get her listed, he tried to get the page deleted. This has failed.  Then, I made the mistake of mentioning WP:NOR, so now he's here to attack this rule so that it allows Rand on the list.
 * That's the short version. Al  22:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've returned the phrase "serving to advance a position" (or whatever the wording is), because all Wikipedia articles are new syntheses of published material, if they're not plagiarized. The point of the policy is that a new synthesis of published material should not serve to advance a position held by a Wikipedian, as it states elsewhere in the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if we can think of some better phrasing. We shouldn't be presenting new arguments of any kind at all, even if they are some kind of back-and-forth incoherency that doesn't advance anything.  This is, perhaps, a minor detail that isn't as important as emphasising the point that "appears to advance a position" is making.  On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see arguments that some argument isn't "original research" because it fails to "advance a position".  Jkelly 18:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jkelly. The important thing isn't whether the user is using it to advance their crank theories or whatever, it's whether they offer too much novel interpretation or novel ideas over available reputable sources. Also, it's often impossible to judge a person's intent accurately. Deco 20:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the "advance a position" thing was added because someone rightly pointed out that all Wikipedia articles are new syntheses of published material. If you can think of better wording, I'd be fine with it, but I'd say that all arguments advance a position; I can't think what kind of argument wouldn't. So by including "that advance a position," I don't agree that we're in danger of allowing new arguments that are original research but don't advance a position. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The above must be one of the worst sentences I've ever written, but I hope you see what I was trying to say. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But, what about "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts" that DON'T appear to advance a position? That would be original research as well. RJII 20:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it's obvious that no new interpretations and analyses of any kind are allowed. But we can't say that no new synthesis of published material is allowed, because all Wikipedia articles are a new synthesis of published material. Therefore, it's only a particular type of new synthesis that isn't allowed, and that is when it serves to advance a position. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that. Say, for example, someone gets some numerical economic figures from various sources and then does his own calculations to come up with a metric and puts the result in a table. He's not trying to advance a position --he's just conducting a synthesis of information and presenting the result as factual. That would still be original research, as far as I understand the concept. For it not to be original research he would have to find the already calculated metric in a source. RJII 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We've had problems with mathematical issues a few times, where some people have argued that unpublished calculations are OR and some have argued not. The phrase started life as no new synthesis of published material, and I would agree with that, but then others raised the point that all articles are a new synthesis etc.


 * Can you think of different wording i.e. something other than "serves to advance a position." Could it simply be weakened to "may serve to advance a position"? This is the essence of the calculations objection: that we don't know whether it advances a position or not: all we know is that it hasn't been published. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I've been in the midst of the debate with RJII over at the list of philosophers page, I would like to clarify has been going on there. RJII is currently trying to make the argument there that the NOR rule should be construed so strictly as to not allow the use of synonymy.  He claims that one cannot assume, for example, that the words 'major' and 'important' share even a degree of common meaning.  That is, he maintains that one could not use sources stating that some Dr. X is an extremely important philosopher as evidence that Dr. X is a major philosopher -- simply because, on his reading, assuming any sort of shared meaning among regular English words and phrases amounts to engaging in original research.  In other words, he maintains that the only allowable kind of evidence for being a major philosopher is a source that explicitly states that the person is a major philospher.  A source that claimed Dr. X is the greatest philosopher of all time would not be admissible, on his view, because it would be original research.  I hope the problems with this reading of the NOR policy are evident.  Now, I can't say for sure whether his edits here are meant to back up this extremely strict reading of NOR, but I hope everyone here will consider this background issue when they are evaluating his changes.  I would also invite you to check out the discussion on the List_of_philosophers talk page for yourself.  I apologize in advance for the volume of comments there. fi99ig 02:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My argument over there is that simply we can't assert that a philosopher is a "major" philosopher unless there is a source that says they're a major philosopher. It's not for us to decide who is or isn't a "major" philosopher. To assert someone is a major philosopher without a source saying so is "original research." Then, with that as a premise, I'm saying since we have no objective criteria for what it means to be "major," the rational thing to do is look for sources that use the term "major philosopher" --otherwise you have an unresolvable debate because everyone has their own interpretation of what "major" would constitute. I'm just offering a rational way to acheive consensus. I'm don't want any part of a debate over who is or isn't a major philosopher. The only thing I'm interested in is whether the sources say the philosopher is a "major philosopher." I don't want to engage in an unresolvable debate. It's as simple as that. It's totally unrelated the edits I was making here. But, if you want to think I was trying to manipulate policy for my own ends, feel free. RJII 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Unclear section
I've removed the following section as some of it seems unclear and may even encourage OR:


 * The following are not original research:
 * Listing well-known claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories or Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C)
 * Listing notable claims that contradict established axioms, theories, or norms (e.g morphogenetic fields or conspiracy theories)
 * Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories)
 * Citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor, the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible (e.g. Phlogiston, Aether)
 * Listing ideas that have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal
 * Listing ideas that have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

The point of the policy is that all of the above are fine iff they have been published by a reliable source, so it might be confusing to list them as though they're special cases. Also, it's not clear what "citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor ..." refers to. Of course it's fine to publish views that violate Occam's Razor, iff they've been published by a reliable source. (What's special about Occam's Razor?) SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This appears to be oriented towards certain misapplications of the rule. Sometimes people will mistakenly think that because a topic is unscientific, in the sense of lacking a testable hypothesis or contradicting established facts, that it is unsuitable for inclusion. I'm not sure how much this has do with OR though. Deco 20:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the section should be put back. It is a clear counterpoint to the What is excluded? section. It doesn't encourage OR as much as it encourages people to understand NOR - what is and isn't OR. People might cite NOR and claim that one of the above violates it, when a simple list like that would cure such an issue. Fresheneesz 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't see why the particular things on this list should be singled out. For example, who has ever claimed that we can't include material that violates Occam's Razor? I'm also concerned about "Listing ideas that have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal," because we don't publish ideas that have been accepted for publication. We publish them once they've been published. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Those points could be modified or removed. But I think that *a* list is neccessary, though *this* list could be improved a bit. Fresheneesz 22:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The apparent purpose of this section is to allow important histories of false theories. Cold fusion and Phlogiston are discredited theories, so they do not belong in scientific articles about Nuclear fusion or Combustion but nevertheless they are sufficiently major parts of history that they warrant their own articles. Still, a list like this, and unclear as it is, should not be in the policy. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This policy is non-negotiable
For those who have missed this: The WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V policies are now officially non-negotiable. This took effect on 7 February 2006 when this edit to WP:NPOV went through without significant discussion or opposition.


