Wikipedia talk:No original research

Inclusion of certain exceptions

Well, I found this comment on a discussion board regarding original research, it's a quote from a user called IPMan, can someone comment on this qoute, I suggest it should be included in the OR article.

"That would be a descriptive claim about the contents of a primary source whose applicability is easily verifiable and obvious to any reasonable, educated person without the need for specialized knowledge — and therefore not OR." The link is to the original article that the quote was taken from. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holamitch (talk • contribs) 05:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. There are a lot of pages on software that claim "this piece of software has feature X". There's no academic business in peer-reviewing software with some rare exceptions like TeX, but even then one can hardly call those TeX journals academic, so you won't find any reliable source to cite for that kind of statement. Yet most such claims are trivial to verify, especially when it comes to software that's freely available. You'd probably have to remove 95% of the software pages in the current Wikipedia to meet the standards of this policy. So the policy is essentially obsoleted by the shear number of articles that contravene it.

Funny enough, one of the pages which did get that kind of challenge ({{primarysources}} was Metafont, which did have some peer-reviewed TeX journal articles listed in its bibliography, as well as books that can easily be considered "self-published". I hope nobody seriously thinks that the editors of the Metafont books checked every statement that DEK made...VasileGaburici (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No need for making an exception... it is already covered. Citing a piece of software to support the fact that the piece software program contains feature X is not Original Reasearch as meant by this page. It is similar to citing a book for a statement about plot elements contained in the book, or citing a DVD of a movie to support a statement about what appears on screne in the movie. Remember, this policy does not say you can't cite a primary source... it simply says that you must use caution when you do so. Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text addition to the policy

Policy clarification proposal (1) [Amended — see proposal 2]

I propose that the following text or information be added to the article:

To ensure that information added to a Wikipedia (WP) article has been published in reliable sources in relation to the WP article's subject, which is described by its title, the information should be verified by reliable sources that include in their text, and in the proper context, the term(s) used in the WP article's title or synonyms of this/these term(s).

--Phenylalanine (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a (real or hypothethical) example of something that would be considered OR under that definition, but wouldn't be so considered under the current policy?--Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the policy is too vague and is open to different incompatible interpretations. For example, an editor once told me: Phenylalanine, what needs to happen is to gather sources and then write the article from sources that use the article title [...] You should google the article title and use those sources and their content to avoid violating WP:NOR. Following this suggested approach, I was told by another editor in a discussion regarding the article "raw foodism": Phen, I think your definition of OR is far, far to strict here. If we turn up a magazine article, or a book, or some other reliable source that asserts that a common belief among rawists is that raw food is healthier than cooked food, then it's not "original research" to name some studies on the relative healthiness of cooked veggies compared to raw veggies, or (for the counter-claims by critics) that raw milk is a hospitable home for zillions of potentially vicious bacteria. We're not synthesizing anything by making a statement like "Rawists say that foods such as (name a vegetable, and cite a decent study) are healthier eaten raw than cooked (cite a reliable source for what rawists say)": we're providing examples: they do actually believe this, and they do in fact use (and misuse) many scientific studies on this subject. There's nothing novel, analytical, or synthesizing in such a statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC) In my opinion, the OR policy should be clarified in this regard. --Phenylalanine (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I would tend to agree with WhatamIdoing (if I understand him/her correctly), though it's a fine line. We shouldn't make NOR so tight or enforce it so strictly that it prevents articles from being brought to a neutral point of view.--Kotniski (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes you say that this will prevent certain articles from being brought to a neutral point of view? The NPOV policy only applies to points of view that adhere to the NOR policy. --Phenylalanine (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just going by my interpretation of what WAID wrote there. It's precisely because of your last point that we should ensure that the NOR policy is not too tight - if it is too tight, then NPOV may be rendered ineffective. (Remember that policies are a means of achieving our goals; it is not our goal to conform to policies.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the NPOV policy will be rendered ineffective by tightening the NOR policy since applying a stringent definition of "original research" will hinder equally the whole spectrum of WP:NOR-non compatible points of view, thus favoring no particular point of view in the process. IMO, we must ensure that statements in any Wikipedia entry have been published in reliable sources directly in relation to the WP articles' subject, described by its title or synonyms thereof. Let's not make the mistake of analyzing the definition of the article's title and gathering sources which use terms referring to the various aspects of that concept. --Phenylalanine (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this proposed addition makes more clear the existing meaning of this policy. It does not change this policy. Whether this additional clarity should be added is the question. Is it needed? I don't know. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds more like an issue of presentation and attribution within articles on fringe theories than one of Original Research. To take the "Raw foodism" example above, while those claims could be construed as original research the way they are written in the example text, they could be appropriately represented by wording along the lines of "The health benefits of eating raw foods are accepted by mainstream nutritionists in certain cases, such as examples and study citations go here. In the case of other foods such as other examples and study citations go here however, cooking is considered essential to the prevention of disease." --erachima talk 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the "Raw foodism" article, even though your proposed statement adheres to WP:ATT, it is no different than a statement like: "raw foodism may have adverse health effects because.." in that it's making a "point" regarding raw foodism. It therefore constitutes an unpublished "comment on or assessment of the raw foodist philosophy/lifestyle". --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I reject your proposal, as its effect would be to make articles on fringe theories lean heavily away from NPOV towards the views of said fringe theorists. This is because mainstream opinions would no longer be citeable unless they were published as a specific rebuttal to the fringe theorists, which rarely occurs because fringe theorists tend to not even be taken seriously enough to refute. Your proposal would also likely raise the amount of wikilawyering on the 'pedia. --erachima talk 00:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely, if a fringe theory is notable, at least one reliable source can be found that criticizes it or points out that the theory goes against mainstream opinions/research? If none can be found, the fringe theory does not, IMO, belong on Wikipedia in the first place. I do not believe that it is our place, as editors, to comment on the merits of fringe theories; our job is to present others' notable comments, in this case, mainstream opinions. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is silly. The author's (or editor's) choice of title should not limit our use of its content. Some older works had remarkably vague titles like "Thoughts on the Natural World." Many modern newspaper and magazine articles have "creative" titles. To use the current context, let's pretend that there's a long newspaper article entirely about the health effects of eating raw foods. Under Phen's proposal, we could cite the newspaper article if the headline is "Health benefits of a raw food diet" -- but not if the same article is titled "New views on age-old practice".

