Wikipedia talk:No original research/Sandbox/Change needed

Use this page to discuss issues on the main page. Please do not hold discussions on the main page, those will be moved to this page which is more appropriate for them.

Comments on Vassyana's Summary (2007-09-27)
That is a very case of where the definitions seem to get in the way. Copying more or less from a post I made on the NOR talk page, can't the NOR policy itself more clearly and accurately be described by using something like "original data" vs. "analyzed data (conclusions, etc.), preferably peer-reviewed when available" instead of delving into re-defining primary, etc. when such definitions already exist in Wikipedia and are linked already? Add a statement like "For further definitions see....". I think this is more along the lines of what many of us are trying to say, though this idea hasn't yet been clearly and succintly expressed (if it can be)(Unitil Vassyana's summary). I could be wrong though, I'll let others comment on if maybe this might be what some of us are trying to work towards, without weakening the policy. I also think that many of us from the groups 1 & 2 talked about previously, still fail somehow to see how moving the PSTS section from NOR (to some other, more appropriate place, not a deletion), would weaken the NOR policy. The policy itself is purely about not allowing original research into a Wikipedia article, not about how to classify different sorts of 'source material'. While one may help the other and be otherwise related, they are completely different subjects, like having an article on the Korean War with a distinct sub-section included in it that goes into detail on what weapons are, what the different kinds of weapons are used for and how they used, etc. It may be usefull knowledge, but really has no bearing on the article (or in this case, policy). wbfergus undefinedTalk 18:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And here's the problem with copying this stuff into the sandboxes so it doesn't get lost... instead, the discussion gets split up... should this be discussed here, or on the "live" talk page where there's already discussion of it? SamBC(talk) 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Six of one, a half dozen of the other. Sometimes I think the discussions should be here, for the realted items on the main page, just because it's so easy to lose things on the WT:NOR with as much traffic as it gets. Other times though, it's seems the comment/question would be better suited for the main talk page. I guess it really depends on where the person feels it's best suited. wbfergus undefinedTalk 19:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)