 * Um, say what? Jimbo Wales says that WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, and then some other guy on Feb 7 says this applies to V and NOR *exactly as written at that time*, and because nobody chirped up, this statement is presumed to lock WP policy from now-on? Or until we hear from on-high?


 * What is your basis for making this statement? Is it verifiable and reliable?Sbharris 16:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Francis Schonken, "a basic problem is that too many people tried to *negotiate* the content of the policy page. Better keep it clear: there's no such procedure as changing wikipedia's NPOV policy by negotiation. As said, there's no separation between the NPOV policy and the way it is formulated on the NPOV policy page, or, if there would be, that separation would be different per person, so that's not a workable distinction."

It is probably too early to tell whether or not the change is an improvement and will stand the test of time (assuming it can be reverted subject to consensus which seems self-contradictory). However, it does not seem too far-fetched to suppose it can (and should) be used as implied by Francis: to cut off attempts to negotiate the content of policy pages as redundant and, indeed, disruptive. AvB &divide; talk  14:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Does that mean, in order to get this policy removed we must bribe / blackmail / assassinate Jimbo? Dabljuh 17:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because it's not clear if Wales had anything to do with it. The proposal being discussed was made by Jossi, who is not Wales so far as I can tell (unless it's the outlaw Jossi Wales, yuk, yuk), and yet is now claimed to be engraved on stone like the Ten Commandments, simply because at the time it "went through" without "significant discussion or opposition." This is a bizzare assertion. Also, the comment by AvB &divide;  talk  doesn't try to back up, or in any way reference, their odd assertion that the WP rules have thereby changed permanently in this fashion making this whole statement doubly ironic, considering our subject. Hey, AvB &divide;  talk, have you got a reference for your idea above? We'd like to see your primary source to check your RS and V. Failing that, I happen to think that what you wrote is your personal POV. Has Mr. Wales signed off on it? Sbharris 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following strategy: We start recruiting people that share our goals (of a Wikipedia free of insane policies with nightmarish ramifications) and when we have enough, we simply remove the policy and declare it out of effect. Any RV gets RV'd. We do it until either everyone accepts that the policy is nonsense (and we win) or Jimbo or whoever is responsible shows up and faces us for a discussion. Dabljuh 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Meanwhile we have too many people like AvB &divide; talk   making really authoritative-sounding statements, like the one that heads this article, when they have no more authority here than you or I. The best way to flush out true authorities on WP policy is be bold, make reasonable and reasoned changes, until the real authorities (not you AvB &divide;  talk -- you seem to have mistaken yourself for The Boss), I say, until the real authorities like Jimbo come out of the woodwork and tell us that we've gone too far. My policy on this is rather like that Thomas Paine's "Sir, when God tells me something, that's revelation. When you tell me He told you something, that's hearsay." So far, I've gotten a lot of hearsay. Sbharris 18:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Teehee I like this response! Please consider the possibility that I have succeeded hiding my opinion of this specific policy language. Or just click on the links I gave. Woohoo! AvB &divide; talk  18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What links?? The only link you gave is to somebody else's opinion, a person who, so far as I can tell, has no more authority on these matters than you do. Why don't you just issue a fatwah and call it that?
 * I'll spell it out for you. Click on the links I gave. From there click on links that look relevant, like "older edit," "newer edit," "older revision" and "newer revision". Look up the facts, check if what I wrote is relevant. It's much more interesting than bothering the messenger and immensely more interesting if you don't trust the messenger. AvB &divide; talk  18:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I must concede I'm lost, here. Why ever should the policies that dictate the insertion, removal and type of content introduced into the encyclopediac scheme not be non-negotiable..? We're entitled to our opinions of Jimbo's activities, and AvB is entitled to his opinion on the quality of given edits. We know the encyclopedia is intent on the output of information that can be supported by solid facts and a referenced basis; there's no need to go on saying that policies should be negotiable and whatnot. I find this constant tweaking on what and how facts can be introduced depressing; I thought we, as a serious encyclopedia were intent upon the hard and veritiable facts on subjects, not original research, un-veritiable content and biased views. No. This website shall never degrade to that. These policies are non-negotiable, and shall proceed to be as long as wikipedia is a encyclopedia with the purpose to give informative content. -ZeroTalk 18:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am unable to find any place in which the policies of WP are set forth in unchangable fashion, by ONLY those who have the authority to make them (which I presume is Jimbo and I don't know who else), and signed. If you look at the history pages of WP:V and WP:RS you'll find that they mutate day by day. There is thus a lot of Talmudic commentary on a Torah which I can't seem to locate. Do you know where it is? I'm tired of reading lay exegesis on scripture which nobody seems to have available. Do you see my point? Sbharris 18:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We're a bad ass and serious encyclopedia and all that shit. But the policy essentially says you can't say 2+2=4 if you don't find a source that says that. However, you can say 2+2=5 if you find a source that satisfies WP:RS - you can't say its wrong, however, since that would be OR again. That is not serious encyclopedia-making. That isn't even uncyclopedia-making. That is just lunacy and a violation of all that is good and holy and sexy about Wikipedia. We, as editors, need be given our RIGHT back, to point out the obvious - if necessary. "True" original research, like the policy originally intended to keep out, is already prevented by WP:V. WP:NOR is just the result of the overreaction of one man who was fed up dealing with physics cranks. Worse even, every article on Wikipedia that is not a 1:1 carbon copy of a Britannica 1911 article, is a synthetic product that may or may not advance a point, and thus violates NOR policy. What is more important, this policy, or the absolute sum of everything that is Wikipedia? I say we take this policy behind the barn with a shotgun and blow the mother away. Dabljuh 18:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The changes of policy doesn't ussually result in the introduction of such disreputable material. Tweaking across policyspace is also an act that any editor can perform, and results in no long term standing of material unless backed or not challenged by concensus. That's not what I'm refering to, however.


