Wikipedia talk:No original research

Archives

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

Original consensus formulation

Lest we forget, here is the long-term version as it existed before the recent attempted coup.

• ==Expert editors==

"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."

Any questions? Pproctor 13:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

other editors have pointed out that it is problematic to say "knowledge is verifiable" because we never expect our readers to verify knowledge, our verifiability policy is that certain CLAIMS about knowledge are verifiable i.e. they come from verifiable sources. Also, this version is just wordy. The corruent version in the policy is identical in terms of policy, it is just more concise and precise. Brevity is good. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: None here. So let's now hear the supporters of a change from the above version argue a little more cogently for why they think a change is necessary. Jon Awbrey 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Name three. Or two, or one. Let's find an real, live supporter of the change, and get them to this discussion; otherwise, this is pointless. Someone must support it, or it wouldn't keep getting inserted, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, which change to you mean? The change from the original guideline, or the change back to the original guideline?

Oh, come on. I mean precisely what you meant in the practically one-sentence post of yours that I was responding to. You said "let's now hear the supporters of a change from the above version argue a little more cogently...", and I said, ok, name a supporter of said change, and let's get them here. Is that complicated? We're talking about the change from what you're calling the "original guideline", and another way to tell that is that I would be pretty foolish to say, "gosh we need to get someone in the discussion who holds the view you and Pproctor just uttered, since it's not represented." You really thought that's what I was saying? At any rate, Rubenstein has given us an argument above. What do we think of it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He makes a nice straw argument, as do the rest of you-all. But it does not touch on the issue, which is the change in a long term Wikipedia rule to give more power to Larry Sanger's "Trolls and Fools" to harass experts. Again, I had this happen to me and cited this rule to protect myself. So the perps come over here and attempt to change the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pproctor (talk • contribs) 15:07, September 7, 2006 (UTC)

No, I provided valid reasons. for you to dismiss them out of hand is a demonstration of bad faith. i showed good faith by taking a questions seriously and providing a serious answer. you lack good faith. to you, anyone who disagrees with you over anything, in any way, is wrong. You are adding nothing to this discussion, you are notconstructive, and you do not know how to work with others or participate in a constructive collaborative effort. I will give you one last change to demonstrate whether you are capableof good faith or not. In the current paragraph, please explain what it is that gives trolls the power to harass experts? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, your good buddy dunc (or maybe you are just his sock puppet-- I notice you-all post to the same "creationist" pages) proceeded to delete/revert pages I had spent much of my rather valuable time on. The excuse was that I had cited my own work, the real reason was that I had dared to provide a neutral POV over at Raymond Damadian over issue that I was a personal wittness too, but which apparently he had strong feelings about. I noted that what I had done was perfectly OK under the existing rule. So Dunc inititated this rule change. Presumably the purpose was so that he can continue his bad behavior. Pardon me if I assume bad faith-- there has been bad faith in this whole process from the very start.

Still, I should not be too surprised. As Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger has noted [1], complain about trolling around here and you get accused of trolling. Sic:

• "There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll." and "....Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia, because they will--at least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversy--be forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to "work with" persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best)."

I notice you didn't answer Slrubenstein's direct question: What in the policy, as it's currenly frozen, gives trolls license to harass experts? Please be specific, and quote the offending bit of policy. I'm quite familiar with the Larry Sanger quotation, and by now I'm quite familiar with your own history with Dunc. It turns out that neither of those is an answer to the question: where in a policy or guideline page does it say that you can't cite yourself, as long as you do it properly? Can you point to it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As we have discussed here ad nauseum, the "vanity" guideline is so subjective that it gives anyone a tool to harass anyone else anytime. The present policy gives experts some protection from this. As I have noted here repeatedly, I have personally experienced this kind of harassment. So kindly do not tell me it does not happen. Pproctor 03:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't tell you that. I've never said that. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. It appears that you don't want to link to the vanity guidelines, but otherwise the wording is ok in the frozen version. Subtract that last "see also" sentence with the link, and you're happy. Is that correct, or not? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pprocotor, if you accuse two longstanding and respected editors of being sockpuppets of one another, then you are indeed far more likely to be described as a troll. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Respected? From Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture. Dunc got censured, but it did not do the slightest bit of good.

"Comments by Slowmover

• In an unrelated matter, I also found Dunc's behavior assumed bad faith and lacked civility. Specifically, this concerned the disambiguation page Them. Dunc spotted an earlier edit I had made which had removed some content he had added, and immediately reverted it as vandalism [15]. I decided to revert Dunc, but explained myself on his talk page [16], and complained about the accusation of vandalism. His response was to ignore my complaint, revert me again, and repeat his accusation of vandalism [17]. After this, I decided to check Dunc out, discovered he was a sysop, and that there were other examples of similar conflicts in his talk archives. I began to wonder if Dunc was trying to lure me into a 3RR violation, so I decided that I would stay away from him. Before walking away from this conflict, I documented my position on the discussion page Talk:Them, and added a final comment on his talk page [18]. Dunc finally paid attention to at least one of my points and made a minor correction to his reversions [19]. He then immediately archived his talk page, which I found curious. I found his behavior and attitude to be unacceptable in a sysop, and his 3rd "vandalism" accusation in his edit summary here to be inexcusably rude, since he was now aware that I was editing in good faith. I was also surprised that he didn't seem to care that his edits weren't really conforming to WP:N and Mos:DP. Overall, I found my interaction with Dunc dispiriting, and my concerns increased about the future of Wikipedia with admins behaving like this, which drives good editors away. -- Slowmover 15:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

Comments by A Y Arktos

• Like Slowmover, I also have had a less than civil interaction with User:Duncharris on an unrelated matter whereby he accused me of vandalism in an edit summary. Had not discussed the matter first on the article's talk page. I had discussed it there and had requested citations for the article more than one month ago. Duncharris seems unaware of, or unwilling to accept the WP:Cite policy, commenting that "this place can get verification-happy". In my case he breached civilty as far as I am concerned. I was interested to see this mediation on his talk page immediately above my posting to him asking for an explanation. I thus note I am not the only victim of his incivility. --A Y Arktos\talk 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Incivility continued at Talk:Kangaroo court where he accused me of trolling, being lazy and stupid! He also used the rollback button inappropriately, still failing to meet WP:Cite - antoher editor commented on this behaviour also.[20]. --A Y Arktos\talk 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

Comments by William Avery

• Further evidence of Dunc's tendency to escalate the emotional temperature will be found on his talk page at the Commons. Seeing that he replied to the civil request "please try to find those permissions (I'm sure, you got them)" with "I don't appreciate the suggestion that I am lying" fills me with foreboding about trying to pursue similar issues with other images he has uploaded there. --William Avery 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

Comments by Ground Zero

• I, too, am appalled by the persistently aggressive and uncivil behaviour by an admin. When I copyedited Adrian Knatchbull-Hugessen, an article full of deadlinks, I fixed numerous deadlinks, adjusted the text, and removed several deadlinks. Duncharris restored the deleted links with the edit summary "reinstate vandalised links". When I pointed out that I had made several unquestionably useful improvements to the article and asked for an apology, he continued to insist that removing deadlinks "might be interpreted as vandalism". He still has not, as far as I know, created articles for any of the deadlinks that he restored. See his talk page and mine. Ground Zero | t 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Today he accused me of vandalism again. See User_talk:Ground_Zero#Adrian_Knatchbull-Hugessen. Sadly, it does not appear that he is paying this mediation effort any heed. Ground Zero | t 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC) [edit]

Comments by Jim Butler

• I'm not terribly heartened by Dunc's removal without discussion today of Template:POV-title that I placed on category:pseudoscience. From Category_talk:Pseudoscience, it's obvious that disagreement exists over how to handle this cat. I thought the whole point of dispute templates was to flag the articles and attract discussion so as to help build consensus. Removing the tag without discussion is not only poor Wikiquette, but contrary to the bedrock principle of consensus itself. Unfortunately it doesn't appear Dunc has taken this MedCab request to heart. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by pproctor

• I also second Dunc's bad behavior. Everybody has bad days, but this seems far too much and with too many people. In fact, as a physician, I wonder whether there isn't some psychiatric issue. Normal tussles are normal. But this guy is completely over the top.
• We went round and round on Raymond Damadian. He put me thru all of the above-- reversions without explaination, lots of abuses, insults, misstatements of "the rules", etc. I put on a "disputed section" tag and he removed it. I would try to put in something to bring the POV to neutral and he would just revert it. No discussion, nothing.
• In fact, I can't believe this guy is an administrator-- something which should be reviewed, ASAP. If Wikipedia wants good editors, it cannot treat them like this. And his continual flouting of "the rules" is not conducive to having them followed.
• Even worse, I made the horrible mistake of letting my true ID be known. Next thing I know, he is seeking out my other posts on Wikipedia and giving them "the treatment". Totally nuts-- like when you set off some psychotic. I don't need this trouble. Wikipedia-cofounder Larry Sanger has long noted the difficulty of keeping good editors in the presence of such "fools and trolls". Pproctor 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Any questions? BTW, the reason I suspected that Duncharris and Slrubenstein might be avatars is because the flack I got came from the various "creationist" pages, which they both post too. E.g. from Talk:creationism

(cur) (last) 11:24, 31 March 2006 'Duncharris (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 58.7.114.188 (talk) to last version by Homestarmy)

(cur) (last) 10:58, 31 March 2006 58.7.114.188 (Talk) (More info here:)

(cur) (last) 19:14, 30 March 2006 Homestarmy (Talk | contribs) (ŮPlease, please, please)

(cur) (last) 12:09, 30 March 2006 Jefffire (Talk | contribs) (ŮName of God)

(cur) (last) 08:44, 30 March 2006 Slrubenstein (Talk | contribs) (ŮName of God)

Here is what Pprocter is referring to. I wrote, They are not translations of YHWH - "god" is a translation of "el" ansd "Allah" is the Arabic form of the Hebrew "El," which itself probably has older roots in Semitic languages.

(cur) (last) 21:07, 29 March 2006 Jefffire (Talk | contribs) (Name of God)

(cur) (last) 16:54, 29 March 2006 Slrubenstein (Talk | contribs) (ŮNPOV)"

Here is what Pproctor is referring to. I wrote, Here is the issue: the sentence makes a claim. If the claim is not just someone's personal observation (which is not allowed regardless of whether it is true or not, see our NOR policy), there should be a verifiable source to support the claim.

First of all, Pproctor, you are a lying BS artist. First you accuse me of being a sock/puppet without any evidence,. Theun, you post thise timestamps without links as if they constitute evidence that I am (1) a sockpuppet and (2) that I have somehoe given you flack. Now let us strip away your mask of lies and reveal to people what I actually wrote on those two dates. My first comment was a response to Jeffire's suggestion that God and Allah are translations of JHVH. My response was not directed towards you but towards Jeffire. I was polite. And I was constructive. My second comment was directed towards Stephan Shultz and Homestarmy, and again I was polite and constructive. Now you claim this is evidence that I have been sending flak in your direction! If you are saying that you were the object of my comments, then you are suggesting that you are a sockpuppet of Jeffire, Homestarmy, and Stephan Shultz. Now, I do not think you are a sockpuppet of any of them. So that means I was not directing ANY comments towards you. And even if I were, these comments are simple and constructive. For you to claim that they represent attacks on you means you are paranoid and I sincerely recommend psychiatric help. I want you to get better and medication can help you. That you think these comments are flak or attaks on anyone just means you are kind of dumb. I am afraid there is no treatment for that. But get this straight, Pproctor - do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet for anyone else. You have no right at all to question my integrity or honesty. And don't accuse me of sending flak in your direction. When I criticize you, as I am doing now, I do so in an open and up-front way, and I am criticizing you because you deserve to be criticized. You are acting like a sleaze and I am just letting you know, you are not going to get away with it. You present fake evidence I have done something wrong and this is just evidence of your own sleaziness. How dare you treat fellow editors this way!Slrubenstein | Talk 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw man or maybe you just miss the point. It is not what you posted, but where you posted it. At least three members of the alleged consensus here actively post on Talk:creationism and similar sites such as intelligent design. You, Duncharris, and FeloniousMonk.

Remember, this whole mess originated when I accidentally crossed Duncharris by attempting to NPOV Raymond Damadian, an avowed creationist. (The great irony is that I discovered one of the few direct examples of classical Darwinian evolution in Humans.} Dunc then lost it and vandalized my postings elsewhere, claiming "vanity". In my defense, I then cited the guidelines you-all now seek to change. Just perhaps there is some collusion here. Again "What are the chances?" Other issues aside, Wikipedia:concensus states:

• "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

And then there is this, also from Talk:creationism

18:16, 11 August 2006 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) (ŮCreationism and the supernatural - sp)

18:15, 11 August 2006 FeloniousMonk (Talk | contribs) (ŮCreationism and the supernatural - cite doesn't support the passage)

Out of the 1 million plus pages on wiki, what are the chance of such coincidences? And others besides. Such apparent coordinated efforts violate Wikipedia:concensus, not that one more rule violation makes much difference here. But I can at least embarrass the perps. As Dunc's case above proves, the formal censorship structure here has little effect. Pproctor 01:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

---

For some reason <grin>, the project page keeps getting frozen with the changed version, not the original and long-standing one. Properly speaking, you-all ought to freeze it with the original form, until and if the revised version gets a Wikipedia:concensus, which appears very far a way. Otherwise, we might start to suspect shenangans. Pproctor 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think "you-all" is some unit with volition. As soon as you start assuming that I am of the same mind with people I don't even know, I start to have a hard time taking you seriously. -User:GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, September 6, 2006 (UTC)

Just attempting to be nice. Around here (Texas and the rest of the Southern US) to be polite, we often use "You-all" when we don't want to use the antagonistic word "you", which may give offense in an accusatory context. This is analogous to the editorial use of "We".

We also use "you-all" as "You-impersonal"--Analogs are "they say..." and "one". E.g., "One {i.e.,"you-all") cannot break the guidelines and then expect any credibility when citing the guidelines against others." When we want to specify "You-plural" exactly (which is apparently how you interpreted it), we use "All-You-All", usually pronounced "All-ya'll".

But you still haven't justified why the page keeps getting frozen with the changed, not the original form, as the guidelines require. Or why we keep getting all these straw arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pproctor (talk • contribs) 15:07, September 7, 2006 (UTC)

I grew up in Texas, and your nonsense about "you-all" above is what we call "horseshit". Y'all is second person plural, period. "All y'all" refers to a larger group. If you use "y'all" in some weird sense, you should expect to be misunderstood. If you mean "one", say "one".

Must not have grow up in my part of Texas Pproctor 22:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, since I'm quite dense, it seems, I don't see which argument you're characterizing as a straw man argument. Is it Slrubenstein's assertion that "knowlege is verifiable" is a problematic statement, or is it his contention that your preferred version is wordy? Can you please explain which of those is a "straw man argument" and how? I guess there's also the argument that the currenly frozen version doesn't give trolls license to harass experts... is that a "straw man" argument? I'd really love to understand you here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are not what we are having this disagreement about. But Slrubenstein presents them as such. Ergo, a straw argument. Rather, the issue is subjecting experts to a completely subjective vanity guideline. I have been harassed by this and only dissuaded the harassor by citing the existing rule. The purpose of this rule is to give a little protection to experts from such harassment. Pproctor 22:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem very keen to have me do a lot of guessing here... I think you're saying that the only thing you care about is whether the vanity guidelines are linked to from this page, and that all the rest is red herring-y. Am I still missing it, or is that right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't much care either way. As I have consistently said above, the important thing to me is that both the present version and the past version quoted here by Pproctor are better than the version of a few days ago that suggested an official policy that self-citations go into Talk. The main concern of others seems to be that the longstanding vanity/conflict-of-interest guidelines are relevant here and should be mentioned/linked. Would everyone be happy if we took the old version, quoted here by Pproctor, and added the one "See also..." sentence from the end of the present section? —Steven G. Johnson 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think most of us would be happy with that, but I'm pretty sure Pproctor is opposed to any link to the vanity guidelines. I'm not entirely sure which bit of the vanity guidelines is objectionable; that'll be my next question for him. I tend to think the proper course is to fix the vanity guidelines, rather than pretend they don't exist or aren't relevant, but I'm willing to see where the conversation goes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Here are the problems that I see with that suggestion:

1. For the moment, but only for a moment, I will put aside the problems of assuring equality under the law in a pseudonymocracy.
2. We recognize here the crucial character of the distinction between action and intent. We're all enjoined to try and describe each other's behavior and try to restrain our natural impulses to ascribe or impute this or that speculative intent. This scruple is fundamental to many of our attempts to establish community harmony.
3. Self-citation — and again, only under conditions of due disclosure that exist in the real world but that cannot be compelled under our established rules — is an action. Among other things, this means that there is a comparatively simple decision procedure for saying whther we are looking at a self-citation or not.
4. Those other things - conflict of interest and vanity - are matters of intent.
5. We need to think very long and hard before we entangle what have so far been 3 comparatively straightforward and content-regulating policies with all these other gray and getting grayer issues. And mostly I think we should probably avoid doing that. Jon Awbrey 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the past version as presented by Pproctor, but I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over a link to the WP:VAIN, even if I don't think it's necessary. -- Donald Albury 15:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA, what the hell is a "pseudonymocracy"? My internet's obviously not good enough, because it hasn't got that word. (Nor have my paper dictionaries.) Is it pseudo-nomocracy, with some kind of vowel shift going on? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: It's formed in accord with the regular generative rules: pseudo-nym-o-cracy = false name government (Gr: kratos, power, strength). Jon Awbrey 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was breaking it up as pseudo-nymocracy, instead of pseudonym-ocracy, and couldn't figure out what the hell a nymocray was. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just one thought...

Not all original research is dishonest, as many well-known hardcopy encyclopedias have an abundance of original research. Yet Wikipedia seems to fail to take the time required to filter original research, so it chooses instead to block it altogether.

