Wikipedia talk:These are not original research/Archive 1

Earliest talk
This is very deep water you are venturing into and is in fact (or should be ) covered under WP:NOR--Light current 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Needs writing much more objectively. I have started conversion.--Light current 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have concerns about this...if you are generating a completely new fact, the question is not just whether that fact is accurate but whether it is important or worth including. In some cases it may be, in others not. For instance, say you are calculating the density of a city, assuming population and area stats are at hand. This might be okay, because we know from sources about other cities that density is considered a useful measure. But say another editor decides to include somewhere a newly created ranking of US states based on density of historic sites within them. The question here is not really as to accuracy of the ranking, which might be uncontested, but as to the usefulness or relevance. Generally, it seems that if a fact has never been published (i.e. if you are forced to extrapolate it using the methods described), then the relevance and importance of that fact is subject to question. In some way that relevance and importance would need to be established by a source. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Translations
Note: I did not add the section "Original Translations", & at the moment am reserving judgement on it. -- llywrch 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry, I did and I should have signed the addition. As it stands, it's perhaps more a starting-point for debate; there are other thorny aspects to the issue. Once more, please accept my apologies. Rhinoracer 12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Rhinoracer, your changes have only confused the issue further: is it possible that you've confused "original research" with "copyright"? If not, could you elaborate a little on how a translation might be considered -- but is not -- original research? (BTW, there is a discussion over at the Village pump that may address your concern on this issue.) -- llywrch 00:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the section. Translations are emphatically OR. Mangoe 20:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa, that seems more than a little extreme and contrary to common practice. Could you explain? Vassyana 00:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Translations require interpretation; the merit of the translation, for non-speakers, rests upon confidence in the translator. Certainly within the context of Wikipedia that is OR. Mangoe 00:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, there are several kinds of translation in Wikipedia:


 * Of single words
 * requires suitable reference, e.g. dictionary of the language
 * Of technical terms
 * Of word origins
 * For other purposes in linguistics articles


 * All of these are variations on using existing references as authorities and (hopefully) repeating known and cited authorities. No problem as long as this is done, but I wouldn't call it "translation" myself.


 * Of passages
 * ideally from other sources
 * ideally with the original text too
 * (it's more likely that there will be no decent English translation than that only one or two wikipedia editors will know the original language)
 * Of alternate readings
 * (in many cases, the available English translations will have known issues. It may be that editors may challenge the translation of specific passages based on alternate meanings of specific words, and be able to cite specific references.)

Original translations may technically be OR. But they can be useful in Wikipedia. I think it better to provide some guidance than to forbid them entirely. Jacob Haller 02:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OR in general may be "useful", but it's a major reliability issue. If translations were done out-of-channel, as it were, and reviewed by committees of credentialed editors, we could justify doing our own translations. As it is, quality and accuracy are concerns which we cannot address; it is reasonable to assume that anything translated here was done so by a first year student of the language. We are not reliable translators; nor for that matter are we reliable reviewers of translations. Mangoe 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Thank you for your responses. However, these are issues you may wish to raise at WT:NOR and WT:V, as this places non-English sources in a poor light. There has been resistance to disallowing or restricting foreign language sources in the past. Such sources (as they come) are not comprehensible by the vast majority of editors here. If translation is original research, which would be required for relating what the source states for other editors, this could lead to conflicts with policy when non-English references are used. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 13:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea that translating a text is original research is not reasonable. Basically, if you were writing an article on, say, fruit flies, your normal procedure would be to select pieces of information in the source, and reproduce those pieces in your own words. (Otherwise, you're committing plagiarism.) This process clearly involves more originality than translating a passage of a German book on fruit flies. In fact, that would be plagiarism if not attributed. The only case where an issue of OR might arise is if the meaning of the passage in the source language is unclear in some important way, which is an exceptional case. An editor making that assertion would have to substantiate it. 67.150.255.206 (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Being bold
I am being bold and making extensive revisions to this essay. Some of the changes are matters of presentation and style. Several of the changes are removing and revising problematic statements, in the context of Wikipedia policy and practice. Feedback and assistance would be welcomed. Vassyana 20:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Was one of your changes removing the suggestion that editors silently correct obvious typos & misspellings? That change goes against the spirit of this essay, that there are instances where we should not literally follow the language of whatever the policy happens to read at the moment. This is a comment on interpretation, not whether a policy is adequately written; & based on almost five years of experience I have had with other editors Wikipedia, I feel that this essay is needed as a reminder to use common sense.