 * I am solely speaking of these policies and these alone. For it is these policeis that dictate and enforce the additions of material and how the encyclopedia operates. For that reason, these policies make clear such actions pertaining to original research and the like are not permitted. And they shouldn't. This is an encyclopedia and a very serious project open to the public. We're not perfect, but we're trying and as a general interpretation we are running quite smoothly. We don't require the fiddling of these key policies to decrease the value of the encyclopedia. It is for this reason these policies will always be non-negotiable. -ZeroTalk 18:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've already explained a zillion times, NOR is not an absolute rule. In the course of ordinary presentation we inevitably engage in some degree of interpretation. NOR just says not to apply too much interpretation, where too much is subjective and determined on a case-by-case basis. Deco 19:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are deeply mistaken, like most people who enter the discussion. You have no idea: There is no subjective part involved. Its OR, forbidden if, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". I.e. any article or sentence that is not carbon copied from a reputable source. I repeat, since you appear slow: No subjective degree of interpretation regarding what is original research and what not. The only subjective judgement you make is whether a source is reliable enough for the given claim, or not. Dabljuh 19:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That is certainly the position someone attempting to destroy this rule would take. But you're just setting up a straw man. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. Deco 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You call a direct quote from the policy a straw man? What the... ? Dabljuh 19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, if you find me pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about (and its not such a long piece of text, just read it once in a while) a personal attack, then I must say, I find your allegations of personal attacks a personal attack. Please abstain from hurting my soft squishy heart. Dabljuh 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I find you calling me "slow", as in stupid, a personal attack. Maybe the policy should be edited to more explicitly reflect the common interpretation that it is not to be interpreted strictly. Deco 19:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am all in favor of "Please ignore this policy". Maybe we could add a header like this? Dabljuh 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I find WP:NOT extremely sufficient. This policy has ramifications that make it harmful to the entire encyclopedia, overruling any WP:SENSE, making it only useful to trolls, pov-pushers, wikilayers and stealth vandals. Dabljuh 18:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Given WP:Ignore_all_rules, aren't all rules negotiable - they depend on the needs of the community and consensus. Right? Fresheneesz 20:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:Ignore_all_rules enforces the action with the addition of simple common sense. Negotiating the policies which keep the encyclopedia a respectable source of content is not in any way good common sense. -ZeroTalk 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
Consensus at this time is that this policy should be removed. If you are of a different opinion, then you are simply not up to date with the discussion. But because you are lazy, and I am such a nice person, I will give you a short summary right here:


 * WP:NOR does nothing to keep out "Original Research" that WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT and all those other fun policies wouldn't either.
 * WP:NOR has serious drawbacks: Essentially it demands from the editor to turn ALL mental activity off, except for judging sources for their reliability. Any synthesis of thought, that is, ANY phrase that is not 100% copied and cited from a reliable source, that is, ALL articles on wikipedia that aren't 100% copied from a reliable source in the public domain, is explicitely forbidden. This is no joke. Read the policy.

If you want to know more, scroll up and read up.

You can disagree with those two simple points all you want if you want yourself to look foolish. Its not a matter of opinion. The policies themselves are extremely clear, explicit, and not a matter of interpretation on that matter.

If the policy is displayed as in effect right now, that means someone who couldn't be arsed to look up the talk pages is acting against the consensus and reverted against someone who took the policy out of effect. Remove the policy now, for the good of Wikipedia. Dabljuh 16:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. There is no consensus to overturn WP:NOR. Your continued personal attacks ("lazy", "make yourself look foolish" etc. above) and your blatant violations of WP:POINT are not advisable and your argument above is flawed. Consensus is not the same thing as you repeatedly stating the same case. I for one do not buy your arguments and strongly support WP:NOR. Gwernol 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You believe in WP:NOR? Well that is not a valid objection. Argue or cooperate. Dabljuh 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are not the choices. You are making the positive claim that there is consensus to overturn this policy so the burden is on you to demonstrate there is consensus. So far I've seen you repeating a claim. I haven't seen you demonstrate consensus. Gwernol 16:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken about what WP:Consensus is. Its not "What most people believe", its the product of debate. If you want to challenge the consensus, you will have to do it with argument. If it stands the test of debate, the consensus will be changed. Dabljuh 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to remove this policy. Perhaps there ought to be, but there isn't yet.  Unfortunately you're undermining your own side of the debate by asserting this (though a little less so than the guy up there who said it was graven in stone because an edit went through a few months ago).  Tempshill 18:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal "opinions" don't count. Only arguments do. And so far, there is no actual argument for keeping the policy that stands the test of debate. Hence, consensus is achieved. Dabljuh 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As noted below, achieving a true consensus to overturn one of the oldest Wikipedia policies would require a wide notification of editors, rather than the few people who have randomly happened upon this discussion page; and more time for discussion. Tempshill 20:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see but trollish comments and general explanations of nonsense. There is no concensus and the poicies shall of course remain to serve the good of wikipedia. They are not leaving. Why not be WP:BOLD and give it a try..? I am certain the concensus of the community will be a very clear objection indeed. -ZeroTalk 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus is reached by debate, not by voting. Just because most people can't be arsed to track the debate doesn't mean they have consensus.
 * Aside: "Trolling" is a most unWP:CIVIL insult. Dabljuh 16:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that consensus is about debate. But you still have to demonstrate that you have concinved people as a result of your debate. You simply stating your case repeatedly then artibtraily declaring yourself the victor is not achieving consensus. Its you taking unilateral action and it isn't going to work. Gwernol 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's two flaws with that suggestion: First: People usually don't agree that the other side is the victor, they simply shut up after being reduced to absurdity. Secondly, scroll up. I am not alone, and there has yet to be made a single argument in favor of WP:NOR that stands the test of debate. Dabljuh 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dabljuh, to state the obvious, none of us are in a position to "remove the policy now" even if consensus existed (which it does not). You could, I suppose, go to WP:MfD but I doubt that would be considered binding. Here is the spot where something substantial might be set in motion, but I suspect you won't get much of a response. Marskell 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dab does have a point here. The way to show consensus would be to demonstrate that the people on one side have any argument at all. Inability to do this is tantamount to a concession. Al 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is one of Wikipedia's three core policies, and is not subject to being overturned by consensus. There are many sites on the web through which one can publish one's own research. One may also exercise one's Right to fork and create a new project that allows it. Jkelly 16:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wups, statements like these are just the problem. What makes you think this is one of Wiki's three core policies, which isn't subject to being overturned by concensus?? Have you read WP:RULES? I'm curious as to where people get ideas like yours. You see, I've been arguing for the better epistemological treatment in WP's policies for a few days now, and you're my new posterchild for why they're needed!  Congrats. Sbharris 03:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, very strange. One of Wikipedia's problems is letting people know about important discussions. I've been visiting this site most days for a long time and this is the first time I've seen any discussion of this issue.