Original Research question - artist-submitted information

If an artist posts information to an article concerning one of his pieces, is that considered original research and hence verboten? Expanding on the theme: even if the artist had not previously publish the information regarding his piece, but it is rather "in his head," so to speak, is that original research? Fantailfan 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A more preferable approach, by the artist, would be. Create a web site, post your views on your work, post a helpful note to the Talk page of your work, stating that you have a website with views on your work. Then wait for some editor to come along and quote you. Wjhonson 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A self-published web site may be dubious as a reputable source (see WP:RS on self-published sources). —Steven G. Johnson 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Except on themselves, where, we accept their claims as their claims. If there is a conflict, you cite it as "The author states that...." since it's a fact that they do state that. Your interpretation of RS on self-published articles by the source about themselves is overly restrictive. Wjhonson 06:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, information directly provided by the artist is original research, not to mention unverifiable, unless it was published elsewhere in a reputable source. You should suggest that the artist point us to e.g. some magazine interview etc. that contains the information he/she wants to convey. —Steven G. Johnson 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's twist it another way. Regardless of its origin, reliability or verifiability, the comments are invaluable regarding his frame of mind, sources of inspiration, etc. at the time he created the piece. (Note I am not saying what I mean by "piece" though a look at my contributions would make it obvious.) So, in a sense, he is doing original research on himself disintermediated by printed articles or books. Therefore it should be deleted as Original Research, Point of View, Unreliable Source and Not Verifiable. It's a shame, really. Fantailfan 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Update - I have confirmed the posting is by the artist. Fantailfan 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If the article is about the artist, there is some leeway, if he posts that information on his website. Then we can cite his website. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than keep this in the realm of the vaguely hypothetical, it's better to come out and say explicitly what article we are talking about: Avenging Annie. I'm afraid that this kind of first-person account is blatantly POV, OR, and unverifiable. I'm sure it was done in good faith; the author didn't try to hide what he was doing. We really need to stick with published sources, however, and the author can be of great help to us in identifying interviews etc. that we can go to for similar information. The key thing to remember here is that just because something is good and true doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. —Steven G. Johnson 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused -- isn't the intent of NOR to prevent wrong interpretations about something from being inserted into the articles? If this is coming straight from the artist's mouth, then the interpretation cannot be wrong. However, instead of NOR, it sounds like it would be WP:V that would come into play, as we would have no way in the future to verify that it was indeed the artist who said that, as we cannot cite anything. So it sounds like a WP:V issue rather than a WP:NOR issue. Thoughts? --plange 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The NOR policy has nothing to do with the information being "right" or "wrong". (Although keeping out bad information is certainly part of its intent.) It is merely that Wikipedia is the wrong venue in which to first publish information. As the policy says, we would have to reject even Pulitzer-level journalism if it were published on Wikipedia first. —Steven G. Johnson 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because a journalist is writing about something other than themselves and so they are creating original research and attempting to publish it here which is verboten. The problem here seems to be a WP:V thing and can be rectified by having the artist put the information on their own website so it can be cited. --plange 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy, don't just interpret the title. Any creation/publication of a new primary source violates WP:NOR. Yes, it also violates WP:Verifiability (the two policies are closely related). However, self-publishing it on a website is not generally a way around these policies, because we require Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Steven G. Johnson 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter since both of us agree the stuff doesn't belong here, right? That's why it's a holy trinity, one of the three is going to "stick" with somebody and the stuff goes. --plange 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other point, wouldn't the artist's own website be a reliable source for the interpretation of his own artwork? It should of course be augmented with any critical interpretations from reliable critics (Using WP:V), etc., so that it's not POV --plange 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See below. —Steven G. Johnson 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is "Avenging Annie." There is no question that the article is written by Andy Pratt, the author of the song. Although Wikipedia is not supposed to be a first publisher (and I obviously agree to this policy), are we going to tell him to have his publicist (if he has one) post first on his site and then one of us will link to it? Fantailfan 20:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it's been done, moved to the talk page by Steven G. Johnson. I know it's policy, but is still a bit irritating. Fantailfan 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding having him post the same account on his website: what do we do in five years if the website goes offline or is changed? How will anyone ever verify the information then? I agree that we could use the website in a pinch, but we strongly prefer traditional published sources for good reason, I think. In this case, the artist is prominent enough that there should be plenty of articles on his work, without making an end-run around the policy like this. —Steven G. Johnson 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why accessdate is strongly recommended when citing from any website (any website has just as much potential to go away as any other, yet we do allow websites to be used as sources) so that the WayBackMachine can be used to pull it up. For instance, if I'm writing an article about Firefly (TV series) and wanted to find out what Joss Whedon, the creator, used as his inspiration, I should be allowed to quote from Whedonesque.com so long as the post was from him. --plange 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know. It's all for good and solid reasons, with which I agree. I remember in 1994, Michael Stipe posted "in progress reports" to the R.E.M. board on AOL while the band was doing their new album - and now Time-Warner owns it without even knowing it. Fantailfan 20:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

People lie to themselves and others. An artist who is motivated by A can create a work of art and tell themself the reason is B while telling the public the reason is C. A reporter in source X can get it all wrong and report that it was created for reason D. Wikipedia's job is to accurately report that X says D. WAS 4.250 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I said the artist's interpretation should also be supplemented by an outsider's interpretation as well. I think to discount and not state an artists view of their own work is misleading. What an artist says of their own work, and what others might think it means, can be very telling. It provides a more well-rounded article. --plange 23:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What an artist says of their own work, and what others might think it means, can be very telling. Yes. But how do we (all of us - editors and readers) know what they said? That is where verifiability comes in. We can't just take someone's word for it. There has to be the ability of any reader (with adequate prerequisites for the material the article covers) to follow the sources and arrive at the same conclusions expressed in the article. WAS 4.250 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, that's why I was saying the artist's opinion needs to be somewhere that is verifiable (their own website, for instance, or an interview, etc) --plange 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We know what they said because we convince the artist to start their *own* website, and then we cite to it. Verifiability on what the artists thinks of their own work, is, in fact, their own statement. There is no need to go any further than that. And no the reader doesn't have to "arrive at the conclusions" they only need to be able to verify that the statements are as quoted, they don't have to *believe* those statements represent truth. If the artist has taken a picture of his dog, and says "This is my cat", then the cat-statement is what the artist in fact said, which is verifiable, but no one else will agree with the statement. Wjhonson 06:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not agree with this site

Think about it users... ok... so many articles and sources that we find on the internet were once original research, somebody wrote it, others agreed and became popular, these are golden words, original research, proven, is sometimes best there is especially in the light on a subject that is little known or information comes from one dubious and subjective source a source that has something against a particular topic or individual or even history as a whole, the golden rule are my words... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.224 (talk • contribs)

Suspect you'd like the quote, "History is a fable, and a poor one at that." or "The difference between a novelist and a historian is this: that the former tells lies deliberately and for the fun of it; the historian tells lies in his simplicity and imagines he is telling the truth." These quotes are from Kristnihald undir Jökli or Christianity under the Glacier (published in English as 'Under the Glacier) by Halldor Laxness as translated by Magnus Magnusson, Vintage 2004

But there is a strong reason for not allowing original research here on Wikipedia. Go take a look at the article titled Riksmål to get an idea of the confused point of view pushing that can result because Wikiepdia allows anyone to edit. Unsourced personal opinions result in confusion, edit wars & unusable material.

Suggest you take a look at Uncle G's Primary Notability Criterion also. Might help you better understand the issues.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Question for Pproctor

Pproctor — Slrubenstein, Dunc, and FeloniousMonk are well-known editors in good standing, no matter what cooincidences you think you're seeing, so could we put an end to the ad hominem arguments, please?

It is not ad hominem to point out that according to Wikipedia:consensus, "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." (emphasis-added). And then to provide objective evidence. Unless, you assume the the rules and guidelines here are personally meaningless, except to be used in a higher cause against editors whose POV you disagree with.

By daring to provide a NPOV on creationist Raymond Damadian, I inadvertently got involved in the spat here between the creationists and and their opposition. True believers on all sides. The great irony is that I discovered one of the few real examples of classic natural selection in humans (the partial substitution of uric acid for vitamin-C [2]) and published this in the journal Nature. Not everyone gets to answer a human evolutionary question raised by JBS Haldane. Also see my picture of Darwin's Cat.

You are still a lying BS artist. You continue to claim I am involved in some conspiracy against you because I disagreed with something you wrote concerning creationism, when I have proved that no such thing ever happened. Give it up, you charlatan. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nota Bene. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks ***Martius Caius 14:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Martius, but frankly I do not care. What I wrote above is accurate. Pproctor has lied about me and continues to lioe about me, that is the issue. It is true that I no longer assume good faith in my dealings with Ppocter - I used to, until he started attacking me without any provocation, slandering me, and revealing himself to be a self-serving liar who only wants to use Wikipedia to promote himself. I think in this case I have good cause not to assume good fatih but on the contrarty to assume bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Request. That sounds very serious. For observers who may have missed all that, could you document your assertions as to where Pproctor lied about you, attacked you, and so on? Thanx be4hand, Martius Caius 18:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the top of this talk page (until it gets archived). Specifically, look for my comment time-stamped 18:25 September 7, and then skim a bit but read carefully before you get to Sept. 9, where Pproctor lists my controbutions to the Creationism talk page to justify his having accused me of being a sock-puppet (and my refutaion), then read on to the end of the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As for "think I'm seeing". Assuming that editors are distributed randomly across Wiki's million plus pages, the probability that three of the rather few regular editors on Talk:creationism, etc. should suddenly show up here is several trillion to one.

Not really. There are fewer regular editors on Wikipedia than you might imagine, and Slrubenstein, FM, and Dunc are all interested in policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Then the probablities are only one in 10K or so<grin>. SIrubenstein was here a couple of times previously, Dunc only to intitiate this change in the rules after he got caught out vandalizing my postings. True, the knowledge that he could change the guidelines if he got caught out again likely explains why he continued his shenanagans even after being chastized. Also, if regular editors are few, then regular editors who are "experts" are even fewer. So why drive them off? Pproctor 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification 1

Could you say here what the outstanding issue is for you? I see almost no substantive difference between the versions, just that one has been tidied somewhat. If you think one version comes down harder on people who want to cite themselves, please explain how, and why it would be unfair. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My minor issue here is the attempt to change the existing ==expert editors== guideline to point to the "vanity" guidelines (under other names too-- call a skunk a rose and it still stinks). Far too subjective and thus open to abuse. I'm not talking revolution here--The original long-standing guideline should simply be restored. This seems like a small issue. But I can provode a concrete example of the "illegal" use of the vanity guidelines to harass an expert who dared to try to neutralize a POV.

But a considerably larger issue is the rather underhanded way this rule change is being forced thru, involving multiple violations of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. If this is really Wikipedia policy, then everyone should know about it. Pproctor 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The only substantive difference, apart from tidying the wording, is the link to the vanity guidelines. That's not worth holding up the whole talk page over. It's appropriate to link to the vanity guidelines, because the issues are connected. We don't want editors citing their own work when it's perhaps not as notable or relevant as they think. That doesn't mean we're saying all self-citers are in violation of the vanity guidelines. It means only that those guidelines might be of interest.

Is there any other difference between the versions that you object to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If an expert's cite is not as notable, etc. as they think, then, as specified in the existing guideline, this can easily be handled under Wikepedia:neutral point of view and wikipedia:no original research, etc., which have the advantage of not being totally subjective. So, as a practical matter, the proposed change does nothing positive, other than keeping delicate sensibilities from being offended and to maintain idoelogical purity.

This is particularly so when there have apparently been no problems with the existing guideline. Besides which, the only time the change will matter is when an expert is flat stupid enough (as I was) to reveal his true identity. However, as my experience proves, there is a lot of potential mischief in the change, since it allows harassment of experts for completely subjective reasons.

I figure this change is going to be ramrodded through, no matter how many rules get broken. So, back to the procedural issue, which is the major one here. Who is this "We" you mention?

As I have noted, many of the editors piling on here (including yourself) seem to be migrants from the Talk:creationist pages, etc.. Do you maintain that this means a "concensus" or that a major wikipedia admin such as yourself can define such as a concensus. This is in spite of the fact that Wikipedia:concensus specifically states that such log rolling does not represent a concensus. BTW, I figure I lost my case weeks ago, so just asking. Always want to know what the rules of the game are.

No. Just restore the section as it originally was, is all I ask. Pproctor 16:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to vanity is appropriate, although I certainly do understand your revulsion to the link given your editing history et al. The "we" is the Wikipedia community, and we do not thing such behaviour is appropriate. It's really quite simple. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, another of the "usual suspects" from Raymond Damadian and/or Talk:creationism. Thus further making my point. You-all check out the "history" on those pages and see the familiar names. Not exactly the "Wikipedia community". But whatever. Taking the bait--And since when is the guy who (e.g.) built the first "plastic transistor" and the mother of all those color displays in your car radio and your cell phone not "notable". Except that I did the bio, naturally. Which thus further makes Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger's point that experts need some protection against all the nasty people here.

Disagreeing with just one link isn't worth this fuss. If you're all right with the rest of the wording, perhaps the link can be introduced more gently. The last sentence could be the start of a new paragraph and could say something like: "Sometimes an editor's appraisal of the notability or relevance of his own work will differ from that of the other editors on the page. In such cases, WP:NPOV should be carefully adhered to; these guidelines may also help.

It's a bit wordy, but at least the vanity link won't appear to be attached to the entire preceding paragraph i.e. won't appear to apply to all self-citers. Would that help? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever... I figure I lost the issue long ago. Pproctor 17:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You should really stop with the victimization bit, it's not very becoming. Neither, of course, are the lame ad homs "usual suspects" and "all the nasty people here".

The fact remains that one should be very careful about citing oneself. If another cite is available, use that instead. Had you approached these issues in a less tendentious manner, you might have found much more acceptance here. Instead, you stormed in, proclaiming "I'm the expert, the rest of you shut up" and proceeded to cause much more trouble than any of these articles merit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious? I started with a minor change on a technical issue to Raymond Damadian and right-off got accused of being a "vandal" and of "promoting creationism". When I tried various paths to bring a little NPOV, suddenly I get mobbed. I belatedly realize this was not the formal academic debate I was aquainted with and so beat a hasty retreat. End of story, I thought.

Suddenly, DuncHarris is prowling Wikipedia deleting/reverting my posts on the vasis of "vanity" and putting an RfD on a bio article I did. You personally also piled onto this RFD, though I seriously doubt you know anything at all about the history of Organic electronics. When I call him on it, citing the very rule you-all are trying to change, he initiates the change. Blowing the whistle against a bunch of totally against-all-the-rules-and-guidelines crap is not exactly being "contentious". Or do you maintain that "the rules" do not count for certain special people here? Pproctor 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, SlimVirgin is trying to help you here and you are treating her like a piece of fecal matter. This is utterly unacceptable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, there is a historical pattern for collective endeavors to eventually get taken over by small groups of people acting in concert, while everybody else is just doing their job. As I start looking carefully at "history" of the policy and guidelines pages here, I see this occuring regularly and doubt it is good for the credibility of the project. For all the good it does, Wikipedia:concensus recognizes this process and says that the result is "not a concensus". Pproctor 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification 2

What I continue to not understand is this: if the vanity guidelines are subjective and allow for abuse, then why not fix them, instead of just pretending they're not relevant and refusing to link to them. Isn't that the wrong way to address a problem? What line in the vanity guidelines gives trolls license to harass experts? Pproctor could help us out a lot if he explains this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

All of it. "Vanity" is completely subjective (and thus a ready weapon), except at the limits, which can be well handled by WK:NPOV and WK:NOR. Pproctor 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take GTBacchus up on his excellent idea that you help to fix the vanity guidelines? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, there clearly being "not a concensus", we should restore the long-term guideline in its original form. Pproctor 13:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Trouble is, there's no consensus to put it back either, and there does exist a problem that's been indicated by the dispute, and we haven't yet addressed it. The problem I'm thinking of is the name and nature of the vanity guidelines. So, to clarify, is it your position that the vanity guidelines should remain as they are, vague and subjective, and that we should dig our heels in and refuse to improve them? I mean, once the vanity guidelines are either fixed, or else deemed unfixable and demoted from "guideline" status, then it'll be easy to get a consensus for whether or not to link to them from this policy, right? Since WP:VAIN is the page that actually caused your problem, I'm a bit surprised you aren't more focused on it. It's still sitting there, with the official guideline tag up at the top. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

By definition, there was a "concensus" on the rule you are trying to change. Ergo, lacking a concensus to change it, it is the only legitimate one. Stating that there must be a "concensus" to revert a totally-illegal change to a rule is BS. It this is true, all you need is a compliant admin to freeze a change and anybody can change any rule at any time. Simple really. Pproctor 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not trying to change the rule. I'm trying to help resolve this dispute in a way that results in a better Wikipedia. Secondly, your energy is misplaced in pursuing the idea of whether some past action was "legal" or not. The rules here are not to be taken legalistically, but in a more consequentialist spirit. All we care about is results. I and others are working towards improving the policies and guidelines, while you seem to want to pursue a technical rules-oriented approach that will frankly get you nowhere on this Wiki. Thirdly, you seem to be working from a different definition of conSensus than the rest of us. You say that there was a consensus on the previous version of the rule, but that is clearly not the case, because there are lots of people who think it's better with the link to a relevant guideline. The status quo is not defined to be a consensus version, it's simply assumed to be until the moment someone objects to it or changes it. From that moment there is no consensus version; there's a dispute. The correct thing to do in a dispute is to leave the article or policy in the Wrong Version and pursue discussion. Attempting to get it changed based on a legalistic interpretation of Wikipedia policy is pretty much guaranteed not to work. Now, if you understand this, and if you actually care about what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say about expert editors citing themselves, then you'll get over to Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines, and contribute to the discussion that's already underway there. Pursuing the strategy of trying to get it changed back because "that's what the rule says" will lead you to more frustration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Frustration

Folks, this is turning into a monumental waste of time. An overwhelming majority of editors, including the most experienced editors, supported the change. The only person objecting is Pproctor and his objection ammounts to an objection not to this page but to the page on vanity edits. As long as that page exists, there is no basis for criticizing a link to that page being in this policy. So Pproctor should move his arguments to that policy´s talk page and stop obstructing genuine progress here. Someone lese has alreadsy made that constructive suggestion. Now I will make a prediction: if Pproctor is not a troll, he will go to the talk page there and suggest constructive improvements. If he is a troll, he will stay here and continue to blather on about all sorts of paranoid fantasies, obstructing any other discussion. Let´s see Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you-all seem to have run off my fellow objectors "through persistence, numbers, and organization", at least for the moment. And the "experienced editors" mostly seem to be members of a specific and organized group, all of whom post to Talk:creationist, Raymond Damadian, etc. Check out the "history" pages there. They are attempting to impose their own POV. Wikipedia:concensus describes this situation:

• "At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

All we want is for the guideline to be restored to its original long-standing form before they started all these shenangans. Pproctor 20:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor, some of us want more than that: namely, for all the policies and guidelines to be sound, consistent, and cohesive. I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines#Citing oneself, regarding how that guideline can be brought more into line with good sense, and with this policy. Editors interested in this issue may wish to comment there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, GTBacchus. Pproctor, who is this "we?" The current version is more concise and clear. You have never presented a valid criticism of it, never. And even here you persist with your paranoid BS, suggesting this has anything to do with your position vis a vis creationism. What BS. What on earth are you talking about and what does the edit history of the creationism article have anything to do with this policy? You have an infinite supply of red herrings, it appears. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he has presented a valid criticism: that it links in a particular context to a vague and subjective guideline. I see (at least) two approaches to this problem. We could just not link to the guideline, like it was before. Alternatively, we could fix the guideline, in one of two ways. We could make it less vague and subjective, and turn it into something worth linking to. Else, we could decide that it's essentially unfixable, that it's redundant with and superseded by other policies and guidelines anyway, whatever, and we could demote it to an essay or something. Then it would be a no-brainer that we wouldn't link to it.

Right now, WP:VAIN a guideline, and I'm inclined to think that our policies and guidelines should be well interlinked, and that it would be pathological to maintain some kind of red-headed stepchild guideline that we're ashamed of, and refuse to link to. I'm against sweeping the putative problem under the rug. Pproctor has yet to address this point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Again I agree with you, GTBacchus. In fact, somewhere earlier I said just this - a long as vanity is one of our guidelines there is no valid reason for deleting a link from this policy page. If Pproctor has valid criticisms of that guideline he should leave this page and go there to discuss improving it (or put it up for deletion). If I have not been consistently clear about my sharing your view, it is because I am convinced of Pproctor's bad faith and that he is not serious about his "valid" complaint - if he were, he would have followed this advice, which you or someone else offered a couple of days ago, and would have left here to go to that page to work on it. Instead, he chooses to stay here, accuse me of being a sockpuppet and part of a cabal or conspiracy against him motivated by his views on creationism. GTBacchus, you are one of the most well-intentioned and consttructive editors I have encountered here (one reason I wish you would turn your energies to the ongoing discussion on primary and secondary sources), but with all due respect, your problem is you face Pproctor with good faith. Normally, a virtue, but in this case a mistake. He is motivated only by paranoid delusions, vanity and a monomaniacle desire for self-promotion. He will continue to act only to disrupt this page as long as it gets him the attention he craves. I admit I have been giving him too much attention and, starting now, will do so no longer. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you may be right, that there's no getting through to Pproctor. I tend to believe that he's the victim of some rather severe misunderstandings about what sort of project this is, based on the assumptions that seem to underlie his statements about "rules", for example. I think perhaps we could avoid many such misunderstandings with more clarity in our self-documentation. As for Pproctor, though, in his current defensive frame of mind, he doesn't seem open to pursuing any productive line of thought, so maybe it is best to just walk away.

I'll have a closer look at the Primary/Secondary discussion, and see whether I can weigh in with anything helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sub-subheader

Again. I p!ssed off Duncharris and assorted true believers over on Raymond Damadian by trying to introduce a little NPOV. Dunc, who had recently been reprimanded for bad behavior, retaliated by searching out my posts and deleating/reverting them under the excuse of "vanity" because I had cited some of my own research papers.