 * What harm does that cause to silently make these corrections when quoting material? I suspect that most scholars would do that in any case, & insisting that we quote the exact letter of a text in all cases only causes more problems than it solves. (For example, your copy of a passage has "from" but mine has "form" -- should we edit war over which is the more correct text when the context of the word answers this question?) That is why I'm reverting your edits. -- llywrch 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how the change goes against the spirit of the essay. However, encouraging silent correction of typos is misguided. Silent correction is dishonest, as it does not reflect what the source actually says. I replaced that with the standard convention of using brackets to indicate corrections. In that way, a reader knows exactly what was changed, and it heads off claims of misquoting (which is what silent correction is, in essence). My edit doesn't say editors have to blindly quote the exact letter, but rather that corrections should be clearly marked per the normative standard. What's wrong with following the standard convention of bracket-marking corrections and word insertions? Vassyana 14:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is this a "standard convention"? The only place I know where this concern for the letter of the text is in legal texts, and Wikipedia is not a legal text. Lastly, even if you disagree with this essay, I feel you are taking extreme liberties by rewriting this passage. If you don't agree with this point, you are welcome write your own essay. -- llywrch 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, if your familiarity with the requirement for exacting quotation is limited to legal texts, you are not at all familiar with general style requirements. "It is impossible to overemphasize [emphasis added] the importance of meticulous accuracy in quoting from the works of others." (Chicago Manual of Style (2003). Pg 445.) The Chicago Manual of Style actually recommends against correcting quotations at all. It suggests that square brackets are used for editorial clarifications, such as indicating exactly who a pronoun refers to. In the case of minor factual and grammatical errors, it is suggested that paraphrasing is the best way to handle such a situation. It suggests that even when capitalisation is changed to the fit use of the quotation that the altered letter be enclosed in square brackets to alert the reader to the change. This requirement for exact quotations is widespread (unsurprising since the CMoS is the "gold standard"). Style guides where corrections are permitted still generally require the use of square brackets to indicate such changes. (A couple of examples: Item 4.c Item 13.4) Vassyana 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * RE:"emphasis added"...well played. Riffraffselbow (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the subject of changing this essay, if you're uncomfortable with other editors being bold and altering this essay contrary to your wishes, you are free to place a version in your userspace. Telling people to go write somewhere else is not an option in the Wikipedia namespace. Vassyana 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy
This essay is obviously relevant to the NOR policy.

There is the original (base) policy, there is the added-on "source-typing" section, there is the added-on "synth" section.

I suggest this:

If anything that appears in this essay need be listed because of the effect of either the source-typing section or the synth section of WP:NOR then it should be removed from this essay and whichever section that caused it to be here be revised so that removing it from this list does not revert it to apparent (and improper) forbidden status.

Here's why. Whatever it is that is in this essay that wouldn't be here absent one or the other of the added sections is listed here as a result of the section. So it's a progression from not forbidden to forbidden by a section to removed from forbidden by this essay because that section is overbroad. If it isn't forbidden then no part of the policy should make it appear to be so. If a policy does that it's a bad policy in that respect from that standpoint alone.

Alternately, this can be expressed as "This essay should not be necessary." If the essay is necessary that is prima facie evidence that the policy is badly written. In software one principle (I have the book it's in but don't know where it is at the moment) is "don't document bad code, fix bad code." This is an analogous situation. Don't document bad policy (i.e., this essay), fix bad policy. Don't write an essay that undoes the effect of bad policy, correct the bad policy.