Since we seem to be talking about this, here are some cases where NOR helps us:


 * 1) Professor A publishes a sensational new theory in a little-respected journal, and then writes a huge Wikipedia article citing his publication as reference. Of course someone adds a comment that mainstream science rejects this theory (in fact it is laughably incorrect and no-one is paying it any attention). The article seems to be verifiable, and the criticism makes it neutral. Our only criterion for throwing this out appears to be notability, and that's sometimes very subjective. NOR is much clearer and saves us a lot of trouble.
 * 2) Student B writes an article in which they make a set of propositions (all suitable supported with citations) and then draws from this set of propositions an entirely novel conclusion. This is very hard to police, but NOR makes it a lot easier.
 * 3) Most importantly, NOR makes the intention of Wikipedia clear. A surprising number of people come here thinking that this is the place to publish their wonderful new work that the publishing houses have rejected. They may think their work is verifiable and neutral, so they add it. Then we have to go all though the process of find out if what they have written is verifiable and all the rest. NOR makes it clear from the outset - even if your work is unquestionably true and world-shatteringly important we don't want it until it has reached some minimum level of acceptance.

DJ Clayworth 16:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If Professor A publishes his silly theory, then it's veriafiable and not original research. Perhaps neutrality is an issue, which means the text remains but gets appropriate bracketing.  In short WP:NOR is useless here, since it's unoriginal research of low quality.
 * If Student B writes this, it is not verifiable from a reliable source and runs into the problem of partiality. WP:NOR is once again useless here, except as a convenient way to avoid stating the true reason for the unacceptability of the text.
 * We cannot determine people's intentions, only their actions. Someone can violate WP:NOR unintentionally or seek to intentionally violate WP:NOR and fail.  All that matters is whether their text is acceptable for inclusion.
 * In short, NPOV is worthless. Al  17:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dammit, Alienus beat me to it - but only because I got wrongly blocked again -_-

So.


 * 1) If its WP:Verifiable, WP:NOR doesn't keep him from writing the article. But WP:NPOV demands that we treat it fairly (i.e. make it clear that nobody right in his mind believes in that shit). So we would want to write "No major scientific journal has showed any interest or paid any attention to this theory". But oh no - WP:NOR actually KEEPS us from adding that bit of information. Since THAT very notion would be original research.
 * 2) WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a place to publish his personal theories. If its very obvious / trivial stuff, nobody will object however. I must admit I don't really know if I understand that example correct, though.
 * 3) WP:NOT makes it very clear what Wikipedia, well, is not.

Pleased to help out ;) Dabljuh 17:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add a new example of abuse. On circumcision, some editor added a short line saying that "acucullophallia" is the state of being circumcised.  Any quick Google can verify both the existence of the term and its meaning, but certain editors objected to these sources and demanded better ones.  So our man Dab finds it mentioned in a book.  Problem solved, right?  Wrong!
 * Now the same editors are claiming that, since the book does not directly offer a definition of the term, we can't use it. Of course, anyone with a knowledge of Greek and Latin roots (or a book containing such knowledge) can trivially verify that the term means "circumcised", but that's being called OR.  Likewise, using the book as proof that the word exists then using a web site to provide its meaning is being called OR.
 * This situation is, quite frankly, ridiculous. But it does show how easily WP:NOR is abused by obstructionists, and why the rule as it stands cannot remain.  It needs to either be removed completely, changed into a mere suggestion, or weakened to the point of sanity by adding exceptions.
 * Please explain to me how the above abuse of WP:NOR could be avoided otherwise. Al  17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Toning down the policy is not sensible. If we allow "trivial" synthesis of thought, then the police effectively does not prevent anything that WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:Sense wouldn't either. The policy would then be 100% redundant. And redundant policies in particular are Instruction creep, and must be avoided. Dabljuh 17:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that that is an abuse of NOR, and I will happily wade in to refute anyone using it that way. Another interesting abuse occurred at Talk:Adolf Hitler, where a user quite literally claimed that "Wikipedia editors should not be permitted to apply the ordinary rules of logic, but only report exact quotes of what others said." Such things are obviously wrong, anfd I would support a change that made it clear that this was so. But abandoning this principle would be a cure that was worse than the disease. DJ Clayworth 18:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that user is technically right, that is almost exactly the wording of WP:NOR. And that is just exactly whe the policy needs to be removed - Its not the abusive editor that is in the wrong, it is, actually, the policy. Dabljuh 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Much obliged for your help, Dabljuh. However I think it's wrong. In 1 the theory is only verifiable because professor A has created his own off-Wikipedia reference to it. The theory exists, and the reference verifies it. However the theory doesn't deserve an article, and Wikipedia would be a better place without it. It passes verifiability but fails NOR. Your interpretation that NOR keeps us from adding the comment about nobody believes the theory is just wrong. That is not what NOR means.

Example 2: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish his personal theories". Well that's just a restatement of NOR. Sure we could make everything a subset of WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not a place for non-neutral points of view":"Wikipedia is not a place for unverifiable things") but what's the point? Let's make it explicit. The same comment applies to Example 3.

As an aside, even if it were true that NOR was already prohibited by other rules, then what would be the disadvantage of keeping the rule? It makes an important piece of policy very clear, rather than letting people deduce it from other readings, and saves them time they might waste misunderstanding Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many articles about theories that are, to be blunt, stupid. Consider Morphic field, which is about an idea soundly rejected across the board by the scientific community.  Nonetheless, it is notable and verifiable, hence not the least bit OR.  The mysterious Professor A, by virtue of being a professor, is notable.  If he publishes in a peer-reviewed journal it is a highly reliable source, and quite verifiable.  You would be entirely wrong to try to remove this article, no matter how stupid his theory was.
 * So far, you have in no way explained how it might possibly violate WP:NOR, and I politely demand that you do so immediately insteead of waving your hand at it. Please be specific or I will be forced to disregard your argument as irrelevant.
 * As for the second case, if WP:NOT covers it, then why do we need additional rules, particularly when they are so subject to abuse? You have likewise not answered this in the least.
 * The disadvantage is that the rule is, at best, useless, at worse, a handy tool for abuse. It's an inflamed appendix.  Al  18:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that my points were not addressed. Therefore, I can only assume that DJ Clayworth has conceded my points and nobody else differs from his concession.  If I'm wrong, correct me by addressing my point.  Al  20:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are wrong. I have not conceded your points. We simply haven't got to your points yet. DJ Clayworth 13:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the theory exists and is verifiable, then it has a place on Wikipedia - from my understanding. The problem is not notability - Anyone might find Quantum Theory non-notable. But, sidenote, self-sourcing is forbidden somewhere, meaning, an editor may not use his own sources are references. Right? I might be wrong about that one. If someone finds the policy that says so -> insert here


 * If you don't think that NOR means you cannot synthesise original thought, like "No major scientific journal has paid any attention to this theory", then I must ask you to read WP:NOR again. The policy is extremely clear and explicit: "that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about."