I pointed out that this was perfectly legitimate (at arms length, naturally) under the existing rule. He then proceeded to attempt to change the rule, presumably so he could continue his vendetta or perhaps just to further intimidate. He eventually enlisted the assistance of his little group over at Raymond Damadian and Talk:creationist. Look at the "history" sections on those groups to see the familiar names, including yours. Also note that the existing rule bothered nobody until Dunc tried to cover his butt by changing it.

Pardon me for assuming bad intent. There are some people here you cross at your own hazard. If you like, we can take this issue to arbitration. If they endorse this kind of behavior and blatant rule-breaking, the world ought to know about it. Pproctor 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are still accusing me of being a sock-puppet, co-conspirator, or collaborator of Dunc Harris in stalking you because I am pissed off by an edit your made concerning Raymond Damadian or a comment you made on the talk page for creationism, you are certainly welcome to file a complaint against me at the ArbCom. But be warned - they will expect you to provide evidence. If you are no longer accusing me of any of this, then you should respond to my explanations for the edit and stop bringing up Raymond Damadian as an excuse for your pathetic and paranoid attempt to continue disrupting this discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You apparently had no interest at all in this rule before Duncharris attempted to change it. As SV has noted, you have been here before. Why the sudden interest now? Pproctor 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would advise Pproctor, to stop with the silly conspiracy theories. If you look at editor's behavior from that lack of good faith, your view will be obfuscated and you will "see" conspirators everywhere you look. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ill answe Pproctors question, stupid and delusional though it is. I am always concerned wtih improving articles and policies relevant to my own interests and work. Moreover, Wikipedia is a collaborative project so whenever I see someone make an edit to an article or policy on my watchlist, I check it out. If i object to the edit I explain why. If I like the edit or have no problem with it, I leave it be. if I like the edit or at least see some value in it and see others object to it, I follow the discussion and participate as I feel appropriate. Pproctor, this is called collaboration and this is what wikipedia is all about. But I do not think you will ever understand this as your own paranoid delusions, and your vanity and monomaniacle desire for self-promotion, lead you to view any collaboration as a conspiracy. I hope I habve answered your question satisfactorily. If you continue to believe I am part of some conspiracy, as I said before, just try to prove it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding interspersing comments

WTF? Trying to make sense of this is virtually impossible as Proctor cannot stop interrupting other editor's comments. This fucking interposting needs to stop. Maybe, assuming Proctor performs surgery, I should bust into the OR, grab the scalpel, forceps or other instuments out of hishands, make a random cut, snip or clip and run back out. Enough. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

While Jim's comment lacks civility and is unecessarily graphic, he does have a point. Proctor, it would be appreciated if you didn't intersperese your comments within others. JoshuaZ 00:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

protected?

Is this still protected for a reason? Its been 5 days. Fresheneesz 07:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See above question for Proctor. Unless and until that is resolved, I assume the page will stay protected, as the activities of Proctor were likely a significant partion of the reasoning behind protection of the article. I do not wish to speak for SV here, but I'd imagine I'm pretty close to adequately explaining her reasoning. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

While Pproctor continues to spin his paranoid fantasies above, the question is> are there other sections of this policy that currently need work? Note that there is a separate discussion on the Primary and Secondary Sources section, on its own talk page. Aside from that discussion on that section, are there any other outstanding issues? The page can remain protected as long as it doesnt need work. Does someone want to propose an agenda of concerns, sections that need work?Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See Groupthink and Wikimedia-Cabal, exerpted below. Pproctor 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:concensus

"It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities..."

It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus...."

"Groupthink is a mode of thought whereby individuals intentionally conform to what they perceive to be the consensus of the group. Groupthink may cause the group (typically a committee or large organization) to make bad or irrational decisions which each member might individually consider to be unwise.

Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.

Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. "

From Wikimedia-Cabal

"Why People think a "Cabal" runs Wikipedia

Sympathy voting. Most obvious at en:WP:RFA, where it is common for someone to say, "well if User:xyz supports this person, then I do too!" Also occurs at other votes.

Sympathy editing. Most Wikipedia editors routinely follow the actions of others who share similar interests and values. Upon observing a colleague in an edit war, some will support that colleague without first considering the merits of the individual edit.

Decision making focus on individual cases (articles, disputes) without much regard to consistency and to the broader issues of policy raised by the case in question.

Arguably, some users (including most of the prominent sysops) have befriended one another through IRC and other media; some know one another in person.

Many users do have certain traits in common, and may act as a group or be quick to defend each other without being consciously organized into a "cabal" - for example, many are leftist nonreligious twentysomethings.

Historically, charges that there is a cabal that "rules" Wikipedia also stemmed from these factors:

Lack of any sort of balance of power or adverserial system: decision-making entities (e.g. Wales, Administrators as a group, developers) have no outside check on their authority

Absence of any truly active (or inclusive) discussion forum for project-wide policy issues, lukewarm encouragement of community involvement in them, and low turnout in those discussions that do occur. " Pproctor 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dave Carter copied from blp talk

Dave Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sorry for being long-winded, but this is complex. I would like to hear some opinions as to whether or not policy has been followed in this article. Carter was a singer-songwriter who died in 2002, but the issues relate to WP:BLP. In a conversation at Talk:Dave Carter a new user revealed several facts about Carter not previously known to the public and still not available elsewhere, among these were:

• Prior to his death, Carter had begun "to persue a gender change."
• Information about legal ownership of Carter's songs at the time of his death--mentioning by name Carter's ex-wife and executor of his estate.

The person making these claims, User:Grammer, revealed that she was in fact Tracy Grammer, Carter's partner both in his musical career and life. This was verified via e-mail by administrator, Phil Sandifer. Sandifer took the additional step of confering with Amgine (who I gather is a Wikimedia big wig) before making the following edits:

• Adding the first claim above to Dave Carter [3] and including the same into Category:Transgender and transsexual musicians.
• Adding both claims to the article, Dave Carter and Tracy Grammer [4]

Here are the issues that trouble me:

1. We have some controversial claims being made without citations. Shall we cite the Dave Carter talk page?
2. We are stating as fact Grammer's claims that involve not only herself and the deceased Carter, but also non-public figures such as his ex-wife (and including the ex-wife's name).
3. OK, so and an admin tells me Grammer really is Grammer, I suppose I can buy it. I'm actually a fan and have been to several of her concerts, but should Wikipedia be the first place to publish this?

I would like to hear some additional opinions. -MrFizyx 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Amgine is a Foundation volunteer, hence my running the language past her - because this clearly was something that needed to be handled with care. That said, MrFizyx's points, in order.

1. WP:BLP provides for the subject (Which this ultimately is, since Tracy Grammer is solidly involved in all of this) offering information on the talk page - it doesn't comment on how to do the citation, but I think all of the criteria on BLP are satisfied here. The only issue would be contentious, and I don't exactly think that's accurate here. The information is neither contentious nor controversial - there was no raging debate on whether Carter was transgender, nor on whether he had a romantic relationship with Tracy Grammer. The first was unknown previously, and the second a matter of speculation, but never of particular comment. The information is unusual, and I'll admit surprising, but it is not controversial - nobody has denied it.
2. I was quite impressed, actually, with how Grammer phrased the section - it was NPOV, discrete, and polite. It referred to "acrimony," but did not attempt to suggest that Grammer had a legal or ethical right to the songs, and brought in no dirty laundry. As for the ex-wife's name, she's mentioned as one of the people administering the Dave Carter memorial fund on a press release from their official website, and so it's not, to my mind, a massive deal - that said, I would not be averse to removing her name.
3. I'm willing to forward the e-mail to a Foundation member if this becomes an issue, but I would imagine that an administrator verifying that User:Grammer is not an imposter is sufficient.

This seems a by-the-numbers case of how a figure can add information to biographies. And I can understand why Tracy Grammer would not issue a press release that Carter was transgender, or on the settling of his estate. It seems respectful to tell the truth as Carter's quoted "partner in all things" tells it. It also seems respectful not to turn the matter into a spectacle. Grammer provided the information in a way that satisfies our requirements of verifiability - she's a perfectly credible source, and her identity is verified - but also in a way that seems respectful given the subject matter. Phil Sandifer 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Above copied from BLP talk. WAS 4.250 13:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Safe to unprotect?

What do we think? Please note that the vanity guidelines have been emended to include a clearer statement that self-citation does not imply vanity. It should be clear from this page and that one that our long-standing common-sense policy is still what it's always been: self-citation is just fine, as long as it complies with NPOV and NOR. WP:VAIN defines vanity edits and makes it clear that they're something different from legitimate self-citation by an expert.

Can we unprotect the page now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think we can unprotect because I do not trust Pproctor not to start a revert war. Currently, admins can edit. I propose a cautious policy: if anyone wants to, propose a change here (as I have done on the separate primary/secondary sources page) and allow for discussion. When, if ever, a consensus or strong majority emerges in support of a proposed edit, an admin. can make the edit. This seems prudent and provides a way for us to constructively discuss specific problems and make changes that will not invite controversy. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor has just agreed at his talk page and at the the Village Pump that he's ok with the two pages in question, as they currently stand, as long as we can assure him that he and other expert editors won't be subject to any kind of sanction due to spurious charges of vanity editing, when they cite themselves appropriately. I'm inclined to think that unprotection is worth a try. Do you think the Primary/Secondary crowd can keep from edit warring? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The way the primary/secondary section stands now is perfectly acceptable. I'm afraid however, that as soon as its unprotected the edit wars will start again. Wjhonson 07:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would you say that?Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I will unprotect. If editwarring resumes, we can always protect again. I will mark this version as "consensus version" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I have been assured that this is really a clarification and not a change. I might put the word "clear" in somewhere, if it looks appropriate, but again I am assured this is assumed in the present guideline. So I probably will not. If the new guideline gets blatantly misused, then I'll revert. But I doubt this will happen. EOF. Pproctor 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondary vs. tertiary sources and signing

Nathaniel Riddley, in a recent edit to WP:NOR, asserts that whether a source is secondary or tertiary depends on whether the author signs the work or not. I thought tertiary works were those mostly based on secondary sources. Where can I find this definition based on the author signing?

That kind of considerations doesn't belong here: it distracts from the main point that statements must be sourced - such distinctions are in fact irrelevant. Harald88 07:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems helpful to readers and new editors, as it explains one of the reasons why Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source. 69.222.59.13 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between secondary and tertiary sources is relevant because it makes a difference in the reliability of the source. If an article in a reference work (like an encyclopedia) is signed, then it amounts to a secondary source because readers can evaluate the credibility of the source for themselves. Number Seven 15:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a tertiary source. All sources non-primary are called "Secondary" regardless of any other consideration. Wjhonson 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel very strongly that Wikipedia should not cite other encyclopedias or dictionaries (let alone itself) as a source. I don´t want to argue over semantics, I want to argue over the substance of this issue. I feel it deserves its own space for extensive debate.

However, this plicy has been going through a lot of changes and we are still in the process of resolving them. My advice is:

1. go to this page Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion and read it carefully, see what issues are still unresolved, and ask yourself if your participation can constructively speed up the resolution of these discussions. If so, contribute, and wait until there is something close to consensus on the remaining issues
2. Then, start a section at the bottom of this page, and post a link to this page from the primary/secondary talk page, and state your case more fully and clearly.
3. if you want serious discussion I also suggst you go to the talk pages of each of the people who have been active on this talk page, on the primary/secondary talk page, and in the edit history of the policy itself, and request explicitly that they go to the discussion of this issue and weigh in.

My final piece of advice - do not just say "prohibit tertiary sources" which is too abbreviated and begs the question of what you mean by tertiary sources. Explain what the real issue is and why you think it is important, and then we can work on the appropriate wording.

If no one objects, I intend to remove mention of tertiary sources from Nathaniel Riddley's edit, because there I have not seen any support for his definition of tertiary source, and further, because there is no consensus that the NOR policy should differentiate between a secondary and a tertiary source. --Gerry Ashton 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It used to be mentioned on WP Introductory pages that encyclopedias are tertiary sources unless the articles are signed, in which case you can cite an author and a date. But maybe you have rewritten your history since then? Some other discussion I found: [5] Melusina Morgan 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My take on the discussion referenced by Melusina, and the pages mentioned in that discussion, is that distinguishing between secondary and tertiary sources can be difficult, and no mention is made of distinguishing encyclopedia articles as secondary or tertiary depending on whether they are signed or not. I think this distinction would be illogical, because I can't see any reason why some encyclopedia wouldn't allow an article author to sign an article that is based entirely on secondary sources, and would thus be a tertiary source. --Gerry Ashton 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe both Melusina and Gerry are correct. The policy used to make the distinction but it was eventually dropped because of a lack of consensus as to what a tertiary source. That said, I still believe that while we probably all consult dictionaries and encyclopedias when researching for an article, I do not believe they should be cited as sources. I think it grants dictionaries (with the probably exception of OED) and encyclopedias too much authority; and besides it just seems really weird for one encyclopedia to use another as a source (if the first encyclopedia is so good as to be a reliable source, why go to Wikipedia and not just tot hat first encyclopedia?) - it seems like a kind of inbreeding. As I have tried to explain, my objection to privileging primary sources (which to repeat does not mean I support a blanket prohibition) extends only to those cases where a wikipedia editor may introduce his or her own POV (via his or her own analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation) into the article thus violating NPOV. But I enthusiastically share Gerry's commitment to careful research. I really think we need to encourage editors to rely on peer-reviewed journal articles, books published by academic presses, or trade books that are well received and reviewed, rather than other encyclopedias (which are themselves based on peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books). Gerry, do we disagree here? If we do not disagree, what kind of language would you propose? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein asks "if the first encyclopedia is so good as to be a reliable source, why go to Wikipedia and not just [to that] first encyclopedia?" I have a very simple answer: money. Among other things, Wikipedia is free, while most other encyclopedias are not. Providing that copyright laws are obeyed, creating a Wikipedia article that contains the same information as some other encyclopedia is a worthwhile thing to do because it brings the information to people who could otherwise not afford it. Since I regard copying ideas from other tertiary sources as a good thing, I don't see a need to distinguish between secondary and tertiary sources in a policy (maybe in a guideline that helps editors create better articles, but not in a policy).

Therefore I propose to remove the phrase "depending on whether they have been signed by their authors or not, respectively" from the policy. --Gerry Ashton 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerry, I do not know if it is just semantics or what, but I most definitely did not say and do not mean to say that "a Wikipedia article" should not contain "the same information as some other encyclopedia" nor am I opposed to getting ideas from other encyclopedias and putting them in Wikipedia. Indeed, I stated that this is something we all do, and I see nothing wrong with it. I do not think you are responding to my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I need to fully understand Slrubenstein's point to make the change I propose, because the phrase "depending on whether they have been signed by their authors or not, respectively" introduces a definition of tertiary source for which I think there is no consensus. Also, that is the only change I want to make at this time.

That said, perhaps Slrubenstein is saying that a Wikipedia article should not be just a deliberate paraphrase of an article from another encyclopedia, but rather, the editor should reexamine secondary sources, as well as the other encyclopedia, and if, by coincidence, the information in the Wikipedia article ends up being same as another encyclopedia, fine. Is that the point? --Gerry Ashton 00:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that dictionaries should be avoided as sources (including the OED) unless an article is specifically about the use of a term, but I wouldn't like to see us clamp down on the use of good encyclopedias. I find that using the Encyclopaedia Briannica is helpful in showing editors that a point has entered the mainstream. The EB also publishes material by named experts who can be cited as secondary sources.

I'm not sure I understand the point about whether something is signed by an author. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to add that I fully concur with Slrubenstein's point that editors should be encouraged to use scholarly sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerry is correct that he does not need to understand my point to make the change he proposes, because I was bringing up a second (though related) point. As to whether something is signed by the author or not, I agree with Slim Virgin and Gerry - I do not see the point and have no objection to Gerry´s removing the phrase.

Gerry askis if my point is, "that a Wikipedia article should not be just a deliberate paraphrase of an article from another encyclopedia, but rather, the editor should reexamine secondary sources, as well as the other encyclopedia, and if, by coincidence, the information in the Wikipedia article ends up being same as another encyclopedia, fine." Yes. Absolutely, this is my point. I have no problem with editors consulting other encyclopedias or dictionaries to get ideas, or even as a springboard for further research — many encyclopedias call attention to elements or dimensions of a topic we may not have thought of, and many provide suggested readings we could turn to to further our research. My problem is with editors citing other encyclopedias and dictionaries as sources in article. I can imagine few if any cases where an encyclopedia is a more authoritative or valuable source than an article publishe din a peer-reviewed journal or a book published by a major trade or university press. I think when it comes to actually citing sources and providing references and suggestions to further reading, we should strongly favor such sources over other encyclopedias. Gerry, SlimVirgin, if this makes sense and is agreeable to you, would either of you suggest wording that could be put in the policy? Gerry´s paraphrase of my point is fine but perhaps he could come up with more elegant phrasing for the policy itself (if he agrees). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Slrubenstein's point relates to the quality of articles, and has little to do with original research. Thus, if any wording is to be created, it should be created somewhere other than the "No original research" article. I have other points I would make about this, but not until the discussion moves to a more suitable forum. --Gerry Ashton 17:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Above, Wjhonson claims that "There is no such thing as a tertiary source. All sources non-primary are called "Secondary" regardless of any other consideration." This is simply false. The distinction between secondary and tertiary sources is common in library science. I googled "tertiary source" and got something like 39,000 hits. Here is a clear example of how library science distinguishes tertiary sources: [6]. Here is another [7]. I personally believe the use of tertiary sources as cited sources in Wikipedia should be discouraged, but others disagree with me, like Slim Virgin. Wjhonson, you may disagree with me also. But please do not just flat out assert that the idea of "tertiary sources" does not exist. Aside from revealing a lack of good faith (by both suggesting that Seven doesn´t know what he is talking about, and by dismissing his intentions, his reasons for making the point, by focusing on the language he uses) it reveals that you have done no research concerning library science. Ironic, since Wikipedia is all about research. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Try googling "secondary sources" and compare your results. You will find, that there are many researchers who agree with me. "Secondary sources" gets ten thousand percent more hits than "Tertiary sources". That should open your eyes to the fact that "library science" does not in fact make such a silly distinction. Tertiary is a ridiculous distinction made by people who are being silly and pedantic (and redundant! like myself!). Whether you agree or not with my analysis, making a distinction here on wikipedia is without merit. So there's no point in having this discussion. If you want to call it "non-primary" that is fine as well, but to add the make-believe category "tertiary" only makes the water muddier. Wjhonson 16:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What am I incorrect about? You stated that there is no such thing as a tertiary source and I have proven that there is. I am incorrect? Wjhonson, you really need to keep two things clear inh your mind. Whether there is such a thing as tertiary sources is one thing, and whether it is a term that you do or do not likem or do or do not think is appropriate for Wikipedia, is another thing. It is a simple fact that library scientists make the distinction between secondary and tertiary sources. You happen to think they are silly and pedantic and that the term has no merit. Fine. But can´t you express your argument without making personal attacks, and without stooping to false statements? I am sure, absolutyely sure, you can write a sentence that begins, "Although many library scientists make the distinction between secondary and teritary sources, I do not think the distinction is appropriate at wikipedia because ov x, y, and z ..." Try it. I am sure you are capable of not making personal attacks if you just make the minimal effort. By the way, of course there are more google hist for secondary sources than tertiary. There are more google hjist for primary than secondary. It´s only logical. If secondary sources generalize from primary sources and tertiary sources generalize from secondary sources, of course each level of abstraction will have fewer hits. But this does not "prove" as you claim that tertiary sources do not exist. On the contrary, you assert I am incorrect but seem to admit that there are inded many google hists for tertriary sources. Obviously they exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it original research to translate an anonymous webboard posting?

The body of the Lookkae Long Thang article is an editor's translation of an anonymous Thai language political webboard post. Does this qualify as original research, and if so, what would be a suggested course of action?