And what would you do with an untitled work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WhatamIdoing, I'm afraid you misunderstood my proposal. I'm not saying that the terms must appear in the source's title, but anywhere in the source's text (including the title). I clarified the proposed paragraph. Thanks for weighing in. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, my reading is that this requires a term anywhere in the source to be a synonym of the article's title. As such, it seems a very mechanical and crude way of determining if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, and likely to cause legalistic arguments rather than aid reaching consensus, so I don't support this proposal. Regarding the wording, Terminology is the study of terms and their use, presumably "include in their text" would be nearer the intended meaning. . . dave souza, talk 22:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But we have a problem. The policy can be interpreted in two very different ways (see above) and without clear guidelines as to which approach is preferable, it can actually get in the way of consensus building (see Talk:Raw foodism#Original research issues). --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

this proposal is inappropriate pettifoggery. It will not do the good it hopes for, and it will do harm. That a term is mentioned in the text of an article is hardly much of a guarantee that the content is relevant./ In fact, some of the the biggest problems come when people search Google or its subsidiaries for particular terms,and put in blindly whatever references in which they appear. Context is what is relevant, and what is needed in some cases is a quotation of the relevant statement of a statement of the extent of coverage, such as page references. Or current rules provide for asking each in appropriate circumstances when challenged. In a similar direction, accepting synonyms permits accepting anything, and asks for endless futile debating over trivial technical points. In the other direction, I can see cases where the material will be relevant to an aspect of the subject and never mention the subjects name as such--for example if one is talking about a subject, and developing the context for it. An unnecessary proposal, to be quickly rejected. I imagine it arose from a dispute over a particular article and source. The solution is to discuss disputed sources as they arise, not look for mechanical solutions to intellectual problems. Phe, is it the article you mention above that is the problem? we should then discuss it. -- I'll give a look DGG (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in DDG. I clarified the proposal with "in their text, and in the proper context" per your comments. IMHO, the net result of this proposal will be positive, as the policy is currently quite vague and is open to multiple interpretations. You mention that, in some cases, "the material will be relevant to an aspect of the subject and never mention the subjects name". Could you give an example of this? --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My rationale for this proposal can be better explained by the following example: Imagine a researcher who has knowledge of all and only that information that is published in reliable sources where a specific topic, e.g. the concept of "Raw foodism", is described/mentioned. Now, suppose the researcher looked at the Wikipedia article "Raw foodism" and noticed aspects or research which he/she never read about on that particular subject (Raw foodism). In my opinion, such information would constitute original research.

I have found the proposed approach to be very useful and helpful in keeping articles on topic and in ensuring that they accurately reflect, in a neutral manner, the body of published research on their subjects, and I would hate to see this proposal rejected out of hand. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is too wiki-lawyerish for my tastes. Let's stick to general ideas here and not get bogged down in too many specifics. The specifics should be argued on a case by case basis in balance with other Wikipedia policies, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of "Wikipedia:No original research" is that: Information can be considered directly related to the topic of a Wikipedia (WP) article, for example the concept of "Raw foodism", when a WP editor considers this information to be relevant to "Raw foodism", not based on his/her analysis of the concept of "Raw foodism", but rather based on the WP editor's readings of reliable sources which describe/mention Raw foodism and his/her consequent interpretation of what these particular reliable sources specifically describe as being relevant to Raw foodism. This interpretation of the NOR policy has the merit of greater promoting a "neutral point of view", since if the editor's interpretation of the relevance of information to a WP article, e.g. "Raw foodism", is based on his own analysis of the subject-matter of an article, then, IMO, there is a greater possibility of misrepresentation, in terms of undue weight, of what the whole spectrum of reliably sourced points of view are saying about Raw foodism, and thus greater risk of breaching the WP:NPOV policy. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but I think we're able to decide directly whether something breaks NPOV or not (as you say, the situation you describe only increases the risk, it doesn't make it inevitable). We don't need to expand NOR to achieve this goal (particularly since in some cases it might turn out to have the reverse effect).--Kotniski (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Amended policy clarification proposal (2) [Amended — see proposal 3]

After further reflection, I can see that there are counterexamples to my proposal. For example, take an article such as the "Environmental effects of meat production", I don't think it would constitute OR, under any reading of the OR policy, to add information to the article that is verified by sources referring to the environmental effects of "intensive livestock farming", even if the sources don't use the exact term "meat production" or synonyms thereof. I also see that focusing on terms is not the right approach since there will be cases where the sources will not explicitly mention the relevant terms but will still refer to the concept described by those terms by indirect means. The key issue here is the specific concept described by the article's title. There are articles, where it seems to me obligatory to use sources that refer to the concept described by the article's title. Such would, IMO, be the case for articles like "Sustainable food system" and "Raw foodism". Perhaps the reason is that in the case of "Sustainable food system", we are dealing with a term defined within a very specific discipline or field of study. While, "Raw foodism" is not defined within a specialized field, it refers to a concept that is based on a point of view. "Raw foodism" is based on the belief that uncooked foods are better than their cooked counterparts. In this article, it would, IMO, be unacceptable to provide information intended to contextualize (i.e. contrast with opposing research/evidence or with mainstream views) the statements supporting/contradicting/criticizing the Raw foodism concept if the contextual information were not verified by sources that refer to the concept designated by the article's title. I believe that this approach should be followed for all articles about concepts based on points of view, even when the articles are about a fringe theory (in which case the lack of contextualizing information verified by sources that refer to the concept designated by WP article's title signals the lack of notability of the fringe theory and therefore indicates that it does not belong on Wikipedia). I therefore amend my policy clarification proposal as follows:

“ In a Wikipedia (WP) article about a specific concept that is defined within a discipline or specialty field or about a concept that represents or is based on a point of view, information added to the WP article should be verified by reliable sources that refer to that particular concept, in order to ensure that the information is presented in these sources in relation to the WP article's subject. ”

--Phenylalanine (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on proposal (2)