 * I find WP:NOT to be sufficient for making clear "Original Research doesn't belong on Wikipedia". Wikipedia is a place for all kinds of weird POV's, NPOV means they should be in the article and treated fairly. "Wikipedia is not a place for non-neutral pov" is therefore not only not helpful, but actually wrong.


 * The disadvantage for keeping the rule is that essentially ALL wikipedia articles violate it. The rule can be used by obstructionists, pov pushers, wikilaywers, all kinds of people that are not interested in making Wikipedia better, for censoring it. Dabljuh 18:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "No major scientific journal has paid any attention to this theory" is something of a red herring. Change to "The publication is not a major a major scientific journal" and you're fine: qualifying the specific source (which WP:V Dubious sources explicitly suggests) rather than making an ORish assumption about major journals in general. Marskell 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "The publication is not a major a major scientific journal" <- OR just as well. Unless a Reliable source happens to says so. Dabljuh 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "According to his self-published website"--as you like. The point is that you can avoid the problem with correct phrasing. I think you're making a category mistake: if it can't be verified it's OR, if it can be it's not, thus NOR is unneeded. But that doesn't hold. Take the example this page uses. "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual". I can perfectly verify what the Chicago manual states, but what makes it OR is its "synthetic" character. But "according to his self-published website" is not synthesizing. It's an observation that the context actually demands. Marskell 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing the example here. Professor A didn't publish his theory on his self-published webpage, but managed to slip it through a minor scientific journal. Making it verifiable and satisfying WP:RS, as well as WP:NOR. Dabljuh
 * Yes, I was thinking of where student B might be posting his business. In any case, if it was published in "a little respected" journal there ought to be a way to state that (the broader point from the first being you can comment on the journal at issue rather than journals as such).

A last way to state it:
 * 1) Are all unverified claims necessarily OR as well? Yes (or at least we must assume so). In this sense V is sufficient.
 * 2) Are all verified claims necessarily not OR? No, per the Jones example. In this sense we need NOR. Marskell 19:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes.
 * No.
 * You are correct. We don't WANT to keep the jones example out, really. The whole point is to allow the jones example! To actually let the editor use his judgement about what to write, instead of forcing him to copy verbatim sentences from published sources, making currently all, I repeat, ALL wikipedia articles a violation of WP:NOR.

No, there is not consensus to remove NOR. Yes, I have been reading the talk pages. Five recent posts by a single contributor desperate to eradicate NOR supplemented by pages of dissent doesn't look like any kind of consensus to me. I congratulate you on your ability to provoke discussion however. Deco 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't read the talk page, you've read the talk history page. The buttons are right next to each other, I know. Dabljuh 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't paticularly believe that up to you to dictate. Please don't purposely misconstrue comments on wikipedia.


 * Concerning policy, why not be WP:BOLD and attempt to remove it...? The fruitless discussion is conunter-productive as its already apparent you aren't going to get your way. -ZeroTalk 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't dictate the consensus. Logic does. I just happen to agree with logic, while some other people don't.
 * I have already attempted to revoke the policy. Three times. WP:3RR and all that, you know. Now it's up to you other folks. Revoke the shit out of that policy! Dabljuh 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I spoke of your deragatory comment relating to the claim Deco did not know the difference between a history tab and a talk (although it doesn't matter anyway; one could still follow the conversation). "Its up to us", he says. Boy! You're already well aware of what we're revoking. It's not the policy. The execution of the policy and others in relation will continue in wikipedia. You are free to advocate as long as you please, however.-ZeroTalk 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy is not carved in stone, evident by the fact that the page is not protected, the most basic way on Wikipedia to prevent alteration. Also, note how sbharris points out that the policies fail themselves - they are not verifiable, have no reliable (external, unalterable) sources, and are certainly original research. They are intentionally kept that way, so as for us editors, when we find them to no longer serve the goals of Wikipedia, to alter them or remove them, if necessary. And this necessity to remove WP:NOR is evident. Dabljuh 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Like most policies, NOR applies only to articles, not discussion pages or project pages. Nice try. Deco 03:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we've passed the question of whether it does (I admit it), and have passed on to the question of whether we should change this so it doesn't in the future, but should applies equally (yea or nay) to all Wiki articles on main AND policy pages (there are obvious reasons why it shouldn't apply to discussion or user or project pages, which I won't elaborate, and please don't try to fold them into the argument as a search for absurdem). With regard to NOR, is the viewpoint being expounded that wikipedians are not to engage in original thought when writing mainspace Wikis (on which topics they may be recognized experts), but are permitted to engage in original thought when making the changes to the policy Wikis which result in changes in WP policy? Hmmm. Can you defend that?  Don't just say it's policy. This discussion is whether to change the policy. Your task is to defend the REASONABLENESS of the policy.
 * Now, let me save you some electrons. It may occur to you to argue that original thought/research results in changes in WP policy and policy Wikis, only after editorical review by other editors, and a kind of concensus over time. Indeed. But that also applies equally well to every Wiki in the mainspace. THAT argument is merely one for removing NOR as a policy in the mainspace, not for failing to apply it to Wiki in the policy space. A simply way of stating this is that Wikis in n.4 (the policy namespace) run just fine without WP:NOR, under the general editorship of everybody, so what makes you think it's specially necessary for any other Wiki to be subject to this extra policy? Clearly we have an extistence proof that Wikis can be created and run without it. Indeed the Wikis which run this whole organization are.
 * Now, I can (and have) point out that a limited form of this is also true for V and RS. If you look at the V and RS Wikis they both clearly point out that the need for V and RS arises from the fact that even though there may be a concensus about a given matter, there is still a need to document the origin of this concensus for the reader. But this also applies to policy Wikis. Either it's an important general principle of knowledge, or else it isn't. It especially becomes important in policy Wikis because policy in WP arises from two basic sources, and it is presently impossible to document or verify which source a particular policy has come from. The exemption of policy namespace from policy is the cause of this. It's not good. Sbharris 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Dabljuh will be responding in about three days. Al 03:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seven days. User used an army of IP addresses to bypass a legitimate block. That won't be tolerated. He does it again, it will be longer. -ZeroTalk 18:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Removed troll comment)