(In trying to find the source of that software principle I ran across this on the internet. It's interesting: "Personality come out a lot in code. Inevitably I find most code quality problems (including documentation) are really personality flaws of the developer expressed via code. I can even trace my own ;-)" )

http://www.jroller.com/gstamp/entry/bad_code_comments

--Minasbeede 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I think you are wrong. This essay is necessary to head off Wikipedia's tendency toward a state of "all 'statute law' and no 'case law'". Examples don't belong as part of a policy any more than they belong as part of a law, but no matter how carefully the policy is drawn, examples are necessary in order to understand its intent, especially for those who are (whether in good faith or otherwise) overly literal. - 22:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)


 * I'm saying the essay is needed (I think that's what you mean by "examples") because the policy is over-broad, is wrong. This essay would not have been necessary prior to the expansion of WP:NOR by adding source-typing (which is a garish alteration of the policy and of the idea) and by adding synth (which is an extreme over-extension of the idea behind NOR.)  I readily see your point about "no case law" but I'm saying that in the case of these extensions to the policy the "case law" that appears in this essay is necessary because the policy is bad.  Badly conceived, badly thought out, badly written.  I assume it is also badly applied but I've not been a victim of that nor do I recall seeing it done.  Currently I am deliberately staying out of the discussion at WT:NOR so that at least some progress might be made on the "badly written" front.  I suspect that the result will be that the policy advocates will misuse my generosity and steamroll (or try to steamroll) the policy through once more, claiming "consensus."  I am opposed to the source-typing art of the policy, I am opposed to the synth part of the policy.  I see others who agree at least in part with what I say.  I desire that the proponents reach a consensus on what that policy language should say.  That's a step forward.


 * The two sub-policies have been frequent sources of contention. WP:NOR is a superb example of what is described in WP:consensus: different people from those who originally objected (YEARS ago) are now objecting.  I predict that will continue as long as those two sub-policies exist, continue to exactly match the example given in WP:consensus.  --Minasbeede 02:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the policy concerning NOR is badly written because I don't know what the policy says at any given moment. If any Wikipedia policy says X & someone wants to do X, then because all policy can be editted by anyone there is a strong tempation to change it to allow X. This essay -- & I would expect all other essays -- are written to express one opinion about policy. If you don't agree with the opinion, you are welcome to write your own essay to explain your position at length. As for the prescriptive power of any essay, I believe your concern is unfounded: essays are not policy & provide no grounds to make anyone do anything. They are only meant to make people think -- & I regret to say that some people's thinking is disfunctional when it comes to interpreting polciy. -- llywrch 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now's a good time to look because it's been locked for over 20 days and is mostly stable. (Since I mention locking and since I admit I oppose the policy wording I will also tell you that I have never edited the policy and have no intention of doing so.  I prefer to seek consensus on the discussion page.  Someone else can then make any needed edit.  It isn't locked because of me.  Similarly, I wrote in the discussion page for your essay and made no edit.)


 * There's also a strong temptation to change the policy to disallow X, and I see no a priori reason to favor that over what you identify. I'm not "concerned" about the essay, I'm concerned about the policy.  The policy is overbroad and as a result (as I see it) you have felt the need to write an essay that expresses why the policy is overbroad (or perhaps you'd say can be over-applied.)  Perhaps a better wording is that your essay identifies things that you feel should not be subjected to any removal or other opposition because of the current NOR policy.  To me that's direct evidence of a flaw in the policy, if many agree with your essay.  Your essay should indeed make people think: why is anyone writing an essay about allowing obvious deductions in Wikipedia?  why is there any question over that: it's perfectly valid, perfectly normal, can lead to Wikipedia being better?  What aberration makes such an essay happen?


 * Guidelines are also not policy, which seems to be why there is an utter unwillingness to move source typing into a guideline.