I'm still not sure what this brings that we haven't already got. And it still looks to me that it could be used to prevent articles from being made neutral, by excluding certain viewpoints simply because of the terminology that happens to be used in those sources. --Kotniski (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kotniski, the policy says that "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". I'm saying "you must cite reliable sources that provide information which these sources directly relate to the topic of the article." For example, if the subject of an article is "raw foodism", you could find sources that provide information which you judge to be directly related to Raw foodism, for example, information that contextualizes, i.e. that contrasts with opposing research or compares with mainstream views, the statements supporting, contradicting or criticizing the Raw foodism concept. However, you may not be able to find and cite reliable sources that directly relate some of this contextual information to the concept of Raw foodism (i.e. that present/examine/review some of this contextual information in relation to Raw foodism), in which case this particular information would constitute original research according to my policy clarification proposal. For a specific example of this situation, see Raw foodism#Criticism and controversies. In that section, the following statements would constitute original research by the OR definition I suggest above, but not necessarily according to the current policy definition: Most other anthropologists oppose Wrangham, contending that archeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East.[38] This stance of Wrangham's, re cooking leading to bigger human brains, [can be] contrasted with several studies showing that average human brain-size has actually decreased in the last 35,000 years by 11%.[39][40][41] If you click on the refs, you'll notice that none of the sources discuss/mention/describe the concept of Raw foodism. None of the references for these two statements directly relate the information to the concept of Raw foodism. The first statement is verified by a source which refers to (i.e. criticizes) Wrangham's arguments suggesting that cooking played a major role in human evolution, but without mentioning (i.e. directly criticizing) Wrangham's criticisms of the concept of Raw foodism which are based on a number of arguments including the arguments in question which suggest that cooking played a major role in human evolution. The second statement is verified by sources that don't even mention Wrangham. Nevertheless, the editor who included these two statements considered that they were both directly related/relevant to the topic of the article (presumably because these two statements serve to contextualize Wrangham's criticisms of Raw foodism). IMO, both statements should be considered as original research, and consequently the the current definition of OR needs to be clarified, per my proposal, in order to account for this example of original research. It is not our place, as Wikipedia editors, to decide on our own (based on our analysis of the subject-matter of the article) what is relevant and what is not relevant to the topic of an article. As I explained above, what is relevant to the topic of an article, in the case, Raw foodism, should be determined based on what reliable sources indicate as being relevant to this topic. I can provide further specific examples to illustrate my proposal such as the Raw food controversy example provided above, if requested. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In the great majority of situations I think you'd be right; but as far as I can see the present policy (this one and others) well covers those situations anyway. However your examples imply that you would wish to exclude from the raw foodism article points of view which relate to the claims of raw foodists but do not happen to mention the term "raw foodism" or any exact synonym thereof. I don't agree that this would make for a better encyclopedia - it seems like an artificial restriction which will have the practical effect (on the rare occasions where it does have any effect) of making certain articles less neutral. --Kotniski (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated above and as you can see in my amended proposal, I am no longer requiring that the article title or exact synonyms thereof appear in the sources. For example, in the case of the "Raw foodism" article, it would be sufficient that the sources refer to the general concept of Raw foodism, that means terms or phrases such as "raw foodist", "raw veganism" or "the dietary approach advocated by Aajonus Vonderplanitz" would be acceptable. Terms such as "Raw meat diet", "Raw food diet", "Raw milk", "raw veggies" would also be adequate in contexts such as "Some people believe that a Raw food diet is superior to a diet composed mainly of cooked foods, however studies have shown..." or "Some food faddists believe that raw milk is healthier than the milk you find in the supermarket..." or "A popular dietary regimen these days is the consumption of a Raw meat diet, needless to say many nutritionist have expressed worries regarding such practices", etc. So, as long as the sources refer to the general idea of raw foodism (a dietary approach based on the premise that some or all raw foods are healthier than their cooked counterparts) as illustrated by the above examples, I believe that they may be cited in the "Raw foodism" article. In the Raw food controversy example presented above, the points of view do relate to the claims of raw foodists, but, they were not intended to relate to the claims of raw foodists in the sources cited, which is why I believe they constitute OR. This is not an artificial distinction. In a WP article on physics, such as "General relativity", would it be acceptable to add information that contextualizes this theory but that was not intended to do so in the source(s) cited, for example, recent research in physics that you believe calls into question Einstein's theory and that does indeed "relate to the Einstein's claims", but which the source(s) cited to not relate to the Einstein's claims. Such information would quickly be considered OR in the "General relativity" article and speedily removed. The "Raw foodism" article is no different in this regard (since it refers to or is based on a point of view, just like Einstein's theory of General relativity). We should adhere to the same standard that would be applied in the "General relativity" article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Amended policy clarification proposal (3) [Amended — see proposal 4]

Kotniski, I have been reflecting on your comments about fringe theories and I think you're right, applying an overly strict OR policy, such as the one I proposed above, will render the NPOV policy ineffective. An (WP) article's subject, as well as, claims made in an (WP) article regarding it's topic may be considered POV if not properly contextualized, i.e. contrasted with opposing research or compared with mainstream views. Consequently, here's my new policy clarification proposal:

“ As a rule of thumb, information added to a WP article and that is intended to describe, support or criticize its subject should be verified by reliable sources that directly relate this information to the topic of the WP article, and in the same way that the information is presented in the WP article (said another way, in the sources cited, the information should be intended to describe, support or criticize the subject of the article). However, in order to ensure a neutral point of view in clear cases of violations of the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" policy, it is sometimes necessary to (temporarily) ignore this general guideline, when no sources consistent with the guideline can be found, to be able to properly contextualize (i.e. contrast with opposing or mainstream views) statements describing, supporting or criticizing the topic of the WP article. Nevertheless, in building WP articles, editors should always strive to follow the general guideline and sources compliant with the guideline should always have precedence over non-compliant ones. ”

--Phenylalanine (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on proposal (3)