Reasonable inference
I am beginning to think that it might be worth making explicit in this policy something that I have always assumed was obvious, and that I have always assumed other Wikipedians will find obvious: that is, that the drawing of simple logical inferences from sources is permissible, and does not count as original research. It seems from some of the examples given above (and my own experience on Adolf Hitler) that this needs to be made explicit. DJ Clayworth 13:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I like your term "reasonable inference" - let's say: "a reasonable inference is the construction of information from sources in a way that would be clear, straightforward, and correct to any reasonable person." Examples would be basic descriptions and objectifications of primary sources, basis synthesis and relating of facts from multiple sources, and illustrative examples. If an inference is either complex, such as involving sophisticated logic, or debatable, as by drawing a conclusion or using a method of inference that someone else could reasonably disagree with, then that would still be original research. Deco 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Removed troll comment)

(Removed my own reply to the troll comments, which look pretty silly without them. DJ Clayworth 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC) )


 * Apparently the removed "troll" comment above came from somebody who has just been blocked for unrelated reasons. None of which means his reasoning was bad just here. So, let me repost the part of it which made sense to me:


 * There's one problem: "reasonable inference" is the only thing the policy forbids, that the other[s] (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT etc) do not forbid explicitely (assuming people start with WP:SENSE). If you allow "reasonable inference", then WP:NOR has no reason to exist. The advantage being that now the policy no longer outlaws all articles on Wikipedia. But then why bother? Why keep a completely redundant policy? Not to mention, a policy that appears to have the strict goal of explicitely and exactly preventing "reasonable inference".


 * (End of quote. The above was posted by he-who-must-not-be-named, so I infer. But since I agree with it, I'll sign onto its opinion, too. What the heck.) Sbharris 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think adding a clause permitting reasonable inference would not weaken this rule, only clarify it, since this is the conventional interpretation anyway, and also that it covers cases not covered by combinations of other policies. An example of something verifiable, NPOV, but OR might be a sophisticated mathematical proof not based on any published proof. WP:RS is not sufficient because it is not policy. Deco 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but WP:V suffices to exclude this original labor because there is no way to verify it through references outside of Wikipedia. If they try to do an end run around WP:V by posting it on their own page, WP:RS jumps in, aided by WP:NPOV.  Once again, WP:NOR is useless and unnecessary.  Al  20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I might modify this suggestion to read "simple reasonable inference". The inferences editors should be allowed to draw would be those that a reasonable person might make without detailed effort. An editor should not be permitted to write about their theory on the grounds that it is a 'reasonable inference' from the data, even if that inference took them a year of detailed study to arrive at. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As it stands, some interpret the policy to forbid all inferences that they oppose, no matter how safe or reasonable. The problem here is simple: if we forbid all inferences, then all articles are in violation, but if we loosen the constraints, then we need a proper place to draw the line.  Al  17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. One one level we have to leave it to individual editors to draw that line, but I think we can give some indication of where the line should probably be drawn. Something like "Wikipedia is allowed to contain statements of inference that a reasonable, knowledgeable person might straightforwardly draw from the sources available, without necessarily finding a source which makes the statement directly." DJ Clayworth 19:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Circumventing a block by merit of using a sockpuppet of foriegn IP address is forbbiden. I've made an report on WP:AN/I.-ZeroTalk 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree with this suggestion, for the reasons DJ Clayworth gives. At the List of Philosophers page, we've encountered this very problem, where a certain user continues to appeal to NOR in attempting to ban even the most straightforward inferences.  (See the discussion a few sections up on this talk page.)  Although it should be self-evident that simple, reasonable inferences are valid (and necessary), it would still be helpful to make this policy explicit. fi99ig 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Very straightforward inferences are fine so long as they don't serve to advance a position. If they do, they must be sourced. What is the List of Philosophers example, Fi99ig? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, adding a "don't serve to advance a position" proviso totally undermines our ability to make reasonable inferences, and is itself unreasonable. Consider the case of circumcision, where one source speaks of the risk of CA-MRSA for all infant surgery without specifying circumcision. A reasonable inference is that, as circumcision of infants is obviously a type of infant surgery, the CA-MRSA risk applies. However, some people might decide that this advances the anti-circumcision position (by showing another risk to the procedure) and therefore try to block it using your version of WP:NOR. This is NOT a hypothetical example! Al 20:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, here is that part of my earlier comment that discusses the List of Philosophers example. "Since I've been in the midst of the debate with RJII over at the list of philosophers page, I would like to clarify has been going on there. RJII is currently trying to make the argument there that the NOR rule should be construed so strictly as to not allow the use of synonymy. He claims that one cannot assume, for example, that the words 'major' and 'important' share even a degree of common meaning. That is, he maintains that one could not use sources stating that some Dr. X is an extremely important philosopher as evidence that Dr. X is a major philosopher -- simply because, on his reading, assuming any sort of shared meaning among regular English words and phrases amounts to engaging in original research. In other words, he maintains that the only allowable kind of evidence for being a major philosopher is a source that explicitly states that the person is a major philospher. A source that claimed Dr. X is the greatest philosopher of all time would not be admissible, on his view, because it would be original research. I hope the problems with this reading of the NOR policy are evident."
 * RJII's reply makes it clear that he believes NOR policy bans _any_ sort of inferences, no matter how straightforward. I won't reproduce his remarks, but you can find them above on this page, at the bottom of the section "Appear to advance a position". fi99ig 21:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. If a source says someone is an important philosopher, that means the same as major philosopher (unless the context makes clear that it wasn't intended to mean the same thing). All the policies can be stretched and used as WP:POINT, but that's no reason to change them. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's the best reason to change them. When a policy has a weakness that allows abuse of a particular sort, that's a hint that we should fix the policy so that this sort of abuse is harder to accomplish. Al 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia were a battleground, that would certainly be true. Since we instead always operate on the assumption that everyone here is trying to create a high-quality free, reusable encyclopedia, we allow for as much flexibility as possible. Jkelly 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can only agree with your intentions, but I must sadly report that, in actually, things are not as you describe. Articles on controversial topics, such as circumcision, have been turned into battlegrounds, where rules are routinely abused in the support of partisanism. While all rules are subject to some abuse, and it would not be a good idea to try to anticipate all possibilities, I would have to say that it is a bad idea to fail to react to actualities. Al 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking to the particular circumcision example you give above, one problem with that particular inference is that the source about the risk is making a blanket statement and may never have considered circumcision in their analysis. Questioned, the source itself may hesitate to make such an inference. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The attempt to include "reasonable inference" will only open the floodgates for unlimited original research. What is "reasonable", after all? Everyone will conclude that their own inferences are, of course, "reasonable". There's no point in including this kind of wording, since its primary use will be for abrogating the policy. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This isn't criteria for speedy deletion here; this is a policy to be employed in content debates and deletion discussions, and one would hope the definition of "reasonable" would converge to a mutual understanding based on the specific case at hand and people involved. If person A says, X is original research, and person B says, I think it's a reasonable inference, that provides a good starting point for a useful convergence of opinions, rather than person B having no recourse whatsoever.
 * Perhaps more importantly, policy needs to be descriptive of what people do. A large majority of editors make reasonable inferences in violation of the letter of this rule, and they have to. By "criminalizing" a common activity, we pave the way for more egregious violations. Deco 08:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said. I have nothing to add but my endorsement.  Al  15:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Deco. Allowing 'reasonable inference' will no more open the floodgates that allowing 'reasonable force' in your own defence opens the floodgates to unconrolled mayhem. Wikipedians will be the judges of what constitutes 'reasonable', and we'll soon have a pretty good consensus. Of course we'll argue about it - it's what Wikipedians do. DJ Clayworth 15:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A new editor might observe that, if interpreted literally, the current policy disallowes reasonable inference. At the same time, the new editor might observe that many, if not most, articles, even the good ones, contain reasonable inferences. So the new editor will either go away and do something else, or use his/her own interpretation of reasonable inference with no guidance from the policy. I suggest a new subsection under WP:NOR