 * If source typing and the synth section were removed from WP:NOR how much of your essay would need remain? --Minasbeede 02:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really failing to see here how the lack of WP:PSTS or WP:SYN would impact this essay. All the points made would still seem to hold validity and be relevant even in the absence of those sections. Vassyana 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also don't see you point about some change to policy moving towards a prohibitive approach. By its very nature and name, no original research is about disallowing some forms of content. Vassyana 15:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It was written as an alternate and opposite tendency from that mentioned by Llwrych. There's no a priori reason to favor either: both are a modification of the policy, both may be for personal reasons. --Minasbeede 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Neologisms
NOR forbids neologisms. I'm not sure how this prohibition works (except when it doesn't). Perhaps some guidance would be appropriate. What do we do when we need to describe something, and we need qualifying terms (this kind of that, but not other kinds of that)? If we use a new adjective-noun combination, we can be accused of inventing a neologism. If we use an adjective-noun combination which happens to appear in a reliable source, we can be accused of OR (for using the term out of context, and/or in a new sense). If we use an adjective-noun combination which appears in a non-reliable source we can be accused of RS violation (for using a non-reliable source). If we use an adjective-noun combination which happens to appear in a partisan source, we can be accused of being non-NPOV. Jacob Haller 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A perfect example of the sort of thing where there are no hard and fast general rules. - Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * to me the answer is simple... if you use a new adjective-noun combination and someone objects... think of a different way to say what you wanted to say... one no one objects to. Blueboar 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certain editors objected to my adjective-noun combination ... and to my asking for a better adjective-noun combination. Jacob Haller 21:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen this issue occur, particular in topics where a wide variety of terms and phrases are used, many of them ill-defined. It seems to be a problem endemic to comparative religion and political science, in particular. It's particularly of concern in topics that are clearly addressed by multiple reliable sources, but lacking standard terms for the subject itself, or individual central aspects of the topic. Regardless of showing the use, people will often complain that one term or another is "biased" or a "neologism" because of the relative rarity of any given term/phrase. It is a difficult issue and I have no good answer for it. It may be appropriate to address this in a separate essay/guideline. If you're interested in discussing this further or working on a draft, please feel free to hit me up on my talk page. Vassyana 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewording an article is not always easy - if the same neologism appears in a number of articles and it is not easy to reword those articles without becoming unduly verbose, is it not better to write a short article to describe the neologism (if it its meaning is not self-evident)? There might well be a "health warning" if that particular neologism is only used by a small community.  Martinvl (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kudos
Great job on this essay. IMO official guideline material for NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as the person who orignally wrote it, I dissent. I was hoping that it would start a conversation about where the strictures of Orignial research was being applied too restrictively, & how to deal with that without weakening this guideline's use against the cranks, fanatics & troublemakers it was intended to be used against. That never happened. Wikipedians continue to use this concept in bizarre manners (e.g., the idea, which I have seen requently repeated, that Wikipedians should never, ever use primary sources to write an article) while the three groups against whom the original research rule was intended continue to insert their ideas with little more resistence than before. I am beginning to think it is time to abandon this concept, & to attempt another way to formulate what is allowed & what is not. -- llywrch 23:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another way? I dread the mere thought... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "cranks, fanatics & troublemakers" are dealt with WP:BLOCK when they WP:DE. Our content polcies are designe d to facilitate the creation of suitable content, not to deal with trolls. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Llwrch, glad you are re-centring this important issue. I have been regularly editing WP for about a year now and my feeling is that NPOV and NOR policies have largely contributed towards a defensive "bureaucrat" mentality amongst editors. Discussion pages seem mostly concerned with editing and administrative issues that generally take precedence over questions of content. And it is surely content that matters, otherwise what are we here for? At their worst, articles have become compendia of received wisdom and "library scrapings". But when you can find no readily accessed sources that deal adequately with a topic, (as can happen) what do you do then? What I tend to do is personally investigate the question, make deductions and put the results on the talk page. Is this OR? — I would suggest that if the results of personal investigations are presented on a talk page with perhaps a blue link from the main article, such a practice has its place as long as it is transparent because: a) it shows readers that WP is not infallible and b) it encourages critical thinking (now those are a dirty words!). For instance, you surely don't cite sources just in order to  to cover yourself and fight off other editors — references with page numbers might also be useful to readers seeking further information...--John of Paris 12:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Refs with page numbers is the practice that is encouraged, in particular in contentious topics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, I know that and I do try wherever possible to give page numbers. but let's not go wandering off the point already; that last sentence was an afterthought to my main point about attitudes and motives of editors and their effect on the quality (and usefulness) of articles. Like Llrywrch, I'm trying to see a way out of the restrictions of OR policy. I think the only way out is to try to define what those restrictions are; if the issues of both NPOV and OR have come up repeatedly in various places since 2003, then there is obviously a problem, but you can't begin to find solutions unless you formulate the questions properly. If you "dread the mere thought" of looking for yet another way, all I can say is — Sure it's not for the faint-hearted.--John of Paris 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what you mean by "the restrictions of OR policy", but my complaint isn't with the intent of the policy -- it's with the implementation. There are active Wikipedians who advocate -- in all sincerity -- unhelpful interpretations of this policy, which include such things as forbidding all citation of primary sources, & drawing obvious & unadvoidable conclusions from facts. Unfortunately, there are Wikipedians who want exceptions from this policy in order to stuff articles with their own peculiar ideas of what reality is, so Wikipedians who try to make the best of a bad situation (e.g., write about notable historical figures like Tekle Giyorgis I of Ethiopia, for whom there is no secondary literature) find themselves either defending themselves against unwarranted accusations, or very concerned about potential accusations. One solution (which I suggested here) would be to have way to get an outside opinion from a veteran editor who could help explain that this is not OR. But I don't see that happening. -- llywrch 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fear I must have been misquoting or misrepresenting you!! Anyway I still think that the problem is very much with the intent of the proscriptive policies of both NPOV and NOR. The one is based on an oxymoron (how can you ever have a neutral point of view?) which causes confusion and the other paralyses those who possess their subject and leaves them trembling in their boots — Tekle Giyorgi - what a fascinating well-written article "Barely a Start-class," says the reviewer "The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article." How condescending, what a wet blanket! —  I would suggest that properly framed positive-attitude policies are easy to interpret. I would also reiterate my remark on the importance of the discussion pages - but there we are told we mustn't turn them into blogs, so instead of discussing interesting things like content, we wade through arcane editing problems. It's all so joyless and boring.--John of Paris (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (offtopic) The comment from the WikiProject Biography review was from 3 July of this year; I've since rewritten it & added a lot more information to the article, & I'm in the process of adding more from another source. Although the comment annoyed me at the time, I wouldn't be too harsh on it -- at least someone read it! -- llywrch (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a lot shorter then. Anyway it has turned into a nice article.--John of Paris (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You all seem to have wandered away, but not before neatly side-stepping my main question as to the role of the discussion pages in framing article content. Before I wander away likewise, I would be interested in comments about my suggestion that the discussions page (or personal talk pages when particular subjects become invasive) are ideal places to look for consensus on content or at least to define differences of opinion. However dire warnings about avoiding making them into blogs again discourage real debate in this regard. I maintain my view that content is important and that personal experience as long as it is clearly defined as such is as valid as book sources. I realise that such a view puts me out on a limb and that perhaps WP is not my place. Even so, as a user consulting it on unfamiliar subjects, WP is often my first port of call. But where one is familiar with a subject, one is immediately confronted with statements that one "knows" to be incorrect, mostly originating from poor sources. - But how do you determine the reliability of a source other than by comparing it with your own personal knowledge and experience or perhaps some personal research that may help to clarify a point?--John of Paris (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)