I believe there is some misunderstanding about NPOV going on here. This proposal would actually contradict the NPOV, rather than reinforce it. NPOV is about accurately presenting the balance of the total body of reliable sources on a topic. "Neutrality" in NPOV is about editors being neutral in the handling and presenting of material, not about balancing the article by some subjective standard of "neutrality". Our goal is not to manufacture some pseudo-objective balance, but rather to present the information in roughly the same proportion it appears in reliable sources. If the vast majority of material about a topic is critical and negative, an article heavily weighted towards presenting critical information is not a problem. Ignoring the no original research rule would lead to a violation of NPOV (representing a view not present in the sources), not a correction towards it. Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, what you're suggesting would be to make articles on fringe theories lean heavily away from NPOV towards the views of said fringe theorists. This is because mainstream opinions would no longer be citeable unless they were published as a specific rebuttal to the fringe theorists, which rarely occurs because fringe theorists tend to not even be taken seriously enough to refute. There are also similar cases where statements criticizing or supporting the topic of an article are based on arguments that have been criticized not in relation to the topic of the WP article. In such cases, some WP editors may bring forward information detailing the criticisms of the arguments underlying such statements with sources that do not comply with the rule of thumb mentioned above. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not the job of editors to decide what conflicting facts may be relevant to mention in an article on a fringe topic. As with all topics, that job is left to reliable sources. And there is actually no risk "lean[ing]...towards the views of said fringe theorists." A fringe theory necessarily has insufficient mainstream support to give any of its claims as facts. And since wording something as a claim (John says X is true) is kind of inherently neutral (except when someone is trying to weaken what should be stated as a fact), a properly written fringe article can't give the biased impression that you fear. But back to the previous point, it is part of Wikipedia's fundamental being that all content be easily verifiable; anything more complicated than pointing to a source is heading in the wrong direction. Whenever we find ourselves saying, "sure, no source makes this point about this topic, but trust us," we've done a bad thing. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Someguy1221 and Vassyana, you make strong points and I am inclined to agree with you. In fact, my previous proposal was in line with your interpretation of the NPOV policy. I amended my last proposal in response to several comments suggesting that my interpretation of the NOR policy would likely prevent some articles, such as articles on fringe theories, from being brought to a neutral point of view. Judging from both your responses to the current policy clarification proposal, it appears that we are in agreement in our approach to the NOR policy. So, I'm going to reword my proposal accordingly.

Proposed clarification: Combining indisputable facts is okay

I'd like to add the following clarification to "Synthesis of published material which advances a position":

“ Combining plain, indisputable facts in a way that results in another plain indisputable fact does not fall under the "advancing a position" part of the policy and is generally allowed. For example, is generally okay to combine the reliably-sourced and indisputably true statements "Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States" and "Bill Clinton was one of two US Presidents to be impeached" to a new, non-sourced but indisputably true statement "The 42nd President of the United States was impeached." Care should be used to make sure that the supposed facts that are combined are not merely "not currently in dispute" but in fact beyond disputable. Likewise, care should be taken that the combining of the facts is clear and logical. When doing this type of combination, the editor must include the references to all source material and should explain the combination of facts in the edit log or article talk page. ”

This comes out of a discussion on Talk:Line of succession to the British throne#Request for Comment. I believe that User:Grover cleveland is mistaken in his interpretation but if he made the mistake, others will make the same mistake, so clarification is necessary. Comments? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Like the much-argued WP:V point with regard to citing things like the sky being blue, any genuine case where this clause would apply would already be covered with WP:IAR and a "stop being silly" directed at whoever was trying to challenge the sentence. Therefore it's meaningless instruction creep at best, and at worst will give an obnoxious loophole for some wikilawyer or other. --erachima talk 01:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I (not surprisingly) also disagree. First, the suggested change to the policy undermines WP:V. The touchstone for Wikipedia has always been verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to decide what are, and what are not, "plain indisputable facts". (Is "Bill Clinton was one of two US Presidents to be impeached" really "beyond disputable"? Suppose, for example, that new evidence turns out suggesting that Johnson wasn't really impeached). Second, as erachima suggests, the proposed change would completely vitiate WP:SYN: it would always be open for someone synthesizing information to claim that it is "indisputable", "obvious", etc. Would even the plagiarism example that is given on the main page still violate this rule? Third, if the resulting synthesized information is really germane and important to the subject of the article, some reliable source on the topic will include it, making the synthesis unnecessary. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Given reliable sources that say "In the 1980 census, Smallville had a population of 1,234 people" and "In the 1990 census, Smallville had a population of 1,244 people" to say "between 1980 and 1990, official census figures show a population gain of 10"? This is the kind of "ignore all rules would seem to apply, but some people are dense, so we need to spell it out for them" situation I'm thinking of. To be more trivial, is it against Wikipedia no-synthesis rules to say 1,244-1,234=10 if that equation can't be reliably sourced? If so, WP:IAR applies.

In the case of "what if it turned out Johnson wasn't impeached," we'd be in the same situation as if someone did moot the whole point and there was a reliable source saying "The 42nd President of the United States was impeached." To paraphrase a late-20th-century movie referencing the Jewish Holocaust, some things are historical facts and beyond question. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The RFC referenced above is not clear about the sentence in dispute in Line of succession to the British throne. It's a pity, because it would help understand the issue, and possibly offer other avenues for resolution. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to help clarify things? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The article Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates makes the claim that Richard Nixon was the nineteenth tallest president. There is no source which says that he was the nineteenth tallest president, but there are sources for the heights of each president, and when one puts these sources together in a table, it shows that Nixon was nineteenth tallest. Is that a violation of NOR? Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Noel, I think that there are several problems with that article. First, the self-declared purpose of the article is "to compare the veracity of the folk wisdom about U.S. presidential politics that the taller of the two major-party candidates always wins or always wins since the advent of the televised presidential debate, since 1900, and so on" which not only seems a somewhat dubious basis on which to base a Wikipedia article, but is almost explicitly declaring the article to be an original research project. Second, it isn't clear where the information on each President comes from, so there seem to be WP:V issues. Did all the heights come from a single source, or were they cobbled together from a patchwork of sources? Third, it isn't clear that the height information on each President is comparable. For example, the article claims that Bill Clinton (6 ft 2.5 in) was taller than George Washington (6ft 2 in). Even assuming that we have a reliable source for George Washington's height, is there any evidence that it was accurate to within 1/2 an inch? Consider the possibility that Clinton's height is to the nearest half inch, and Washington's to the nearest inch (this seems quite likely: all the pre-Civil War presidents except for Jefferson have a height that is a whole number of inches, something which would be extremely unlikely by pure chance). In that case: it is incorrect to claim that Clinton was taller than Washington, since Clinton could have been 6 ft 2.3 in and Washington could have been 6 ft 2.4 in. Now we don't know that this was the case, but neither (without a cited source) do we know that it was not the case and that the heights are comparable. This kind of complication, even in an apparently straightforward list, is precisely the reason why we have the WP:SYN policy Grover cleveland (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, the dispute in Line of succession to the British throne is not over one single sentence, but rather over the nature of the entire article. The page is an attempt to identify and list, in order, every single person who is legally qualified to succeed to the British throne according to British law. This involves the following alleged violations of WP:SYN:

• Adding newly born children to the list directly below their parents, on the basis solely of a source saying that the child was born to his/her parents. There will usually be no reliable source saying that the newly born child is in the line of succession, or that they are at a particular number (e.g. 532nd) in the line of succession.
• Removing persons who become Roman Catholic, or who marry a Catholic (this is a feature of the archaic British succession laws). There will usually be no reliable source saying that "XXX has become Roman Catholic and thereby removed him/herself from the succession". In addition, the exact legal details of how and when a person becomes disqualified because of Catholicism are unclear and debated on the article's discussion page.
• Removing people who die from the list, solely on the basis of a report of the death. There will usually be no reliable source stating that "XXX has died and thereby removed him/herself from the succession".
• Adding/removing people from the list on the basis of their legitimacy (i.e. whether their parents were married at the time of their birth).
• Of course, every time a person is added to or removed from the list, this has the effect or decreasing or increasing the ranking of every person later in the list. Not surprisingly, these changes in the rankings are not directly supported by any reliable sources.

I hope this clears the nature of the dispute up, at least as regards WP:SYN (there are other issues as well). Grover cleveland (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Removing people who die from the list".

Now this is exactly the type of complaint I was referring to with the "stop being silly" comment above. Dead people cannot hold the throne, and seriously suggesting that as a case of WP:SYN violation makes your whole argument look more like a joke than anything else. You may have a point on some of the other parts though, I'll admit I'm not well versed in archaic British succession laws. --erachima talk 19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Grover, you oversimplify things. I assume your goal is the same as ours - to make a better Wikipedia. I also assume your goal is to make this article the best article it can be, and to make WP:SYN a useful tool to apply to all articles in Wikipedia, with the obvious exceptions where WP:AIR might apply. If I'm wrong, if you are trying to have the article deleted or restructured in a major way so that it is no longer what its title implies, the place for that discussion is the article talk page, not here.

I should probably do this on the article talk page, but in the interest of keeping the discussion in one place I'll address your items point by point here:

• "Adding newly born children to the list directly below their parents, on the basis solely of a source saying that the child was born to his/her parents. There will usually be no reliable source saying that the newly born child is in the line of succession, or that they are at a particular number (e.g. 532nd) in the line of succession."

• Rebuttal: I've already conceded that you have a case when there is the possibility that the parent is in the line but for whatever reason, say, unclear legitimacy or the possibility of Catholicism of the child, the child is not. If the parent is in the list at position 592, we should either assume that is true or place a "citation needed" tag on it. With the lack of such a tag, all that is needed to insert the child is 1) the fact the child is born, 2) the fact the child is Protestant or being raised Protestant, or more specifically, not Catholic, 3) the fact the child is legitimate, and 4) the names, gender, position, and exclusion-status of any older siblings. Newspaper reports typically give all information with the possible exception of religion. Since the Catholic church won't baptize infants when the parents won't raise him Catholic - something I could find a reliable source for at the nearest parish church - and de facto the won't Baptize a child who is being raised by non-Catholic parents, it would be absurd to argue that a child is Catholic if his parents are both known to be Protestant. Therefore, there is a much, much, greater chance of error and is much, much more likely to lead to an incorrect list if you exclude a newborn child who is known to be a child of someone in the list. This means either 1) the NOR/SYN policy is creating error and needs to be changed, 2) you are misinterpreting the NOR/SYN policy, or 3) the NOR/SYN policy is creating error and it is the will of Wikipedians that this is perfectly okay. I threw in #3 just to be mathematically complete, I doubt very much that is the case.

• 'Removing persons who become Roman Catholic, or who marry a Catholic (this is a feature of the archaic British succession laws). There will usually be no reliable source saying that "XXX has become Roman Catholic and thereby removed him/herself from the succession". In addition, the exact legal details of how and when a person becomes disqualified because of Catholicism are unclear and debated on the article's discussion page.'

• Rebuttal: You have a point in certain instances. However, there are certain instances when it is clear: If a person is baptized a Catholic and professes the Catholic faith, or he marries a practicing Catholic, it's clear he is out at the time of his profession of faith or his marriage. What is not clear is what happens to any children he had prior to that point. There may also be some ambiguity if there is no genuine profession of faith, such as a person whose spouse had been baptized Catholic but who had not practiced it as an adult, or who had converted to a Protestant or non-Protestant, non-Catholic denomination before marriage. My suggested change to WP:SYN would cover the unambiguous cases only.

• 'Removing people who die from the list, solely on the basis of a report of the death. There will usually be no reliable source stating that "XXX has died and thereby removed him/herself from the succession".'

• Rebuttal: Oh please, a reliable report that he is dead suffices. We can always revert if the report was incorrect. A reliable report that said "So and so died but he's planning on coming back to life so he is specifically not removing himself from the line of succession" would still result in his removal.

• "Adding/removing people from the list on the basis of their legitimacy (i.e. whether their parents were married at the time of their birth)."

• Rebuttal: The law assumes a child is legitimate and that he is the child of the mother's husband if the mother is married. I'm not sure if this is at the time of birth or the time of conception, and I'm not sure how this affects widows married at conception, but I'm sure British law handles this with clarity. There doesn't need to be a reliable source saying "so and so is legitimate" only that "so and so's mother was married at the time of the birth" or "... at conception" depending on British law. In cases where there is a claim of a secret marriage or a claim that the child is illegitimate despite appearances to the contrary, then specific reliable sources are needed. Otherwise, the marital status of the mother at the time of birth or conception is all that is needed. We can safely assume legitimacy or illegitimacy based on that fact and applicable British law.