There are two references in the article, one in Thai and one in English. The English language reference does not contain any text from the anonymous post, nor does it contain a translation. Both the Thai reference and the English reference are owned by Sondhi Limthongkul, the subject of the article. I'm not sure how to proceed and would appreciate any suggestions. Cheers, Patiwat 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A web site mentioned in the text, but not in the references or notes, is manager.co.th, which does not work on my computer. The reference to Asia Times Online shows that some letter was read on a television show and stirred up trouble. If Asia Times Online is a reliable source, in spite of being affiliated with a company that is being sued, then the letter would be notable and worth translating. There does not seem to be any evidence that the Thai text in the article is the same text that was read on the television show. So the article really should be deleted unless a verifiable copy of the letter can be found. Once a verifiable copy is found, a decision would have to be made on the article's talk page about whether Asia Times Online is reliable, or find another reliable source showing that the letter is notable. After all that is established, it would be fine for the editor to translate the letter himself or herself. --Gerry Ashton 01:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. The creater of the article was very critical of suggestions to delete the article, so I let it slide. I'll ask him again to find an authoritative Thai-language copy of the original posting. Patiwat 04:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions please: should this change have been reverted?

I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor. When reading this article in good faith looking for information on how to mark up newspaper sources, I noticed some phrasing I perceived as unnecessarily NPOV. I changed "For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children", to "...claiming that a high government official hates children." I flagged the edit "Using the President's name in an example of some possible bad act violates NPOV". User Harald88 reverted my edit with "rv: in such a case the view would be published without hiding the already published name". I was then tempted to change "Bush" to "Clinton" to see what would happen next, but that seemed both childish and NPOV. It seems unnecessary to use any specific name in such an example. Opinions? I won't be around much today, so any response from me will be delayed. --CliffC 14:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Harald88 is right. You misunderstand both this page and NPOV. First, this is a policy, not an article. It is not "about" Bush or anyone, it is about a policy. That The Militant might criticize Bush is no surprise. The point of this policy page is that the Militant is NOT an appropriate source on this topic. That the quote of the Militant names Bush does not in any way violate NPOV, because we are correctly identifying it as 'the Militant´s point of view. Changing it from Bush to something else is not complying with NPOV it is simply lying - misrepresenting what the Militant says. Moreover, changing it from Bush to Clinton or a high government official not only misses the point, it destroys the point - the point is that the Militant is not an appropriate source on this kind of claim. It is precisely because it is the Militant making the claim, and the claim being about Bush, that the example illustrates what is an inapprorpiate source. Change the Militant to the New York Times, or change Bush to Clinton, entirely disrupts the point. If this does not make sense, ask Harald88 on his talk page to tutor you on the policy step-by-step. In any event he is right. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe characterizing it as "lying" is unnecessarily harsh. A more neutral word might be "glossing". If the quote is direct, it should be precise, but indirect quotes by their nature are paraphrases. I agree that strident sources should not be in used in cases where neutral sources exist. In cases where the only sources are extreme ones however, then they should both be posted, so the reader can see what the issue is. For example in Ann Coulter, where some issues do not yet seem to have a neutral representation. Wjhonson 16:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein says "Changing it from Bush to something else is not complying with NPOV it is simply lying - misrepresenting what the Militant says." This is just silly, because the Militant isn't saying it, Wikipedia's example is saying it, so there is nothing to misrepresent. In any event, my original point is moot because a September 17 revision by Tyrenius, to avoid the offense of casting a slur on the Socialist Workers' Party newspaper, has had the happy effect of removing the President's name from this page. --CliffC 01:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If an example is needed, it would be better to find one which can be verified as an untrue statement (I presume this example is fictitious). Tyrenius 03:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it original research if.....

An editor creates a new legal article but doesn't cite any references. While trying to verify that the contents of that article wasn't plagiarized from an external website, I found that the exact same content was posted to several blogs and websites. So I immediately put a {{copyvio}} tag on it. The tag was reverted with a link to the article creator's user page, which claims that this editor often writes original work and submits it to Wikipedia and other educational websites.

I'm not sure what to do with articles like this. Do they need a {{OriginalResearch}} tag, or a {{unreferenced}} tag, or a {{copyvio}} tag, or nothing at all? Patiwat 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends how bad it is, really. If there are no apparent immediate sources, AfD is actually a good call! WP:VERIFY allows the immediate removal of any unreferenced material, but people object to that happening to an entire article, hence AfD. If you think it would breach WP:NOR even with references, then consider {{OriginalResearch}} (and, seriously, AfD). If it's actually fairly good and it looks like it does have references, they're just not listed, {{unreferenced}} can work, as can {{fact}}(you may wish to look at the wikicode I used there, btw, for a useful template ;) ) individual statements. In cases like these it is prudent to remind the editor that WP:VERIFY is not optional, both on the article's talk page and on the editor's talk page. LinaMishima 21:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

a test case for where NOR intersects with Vanity Guidelines

If Pproctor's point is that we should not discourage expert editors, then I agree. That said, we still need to be wary about the way NOR and Vanity guidelines can intersect in policing the quality of our articles. Here is a current and I thing appropriate test-case, to test our policies and guidelines against an alleged expert, and to test the contribution of an alleged expert against our policies and guidelines: [8]Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people involved in the experts proposals, I will tell you now that the talk page discussion seems to indicate that no references are being used, and that is something no actual expert would persistantly do once they realised the existance of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. An unpublished work, which he seems to be using, cannot be used, and no real scholar would attempt to do so in a scholarly fasion. Further examination shows this to be also a case of undue weight according to WP:NPOV. The problem we seem to have here is more to do with distinguising a crank and an expert. LinaMishima 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear illustration that "vanity" issues are generally best resolved using the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc. guidelines, which are not as subjective. Either the citations meet them, or they don't. Pproctor 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pproctor, it sounds as if you're making a case for cleaning up or removing the vanity guideline. It's certainly true that WP:VAIN is not any kind of extension of our core content policies of neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding original research. If the text of that page makes it seem to impose additional restrictions, then it should be changed.

The vanity guideline arose, not in conncection with actual experts citing themselves properly, but in connection with Joe Bloggs posting his resumé, and arguing that since he exists, he should therefore be documented in Wikipedia. That still happens regularly, with small businesses, fledgling websites, aspiring artists, etc. When these articles appear on AfD, people tend to identify them as "vanity" articles, which is really a shorthand way of saying "an article, written by the subject of the article, and consisting of original research that's unverifiable because no independent source has seen fit to document it". It's a lot easier to type "vanity", and then link to a page that explains what you mean, for people who haven't been on the merry-go-round for quite so many turns, and don't know the lingo yet. That page should provide answers for those people; that's its job. I'm certain it could be improved. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that, in general, an "experts" posting will violate WP:NOR, etc. way before it will offend any vanity guideline and that this is an excelent example. Ya can't do better than good. Pproctor 03:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm saying there is no such thing as a vanity guideline beyond what it says in WP:NOR, etc. The vanity guideline is just an explanation of how WP:NOR applies, no more. There's nothing else to "offend". Again, if you have an issue with the way the vanity guidelines are written, go to Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines, and talk about it there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We are in accord. Sorry if I have not been able to make this clear.Pproctor 00:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding Nursery Jargon, Welcoming External Criticism

As Wikipedia draws more attention from external communities and independent media it will need to drop the usenet babytalk and nursery tale jargon that it has become all too fond of in the past. I bring this up here because some people keep replacing that troll tag on this page, and I think that the people who keep doing that probably don't realize how silly such a thing makes WP look to normal human observers from the wider world outside. I have the impression that the people who started WP were more aware of professional standards of journalism and scholarship than the current crew of activists seem to be, but it's clear that we are in a different regime now, where most of the wiser heads have been chased off by a Peculiar Activist Subcabal Of The Administrative Cabal (PASOTAC). In the general view of the outside world at the present time, the internal machinations of this PASOTAC are on a par with the antics of fantasy-dressed Trekkies at a Star Trek convention. If Wikipedians earnestly desire more respect for their efforts than that, then they will have to earn it the good-old-fangled way, through quality research and reporting. Ruby Rubicon 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon, is that you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem so, as are User:Charon Charalike and User:Nathaniel Riddley. List of Jon Awbrey's sockpuppets (so far) is here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Included would be User:Melusina Morgan and User:Number Seven, who commented above on this Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding primary/secondary thing

Would it be possible to avoid discussion of the primary/secondary distinction in the policy? We must use material from reliable published sources. The important questions therefore are: (1) is the source published by a third-party? and (2) is it a reliable source that's appropriate for the subject matter?

The issue of whether it's primary, secondary, or tertiary doesn't really come into it. We do want to discourage editors from using primary sources, but only because, in so doing, they are more likely to misinterpret how the source should be used, and what its limits are. But that can happen with a secondary source too. It's not the type of source that's the issue, but the misuse.

The sentence that says articles relying on primary sources should make no interpretive claims is problematic, because if the primary source makes interpretive claims, and if the source is reliable and appropriate, then the article can make them too, citing the source. For example, if the day after 9/11 the New York Times published stories by a bunch of journalists who were present when the planes hit the WTC — i.e. eyewitness accounts, primary-source material — there would be no reason we couldn't use those articles to repeat interpretive claims that the journalists made, so long as we felt they were appropriate sources.

I may be missing some other point about making the primary/secondary distinction, and if I am, I apologize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, I mistakenly thought that you were behind this primary and secondary stuff and which distracts from the essence of the policy - sorry!

A way to improve the article is to mention a distinction between primary/secondary only near the end, just before "Original images". Harald88 16:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, concerning your example, I think this is why the "current events" exception is in the section. I am a little surprised that you are voicing these concerns - although a few people have modified this paragraph the two conditions have been in the policy for well over a year, maybe two. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I mention it only because people seem to be struggling with the distinction. I'm happy for it to stay myself, but I was just wondering if it would be simpler to find a way to bypass it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I now see that I replied to that above instead of here, thus once more and with elaboration:

For sure it can be bypassed. Nevertheless it may be useful to introduce it near the end of the article, just before "Original images", with an explanation similar to the one just now given by LinaMishima on this page:

What should be prevented is articles that introduce new observations or ideas (instead such information should be based on primary sources) or that perform new, non-trivial analyses or deductions of any other work (instead such information should be taken from secondary sources).

Harald88 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

People struggle with or actively resist "tertiary" but I think pèople get the primary secondary thing; I think the latest revision including bullet points is clearer. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Specialist knowledge

Slrubenstein recently struck out a word in the policy

Such an article or section should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing entirely on primary sources shoud be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.

I believe the conditions are appropriate for articles or sections that rely entirely or predominantly on primary sources, due to the danger of original research. I believe it is overly strict for articles that rely predominantly on secondary sources. I go along with no analytic, synthetic, or evaluative claims in any article. But some simple interpretation should be allowed. Also, some acceptable paraphrases may require some degree of specialist knowledge to verify that the WP article says the same thing as the source; typically about the same degree of specialist knowledge needed to read the article without struggling.

Some might say the entire paragraph is about articles or sections that rely entirely on primary sources, and the last sentence should be interpreted in that context. But because a few words are changed at a time in Wikipedia, I am concerned that any alteration to the first sentence could change the meaning of the last sentence. Therefore I'm puting entirely back in. --Gerry Ashton 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

my revert

Gerry, after considerable discussion on the talk page you proposed the following:

Although most articles and sections should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are relatively rare occasions when they may rely entirely or primarily on primary sources (for example, current events) or Braunfeld v. Brown. Such an article or section should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) the editor makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources shoud be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.

Other people accepted this, and I moved this version to the policy page, just fixing the parenthasis that followes "pie" and should have followed "brown." I repeat: (1) this was your version and (2) there was considerable discussion and support and no objection to it. Because of this, at 16:27, I added it to the policy [9]. I repeat: I added your proposed version, which others had accepted. Then, at 16:32, Wjhonson, without any discussion at all changed your version by ading the word "entirely" [10]. So please, Gerry, do not accuse me of deleting a word without any discussion, when I was restoring the version that had support following considerable discussion, reverting the addition of a word that had been added with no discussion. May I add that I prefer your version because the word "entire" is unnecessary. We allow the use of primary sources but they must be used carefully, even in articles where they are not the only source. All editors deserve "good faith" but I had hoped that given our recent interactions I had actually earned some good faith from you. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: it was proposed before and rejected. Second-hand information is certainly not preferred over first-hand information, as hear-say about information is generally less reliable and accurate than the original information. Reverted. Harald88 15:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my confusion; there have been so many small edits I had trouble remembering which version was which. After studying the history, I agree it was the additon of "entire" which was the undiscussed change.

Nevertheless, I interpret the current version to mean that the two conditions apply to articles that are based predominantly on primary sources. In articles based predominantly on secondary sources I would allow more leeway for paraphrases that require some expertise to compare the paraphrase to the original source. I would also allow more leeway for interpretations; of course interpretations should not be original research, but they need not be instantly aparent either. --Gerry Ashton 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Garry. Can you explain a bit more what you mean in your last sentence? When would an editor interpreting a primary source not be doing original research (or be inserting his or her own POV into the article)? Also, concerning the modifier "predominantly" while this was not in the version that had support on the other talk page (which I think we can pretty much archive now, unless you or others object) - I have an open mind but would really like to hear others weigh in before we decide anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting a primary source beyond the standard concise phrasing sometimes necessary (and often even then) is by definition original research. I don't think it matters much what Gerry meant; we must not allow original research or we open the door to everyone with an interpretation, which would be chaos at the very least. Gerry's constant bickering about established policies is becoming disruptive. His position that interpretations should be allowed is contrary to the NOR policy, and is ipso facto not acceptable. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I resent the implication that I want to allow any and all interpretations. --Gerry Ashton 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research is creating a new (and possibly wrong) idea that people in a field did not know about previously. Interpreting is explaining the meaning of. Not all interpreting rises to the level of creating new ideas. For example, if the author of a primary source makes an argument that alludes to a statement in an earlier chapter of his book, I might combine the argument and the earlier statement into one sentence. This could be considered an interpretation. It might take a little work for another editor to verify that the paraphrase is correct. But is would not be original research. Another example would be adding a Gregorian date in brackets for a quote that uses the Julian calendar; that hardly rises to the level of original research. --Gerry Ashton 23:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Gerry, is that this "caveat" you propose opens a huge can of worms: Now we will have edit wars about what is considered a "valid" interpretation... Thus, it would be better to leave this as is: no interpretations of primary sources allowed Simple and effective policy anyone can understand and apply. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. --Gerry Ashton 02:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Without a qualifier, the paragraph does not clarify but confuses. The entire paragraph is stating the case of the predominant use of primary sources. Wjhonson 05:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say instead that whoever started this stuff about primary, secondary and tertiary sources opened a can of worms. No new interpretation of any source is allowed - what's so difficult about that? Harald88 15:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As explained below, articles should not rely predominanatly on secondary sources but on all notable sources. Sorry for not having noticed it when a corresponding phrase was added. Any serious encyclopedia must strive to rely on primary sources for primary information and on secondary sources for secondary information. Harald88 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

secondary sources preferred?

Two days ago the following text was added:

Articles which draw predominantly on primary sources are generally discouraged, in favor of articles based predominantly on secondary sources

1. I know nothing about such a policy, nor does it seem to depend on WP:NOR. 2. Personally I disagree, since high quality depends on taking into account all relevant sources for their different qualities; but if anything, IMO such a detailed advice should be motivated and does not belong in policy but in a guideline.

A good alternative that avoids that issue (and to which, as it happened, I reverted):

Articles that draw predominantly on any one single source are generally discouraged, in favor of articles based on a number of primary and secondary sources.''.

Harald88 16:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: as Jossi reverted my version on the basis of "no consensus", I now reverted further back to the consensus version of 3 days ago by Jossi. That older version is consistent with the above alternative, as it has that:

All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources.

I now note that the useful precision of "published" had disappeared in later versions...

Harald88 18:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this change -- I've been going by an earlier version of this policy that allowed primary sources as long as it is verifiable -- so I've used letters, journals or memoirs that are not published but are deposited in archival centers such as Duke University Special Collections Department, or National Archives, etc. I do not interpret these, but only relate facts given in these documents, i.e. such and such did this --plange 16:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone get back to me on this? It's a huge change and AFAIK, unpublished primary sources ARE allowed as long as they meet WP:V --plange

For now I'll protect the version that does not nor include "published" as it may have been removed by consensus, I don't know. For sure the claim that secondary sources are preferred is non-consensual. Harald88 06:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Harald, it is the consensus that secondary sources are preferred; consensus in the sense that that's what all good editors that I know do: they rely on secondary sources wherever possible. Sometimes it isn't possible, of course, and sometimes it isn't desirable either, and knowing how to judge that is something good editors have no problem with. Others do have a problem with it, however, and for that reason, secondary sources are preferred.

I've currently got someone trying to use the Bhagavad Gita to show that Hindus have always believed in the concept of animal rights. How do I explain to him that he needs to find a secondary source that says this, if I can't point to this policy that says secondary sources are preferred? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you of what you yourself emphasized higher up on this page (and on which I commented): it's not so much primary or secondary stuff that matters but not doing original research that matters; moreover there already is a proper warning statement (although of terrible grammar and even with a spelling error) about the use of primary sources in the same section.

Apart from the fact that most sources are mixed, one should always rely for primary information (the data) on primary sources and for secondary information (opinions about the data) on secondary sources. Basing onseself on hear-say is an absolute No-No! But that is not really appropriate for this Original Research Poilicy page: it belongs in part in a guideline for editors, how to write a good quality article; in part in WP:V where it should be stressed that one should rely as much as possible on the original sources (which may be "primary", "secondary"or whatever!).

Similarly, WP:NPOV demands to take into account all relevant, notable opinons and there can be no doubt that usually the original source belongs to that group; the original source may well be a "primary" source which - against policy - this policy now suggests should be less relied on.

Based on WP:V as well as on WP:NPOV, we are not allowed to base ourself more on secondary sources than on primary sources for primary information.

An old secondary source might state (possibly due to ignorance) that So-and-so does not state anything about animal rights [= second-hand primary info], therefore we conclude that [first-hand secondary info], while the nowadays easily verifiable source itself might state Animals should be treated well, they have rights too.

Clear, unambiguous statements can stand on themselves, while vague, ambiguous statements (of primary or secondary sources!) don't belong in Wikipedia.

Cheers, Harald88 18:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that you could also point out that they are making inferences from a Primary source, which is explicitly not allowed. Unless the Bhagavad Gita actually says "we support animal rights", making inferences and interpretive stances is clearly not allowed per WP:OR. What my question is about is the insertion of the word "published" in the definition of what primary sources can be used. --plange 14:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's this sentence: "All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources" which is what I'm referring to --plange 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems correct to me. It means that you can't go to Stanley Kubrik's house and quote here from a document you found there in one of his boxes; but you can quote from Jon Ronson's article about his doing just that:

Dear Mr Kubrick,

Just a line to express to you and to Mrs Kubrick my husband's and my own deep appreciation of your kindness in arranging for Dimitri's introduction to your uncle, Mr Günther Rennert.