 * Simple reasonable inference


 * This policy is not meant to prevent simple synthesis of different sources for the purpose of making the article more concise or more readable, rather than to advance an unsourced opinion. The reasonable inference should be obvious to anyone who consults the sources. Particular care must be used in highly technical areas, where seemingly obvious inferences may be false. Editors should avoid making any inference that requires expert judgement.


 * Gerry Ashton 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jayjg's point: "reasonable" can actually serve to introduce greater ambiguity and I absolutely dread to think of debating with pseudoscience partisans, or single-issue political editors, etc. about whether their inferences are "reasonable."


 * A simpler addition (if it's really felt we need one) might be: "this policy is not meant to preclude simple observation where no synthesis is involved." An example sentence that I added to Neptune (planet) a week ago: "Neptune is an intermediate body between Earth and the largest gas giants: it is seventeen Earth masses but just 1/18th the mass of Jupiter." I wondered if it was OR (it was just back of the envelope on my part, not an actual source that had mentioned it) but I decided it was not. It's comparative, but there is no novel deduction, synthesis, or inference involved--just two easily sourcable numbers side-by-side to give a better intuitive grasp of size than 10x26 kg does. A sentence suggesting that observation of this sort is allowed would be fine IMO, but I don't think it should be framed in terms of "reasonable inference." Marskell 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you view the census data inference described in the next section, below? Is that a direct observation from the source data, or an inference? Mike Christie 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would view it as observation. "The inferences are not analysis or synthesis,"—well then, they are not actually inferences and I think you're fine. To infer is to derive a conclusion (however "simple and reasonable") not explicitly present in the data. If you avoid that you avoid OR. Marskell 19:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your argument. I do want to point out that it is notoriously difficult to be absolutely sure that a census record refers to a given person, but I think common sense in the application of this data will cover most issues.  Thanks. Mike Christie 20:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Gerry Ashton, that's exactly what we're proposing, and and I like your wording as a first cut. I think it's true that some users seem to interpret the current policy as prohibiting any inference at all, and that a modification would prevent this. Marskell: I, too, dread arguing about what is 'reasonable' with the pseudoscience lobby, but we already have these arguments. We have an example of someone arguing that you couldn't call someone an 'important' philosopher because the source said 'major' philosopher. I have an example of a user that said "Editors should not be allowed to use simple rules of logic", but only report what the sources said. No amount of arguing over the definition of reasonable will be worse than this. DJ Clayworth 19:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If NOR were really really well written, several of the discussions raised here would not have been raised. There is objection because NOR seems to deny, or at least inhibit, editors from reasearching previously published information toward Wikipedia articles.  Of course that action is not discouraged by NOR.  The policy is not written simply enough, or introduces unnecessary points, or something!  Editors read it but don't understand that NOR is a real simple, bottom line statement about an editor using only previously published information in articles.  Terryeo 13:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The terminology "reasonable inference" may have some problems. Without clarification, "reasonable" could be interpreted as the common, weak merely sensible or not absurd, when instead it should mean the much stronger logical. Similarly with "inference", it could be interpreted as a subtle signification or indirect assumed result, when instead what is meant is a necessary logical consequence. The policy needs to allow straightforward descriptions and summaries of sources, tautologies, and logical inferences of the kind in the question below about mathematical proofs, not sensible assumptions that involve new, hidden premisses. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is all fine and good, but look at the example in the policy. "This is a definition of plagiarism, which requires doing these acts. Person X has not committed these acts.  (Implied:) By this definition the person is not a plagiarist."

That's a reasonable inference, but it's banned.

(Of course, if the inference is not qualified with "by this definition", then there's a hidden premise that the definition is useful, making the inference not reasonable. But since the inference isn't stated outright, I think we should assume that the intended inference is the reasonable one.) Ken Arromdee 19:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of census data
One thing that occurred to me recently was to look at US censuses (which I have access to via a subscription service) to establish the addresses and birthplaces of people who are the subject of biographies. Look at Talk:John W. Campbell for some notes I made on this data, for example. Is this original research? I think it's not, since the source is available and the inferences are not analysis or synthesis, but I'd like to hear opinions from more experienced Wikipedians. I am well aware that identifying particular people in a census is a process that has many pitfalls, but it is also true that it is often very clear that the right person has been identified (as in the John W. Campbell case). Any thoughts on this data? And incidentally, if I'm going to cite the census, is there a cite template for it? I can build a cite format from the forms used by genealogists, if not. Mike Christie 16:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is relevant to what we are talking about. NOR is certainly not meant to mean you can't go and find new sources relevant to the subject and use them: that would prohibit anything being written at all. Again according to the viewpoint expressed above you could make reasonable inferences from the data. So I would say go for it. DJ Clayworth 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(DIYD)2. Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't
JA: I want to discuss a certain type of (DIYD)2 phenomenon that I frequently encounter out there in the process of writing articles. As a responsible scholar by nature and nurture, I always give complete literature citations, very often give verbatim quotations, and doing that in the case of a complex argument in the source often necessitates the use of blockquotes. This is very common in books and journals that demand exacting analysis of primary source materials. This meets with more diehard resistance in WP than I ever would have dreamed or nightmared possible. Now, you obviously can't write a decent article in the form of a string of blockquotes, and I have never tried doing that, so you have to put in transitions of various types, very often stating in more casual or contemporary terms what a primary source, that may be from another clime or another time, is about to say, or has just said. And there you get the other half of the condemnation that you are inserting Orginal Research for interpreting what the primary sources said. You must understand that this mostly occurs in the case of very contentious articles where just about any addition of information, now matter how well sourced, will be disputed, so there is no rational evaluation of whether the necessary interpolations are in fact no-brainer interpretations or not. But this seems to happen more and more of late, and people who no more read the whole of the WP:NOR page than they read the whole of anything else are very fond of citing it in defense of their desire to remain innocent of any "new" idea, even if, or especially if, it's a "new" idea from Plato or Lao Tzu. So I think that something in the very first boxed paragraph of this article needs to clarify that issue in a manner both clear and firm. Jon Awbrey 14:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I think this is an issue that the above addition to the policy should help with. We should include something to the effect that "summarizing, clarifying, paraphrasing and explaining" are all permitted provided that they are done in a neutral way and accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics
I'll try to be brief.