• "Of course, every time a person is added to or removed from the list, this has the effect or decreasing or increasing the ranking of every person later in the list. Not surprisingly, these changes in the rankings are not directly supported by any reliable sources."

• Rebuttal: They are, however, supported by mathematics. While it is true that if someone is in the list and shouldn't be, or is not in the list and should be, everyone else's ranking is off by one, that is inherent in any list. If someone 40-odd down on the list died tonight, everyone below him would be one lower than they should be until that person was removed. If it took a couple of days for the news to be reported, then for 2 days there would be 1500+ entries that would be incorrect. So what? We do the best we have with the information we have.

The question remains open: Is my suggested change as worded what I intended: An explicit statement of what is already implied? Is making this explicit good or bad for Wikipedia? User:erachima has said that it is what I intended but adding it would open the door to Wikilawyering. I'm not sure what User:Pcarbonn is saying with respect to my suggested change, nor am I clear on what User:Grover cleveland is saying with respect to the proposed change. User:Noel S McFerran gives another list-order-synthesis-type example where WP:SYN either does not apply or if it does apply, Wikipedia will suffer as a result. I welcome further comments in the abstract - now that we have McFerran's presidential-height example the details of the British Throne example aren't as important.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

DavidWR: my initial attempt to answer Erichima's query has led into a full-scale debate which would belongs at Talk:Line of succession to the British throne. I'll respond to your points there, if I have time. I suggest that we keep detailed debates over that article out of this discussion page and stick to general principles (with specific examples where they illuminate the questions) here. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Find an appropriate guideline to make any such suggestion. It is a common sense argument which should probably not be the subject of a full paragraph in policy. Strictly speaking, I'd suggest the two facts (1) Clinton was the 42nd president and (2) he was impeached should be simply stated. The process of comparing him to Johnson or counting how many presidents have been impeached are acts of interpretation. While this shouldn't require a source, certainly one could be found if some wikilawyering editor is making silly arguments against this "synthesis."--SaraNoon (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the thinking of the original proposal. It might be obvious, but uncontentious original synthesis is very common on Wikipedia (indeed, every WP article is an original synthesis to some extent, otherwise it would almost certainly be a breach of copyright), and I don't think it would do any harm to mention this in the policy to stop the occasional wikilawyer in their tracks.--Kotniski (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If an instance of synthesis is "uncontentious", then by definition nobody's complaining about it and it therefore doesn't need a rule about it. I think a lot of people miss the point that on Wikipedia, the policy pages are there to enumerate the very few things that aren't permissible, not the multitudinous ones that are. --erachima talk 09:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if that's so, the policies should still be worded so that the definition of what's not permissible doesn't inadvertently include things that are actually permissible. I notice that there are people who raise a fuss about things that aren't really contentious, either for their own satisfaction at seeing the rules enforced at whatever cost, or to try to make a point about some other situation. I agree that the policies don't have to cover every possible eventuality, but the one raised here is far from rare and deserves mention IMO.--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Kotniski, you say that every WP article is an original synthesis to some extent, otherwise it would almost certainly be a breach of copyright. With respect, I really don't think that's true. A typical Wikipedia article consists of a collection of claims from multiple different sources. However, each individual claim can (or ideally should) be backed by a single source. Simply bringing multiple different pieces of information together is not a synthesis if it doesn't result in any new claims. For example, consider the article about presidential heights that is referenced above. If I have source A that claims that Washington was 6 ft 2 in tall, and I have source B that claims that Clinton was 6 ft 2.5 in tall, then I can bring these claims together as

1. Washington was 6 ft 2 in tall. Clinton was 6 ft 2.5 in tall.

or even

2. Washington was 6 ft 2 in tall, and Clinton was 6 ft 2.5 in tall.

Neither of these formulations poses any WP:SYN problems. It is only if I bring these two claims together as

3. Clinton was taller than Washington

that there is a WP:SYN violation, since I have now made a new claim that can't be backed by any of my individual sources on their own (and it may not be a logically sound deduction from them -- see the discussion above). Now, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles do not do this. I invite you to point to specific examples if you disagree, but a typical well-sourced article merely rephrases and rearranges information that can be found in other sources. The worry that vast swathes of Wikipedia would violate WP:SYN is misguided: articles such as the Line of succession to the British throne or Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates are very atypical in this respect. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this kind of deduction is atypical (I had in mind the rephrasing and rearrangement, which a pedant might claim is original interpretation). I'm not saying that all logically valid deductions should be allowed - just that we should perhaps try to define (broadly) which are and which aren't. For example, trival things like imperial-metric unit conversions are presumably OK. --Kotniski (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC) PS In fact, I would basically like to make the essay WP:These are not original research into part of the policy (or at least a separate guideline).--Kotniski (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If I can throw in my two cents, what you are talking about is syllogisms, equations, and other forms of logical deduction. deduction (done properly) is non-problematic, and simple deductions of the type you are talking about should never be a concern. the problem is that most people do not explicitly know how to deduce correctly. most people get the general idea, but often make formal errors that render the deduction invalid, or make inferences that they can't distinguish from deductions. both of those errors are accidental violations of wp:SYN. for instance, given reliable sources that say Washington was 6'2" tall and Clinton was 6'2.5" tall, it would be perfectly proper to say that Clinton was taller than Washington, but it would be improper to say that Clinton was larger than Washington (since 'larger' accounts for other things than height). if you're just looking for a guideline, anything that can be explicitly formulated as a valid deduction (one that doesn't violating the principles of logic) should be fine; anything that does violate those principles shouldn't be allowed. --Ludwigs2 23:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As others have noted above, in non-contentious articles, some common sense synthesis is common. But since it is common sense and the facts are clear, no one cares. Policy exists more for the sake of contentious articles than non-contentious articles, however. Specifically, the no synthesis rule exists, and is often misinterpreted and abused when passionately held points of view come into conflict. In such articles, wikilawyers will try to block even statements similar to your example that Clinton was taller than Washington (if it goes against their POV) and demand that the contributing editor must find this conclusion in a reliable secondary source. Then if a source is found, it is quite possible that a strongly biase editor will still argue that the source you provide it is not sufficiently reliable, or that since they can't verify it (because they don't want to go to a real library) it should not be accepted. This is all disruptive nonsense, but it points to the difficulties involved in contentious articles. The practical rule which follows is that if someone is making your life difficult, take extra great care to state A and B and do not even hint at C. Let the reader draw from the bare facts, "Source A reports Clinton is this height." "Source B reports Washington is this height." And leave it at that. Unfortunately, your more contentious editors won't even want to allow that, but there you have it. Rather than fight for the right to a simple obvious comparison, if people complain focus on the appropriateness of stating the facts with no comparison statement.--SaraNoon (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