Sincerely,

Mrs Vladimir Nabokov

qp10qp 16:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you should be able to quote from primary material that is housed in a special collections department. That meets WP:V, but yet it's not published. For instance, the article I just recently expanded on John W. Johnston uses secondary sources, but it also pulls from a couple of letters housed at Duke University's Special Collections department as well as a memoir there. However, I also happen to have a primary source in my own possession of something he wrote about his life, but I cannot use it, and am not asking to, because it doesn't meet WP:V. I bring it up as it's a good illustration of the difference between a primary document that isn't published but is verifiable (and so is useable), and another that isn't published and is not verifiable (and isn't useable). --plange 17:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That goes beyond the issue that I brought up. The newly added phrase (perhaps it was discussed on a new subpage of which I now discover its existance, and which of course is not tracked by my watchlist of OR discussions?!) already flies against other policies as I stressed here above. It would also be illustrated here by the hypothetical case that the manuscript has been photocopied and is published online; and that it flies in everyone's eyes that a claim made by the secondary source about primary information is erroneous. WP:NPOV demands inclusion of both and WP:V effectively degrades the secondary source ("the burden of evidence", "reliability") - which is what the disputed sentence discourages to do. Harald88 18:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start a new thread as I wasn't commenting on your original issue (and can't quite understand what you just said) but rather it flagged for me that the word published was in there. Sorry to have hijacked yours. --plange 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps and perhaps not. It will depend on exactly how they are using the Bhagavad Gita to state this. If they say "Give respect to all animals" (Bhagavad Gita, Sura92.3) that is perfectly acceptable as a quote from a published source. If however they say "Well the Gita expressed in 42 sections how valuable animals are." that would be their own statement which is subject to debate. As I've said for a while, direct quotes are not original research, and a perfectly valid use of primary material. Wjhonson 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Prior to my edit "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed." sounds to my ear stilted and unsatisfactory. It gives the impression that possibly there is "original research" which "does NOT" create primary sources. And as we all know, all original research creates primary sources. So I've edited it to say "Original research, that is research which creates primary sources, is not allowed." which, to me, sounds much more clear and precise. Wjhonson 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ga... The fact is, all works are primary sources, so as I've always said, this expression is currently poorly worded. What we are wanting to prevent is work which speculates upon new concepts or ideas (the primary source concept being used in this case) or performs non-trivial analysis or any deduction of any other work (a secondary source form of original research). LinaMishima 17:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I know that was off-topic from your post somewhat :/ LinaMishima 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Various definitions of secondary source exist. Three descriptions from the James Cook University Library web site are

• • "describe, interpret, analyze, and evaluate the primary sources
  • comment on and discuss the evidence provided by primary sources
  • are works which are one or more steps removed from the event or information they refer to, being written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight"

Some of these actions constitute original research, so sometimes creating secondary sources is original research. --Gerry Ashton 18:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's not clear what you try to argue. In case you suggest that basing oneself on secondary sources is "safe": Any creation of sources of n+1 from sources of n carries the risk of original research, as also Slimvirgin has pointed out here above.

Moreover, the existence of secondary sources does not liberate editors from the obligation to consult primary sources that are available as well. Harald88 22:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

PS, for a very recent example of OR with secondary sources see Talk:Global_Positioning_System#Time_dilation Harald88 00:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Wjhonson never intended for a debate here over a line that's been (unfortunately) happily in NOR for quite some time. By the nature of wikipedia, we serve as both a secondary and tirtary (correct spelling if you can) source on subjects and so the line's intent, to prevent new facts being introduced, was good (if badly worded, as everything is a primary source for itself by definition). In being a secondary or tirtary source, we have to by definition describe, paraphase and summarise sources of a lower order; but in doing so we should not perform any non-trivial analysis or interpretation. As a good secondary and tirtary source, we have, to a certain degree, to perform some evaluation of the sources being used - mainly to allow WP:NPOV to be fully met..

Ironically, all this puts wikipedia into a strange position, as crafting a good article will mean carefully summarising sources and standpoints, indicating their stated allegiences (detailed investigations are out of bounds, though), judging the due weight of the varies views and discuss (by comparison with other sources) the views. However unless this is done very, very carefully, it quickly becomes OR and unverifiable, and it is easier to enforce competance via strongly prohibitive rules. Interestingly, I've just proven why WP:IAR exists :P LinaMishima 23:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't even know that contrary policy! Harald88 00:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Summarizing and paraphrasing is not synonymous with interpreting or creating. LinaMishima, you really don't understand policy. You think 3RR applies to groups[11] and now you think there is a contradiction where there is none. I suggest you read the policies carefully, and ask questions of experienced users, rather than making such mis-informed and contentious posts on WP namespace. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, if you had read this talk page, you will see that other editors are equating summarizing and paraphrasing (allowable things) with interpreting or creating (not allowed things). And to a certain degree that is understandable, as these good things when done poorly do fall easily into the realm of the bad things. I advise that you assume good faith and that I need a gentle detailing of were I have misinterpreted matters or the dialogue on this page, rather than something that does not feel friendly to read LinaMishima 14:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting hairs. Policy cannot and should not cover each and all eventualities. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua suggested that LinaMishima "read the policies carefully, and ask questions of experienced users" in order to understand whether interpret and create are synonymous with summarize and paraphrase. I suggest this is a straw man argument, because the words need not be synonymous, it is only necessary that the meanings overlap to create confusion. I also suggest that since none of these words are defined in the policy, the proper place to understand their meaning is a dictionary, not the policy. If the meaning within the policy differs from the dictionary definition, the policy should be changed to either use other words, or define the specialized meaning. --Gerry Ashton 18:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought she was making a point that "we should not perform any non-trivial analysis or interpretation". How is that a lack of understanding of the policy? Also please avoid ad hominem arguments. They don't help. You have caricatured her 3RR points, which were argued on a sensible basis. Tyrenius 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, a lack of understanding policy so clearly in one place can be indicative of an overall unfamiliarity of policies in general. In what way can that possibly be an ad hom? Ad homs are directly about the person - "you're an idiot" not about their actions - "you clearly do not understand policy". LinaMishima: you say "if you had read this talk page" - how, precisely, do you support your allegation that I have not? Perhaps you are claiming you are a psychic? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"You...do not understand" and "if you had read", same difference. I disagree with your evaluation of her understanding of policy. I think she showed a deep understanding of the purpose of that policy. Best to stick to the actual point presented on this page and address that. Tyrenius 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. They are very different. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We had a couple of weeks worth of discussion concerning edits to the primary and secondary sources section. I broke down the discussion to specific edits. As we reached consensus on each edit, I made the edit on this page. If there was significant opposition to any proposed edit on that talk page, I did not make the edit to this page. Now I see that one or two editors reverted, unilaterally, those changes. This is not how we do things here. We have discussion, and when a number of people reach agreement, we make the change. That is waht we did. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice that here you comment on another subject than "creating primary sources".

The way things were done here - the only way that works - is that any significant change or addition is discussed for weeks and next after implementing it, one waits another week or so for other editors who missed an essential change to make a motivated revert before assuming real consensus. We can't expect that the whole community reads all the discussions every day, or claim when for example some editor is on vacation that a consensual edit was made without him/or that can't be reverted. Apart of that, it's Wikipedia practice to move disputed sentences to the Talk page and only reinsert them only after new consensus has been reached. Harald88 10:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harald, you left a note on my page about an incomprehensible edit. All I did was revert your change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slimvirgin, all I did was to revert to a consensus version, as specified. I could find no discussion with opinion poll that warrants the addition that I reverted, while I clearly objected to it with motivation oñ this page. Harald88 20:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reverts by three editors yesterday were a mile away from best practice. A reversion should be explained on the Talk page, or, better still, proposed there. Editors should have the patience to allow good-faith edits they disagree with (I don't mean little things like spelling mistakes etc.) to hang there for a few days while they address the issue on the Talk page. Wikipedia won't explode in the meantime, honest.qp10qp 11:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a policy page. We need consensus before making major changes, and there's been far too much reverting back and forth. I suspect most people have lost track so it needs to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, We have a recent starting point after the page had been frozen because of edit-warring: "marked as consensus version" by Jossi. It does not contain the disputed sentence which certainly was added recently.

As the sentence in question has been added without a clear consensus, and is in apparent conflict with the other non-negotiable policies, I'll remove that sentence again and we can discuss to either put a revised version back, or simply leave it out as already a sentence that warns for the use of primary sources is included.

Harald88 20:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed my post as well, as now my response makes no sense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, KC, I didn't mean to cause chaos. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested change to opening paragraph

I suggest changing the opening paragraph to read:

"Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to (a) cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and (b) adhere to what those sources say."

The only change is to clearly separate the two requirements. I suggest this change because it makes more clear these two requirements. I'm usually happy to directly make such changes myself but this is a very high-profile policy and I'm hesitant to make any changes in the lead paragraph without consulting others. --ElKevbo 15:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

the two requirements are already separated by a comma. It is not a very complex sentence. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Picking nits: In the current version of the sentence, they shouldn't be separated by a comma. It's not consistent with standard English as I know it to place a comma between only two items separated by a conjuction. The most relevant section of the MOS seems to be the section entitled "Serial commas" which would appear to support this assertion but it's not completely clear since it only addresses comma usage in lists of three or more. --ElKevbo 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo entirely. In my opinion, the present opening paragraph is written in bad English verging on wrong English. ElKevbo's rewrite is an improvement, but it still doesn't get round the oddity of saying that there's only one way and then giving two ways. Semantically it makes sense (the only way consists of doing this and this); syntactically not.qp10qp 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I disagree, I won't fight over it - if a number of people prefer ElKevbo's suggestion, fine. If Qp10qp wants to propose an alternative, fine. I do think we should allow a couple of days' discussion and see what others think before rewriting it though. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, trying to think of a rewrite hurt my brain. I think it needs redrafting and can't be fixed by relocating a word or two and I doubt that anyone would be in the slightest bit interested. I'm a little surprised though, that you disagree that there's something wrong with the following:

the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say.

Firstly, the readers may assume that they are being told about one way and follow that way through only to be surprised at the end by the second way tagged on at the end. This wouldn't be so bad if the first way was short (is to cite reliable sources and to adhere to what those sources say), which would establish matching parts. The trouble is that the long clause describing the first part of the "way" creates a partial miscue for the reader by appearing to govern the final clause (which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say). qp10qp 11:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is what I propose as an alternative:

Original research is not permitted at Wikipedia. Original research refers to unpublished material, especially arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". Wikipedians are instead expected to do draw on relevant, reliable and verifiable sources, and to cite sources in articles.

and then delete the "definition" that appears shortly thereafter. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's bold; but I have a hunch it mightn't be accepted.

I've been trying to think of a grammatical improvement that doesn't affect the content and sense: what about this?

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite and adhere to reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article. qp10qp 20:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! I don't really like the colon (should it be a semi-colon?) but otherwise it's much better. --ElKevbo 22:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The emphasis should remain on "to adhere to", see the example of [12].

Harald88 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the order of the words be changed or would more substantial changes be required to answer your objection? And, more philosophically, how can we know if an editor is adhering to a source if they don't cite it? --ElKevbo 22:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Elkevbo: the colon was in the original; but anyway, I think it's fine (Fowler said that a colon "delivers the goods that have been invoiced in the preceding words"). Harald88, I don't quite understand what you mean; please explain more. qp10qp 00:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We already have WP:V, thus it's superfluous (and-off-topic!) to state that one should cite sources. Citing sources is not sufficient: what should catch the attention of the editor who reads this policy is that the expressed opinion and claims must match that of the used sources. That's made clear by splitting it up and ending the sentence with "adhere to" for emphasis, like ElKevbo suggested.

Maybe simply like this, reworking the last version above:

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to them. Harald88 10:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How about:

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to adhere to cited, reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article."

At a bare minimum, the comma near the end of your proposed sentence has to go. I also ask if the phrase "sources which provide" is correct. Should it be "sources that provide?" The which/that distinction is one with which I still struggle... --ElKevbo 14:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope that version will satisy Harald88's wish for adherence to be emphasized ahead of citing. (Harald88, you must listen to ElKevbo when he says that your comma is wrong. He is spot on.) qp10qp 15:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On the "which/that" issue, they are interchangeable in this construction, though not in some others. And the sentence is thatted up enough already, in my opinion (in fact, it would be elegant to drop the final "that is" entirely: information directly related to...). qp10qp 15:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so removing that "that phrase" and adding the wikilinks (to get the full effect) would leave us with:

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to adhere to cited, reliable sources which provide information directly related to the topic of the article.

How's that look? I think it retains the spirit and letter of the original sentence but states it in a more concise and grammatically correct manner. --ElKevbo 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK insofar as the grammar goes; but now the emphasis on what NOR is about (to adhere to) is gone, while already the current version apparently lacks emphasis as I illustrated. People already tend to confuse WP:NOR and WP:V. Perhaps add a sentence about the difference? Harald88 06:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The emphasis is gone? How is adherence being the first injunction in the first sentence of the whole policy not emphasis enough? In my opinion, the above version is a real improvement, and I would vote for it to go in. We need to wait a while first, of course. qp10qp 10:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Adhere is much more emphasized when mentioned separately, in the end - which is the case now. That's perfectly in line with ElKevbo original proposal for improvement. For now, my proposal for improvement is to simply put adhere in bold in the existing phrase, which aids with Elkevbo's objective:

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say.

In fact either this or splitting it up is necessary for the same effect now that the comma has been removed. In other words, I disagree with removal of the comma without a consequential rephrasing: removing a comma is not always harmless. Harald88 11:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't follow you. Removing the comma doesn't change the meaning of the sentence at all. It only brings it into compliance with Standard English. I can understand and agree with a general argument that minor changes to a sentence (such as removing a comma) may sometimes have a large impact on its meaning but I don't think that's true in this case.

In any case, I think your formulation with the comma removed and the critical words bolded is acceptable. --ElKevbo 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A comma splits a phrase in two, allowing to more clearly distinguish two parts. Removing the comma as was done removed that clearness, while your original proposal above was to enhanced it. That's all. Harald88 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A comma should not be used to separate verb phrases in a complex predicate. It's poor grammar and completely unnecessary. --ElKevbo 06:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We all agree on the first part; while your last claim is obviously false by the very fact that the comma was intentional. Harald88 20:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation of current version

I suggest one of these satisfies requirements:

1. the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article (and to adhere to what those sources say}.
2. the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article — and to adhere to what those sources say.

Tyrenius 21:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Two more good versions. So, when is someone going to take the plunge and replace the bad sentence presently in the text with one of these better versions?

Harald88, I'm disappointed that you're still arguing with ElKevbo about the comma. If you need convincing that it was bad English, here are some references for ElKevbo's point:

• "If there's a new subject—or the old subject is restated—use the comma. If the second clause shares a subject with the first (and that subject is not restated), don't use the comma. (Bill Walsh, Lapsing into a Comma, Contemporary Books, 2000, ISBN 0-8092-2535-2: p76)

• "In compound sentences, an unnecessary comma is sometimes inserted before a second independent clause when the subject is the same as in the first clause. (As some grammarians put it, a comma shouldn't appear before the second part of a 'compound predicate'.)" (Bryan.A.Garner, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, Oxford University Press, 1998, ISBN 0-19-507853-5: p539)

• "When the subject is the same for both clauses and is expressed only once, a comma is useful if the connective is but. When the connective is and, the comma should be omitted if the relation between the two statements is close or immediate." (Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, 4th Edition, Allyn and Bacon, 2000(1979), ISBN 0-205-30902-X: p5)

qp10qp 17:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The solution seems obvious; this reversal:

the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to adhere to reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and then to cite them to show that you have done so.

Editors should adhere to sources before they cite them, shouldn't they? Septentrionalis 20:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Several changes per day - please stop!

Gentlemen, may I remind you of the following:

When editing this [article], please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

In the past it was customary to discuss a significant modification of text (not spelling or grammar errors) for several weeks, thus giving aother editors the time to have a look at it, think about it and comment on it; and only when a true consensus was reached, a change was made.

In contrast, now several changes per day occur in full defiance of the above rule, and without a clear correspondence to the recent discussion threads. I'm afraid the page needs protection again. Harald88 22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. If this situation persists, I will protect the policy page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the changes was to fix a problem I noticed in Wikipedia_Talk:Ignore all rules. This policy says that no rules supersede original research, but IAR says that IAR does supersede it.

It's a contradiction. Either you have to change this rule to say that it can be superseded by IAR, or you have to change IAR to say that some rules may not be ignored. Leaving it the way it is makes the policies logically inconsistent. (And there was in fact discussion, but in IAR, not here.) Ken Arromdee 05:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is part of the wiki process (foundation issue #3 "wiki process" ).

We're not going to protect this page unless there's vandalism or editwarring (foundation issue #2 "anyone can edit").

This rule helps us maintain NPOV (foundation issue #1 "NPOV").

None of these are up for debate today.

If the current version of this interpretation of these basic policies causes a contradiction; I suggest you rewrite the interpretation, or revert these guidelines to versions which do not contradict each other. Those versions exist, I assure you. Kim Bruning 09:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Right now, the article says that "The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines". This is slightly better in that it can be interpreted to mean the *rule* can be superseded, but that requires a rather strained reading of it. The most straightforward reading of the phrase still appears to directly contradict WP:IAR--you can't say a policy may not be superseded and then in the other policy say that it sometimes supersedes the first policy.

Unless we're going to change "ignore all rules" to say that it doesn't apply to original research, this should be changed in order to avoid the contradiction. Ken Arromdee 14:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Tyresias

Just a note that Tyresias, who has edited the policy page, has been indef blocked, and also that he should not be confused with me. Tyrenius 23:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost clarification against editing policy

With editing the following clarification was edited out:

Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

However, the remark about possible change on foundation level is much less clear and could easily be misunderstood (or simply not understood). BTW where was the discussion?

Thus I disagree with the removal and propose to put it back in, so that we obtain:

In practice, the principles upon which these three policies are based are only negotiable at the foundation level. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

Harald88 10:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No. The pages may be edited by anyone for any purpose that improves the encyclopedia.

The discussion you seek was in 2001. You are expected to accept the foundation issues before you start editing wikipedia on a regular basis. This is the basis for Jimbos remarks about certain things being "non-negotiable". I'm not going to discuss this with you here and now, because this subject can effectively only be discussed at foundation level, if at all. If you don't accept the foundation issues, you are quite welcome to join a different project, no one will hold it against you. Kim Bruning 13:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please summarize that discussion, as the removal of the abovementioned phrase was apparently against consensus and IMO the precision is agreement with your above remark; on top of that it appears from Jossi's remarks below that all the changes were in fact erroneous. Harald88 06:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The m:Foundation issues page is that summary. Kim Bruning 12:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. As Jossi tried to make clear, the foundation issues don't really matter here (WP:NOR is not mentioned); and as I tried to make clear, even if it was mentioned, it's not the point that was essential - what is essential is the above phrase which you apparently deleted without consensus. Harald88 20:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, m:foundation issues does not address WP:NOR, WP:V or WP:NOT, nevertheless, the principles upon which these policies have been written are non-negotiable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet the foundation issues are beyond debate here. There are two outcomes.

* Either you show how these three items are tied in with the foundation issues, so that you can safely say that these are based on principles that are beyond debate.

* Or you are making statements about policy that flatly contradict the foundation issues.

(page up a section or two for more detail).

Kim Bruning 08:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored foundation issues after 6 days. If you want to negotiate "non-negotiable" issues, I strongly reccomend you take it to m:Talk:Foundation issues. Kim Bruning 20:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Those foundation issues are a recent non-consensual revision; and on top of that you deleted a long-time undebated clarifying sentence. Reverted. Harald88 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That is false. The foundation issues have very wide consensus at the foundation level, so much so that they are essentially beyond debate, especially on wikipedia. If you wish to override them, I suggest you take it to the foundation level. Kim Bruning 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start discussions on other pages without repeated mention on this page!

A technicality of importance about, in this case: /Primary v. secondary sources discussion

I just noticed that a discussion was going on of which I completely ignored its existence because I trust in the overviews of my watchlist to see what discussions are going on about subjects on their Talk pages. It turns out thatSub-pages are not automatically included.

Thus in case such separate discussion pages are set up, regulary summaries and/or remarks need to be given here for the wider audience, otherwise it becomes de facto off-the-record for the larger group of generally interested editors. In my case, I'm not at all interested in primary/secondary as it is irrelevant for this policy (but possibly many interested participants think differently and made a corresponding edit!), and anyway I did not notice the creation of that page on my watchlist.

Harald88 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Which was my exact objection when the subpage was created. I found the entire episode really troubling on many levels, this being one of them. It completely splits off the discussion and de facto hides it from the rest of the editors. Wjhonson 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Only published primary sources?