As is well-known, mathematics is a deductive science. This means, before anything else, that the conclusions of mathematics are numerous, and the ways in which they can be presented are ten-fold as numerous. If you start with a different set of assumptions, or the same set of assumptions in a different form, you can build modern mathematics in an entirely different language.

Because this encyclopedia is to be a reference, there is every sense in maintaining the modern academic standards, and in refraining from introducing nonstandard expression. But that is only half the journey. Even if we accept the same fundamental assumptions, and agree to express ourselves more or less cohesively (that is, with internal consistency, motivated by convention, which in any case is nine out of ten times simple common sense), we are still confronted by derivatives. That is to say, short of copying proofs verbatim from authors of books -- proofs which will vary widely, because while the conventions of mathematics are widely standardized among mathematicians, the procedures and means of reasoning is not. So if John writes down an author's proof and Michael writes down another's, who is to decide between them? And who is to stop Harry from barging in with his own proof, which adheres to all the conventions of the language, as set forth in the preceding text -- and which is correct, maybe more correct than either John's or Michael's. but for which Harry won't come up with a source. What to do then?

The policy on Wikipedia so far has been de facto different for mathematics articles. That is to say, like all mathematicians, the mathematicians who write here judge substantive additions to articles on their correctness first, and then by everything else. But this leaves one important question open: where do we draw the line? What kind of deduction in mathematics articles can be seen transparent, so that it doesn't need verification? --VKokielov 05:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This question has arisen before and no one has been able to answer it. We can't legislate so exactly that we could describe in advance where to draw the line. We can only hope that other mathematicians will know it when they see it, and won't disagree. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't wait to see the Wikipedia policy called "First-order logic: An exception to OR". —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: There are two ways of grounding statements: (1) common sense (2) prior publication. The reason why math articles don't contain a lot of citations, except for breaking news items, is that a lot of math content is really founded on (1), and in two senses: (1a) the extreme stability of math knowledge and the uniformity of math training means that a lot of things are common knowledge, folklore, learned in the process of doing some textboook exercise that may have never been considered worth publishing in its own right, or whose original source is all but lost to memory, (1b) in principle, any person, given enough time and diligence, should be able to understand any proof. Jon Awbrey 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Example link broken
The example link under why no original content is broken, I would fix it but I don't know where it is supposed to point to.

--24cell 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you point out which one, or say which section it's in? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the link, which before pointed to section "Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", to point to section "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Translations
Is manual translation OR? It would seem to be, wouldn't it? A contributor's personal translation is neither WP:RS or WP:V and since it is a determination made by the contributor as an interpretation of a source, it's OR isn't it?

But if it is, and by all characteristics it would appear to be, then how can we have WP:TIE encouraging people to perform manual translations to create articles?

Please advise; the matter of contributor manual translation as valid article content is being called into question in an article dispute.

-Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article from the other-language Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and shouldn't be considered a reliable source in and of itself. Similarly, we don't consider English Wikipedia articles to be reliable or verifiable sources.  The translator needs to copy over the references and bibliography from the original article; those are the foundation for verifiability.  (English-language sources should be substituted or added where available, but aren't absolutely required.)  Material generated by translation from other Wikipedias should be treated as no more or less trustworthy than information written from scratch in other English Wikipedia articles.  Once the text is here, treat it like any other article.
 * The translation of primary source material is touchier. Ideally, we should be able to refer to published translations, and only resort to translating material ourselves where no published translation exists.  (In such cases, we should be in the habit of providing both original and English text to allow others to check the accuracy of our translation.)
 * If you could be more specific about the article in question, then we could provide you with more specific guidance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also note that we summarize and paraphrase sources in articles because we are a tertiary source, and to avoid copyright problems. I don't see how translations are any more likely to be OR than summarizing and paraphrasing English-language sources. The important issue remains verifiability, i.e., can a reasonable cross-section of Wikipedia readers access the source(s) and verify the information in the article? --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Translations are not OR as long as they are done neutrally and accurately. Of course there is always the problem of verification, especially if the language is not a commonly-spoken one. But in principle translation isn't OR. DJ Clayworth 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Common sense" on Wikipedia
I would appreciate everyone here to look at and oppose WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. User:Arniep seems to be saying that "Common sense" can override this policy when it comes to listing "X-Americans". It is very clear from the policy that all the "X-American" labels can only be applied by Wikipedia to a person if applied elsewhere already, even if the definition for X-American matches that person, just as is the case with the plagarism example on this page - we can not say what is or is not plagarism pending a source that labels that subject as exactly that. The "Common sense" that Arniep is proposing, besides being incredibly editor-subjective, seems to be a stark violation of the policy. Cheers... Mad Jack 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe, and it's reflected in the discussions here, that common sense really should override Wikipedia rules. This is reflected in Ignore all rules. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Remeber, IAR is an essay, not policy, and you invoke it at your own risk. I've seen admins severely attacked and hounded out of positions of trust for invoking IAR. --  Donald Albury <sup style="color:green;">( Talk )  20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a centralised discussion about this hyphenated-American business at one point, but I do not know where. Jkelly 20:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's still ongoing in numerous places. However, common sense also states that, if a person is notable enough and notably enough an X-American for our purposes, they will sooner or later be called an X-American or an X in a reliable source. Ignore all rules is really for the worst-case senario, which this isn't. Mad Jack 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The X-American discussion seems to be very confused between the issues of "it's a questionable deduction" and "it's a deduction".

I think a case can be made that deducing that someone is Irish-American is wrong because the deduction is questionable--for instance, the definition may not be quite right, given how some people define themselves. I *don't* think the deduction is wrong *merely because it's a deduction*. The discussion there is confusing these two issues. Ken Arromdee 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)