all sources have a certain degree of error , and we do not aim for complete scientific accuracy. A difference of fractions of an inch in people's height is only significant if the dispute over that particular fractional difference is in fact controversial (which is not all that rational in the first place, as a person's height changes slightly over time, even over the 4 or 8 years of a presidential term.) There has to be some common sense on what is controversial (obviously, showing that something is indeed controversial in the sources is sufficient for that--but then it provides sources). DGG (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the clarification proposed. Much of the discussion in support of the proposal offers examples of what appear to be original research to advance new claims. This encyclopedia doesn't do research analysis of the heighth of the US presidents, it doesn't do genealogy research to determine lines of succession. This kind of stuff is what the policy is intended to reign in. If other sources are found in which the individuals' placements in lines of succession are given, we cite them. If studies have been conducted ranking presidents by heighth, we cite them. But we don't originate those kinds of studies. The current wording of the policy is sufficient for areas which are basic common sense. But studies like those I just mentioned are not, which entail all kinds of complex factors which must be dealt with in terms of the data used and/or making justifiable analytic use of the information. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of NOR, at least with respect to lists. To use hypothetical example: Suppose in 1945 someone published a list of the past and present governors of each state listed by state and within each state alphabetically by last name. Suppose that as recently as last year reliable sources provided up-to-date alphabetic lists for some of the states. Suppose furthermore that there were already reliable sources that listed each and every state governor since 1948 with their last name spelled correctly. In my opinion, it is not OR to create an article or set of articles that contain and up-to-date list the state governors with their name sorted alphabetically. Such an article might be deemed unencyclopedic but it would not be OR. The "list of heights" and "list of people in line for the British Throne" articles are substantially similar to this case: They take existing, verified information and merely apply existing, verified rules to the data to create a list. This is no more original research than sorting all Wikipedia users by username given the same list sorted by date of registration (the verifiable data) and a rule for sorting alphabetically (the verifiable set of rules). Yes, there are a few entries in the line of succession to the British Throne where the underlying facts are in dispute, but those can be handled individually through tags such as "dubious" and notations in the list that the status of the individual is not clear. The clarification to WP:NOR is needed because at least one editor is claiming that "a implies b, b implies c, therefore a implies c" and similar easy-to-follow logical arguments constitute original research. My concern is other editors may make the same error. Elsewhere in this discussion, someone recommended that Wikipedia:These are not original research be changed from an essay into a guideline. That might solve the problem without requiring a change in the policy document. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As to the last suggestion, I say, No, no, no, no, perish the thought, NO!. There are other wiki's in the project where original research has a place. The encyclopedia is an assembled look-up reference, a compendium of general knowledge. If some wikipedian is the first to come up with this knowledge, good for him or her, but it doesn't qualify as the "general knowledge".

As to the former discussion, the article on presidential height has a topic sentence, "The table above was created to compare the veracity of the folk wisdom about U.S. presidential politics that the taller of the two major-party candidates always wins or always wins since the advent of the televised presidential debate, since 1900, and so on." I say, reign it in folks. Start a blog, publish in a journal, write a book, take it to another wiki. But this is way off target for wikipedians to be doing independent research writing articles that try to investigate or debunk folk wisdoms. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: Does this proposal mean that it would be acceptable to combine indisputable facts that also respectively result from the combination of indisputable facts? For example, if "A", "B", "X", "Y" are indisputable facts, would it be acceptable to combine "A" with "B" to form "C", and "A" with "Y" to form "Z", and then to combine "C" with "Z" to form "W" (Of course, all the sources that verify the individual facts "A", "B", "X", "Y" would have to be used to verify the resultant fact "W")? This process of combining indisputable facts could go on further. I'm wandering if this could become an issue. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Moved. Proposed Policy and Guidelines Draft Input Requested

Per the above discussions, there appears to be a consensus that the section on PSTS needs some changes to minimize the many conflicts that arise over defining primary and secondary sources. Most believe that much of the material in this section would be better handled in Guidelines where more specific examples and suggestions could be made.

As also previously proposed, since there has been no objection to moving the current PSTS, without changing it, to a lower place in NOR policy, I have done so. This reorganization is intended to not only to shift focus of readers to more important material, but also to signal to all watching this policy that a policy change and new guidelines are being proposed. I have therefore moved the PSTS section as discussed.

I have also created a page that contains both (1) a draft of the proposed policy change for the PSTS section and (2) a draft of the proposed guidelines to give more examples and discussion of PSTS in a fashion that doesn't unduly burden the NOR policy page.

Please join us in the discussion and work on this policy change and guideline at WP:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources. For the sake of bringing people up to speed on the discussion, I've also copied a bunch of the last year's discussion of this issue from the archives of NOR to the talk page of Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources.--SaraNoon (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is not a consensus "that the section on PSTS needs some changes to minimize the many conflicts that arise over defining primary and secondary sources". We've been through this discussion at great length before, and the current form of PSTS is the result of that very lengthy discussion involving many WP users over the course of several months in the latter part of 2007. In general PSTS doesn't create any more conflicts than WP:NPOV or WP:V, or WP:NOR as a whole. And, where conflicts arise, they tend to be (1) where one or more WP users are attempting to use WP as a vehicle to publish original research, and/or (2) where folks are just picking too many nits, so to speak. As to the latter (excessive nitpicking), similar problems arise quite frequently with WP:NPOV and WP:V as well. I myself have no objection, though, to its placement somewhat farther down on the page. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about NOR and maps