I'm starting a new thread as apparently I hijacked another thread (didn't mean to) and it was confusing the issue. So am restating my concern. I notice that the policy now says (it didn't use to) that primary sources must be published. The problem with this is that there are primary sources that are deposited in Special Collections departments and archives that are NOT published but do satisfy WP:V since they are accessible and verifiable. For instance, the article I just recently expanded on John W. Johnston uses secondary sources, but it also pulls from a memoir housed at Duke University's Special Collections department. However, I also happen to have a primary source in my own possession of something he wrote about his life, but I cannot use it, and am not asking to, because it doesn't meet WP:V. I bring it up as it's a good illustration of the difference between a primary document that isn't published but is verifiable (and so is useable), and another that isn't published and is not verifiable (and so isn't useable). With the new wording on WP:OR, the first instance is now not useable. --plange 19:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your personally owned document could not be included in any manner whatsoever in Wikipedia until or unless it is published (in some manner) by a reliable source. The same would hold true for family owned civil war letters which have never been published. The question, "may a Wiki article be written about such a document" falls under WP:NOR but the reason it does is because WP:V requires previously published by a reliable source. So, were you to photograph your document and put it on a personal webpage for all to view, it could not be used by Wikipedia. But, if the New York Times (or your local newspaper) published an article about it, then a Wiki article could be built around the newspaper information and an "exterior link" could be placed in the article which linked to your document on your personal website. Terryeo 20:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO this is all about WP:V and therefore this issue even doesn't belong on this Talk page!

Insofar as this WP:OR policy proposes new WP:V policy it should be deleted from this policy page and proposed on the corresponding policy page. Ouff what a mess!

But off-the record: such a verifiability sounds very limited to me, I guess editors should physically go there to verify it? Harald88 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and on WP:V they maintain that WP:V is not about ease of verifying, but that it ultimately IS verifiable. I agree, WP:OR should only be about parts that have to do with OR. It seems like that was the intent, as there's a line at the beginning of the section in question that says "All sources must be verifiable" and links to WP:V, but then later on the word "published" is in there which is the realm of WP:V and contrary to my understanding of WP:V. I'll scurry over there and make sure... but I'm pretty sure I'm right because I recently (in the last week) had a discussion there that explored just this issue. --plange 19:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Plange, when you said that you should be able to use primary sources that are in official collections, I entirely agree with you. In fact, it sounds to me as if you are doing excellent work, and it makes me want to go and read your contributions. But I have always thought that the word "published" meant literally that (and I am sure that requirement has been about before and not just in recent additions to this page).
• On the other hand, I think that the collections you use probably have a published catalogue: if you quoted the catalogue in the references, I am sure that no one would object. There are so many unreferenced articles in wikipedia that the work you are doing is highly unlikely to draw comlaint. The issue will arise on wikipedia more now with the growing importance of footnotes, which are usually the province of academic articles and books rather than encyclopaedias; and we all know that primary sources are not only used in academic articles and books but hold a high premium there. I suspect you are actually one step ahead of the policy, and I hope you will continue what you are doing.qp10qp 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you use an unpublished, yet public, memoir, you should at least cite it fully in the sections you use and probably with quotes as well. In other words, you should make it clear that that is what you're doing. I think it probably does run afoul of the requirement that something be "published". I'd suggest you type out the relevant parts of the memoir and submit them to wikisource at least. Then you could even link them from the biography. Wjhonson 06:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that the above implies that "published" does not belong in that sentence. Does anyone disagree? Harald88 21:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be very careful here. I am persuaded that plange is acting responsibly, largely because heshe has gone to so much trouble to discuss hisher privately owned memoir, when heshe could probably have slipped much of the data in without challenge even in a FA. But archival research does very often require the sort of interpretation and selection that are OR. More later. Septentrionalis 05:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm of the fairer sex :-) The privately-owned one I'm not pursuing as I've realized I need to get that published (which I should be doing anyway). The above is about publicly held documents at Duke University which I already used in the article. My thoughts are that these are a reliable source, but that I should still be subject to the same rules of WP:OR as someone using a secondary source. I brought the question up over on WP:RS and haven't gotten much feedback, but so far no one's disagreed. --plange 14:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I've commented there. Septentrionalis 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR is an appropriate place to begin, until you have satisfied yourself about the applicibility of a Wiki article to your document. Then the next stop (were you to wish to publish it) would be WP:V, which would tell you what level of reliable publication would be needed for your document's content to be considered published. A personal website won't do it for a Wiki article. But WP:RS really should have responded to your question in the first place, heh. Also worth mentioning, there are some history majors who edit Wiki regularly. I can't recommend anyone, but there are history buffs who have experience in the area. Terryeo 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Terryeo, they did answer and so far agree it is reliable... It's not on a personal website (which I agree is a no-no) but are public documents deposited at reputable archives (National Archives, Duke Univ, etc). I also have a Master's in Heritage Preservation and so am used to being able to use primary sources (and how to cite them), but just wanted clarification on what was allowed here. By the wording on this page, it says I cannot use primary sources that have not been published, so that's why I asked. I'm thinking for the purposes of OR, it should refer people to RS and leave it at that... Thoughts? --plange 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think some of will recall a *very* long conversation about WP:V being easy vs. difficult. The price the Mayor of San Francisco paid for his townhouse, exists in an archive in the county land records office. Some editors were very adament that such an item is hard to verify and so should not be used. The same applies for any primary item not published, but still public. My own contention was WP:V only requires it be *possible* to verify, not that it should be easy. One difference however, is that microfilmed records can travel by ILL or similar sort of requests. Microfilming is a process of "publishing". If your primary items are microfilmed and can be ordered through ILL, I'd say they would pass WP:V, otherwise the relative inaccessibility of those items, might be an issue to some editors. Wjhonson 04:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Plange's involvement brings an interesting question foreward. If WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V were really well written the questions our fairer sex is asking would be spelled out fully and I say this because they are good questions. Of course the discussion at WP:V should have been responsive. If you are satisfied of the intent of WP:NOR, Plange, then Wikipedia would be best served by asking at WP:V, I believe. The reason I say this is becuase WP:V does not yet spell out real clearly, what exactly consitutes "verifiable" for the situation that you are describing, and really should. I hope you understand, a lot of the discussion has been on the most common difficulties (personal websites) (emotionally charged politics) (religious issues), rather than on historical documents. So, if you are satisfied about the intent of WP:NOR, that might be the place to go. I think it would improve Wikipedia policy to be reworded a little so that future questions of the sort you bring up, are addressed within policy. Terryeo 14:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Feedback Please

I am hoping some expert WP:OR people can give some feedback on an article I stumbled on. Its a heated arguement of which I just tossed my coin into and walked away. I think the participants can use some outside advice on WP:OR or I can learn something if I am indeed mistaken. The article in question is Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and the issue seems to be if editors are allowed to cast events as terrorism or terrorist acts by comparing them to popular definitions of terrorism found in dictionaries. I concluded from the title that an allegation would have to be made directly, meaning a person has to actually say the word "terrorism" for their to be an allegation of terrorism. However its being argued that if what the person is alleging falls within a definition of terrorism then its the same thing. Example: John Forman (made up) states that "the United States took part in an intimidation campaign that was illegal and heinous." Would this be permissable? Any feedback given here or on the talk page is greatly appreciated. --NuclearUmpf 17:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is just my two cents and perhaps loads of people will disagree with me on this. But it seems to me that John Forman's quote should not be attributed to any popular definition of terrorism. Afterall, other dictionaries can use terrorism to be whatever they want regardless of NPOV. Just use the quote as is without interpretation. The word "terrorism" is a politically charged, loaded word. It should be used sparingly, IMHO. I'm not even sure why we would be TRYING to use it. If someone uses the words "terrorism", then that is fine. But putting words into people's mouths (especially living persons) is dangerous and should be avoided. -- RM 17:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree with Ram-Man. Generally speaking, quotes such as the one your describe should only be interpreted to the extent that such interpretation is obvious and beyond dispute. The assignment of a word that, regardless of its denotation, carries a loaded negative meaning with it, may distort the speaker's intentions. Deco 22:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I thank you all for your feedback, hopefully someone from that page will see this discussion. I left a link pointing them here. I will post a more obvious link and hopefully they can ask the experts regarding WP:OR questions. --NuclearUmpf 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nuclear, it's difficult to comment meaningfully because this is a bad article that probably shouldn't exist. But given that it does, it should use only reliable published sources who have alleged the United States engages in acts of state terrorism, and who actually use that term. No sources should be interpreted as meaning "terrorism" unless they use that word. It's a loaded term and we shouldn't attribute it to sources who chose not to use it themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As I read the article I see it presents a lot of references. Yet there is very very little hard information in it, its more like a pile of rising bread dough than a baked piece of bread. The very first reference seems to be to a commercial site which seems to have that information on its site just to generate web traffic. The article is so far from encyclopedic as to be useless to a reader. It might make fair, inflammatory reading in a newspaper or something like that. Overly referenced articles make me suspicious, anyway, heh. Terryeo 18:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify many of the references are not of people alleging terrorism, but just supporting that the events happened, leaving the allegations themselves widely unsourced. That is a whole new basket to tackle I believe though. --NuclearUmpf 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was originally titled something along the lines of "State Sponsored Terrorism and the U.S.", or "American Terrorism" or something like that. By and large, the title "Allegations..." is widely acknowledged among the posters as a bad title, but because of edit-wars and other vandalizations of the page it has been hammered out as a sort of temporary compromise. Moreover. given that A) the U.S. State Department uses the term, and B) it's widely heard and read in the U.S. media, then there is no possible way to argue that it's a "bad" article simply because it uses the word "terrorism"; in fact, the idea that an encyclopedic article should *avoid* loaded terms is peculiar to the Wikipedia crowd alone. The main use i put encyclopedias to -- and most other folks, as well -- is to try to get a starting handle on difficult terms, and by avoiding such issues one winds up avoiding a large part of what encyclopedias are supposed to do. Finally, the situation referred to above occurred because one poster objected that definitions which were introduced did not "adhere to wikipedia standards" because they introduced "neologisms" and "presumes new definitiosn of pre-existing terms". It was only within that context that the dictionary definition was introduced: as a demonstration that the definition being proposed was a) conservative, and b) widely accepted. 218.160.178.169 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should support such conservative usage of terms as far as possible, precisely because by not doing so one winds up with a mash of rising bread dough instead of hard information. The page in question has been frozen now for three weeks, without any return to normal editing status. The only person who is allowed to edit it is an "approved" wikipedia "negotiator", who has done little besides excise entries to the article and accuse its editors of "not fulfilling Wikipedia standards". When new information is introduced, it is immediately vandalized by contrarians who object that the word "terrorism" should not be associated with the United States -- even while the United States has itself created a defintion and defacto standard by which the suitability of the term can be measured. The problem with the page is, in short, that the editors who created it are not being allowed to shape it into an objective and fair page, but are instead being repeatedly hampered by cynical and unrepentant "negotiators" and "administrators" who are a wee bit too politically delicate to deal responsibly with the issue.218.160.178.169 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: your assertion -- that no sources be allowed unless they explicitly use the term "terrorism" -- winds up conveniently excising 300 years of American History from any possibility of inclusion in the article. I really don't think anyone would object to someone including a passage that speaks of a "battle" or "raid" in an article about warfare, nor does anyone here object to the inclusion of a "carrack" or "caravel" in the Wikipedia article on battleships. That's because carracks and caravels are relevant to the history of battleships, and battles and raids are readily identifiable as forms of warfare. If there is clearly documented evidence that the United States was, let us say, supporting squads of heavily armed people who would purposefully and methodically murder large groups of unarmed people in an otherwise peaceful or undefended place, then i really don't see how it matters whether or not some commentator does or doesn't use the word "terrorism" -- the example clearly falls under the standard, most conservative definition of the word (i.e. -- the use of violence to spread terror amongst civilians, specifically as a military tactic). Moreover, by adhering to such a restriction, the considerable commentaries of people like Mark Twain, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau are all suddenly rendered mute on the subject, even though it is obvious from any cursory reading of their works that they were steadfast figures who vocally and brashly condemned the U.S. for its use of such methods. Of course, the word "terrorism" not having yet been invented, they didn't use it; yet to say that they had nothing to say on the modern issue of terrorism, and that their works do not hold some important insight into how the topic relates to the U.S. in our current day, is by no means "scholarship" or "adherence to standards", but rather mere obstinate rejection of sources whose relevance is indisputable.218.160.178.169 22:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its libel to say "Mark Twain alleged the US commited terrorism in relation to the Cuban missle crisis" if Mark Twain merely said "The US commited terrible acts during the Cuban missle crisis. The situation is made up but the point remains. To take his comments and label them I think is against Wikipedia rules and possibly the law. I didnt see the arguement over the definition. I just seen a user arguing heavily that they can add events that fall under one of many definitions he found and even one general one that was similar to "acts of violence" or something far to the extreme. But their extreme example is exactly the slope people go down when we are allowed to change peoples words to things we feel they said, and not what they actually said. --NuclearUmpf 10:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No original reverts?

Er, why is there a revert war here? I don't even see that much of a difference between the two versions. >Radiant< 21:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity

Wikiversity does not exclude original researches. We should note this.--Jusjih 10:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• We should note that on the policy pages for wikiversity. There are plenty of sites that allow OR. >Radiant< 11:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the point here is as follows: "We do not allow Original Research on Wikipedia, so if you are looking to post original research, consider this other wikimedia project." It would be helpful to state this on our page, although perhaps not until Wikiversity has a firm policy on OR, rather than the proposal it currently has. -- RM 12:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a peer-review process for OR posted in Wikiversity? I am concerned that adding the above language could allow someone to post their OR in Wikiversity and then immediately come into Wikipedia and reference their newly-posted OR, thus circumventing this policy. --ElKevbo 14:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First thing is that Wikiversity does not yet have a policy on OR, so at the moment there is no way of circumventing policy. Also, I'm sure someone else will provide the link, but I'm pretty sure that it is forbidden to reference Wikimedia publications as sources. All sources must be external sources, so no, this can't be used to circumvent policy, at least AFAIK. -- RM 14:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I knew Wikipidia could not be used as a source but I have never looked into whether or not Wikimedia could be used as a source. Makes sense. Thanks! --ElKevbo 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make sure someone else can verify this first though. -- RM 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I can think of no problem to link from Wikipedia to Wikiversity (a new site) but I do not think using Wikiversity as a source a good idea.--Jusjih 15:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As an example, wikinews explicitly drops the no original research requirement. They're a journalistic source, and they do original research. Even so, one of the objectives of wikinews is to serve as a source for wikipedia.

Anytime you do a page move (trivial example), or do a translation from another project (slightly less trivial), you are using wikipedia as your source. Generally people don't check all the way back to original sources, though perhaps at times it'd be handy if they did. Kim Bruning 08:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Technically Wikinews is not the source for Wikipedia, but Wikinews gets their material from other sources and passes that along. If WN makes a conjecture on its own, we don't usually want to copy it unless it's corroborated by facts or external sources. >Radiant< 08:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikinews is intended to be used as a source for wikipedia on current events, so that wikipedia articles don't have to be in constant flux at the time of the event. In fact, if you are writing about current events, you should write about them on wikinews, not on wikipedia (though this is not always what happens in practice). Kim Bruning 08:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also Wikisource: . Kim Bruning 08:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While if you use NOR policy on its own, you could perhaps make the argument that other Wikimedia sites could be used as a source, this falls apart on Verifiability grounds. The sources on Wikinews or Wikisource must be available from third-party sources in order to merit inclusion. Original research on either of those sites would not satisfy the NOR and verifiability requirements (the two go together). It also fails the reliable soure, since there is no way that original research on Wikinews or Wikisource could be considered verifiable unless it was backed by a reliable third party source or, in the case of Wikisource, a physical copy of a document. -- RM 15:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikis aren't reliable sources by our standards, so we should use neither Wikiversity nor Wikinews as a source. I'm not saying I totally agree with this, but that's what the guideline says. --Conti|✉ 17:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why it is a guideline. No one would/should think twice about citing the text of U.S. constitution or GFDL from WikiSource, since that information is obviously from a legitimate third-party source. In fact, I'd rather link to another wikimedia project in that case because then the data is "closer to home" and easier to access and link to. Don't have to worry about links being broken, etc. But again here, the point is that the information is backed by another reliable source. -- RM 18:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Carrying NPOV foreward into NOR

"WP:NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" [13]. Therefore, in regards to the idea of Original Research; unpublished information is always original research and defined to be original research by NPOV. This is why I propose we place "unpublished" in the first sentence. I would propose the first sentence of this policy change from:

• Wikipedia is not the place for original research. To:
• Wikipedia is not the place for unpublished original research.

  Academia people will immediately recognize they can not publish their unpublished ideas at Wikipedia. Also, including "unpublished" in the first sentence carries the idea presented by NPOV into this policy in an obvious way. I think it makes this policy easier to understand and harder to misunderstand. Terryeo 17:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Math

Does math count as original research?

An example:

A reputable source says that X = 10. A different equally reputable source says that Y = 5. Is it OK to say that "X is two times larger than Y"?

More sophisticated example:

Car A has 2.0 liter engine and produces 240 hp. Car B has 3.0 liter engine and produces 215 hp. Is it OK to say "Car A is far superior to car B in terms of horsepower per liter of displacement"? --Itinerant1 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, stating the obvious is not original research, and that includes basic math (after all, addition is hardly original, now is it). In the above case, saying it's "far" superior may be somewhat opinionated, but it's not OR to state that Mount Everest is higher than the Eiffel Tower. >Radiant< 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I would avoid the "superior" as a value judgment. Numerous bio articles refer to "older" or "younger" siblings on the strength of verifiable birthdates -- this is source-based writing in action. In the same vein, suppose that a source states, "The Prussians approached from an unexpected direction, almost invisible in the setting sun." It is a valid use of the source to write, "The French did not expect the Prussian approach from the west, which took place near sunset." Reducing an overwrought victorian writer to the facts is not OR either. Is someone actually arguing that it is? Robert A.West (Talk) 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. If an editor places two different examples close to each other then the reader can apply his own good sense and this is how we serve. We don't draw the conclusion for the reader, instead we place information (which the reader might not become aware of otherwise), place information in such a way that the reader becomes informed. Terryeo 17:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Actually, we do (and should) present conclusions to the reader all the time, provided that those conclusions come from a reliable source. Placing two examples close to one another to encourage a particular (nontrivial) conclusion on the part of the reader is sailing very close to the wind when it comes to NOR and NPOV. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe he has an example in mind. I was speaking of the theory of it and haven't run into an example like that. Terryeo 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OR in articles vs OR in talk pages

An issue that I've seen a couple of times lately (Talk:South_Tyrol#Discussion & Talk:H._P._Lovecraft#Copyright) is the question of whether it's appropriate for original research to influence how an article is written, without actually appearing in the article itself.

My view is that this is not actually prohibited by the wording of WP:OR, and that a certain amount of OR at a meta-level is not just acceptable but necessary in order to comply with other Wikipedia policies.

For instance, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) says: "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..." This is something that would usually impossible to determine except by methods (synthesis from a variety of sources, straw-polling editors, interpreting Googlefights etc.) that would clearly violate OR if used for actual article content. Similarly, whether an image can be counted as 'fair use' often comes down to an editor's judgement based on synthesis and interpretation from previous examples.

In these cases, while it would violate WP:OR for an article to say "the majority of English speakers prefer $NAME" or "the precedent of $CASE1 combined with criteria established in $CASE2 indicate that such-and-such would be fair use", it would be quite appropriate to name an article or include an image on the strength of that reasoning (provided other editors find it reasonable) and indeed this is often exactly how we handle it. But since there seems to be some confusion on this account, perhaps it would be useful for WP:OR to explicitly state that it only covers claims presented within articles, not meta-considerations? --Calair 07:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hm, tricky issue. With fair use, we tend to stay on the side of caution, so if a fair use claim is dubious, WP:CP or WP:IFD would be the places to ask. The place naming issue, I've seen debates of; usually such debates are not based on OR but on stating the obvious (Deutschland is called Germany in English, that's not OR). If they're not, they tend to head towards WP:LAME. That is rather unfortunate. We do, however, have some sources for common names, e.g. what the CIA factbook uses. >Radiant< 15:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We do approach fair use cautiously, but even there it tends not to be as stringent as WP:OR is on article text. If I present my arguments as to why an image is fair use, and none of the other editors see a hole in those arguments, that's probably enough; OTOH, in article space, even a very reasonable argument that seems plausible to other editors is quite likely to be deleted on the grounds that it's an original argument.--Calair 01:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell

I object to the current nutshell on this page because it is too long. >Radiant< 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Too long for whom? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Too long for a nutshell. In my opinion, lengthy texts defy the point of nutshelling, and would be better explained in the first paragraph or two of the page. This nut simply feels like an attempt to put too much words in a single sentence. >Radiant< 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Since it's a nutshell, it could dispense with the examples, I think (examples are going to crop up in the article text soon enough). The word "moreover" is deprecated in many style books; it's pompous and doesn't really mean much more than "and" or "also". "May not" is rather weasely here; I think it means "must not" or "should not", which would be stronger, in my opinion ("may not" can be misread to assume "might not" or "but may"). The top of this article looks about as elegant to me as a man wearing three hats.qp10qp 04:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, someone has improved the text of it now, thank goodness.qp10qp 09:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to improve it but Wjhonson reverted me saying my edit didn't represent "the accurate position."

It said: "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material (such as arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements) that serves to advance a position."

I tidied the writing to say: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position."

Wjhonson, can you explain how the second does not represent the accurate position, and what the difference is (apart from tidier writing) between the first and second? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell text spilling onto Wikipedia policies box?

That's how it looks to me, and very ugly. But is it only me? Does it look OK to everyone else? Or has my machine dropped acid? qp10qp 03:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed This is happening to a number of david gerard recent nutshell restorations --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it original research if... (redux)

Is making a purely mathematical calculation to yield a result original research?

If a verifiable source, say a census bureau gives the population of a geographic entity, and also gives its area, is the mere quotient of the two (yielding the population density) original research if the census bureau does not explicitly provide that number? What can be done consistent with no original research: (a) forgo the information even in our info boxes; (b) search for some other reliable source which has decided to do the math for us (which may not be available, especially as the census bureau tends to be more "up to date" than most other secondary sources, so the calculations from reliable sources may not be made using the same numbers); (c) do the math ourselves <sarcasm>and cite the maker of our calculator the reliable source</sarcasm>. Carlossuarez46 17:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On one hand I don't think you need a citation to state the 8/2=4. However, when aggregating statistics it is important to take into account if the statistics were designed to go together. For example, what is the range of error for the 2 values? Perhaps you can put a "~" before it and a footnote on it stating how it was calculated. HighInBC 20:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing the two values and calculating the ratio seems unexceptionable. Is anyone actually making an issue of this? Robert A.West (Talk) 03:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

A proposal that WP:NOR and WP:V be combined, and WP:RS ditched. All views welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the current set up. While they all work together, they are all very different sets of rules. HighInBC 14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, I think it's a good idea, which will streamline our fundamental policies and make the process more efficient. There is too much overlap and confusion currently among WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. It will also provide a single focal point for discussing sourcing issues. Crum375 18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem on an article

Per the dispute resolution page, I would like some people with a long standing knowledge of this policy to come and post a couple of comments on the RFC discussion at Talk:Make Love, Not Warcraft#RFC. An example of the content which is under discussion is this version of the page [14] which editors are claiming is acceptable. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 20:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

sources question

Hi, this is an attribution question that seems to apply to a combination of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, but since WP:NOR appears to be the most relevant, it may make sense to post it here. Here is the scenario: assume we have an editor with access to copies of affidavits from an official government agency (in this case, the Patent Office). Assume that we want to rely on these letters as a reference in an article to show that the witness in that affidavit made certain claims (which he affirms in the affidavit). We aren't sure, however, how to verify these documents or obtain them, presumably from the government directly. The editor with access to the original letters uploaded the scanned letters into WP as a PDF file of scanned images. The letters seem like affidavits; they have government seals and signatures and appear authentic. The question is: can the article (which includes some controversial claims) make reference to these letters and point to the Wikicommons scanned image as source? Would doing so violate any existing WP sourcing/attribution policy or guideline? How, if at all, might one go about verifying this document, and does this verification method reasonably fulfill Wikipedia requirements? Thank - Che Nuevara 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The documents should be available to anyone from the government for the normal copying fee, or should be available for inspection to anyone who goes to the appropriate office. The citation for the document should make it clear how to obtain a copy of the document, if that isn't common knowledge. By the way, patents for at least the last few decades are available at the patent office's web site. I hold two patents; if you tell us what images you are talking about, I might recognize what kind of document they are, and just possibly, where to find them.--Gerry Ashton 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case it isn't a patent, but rather an affidavit of testimony in a patent case. Does that make any difference? - Che Nuevara 00:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If it is a recent U.S. patent,it's trivial to read it on the web. I have no idea how to get a copy of an affidavit of testimony in a patent case. --Gerry Ashton 00:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The patent is here. The uploaded scanned documents are here. The question is assuming for the moment that we cannot easily get them from the Patent Office or elsewhere, is that uploaded file sufficient as a reliable and verifiable source by itself. Crum375 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Inherent in the question, of course, is can we get it easily from the Patent Office? We haven't tried yet. - Che Nuevara 00:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think scans of documents that are stored in an unreliable repository, when the same documents are not available from any reliable source, are acceptable as sources for Wikipedia articles.

On another note, patent applications used to be confidential until the patent was granted. (Since 2000, applications are published after 18 months since the filing of the application, unless the inventor wants to forgo foreign patents.[15]) It is routine for the inventor to apply for a wide range of protection, and the patent examiner to pare down the protection so it is much narrower than the original request. I'm not sure, but it is possible that documents that relate to claims (that is, areas of protection) that were denied may be confidential forever. --Gerry Ashton 00:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This claim was granted a number of years back, so theoretically it's public record now. Do you know how one might request the records (ie affidavits and such)? - Che Nuevara 01:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to obtain the information. My point about claims was this: an inventor makes claims, and provides a description to support the claims. If the claims are allowed, then no one else may make what is in the claims for 17 or 20 years, for old or new patents respectively. Usually the examiner will allow some claims and deny others. I expect that documents related to claims that made it into the final patent are available to the public, but I don't know about documents related to denied claims. --Gerry Ashton 02:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask a couple of questions. Let's assume I am the inventor of gizmo X. I decide to write up an article about X. I want to include a statement in the article that I know was made in an affidavit submitted to the PTO. I have a copy of that affidavit, but I can't find it online anywhere. My first question is: can I just scan and upload the affidavit into WP as a PDF file and refer to it as my source? Second question: If not, can I just say that I have this source at my home, and if anyone else wants it, they can ask the PTO for it, or I can fax them or email them a copy, and in the meanwhile use the uploaded source as reference?

Thanks, Crum375 02:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I would say Crum375's approach would not be satisfactory, because that Wikipedian is trying to be a publisher, but (as far as I know) does not have a reputation as a reliable publisher. --Gerry Ashton 03:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I am not trying to be the publisher - the 'publisher' would be the PTO. It would be like some rare book, of which I happen to own a copy, and I make a reference to some item in it. If some reader or editor questions the item, they can always try to find a copy through their local library - wouldn't WP accept this type of reference? And if yes, why can't I do the same with my 'rare' copy of the affidavit that people in theory may be able to get from the PTO? And to make life easier for everyone, I upload them my copy as a PDF image into WikiCommons. Crum375 03:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rare books are acceptable if they are held in a library that is open to the public. So maybe your not a publisher, maybe you're a library. But are you a reputable library?

Also, I consider scans held on non-reputable archives, including Wikipedia and Wikicommons, to be unreliable. There is no way to know if the document that was uploaded was authentic, nor is there a way to be sure of the identity of the person who uploaded it. And when the sources are related to a patent that, at first glance, appears to be an embarassment to the USPTO, the evidence needs to be exceptionally reliable. There is good reason to question the authenticity of evidence related to highly unlikely claims. --Gerry Ashton 04:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But can't I just (effectively) tell any skeptical readers to either trust me, or go get these documents from the PTO on their own if they don't, and check for themselves? Crum375 12:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's the issue, of course -- if it is possible to go get the docs from the PTO, then a reader can go verify the documents. If not, then obviously not. I was under the impression, however, (and this may just be ignorance on my part) that it's possible to request this sort of document. - Che Nuevara 16:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I came here looking for an answer to my question on this. ([semi-]Long version: I requested a record from the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs in re the Wisconsin State Defense Force. They sent me a letter back saying that the record does exist [that they do not currently have a plan to organise it]. I think that that information would be `useful' to have in the article) Short version: I sent a letter to the government. They sent me a letter back. Anyone can get what they sent back by simply asking them. Can I use this in Wikipedia as a source? (Which from the dicusion, I would say probably) How would I cite it? Benn Newman 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Chess engine analysis

I should like a view on this. Nowadays, chess engines are routinely used to analyse games. If an editor adds chess engine analysis to an article I would argue that it is not OR because it is verifiable by another person who can simply run the same program. I should welcome views, please. BlueValour 15:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. Having used such engines to analyze many games, I am aware of all the many parameters involved, each of which can change the results, potentially. Yes, one could identify exactly each such parameter, but IMO for the reader who wants to verify or reproduce the results it becomes a non-trivial task. I think we are allowed to point people to published literature only; making them install and properly run specialized software packages (with the exact same version) to verify the article goes far beyond going to to your local librarian and asking for a copy of some book. There is a lot of skill involved in properly analyzing a game with an engine; sometimes you may decide to follow deeper on some branches because they 'look' promising or interesting - I think it's clearly WP:OR. Crum375 16:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In this specific case, the engine, the depth, the full length of the primary variation, and the evaluation were all cited. I think it may be difficult to verify, but it's not original research since the source is cited; and in general, use of chess engines to analyze games helps the project immensely, since extremely strong evaluations of positions are difficult to come by for free -- unless you are using a strong engine like Rybka. Besides, anyone can purchase this engine from the website for the approximate monetary cost of a large paperback book, with considerably less time spent locating it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I say it's WP:OR, and obviously so. To be sure of the same result you not only have to purchase the same software and set it the same, but you also need to purchase the same computer hardware, because these chess engines run better on better machines. Then after all that, the editor decides which analysis to publish and which not to publish. Rocksong 03:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not right. Rybka at the same depth will find the same evalutation, regardless of hardware. Better hardware would only mean she would reach that depth faster. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To avoid OR does not require the source to be cheap or free, it means to have verification. Say a fractal image, the exact same source file can be used to produce the same image. Ease of confirmation does not seem to the be an issue, foriegn language sources are allowed. The only concern is if in fact this game engine can give the same results when ran by other people in a deterministic fashion. HighInBC 03:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Provided the parameters are specified then running the same chess engine would give the same result. On that basis the analysis is verifiable. BlueValour 03:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This still does not address my other objection, that the Wikipedia editor decides which computer analysis is relevant to run and include. Contrary to what Ryan Delaney says, good analysis is not hard to find for free, at least when it comes to significant games: there are a number of Grandmaster commentaries, free on the web, on the game in question (the final tie-break game in the recent FIDE World Chess Championship 2006). If these Grandmaster commentators do not think the computer analysis is relevant to include, why should we? I still say it's WP:OR. Rocksong 03:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an editorial judgment that must be made in the case of incorporating information from any secondary source. Such disputes can be resolved on the talk page. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, many lab experiments could be duplicated if documented properly. That hardly means that scientists should skip scholarly journals and just add their findings to Wikipedia articles. I'm not seeing why Wikipedia should be a dumping ground for stuff no one else is interested in publishing. Wikipedia is not a blog. --W.marsh 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a disanalogy. Running chess analysis with an engine is not an experiment, any more than asking Grandmaster Ian Rogers to analyze a position is an experiment. Incidentally, Rybka's opinion is more verifiable than that of Mr. Rogers, since any person can have his own personal copy of Rybka, but there is only one Ian Rogers. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Using a complex engine, with a complex algorithm, with a complex set of parameters and criteria, to produce results is WP:OR. To ask people to reproduce the results, as W.marsh stated above, is like the scientist asking others to reproduce his/her results. We are only allowed to present previously published data, and can only ask the readers to get a copy of that data from the library (or other source) and read it to verify we quoted our source properly. Anything more would become original work. Also, the very fact that you stop at a specific search level on the engine (say 14ply) is also WP:OR, since you are effectively telling the reader to 'trust you' that by going deeper on some branch the analysis won't change. Crum375 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The settings are all at default. Anyone can reproduce this with no special configuration. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

None of this goes to why Wikipedia should be publishing information no one else cares to. No matter how easy it is to duplicate, it's still original work (as in, this is the first place it's being published). --W.marsh 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on this

I think this is easier to understand if we simply think of a computer's opinion as functionally the same as that as any extremely strong chessplayer. For example, if I ask Garry Kasparov what his opinion on a position is, and then report on that, am I doing original research because Garry Kasparov is hard to get access to and so it would be hard to find him and ask him the same question again and again? In fact, it's even less reliable and less verifiable to ask Kasparov, since he might give a different opinion on a different day, and he's extremely difficult to get access to. However, where there is only one Kasparov, anyone can have his own Rybka. I might have made up everything Kasparov said, but if I make up what Rybka says, anyone can run it for himself to expose my fraud.

Really, I think that what I am doing here is interviewing an extremely strong chessplayer and then reporting on what he said. This is not original research any more than that would be. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Interviewing? Reporting? That's not what we do here. Again, this is not a blog/newspaper, sorry to sound trite but we aren't going for original coverage, we're reporting what reliable sources have already published. Generating new information covering a topic is what reporters do, most Wikipedians are untrained high school and college students, generating original work like a blog would is exactly what our critics make fun of us over. By and large we aren't very good at it. We are good at writing articles based on reliable, published sources though, and that's what we should stick to. Plenty of stuff can be verified reliably, the question is whether anyone's bothered to publish it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought... this is one of core concepts. --W.marsh 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

These are all valid points, and I agree with you in general, but what I'm trying to present here is an explanation for my belief that this generalization does not apply to this specific case. The original research policy is intended to stop people from inserting their own ideas and their own work into Wikipedia for the purpose of popularizing them, and that's good. But this is not such a case; I am not putting my own work or my own ideas into Wikipedia. I am using chess engines to supply commentary, which may be illuminating to readers who are not chess professionals into the extremely dense and complicated positions of world-championship level chess. This makes the articles better. In fact, chess engines are more reliable, verifiable, and accessible than the opinions of strong humans. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You have still not responded to my question above: how do we know that the specific search depth that you used is sufficient (e.g. 14 ply)? Aren't you basically telling the reader 'trust me, this depth is enough'? As I am sure you know there are many examples where going deeper (at any given depth) on one specific branch can totally change the analysis, sometimes from win to loss. So if you are making this decision for the reader, you are in fact presenting your technical opinion that "this depth is sufficient", which could be correct or not, however once you present an opinion, you are editorializing and that's definitely WP:OR. Crum375 18:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If the reader wants to find out what the engine would say at a different ply, they can do that themselves. However, I'm not against a general agreement that, for example, the engine should have searched to at least depth 20 (or some other number deemed appropriate) before we accept its analysis. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely not go below 20, then, and 6 man EGTB endgame analysis. But I am still uneasy about the concept of editors running big computational jobs to analyze positions. I realize it is a mechanical type of work, but it's still significant work and is prone to errors. I would feel much better if the analysis were done off-wiki at some chess site (wiki-chess?) and then linked into from WP. Crum375 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand/appreciate that the goal is improving articles, and maybe this is a situation to "ignore all rules" since it seems harmless and we shouldn't avoid improving an article of principle. However I do feel like this approaches original work though, since no one else is apparently publishing this stuff. That Wikipedia should be the first to publish something, however verifiable it may be, should always be scrutized. --W.marsh 18:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I appreciate your good faith in applying a strict scrutiny here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose behind OR is to avoid physics-cranks and rewriting history. None of those issues apply in this case. We're talking about something that is fairly simply verifiable. But aside from that, it is also rather trivial. *All* commentary on chess that can't be solved (endgames can be solved completely because their are a finite number of moves remaining) will either have to have some sort of arbitrary analysis or no analysis at all. Adding chess engine results *is* useful and I don't see the downside of including it. So what if a chess engine is incorrect and there is a "better line". It is irrelevent. *All* lines are subject to this kind of change by mathematical necessity. In terms of articles themselves, adding chess engine results serves to illustrate the point, so long as the article is not worded as follows: "This chess line is great for white because xyz chess engine gives it a +2.3". But say that a book on chess or a chess player has published "this chess opening gives white a slight advantage" and we add that to an article. Well then it makes sense to illustrate the point by giving a chess engine result. The article is not asserting that the chess engine's result is correct, it is merely illustrating the point. The chess engine's results are just mathematics. Say I have a fictious "ramchessengine" that evaluates the same position at -3.7 because it assumes that White usually makes lousy moves and Black makes good ones. Does this matter at all? It doesn't argue against the original point that the chess line is considered to be good for white. So long as the chess engine's result is not the *only* assertion, but instead illustrative of an existing point, I have no problem with its usage in this case. It should be noted that if someone even understands the chess engine results, then they already know that such results are generally arbitrary by definition. -- RM 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

broken link

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reputable_publications seems to go back to the top of the page. --Espoo 10:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghost ramp

Can someone take a look at ghost ramp? Does this violate NOR (or another policy)? --NE2 00:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On a superficial look it seems you are right - I see not a single source naming any of these as 'ghost'. By the definition provided, each would have to be shown as abandoned, per reliable source. As for notability, I guess it would not be an issue if some reference could be made to the overall phenomenon being notable, but I think that each individual case would have to be proven 'ghost' on its own, with its own source(s). The GoogleMap or equivalent sources are nearly worthless,IMO, as they don't prove the 'ghost' issue. Crum375 00:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is a second (subsidiary) definition, "The term can also refer to a ramp which at one point handled traffic, but was abandoned for some reason (and never demolished)." Between this and the "built or partially built but abandoned," doesn't that cover just about anything that would show up in an overhead view? That being said, the sourcing for most of the discussion of individual items is fairly minimal. --Mr Wednesday 06:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read on, you'll see: "The term does not refer to inactive or partially-built ramps which are intended to connect to a roadway which is actively planned or under construction; it only refers to ramps which have been abandoned for some reason." (emphasis added by me)

Which, of course, means that there is no way to tell from a visual inspection; you'd have to provide reliable sources per entry to prove that they meet that requirement. As of now, I see none. Crum375 12:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence my observation, "sourcing for most of the discussion of individual items is fairly minimal." --Mr Wednesday 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We may be talking about the same thing, I am not sure. What I am saying is that according to the definition given, you would need a reliable source per item -- just visual observation is clearly insufficient. None of the items that I looked at (and I may have missed some) have any source that I could see showing they meet the inclusion criteria. Hence the article is pure WP:OR at this point. If this is what you are saying, then we are in agreement. Crum375 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was agreeing that almost all of the items lack a reliable source. If I get a chance, I'll try to come up with something for the item or two that I added myself. --Mr Wednesday 20:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you see an acceptable source for any item in that list? Crum375 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was hedging with the "almost", I didn't want to take the effort to see if there were any. At this time, all of the Houston entries should be adequately sourced, and it looks like another user added a citation for one of the Florida entries. --Mr Wednesday 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I picked one of the Houston ones at random, the one with reference to page 184 in this book, and I couldn't find where it says there is any leftover stub with no plans for connection. In fact, even the article text doesn't claim that. It seems to me, if this is an example of the 'good part' of the article, the bulk of the article is mostly likely somewhere between plain wrong and unsourced, unless proven otherwise. Crum375 22:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? The overhead view is proof that the stubs exist (and there are also pictures in the reference). The fact that the corridor is under study (per the reference) demonstrates to me that there are no plans for connection (it's merely one of the alternatives under consideration). What's your standard of proof here? I don't disagree with your assessment of the portions that have not been referenced, but I would respectfully request that you reconsider your evaluation of the three Houston items.