An interesting question came up today about use of maps as citations in road transport articles. Working toward my first highway FA, and an editor at FAC opposed. His principal argument for opposing was that map citations violate WP:NOR, since he says reading a map constitutes original research. I hadn't really thought of the matter that way before (just followed existing precedents). If he's right then the editors in this FA drive will need to obtain different sources. Before heading to the library I'd like to get the opinions of uninvolved editors, (partly in hopes it might save a trip) but mainly because nearly every existing highway FA is sourced to maps. A few examples follow:

• Interstate 15 in Arizona 6 citations to a map, 1 to a road atlas
• Interstate 355 11 citations to maps
• Interstate 70 in Utah 24 citations to maps, 6 citation to atlases

So, is this original research? Durova^Charge! 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In NOR terms, it's halfway between a language translation or translation and a units conversion. While it's generally frowned upon to use a non-English source without an existing English translation, if the translation is obvious then it is okay. For example, a photograph of an "Alto" sign in Mexico City may be captioned "A stop sign in Mexico City's downtown district." On the other hand, unit conversion is almost always allowed unless there is no general agreement on the conversion factors. For example, the ancient unit of measurement called a cubit should be converted with great care and with explanatory text.

Likewise, a map that clearly an unambiguously shows something should be citable without explaination, but if there is even the hint of ambiguity a different source should be used if possible, or at the very least, the ambiguity addressed in the article or citation. Fortunately, most modern maps are very straightforward. However, highway entrances and exits, exact borders of non-critical features, and other items may not be. Also, when citing a map of something that is likely to change over time it is critical that the map date or at least the year be included in the citation.

By the way, if standard practice conflicts with policy, it's grounds to change policy to reflect actual usage. In most cases, policy exists as a "hard guideline," in comparison to guidelines which have a little more wiggle-room, and essays and unwritten standard practices, which should be treated as suggestions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the thoughtful response. Durova^Charge! 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Would reading the map produce any "unique art" that would be first published on the Wikipedia? Not if you're citing something that can only be read one way, such as "road X crosses road Y". If you were interpreting geologic data to say "looks like there's oil under this hill" that would be a different story. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a very succinct way of putting it. Generalize it to other "interpretable" non-prose-text factual sources and it should be part of the guidelines or essays. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy clarification proposal

Per discussion regarding my previous proposal and this comment, I believe the following text or information should be added to the NOR policy. For an explanation of my rationale and specific examples of how this proposal differs from the current NOR policy wording, see this discussion.

“ When adding content to a Wikipedia (WP) article, the Wikipedia:No original research policy states that you must cite reliable sources that (1) provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that (2) directly support the information as it is presented. As a general guideline, you should also ensure that (3) the reliable sources which you cite directly relate this information to the topic of the WP article, and in the same way that the information is presented in the WP article. For example, if the information added serves to criticize the subject of the WP article, then you are required to cite sources where the information is intended as a criticism of this topic. Whether the information added serves to contrast certain aspects of or statements about the subject-matter with opposing or mainstream points of view, or to support such statements or aspects, or even to point out aspects related to the topic of the WP article which happen to cast the subject-matter in a more favorable or unfavorable light, the same principal applies. When developing the context for a subject described in a WP article, if no sources can be found that comply with the above guideline, you may occasionally cite reliable sources that provide information relevant to an aspect of that subject, but which do not directly relate that information to the topic of the WP article. However, to avoid breaching the Neutral point of view policy, you should never do this when adding information that may misrepresent any aspect of the subject or cast it in a more favorable or unfavorable light, for example if the information supports, discredits, highlights or downplays any aspect of that subject. ”

--Phenylalanine (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The "how it differs" link doesn't work.

I don't support this. Raw foodism should be able to list the well-documented dangers of food poisoning related to raw milk, even though the CDC's webpage on the dangers of unpasteurized milk doesn't specifically say, "By the way, this apply to people that don't ever eat cooked foods just as much as it applies to people eating cooked foods every day." If the connection is patently obvious, your personal interpretation of the author's original intent (original research if I ever saw it, BTW) is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in WhatamIdoing, I fixed the link. If the connection is patently obvious, then we are likely to easily find sources that make that connection, which we can then use, and if no readily available sources can be found that make the connection, then the connection probably isn't that obvious after all, and should not be mentioned in the article. I agree that the food safety issues are obviously relevant to healthfulness of Raw foodism, but I can imagine some cases where what appears obvious at first glance really isn't after further examination. Since we can avoid making this kind of mistake by relying on the sources to make the connections for us and since it should presumably be easy to find information on food safety issues in sources that make the connection, I think we really have nothing to lose by following this approach, and, IMO, a lot to gain by it. Also, if the editor's interpretation of the relevance of the food safety information to the Raw foodism article is based on his or her own analysis of the subject-matter of the article, rather than on the reliable sources making the connection, then, IMO, there is a greater risk of applying undue weight to the food safety issues. On a separate note, the "Raw foodism" article need not describe every single food safety issue associated with the consumption of specific raw foods, as it seems the article is heading in that direction. We should do some research on the net and look for sources that make the connection between Raw foodism and the food safety issues, and add to the article whatever food safety information we can find, preferably with a wikilink to a "raw food" article or to the article "food safety", where the rest of the food safety concerns can be detailed. On a final note, to interpret the intent of an author is not original research when that intent is clearly spelled out. When the intent is not clear, the source should not be used for that purpose. I don't see a contradiction between OR rule number (2) "directly support the information as it is presented" and the guideline I am suggesting, rather I think they go hand in hand. Cheers. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• User:Phenylalanine's proposal won't do because it requires that we are able to divine the intent of an author and this is often not stated. Also, deciding whether a statement is critical or not is subjective too. And often sources and their statements are too complex or subtle to be interpreted in a simple for/against way. Per WP:CREEP, we must judge each case on its merits rather than trying to construct elaborate rules. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Warden, a source shouldn't be used for the purposes of the guideline unless its intent is very clearly laid out per OR rule 2. This, I believe, is consistent with the proposal. I will reword to make this more clear. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I must oppose this addition as well. These sort of situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis using the existing policies, common sense, and debate when necessary. I just don't like the idea of trying to set hard rules about such tricky issues as this. Kaldari (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)