Note that I stripped one entry due to the impossibility of finding any reference at all (Kirby with Beltway 8) and another due to evidence that there are now plans to connect up the ghost stub (Crosby Freeway). --Mr Wednesday 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) This article is essentially a list, and a part of the inclusion criteria (which I quoted previously) is: "The term does not refer to inactive or partially-built ramps which are intended to connect to a roadway which is actively planned or under construction; it only refers to ramps which have been abandoned for some reason." The critical words for me are "actively planned": if there are no plans being made to extend/complete the stub, it would be considered 'ghost' and hence includable. In the single Houston example I checked, it specifically said there are plans being studied for extension/completion, hence I don't see it as eligible, i.e. it is not 'abandoned' by the definition in the intro. What am I missing? Crum375 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The study was to determine what to do with the corridor, generally. Rather than complete the original express lane plan (which I believe, based on personal observation of the right-of-way, to have been four lanes in each direction), the "most feasible alternative" was to create two toll lanes in each direction over the entire length of the corridor. The study appears to have terminated, but I find no indication that there are any active plans to implement it — TxDOT's "Houston projects" page shows only the feasibility study, nothing subsequent to it. See [16]. --Mr Wednesday 02:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also curious about the use of the term "ghost ramp". As far as I know, this term is only used by roadgeeks. --NE2 21:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As you may be aware, the page was tagged for a while with a recommendation for renaming. I had nothing to do with the removal of that tag, so I can't comment on it. --Mr Wednesday 00:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the result of a vote allowed to override this policy? --NE2 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, but it is clear that not everybody views it as OR, and the AfD discussion is not a vote, as stated many times by closing admins, and the editors' interpretation as to what constitutes OR is part of that discussion, if not the main point. If the consensus is that there is no OR in the article in question, then there would be no "overriding" of the policy, but, in fact, a reaffirmation of it. 147.70.242.40 23:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are most Wikipedia "Lists of" original research? (fork from “Ghost ramp”)

Wikipedia contains many "lists of", some trivial, and some more serious. Consider for example List of polydactyl people and List of countries. I am wondering whether most of the lists on Wikipedia constitute original research to some degree, and whether that original research isn't so inextricably linked to some of these lists that they don’t even belong on Wikipedia.

Most lists contain a set of members, and the presence of the member on the list is supposed to attest that the member does indeed have whatever property that list is supposed to identify. In forming lists this way, I see two ways that original research can slip in.

First, determining whether a member does or does not have the necessary property can be difficult. Should a member be on a list if reliable sources contradict each other as to whether they have the property? What is the citation standard for deciding that a member has a property?

Second, the very act of assembling such a list strikes me as consisting of original research, given that the editor(s) are making conscious decision which members should or shouldn’t be on the list.

Consider List of countries – on first glance it seems this should be an easy list to compile. But instead, the article contains a lengthy subsection explaining what criteria were used for putting members on the list. In effect, original research to create a Wikipedia-specific definition of “Country”. Someone, by listing Pridnestrovie for example, has done original research to decide that Wikipedia can recognize this entity as a country.

I suspect, if NOR is truly to be respected, the only “Lists of” that Wikipedia should contain are those where the list is compiled and maintained by a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, and we merely reproduce that list.

This comes to mind in light of the above discussion of “ghost ramp”. Although that article doesn’t explicitly call itself a “list of”, it is in effect one, and that seems to be where the NOR issue arises. - O^O

I think that to collate and present information using some selection criteria, you must define your terminology, and then determine if individual items meet the selection criteria. I don't consider it WP:OR to define inclusion criteria for a list (e.g. "all buildings taller than 1000'"). But each selected item must be shown to meet the defined criteria per reliable source ("building X is 1,234' tall[1][2]"). Crum375 18:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Extending your example, for this List of buildings teller than 1000 feet, do broadcast towers make the list? What about oil drilling platforms? What about the CN Tower? Even for a subject as simple as you posted, there can be (and indeed are) genuine debate over what makes the list. If we end up writing our own definition of what should make the list, then we are in effect doing orginal research (to create the definition) instead of just accepting some common definition used outside of Wikipedia.

So, returning to List of countries, where is a non-wikipedia source that says we are using the right definition of country? And, if there isn't one, then isn't our definition (and thereby the list itself) original research? - O^O 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Every piece of writing within and without Wikipedia explicitly or implicitly defines the scope of the writing; if authors were forbidden to do that, we would cease to be a literate society. --Gerry Ashton 20:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And to respond more specifically to your question, your implication is correct: we do need to carefully define our terminology, especially so in list articles. For the 'building' example we would need to say: "for the purposes of this list, a 'building' is a free standing structure (no guy wires) and its height is measured to the top of any rooftop antenna or other solid protrusion" (for example). Yes, it can get complicated, but you have no choice if you are going to present precise, high quality information. None of that process involves WP:OR - it's just planning what you are going to present and how you are going to do it. The actual data you present has to be verifiable, but the criteria and format are yours to decide. Crum375 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy changes by SlimVirgin

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) has been making major changes to this policy without prior discussion here. Take a look at these extensive diffs since October 16th. SlimVirgin had zero edits to the talk page during that period, but made approximately 24 changes to the policy itself.

These changes need to be carefully examined by others. --John Nagle 07:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Skimming over the diffs, they all appear quite reasonable. Do you have something particular that you object to? Crum375 12:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is juxtaposition of A and B equivalent to OR ?

I wish to invite discussion on the following point. The Wikipedia Original Research Policy states in part: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

I have recently become involved in a discussion on the Stephen Barrett Talk Page [[17]] where I have been accused of doing Original Research. I have attempted to state two juxtaposed facts A and B, but have not stated a conclusion. The ABC version of the policy as presently stated is enforceable. A policy which said that editors could not state two juxtaposed facts A and B because readers would draw a conclusion from them would not me enforceable, since readers will inevitably draw conclusions from juxtaposed facts. Here are some examples:

When we read an encyclopaedia article about Hitler we inevitably think: "Hitler must have been mad" yet I shouldn't think the word "mad" is used to describe him in an encyclopaedia article.

To take another example. There exist charlatans who claim to have supernatural powers which they know they do not posseess. Nobody will state in his Wikipedia contribution outright: "Mr X is a liar and a charlatan." But the longer these people go through their careers the more facts accumulate about them. So anyone who reads a Wikipedia article about someone like this will read a collection of facts from which readers will almost inevitably infer that the subject is a charlatan.

So, should the OR policy only ban explicit inference as I say ? Or are we going to get into grey areas and matters of nice judgement decided on a case by case basis ? Robert2957 08:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert, if your two juxtaposed facts A and B imply a conclusion, C, then it's as if you stated it. If that conclusion has not been made by a reliable source in relation to the topic, then you're likely engaged in original research. The material has to be presented as neutrally as possible, sticking closely to what reliable sources have specifically said about the topic, and not what can be deduced from what they have said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Slim is right. Put it another way, Robert: you are admitting that you want to arrange passages so that the reader will reach a conclusion. If that is a conclusion you want the reader to reach - and you have as much admitted this is the case - then this is both a perfect example of original research and I'd argue a clear violation of NPOV in that you are trying to use our article to convey your POV. Wikipedia is not a blog or a soap box; the internet has plenty of other venues where you can express your own views. None of us editors are supposed to do that, we have to be self-conscious to try not to do it and grateful when another editor catches us slipping up. Of course, if a verifiable and reliable source makes the conclusion you want the reader to understand, just say so: "According to x ...." and provide the citation. If you can't do this, that in and of itself is a good reason to think you are violating NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't wish to arrange passages to lead people to conclusions. I have not admitted this. What I am trying to argue is that an editor should not be accused of OR if he merely states two juxtaposed facts from which readers happen to make an inference, or if he juxtaposes a fact of his own with another editor's fact. Close consideration of my example about charlatans should make this clear. Any sourced and verified fact should be acceptable. Conclusions for which no authority is quoted, of course, should not be allowed. The ABC rule is OK. An AB version is not. Robert2957 20:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you could give an example of the edits that caused the problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would. My question is about a principle of very great generality Robert2957 20:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin's request is perfectly proper, especially considering that this is your specific issue that is being highly disputed by all the other involved editors.

It also involves issues other than OR, where you seem to wish to turn the article into a place to start debunking possible errors. This would set a precedent for using articles as debunking dumps for every single possible error one can find on a website (in this case a major 3000+ page website that has disclaimers and doesn't claim to be inerrant). That's not very encyclopedic, and certainly not the purpose of the article. I don't think it would be wise to even begin down that path. -- Fyslee 21:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

With all respect I am here raising an issue of very high generality which is completely independent of any one controversy about any one website. I am saying that an NOR policy of the ABC type is justiciable, and an NOR policy of the AB type isn't. This question not only can, but should, be pursued independently of any particular discussion. I don't want to bring a particular argument about a particular example into this. If I did so any number of other particular OR discussions could be brought into this discussion and those particular discussions should take place on their respective talk pages. Robert2957 21:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Generalities are only as as useful (generally :) ) as the way in which they're applied to specific situations, most times. The article in question, SV, is Stephen Barrett; see related talk page for more details. — ripley\^talk 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at the article/discussion in detail, so I will comment generally. If an article juxtaposes verifiable and significant facts A and B, which tend to produce conclusion C, but makes no mention of C, I wonder what is going on? Surely the sources are not idiots. Is C consensus? If so, it would be fair to mention it. If not, does a reliable source assert C? If not, this is beginning to look like covert OR and possibly an NPOV problem? Does the article omit verifiable and significant facts X and Y, which tend to produce conclusion not-C?

Of course, if the natural way to present the facts tends to suggest a conclusion, and all the facts are fairly presented, then I see little to object to. It is natural to list a performer's credits in chronological order. If this demonstrates a gap of five years following the birth of her child, there is a natural conclusion and there is no need to leap through hoops to avoid it. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer Robert's question to me, if an editor justaposes a and b and readers draw conclusion c, then the article is presenting original research even if the editor who made the juxtaposition did not have this intention. If the editor did not have the intention, surely s/he would have no objection to the edit (juxtapostion) being changed so as not to violate the policy. This as abstract as I can get. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To get an idea of precisely what he is trying to do, read this. He seems to think that Wikipedia is the place to "get certain facts" mentioned. I have encouraged him to make a blog. He doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 09:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also this diff [18]. — e. ripley\^talk 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely what I am trying to do is to establish and ABC rather than an AB version on the NOR policy as the official policy of Wikipedia. Any previous controversy I may have been involved in is irrelevant to the discussion I am trying to initiate here. I do not think that Wikipedia is the place to "get certain facts" mentioned.I understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Robert2957 10:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But, don't you see that, if the juxtaposition of A and B is a deliberate editorial choice, and the juxtaposition implies a conclusion, then the effect is the same as if C were explicit? Or, do you not agree that (as Slrubenstein pointed out) edits must be evaluated based on their effects, rather than on guesses about the intention of the editor? If the conclusion can't be sourced, the juxtaposition should be avoided, unless failure to juxtapose would look strange or otherwise harm the article. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Serve/serves

Jesup, the singular is correct here. "... or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position."

To use serve is equivalent to saying: "Any man or woman who arrive on time get the job." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Review of Policy

I have reason to believe that this policy needs some review to discss the incorporation of factual original research. An editor recently put a tag on a very small article I began to write stating that it needed a complete rerwite because it didn't state sources etc. and it looked like original research, which it was. I have no problem with people questioning, and have no problem with knowing when I'm wrong, when somthing needs to be changed or when something needs to be done differently. I do, however, have a problem with this policy for a few reasons:

• The policy discriminates against people who don't have the means or the money to publish their own arguments, ideas, knowledge, etc. For example, if I had more money I could publish a book containing all of my ideas and cite it as a reference on wikipedia, although it would conform to wikipedia policy, I feel it wouldn't be reliable as my updated ideas as I'm always learning new things and discovering new stuff that would need to be updated. As I don't have the means or the finances to publish my arguments, ideas, etc, this policy states that my ideas, arguments etc, mean nothing and acording to this policy should not be included on wikipedia. I feel this is wrong.
• What is the definition of an expert and what gives a higher educated person more credibility over another person? Most of the the credibility it deserved, but never always, and education isn't everything, we can't forget that people learn more in day to day life and what they see than what they do during formal education, yet there is no method to categorise this level of knowledge. So why ignore it? You can't run away from uneducated knowledge, and it is vastly more valuable than any other form of knowledge. Education can only get a person so far, this is true in industry, careers and personal development.
• I do agree that the minority wreck it for the rest of us, there are alot of people out there who think they're opinions, ideas and arguments, etc, are the factual ones, reality, when they actually are far from it. The reality is that no one, no one, regaurdless of their ability to conform to policy or their level of education or level of expirience is unfalible. Everyone should be questioned, and everyone should be heard. I wrote an article on a small suburb/town called Warrandyte in which I used a hell of alot of original research, combined with "acceptable references" to write it, it would have taken a person who has never been to or knows nothing about Warrandyte, a very long time to uncover published references to write the article in the level of detail I did, and even then they may have cited references that themselves had never been to the town and seen it with they're own eyes, therefore rendering it less reliable than my original research. I can verify my original research through the use of individual knowledge of the town, photographs, my own sources such as local newspapers, local groups such as historical societies, things I have seen with my own two eyes (for example, "many people canoe in the river all times of the year", why on Earth would I have to cite a source for that when I go there all tiems of the year and see them with my own eyes? My point is that if anyone has a problem with my original research, I will listen to them, take their critique seriously and with an open mind, and see if there is any merit in their critique, if there is, the content can be changed, if there isn't then it won't have to be. Slapping people with WP:OR tags I feel is just lazy way to say to people you don't trust their level of knowledge so this article should not be trusted. If you see an article that you don't believe should be trusted because they've used original research, ask them where they got their research from. And tell them what you think needs improving, what you disagree with, etc. If they then say to you no bugger you I'm right your wrong then they don't have a leg to stand on. But if they say sure what needs improving, lets get it right then whats the problem?

I apologise for my inability to spell and write with correct grammar to a highly educated level, if my parents had the money perhaps that would be different. And I apologise for not making clearer sense and organising my opinion so it is easier to read, but I figure, if you have taken the time to read this then perhaps you might understand what I'm saying, if you didn't read it then your attention span is too short to be discussing wikipedia policy.

Thankyou for your time. Nick carson 06:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick, regarding your first point, if you paid to have a book published, we couldn't use it as a source anyway because it was self-published, except in very limited circumstances. So money is not the issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess that raises the question, how do you proove to people that your intentions are not selfish? And why do people instantly assume that I am a selfish perosn and am only writing articles in an encycopedia for personal gain? Nick carson 06:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nick, the best thing is to use reliable sources whenever you write articles, and then no one can question your intentions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but what do I do if I can't find a reliable reference for information I know to be true? Do I then leave that info out because of the policy? Sorry if I seem to be antagonistic, some things in this policy just don't sit quite right for me. Nick carson 07:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A rewrite is being undertaken at the moment which will hopefully deal with that issue. However, even under the rewrite, it's best not to add your personal knowledge over any issue that is likely to be challenged, and if another editor challenges an edit, you must supply a source for it — unless the person is being completely unreasonable, in which case ignore them; but I do mean "completely unreasonable." :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Best I go and find out what constitutes a reliable resource then! Glad to hear that issue is being delt with, and thanks for your response to my questions and comments, is it just me or does it seem like critique and feedback are hard to find on Wikipedia? I get you :) Thanks again! Nick carson 07:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It can be hard to get feedback on these issues, in part because we're asked questions like these a lot, and so sometimes people get a bit weary of answering them. However, reasonable questions like yours are always welcome. If you have problems getting answers in future, you might want to try the village pump. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy dispute regarding primary sources and OR (requested comment)

Cross posted to WP:RS, WP:OR and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. There is a dispute going on at Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. One user found primary sources, reliable journal articles, that said depo provera may do certain negative things. Another user is disputing this, citing original research. The argument, I guess, is that the 1st user is interpreting the source, and drawing conclusions not published anywhere else. The studies only dealt with rats (not humans), and there is nothing in the patient drug information (or any other way to verify the claims outside of the studies in question). The logic goes that making a connection that a study dealing with rats may effect the use of this drug in humans as a contraception is original research. Furthermore, it may be pushing a POV that this drug is unsafe by mentioning these studies (that are not verified outside of the individual study, and not mentioned in patient drug information). I feel like I am repeating myself, sorry. The counter argument is that a) citing primary sources is a good thing b) the claims are cited and verifiable and reliable, fulfilling almost every wikipedia criteria for inclusion. So I guess there are two issues. Is using the information in this manner original research? And is it giving undue weight to a minority view by citing obscure studies like this? Sorry if I am missing anything or misrepresenting a side. Please direct comments to Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. Thanks!--Andrew c 03:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, first of all, the article is not about "Depo Provera use in humans"; it is about the drug in general, and so any information about the drug that is published by a reliable source may be used. Even if it is a study with a minority conclusion, it may still be used. However, it should not be used to draw conclusions that the study itself did not draw. It should simply be described, sticking closely to what the authors of the study said, and going no further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the imput. When writing up my summary request for comment, I was thinking that would be a good solution. Don't drawn new conclusions from the study, or make it seem as if the results fit under a category they don't, but instead relay them in a manner that is representative of the study in question (this fixes the OR and RS concerns, but still, there are questions about notability and NPOV). --Andrew c 15:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, SlimVirgin hasn't said that the one sentence study summaries in "Disadvantages" exist a category in which they shouldn't.

Also, please see your own comments regarding the herpes rat study, the "long quote" dispute in which the anon previously contested the inclusion of the herpes rat study (only in hostile edit summaries, not on talkpage) on the grounds that the source was "in the opinion of a native american women's health care activist," and would not stop making what could be considered possibly racist and sexist ad hominem attacks against the source until it was pointed out firmly to him that the source cited more than one pubmed ref/study in her biblio--i.e., the very herpes rat study citation being contested now as "OR" you agreed was appropriate in both category and one-sentence summary, and is being brought up again now...

What SV does do, I think, is make the excellent point that an article doesn't have to be a rehash/mirror of a drug product insert or a textbook, nor should it be...?

As far as "notability" goes--this hasn't been brought up before. What are you referring to? (And, as far as I know, "notability" is a concept which refers to BLP.?)

No NPOV argument has been made either--merely an ad hominem attack against me which violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by the anon who uses the string of IPs (the same one who previously made the "native american women's health care activist" ad hominem attack against the source in the herpes rat study citation...)

I think it might be really helpful, Andrew, for you to read all the studies re Depo and STDS, to help elevate discussion/move it back to sources and facts at Depo talkpage--the first cite in disadvantages re Depo/STDs was not added by me, but linked to the others (Depo appears to suppress immunity in general, making users more susceptible to pretty much all of them...) Cindery 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

C'mon! O.R. is EVERYWHERE!

Take any recent (or not-so-recent) computer game or Japanese comic-book character. Or a pop song. Look them up in Wikipedia. Original research, almost all of them, with one fan adding a fact or asserted fact and the next fan adding to that one. Leave aside all this tallk about "published, refereed research." You will find it lacking in many if not most WP articles. I don't want to be flip, but Get Real. Actually LOOK at any one of the Random Articles in the column at the left; go ahead — choose one. Chances are it will be almost totally based on Uncited Sources. If you find one that's NOT, list it here. Sincerely, and with great good will, GeorgeLouis 06:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is quite true. It's also true that there are lots of grammar and spelling errors. But all of this only means that there is lots of work to be done, it's not a reason to give up, if that's your implication. By that logic, law enforcement should let all crime go unpunished because there's too much of it everywhere, and healthcare workers should let all disease go unchecked, etc. Crum375 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the thing to remember is that this is an encyclopedia - not a fansite. If we allow original research to stay then the site will simply be useless for its intended purpose. Personally, I think an all out cull of original research, unverified and unsourced material would do the site a huge amount of good. Ok, in the short term it would mean that the site would be a little more empty, but then we aren't here for quantity - we are here for quality.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's not use pokemon as a model for this site. Certainly not as a precedent for opening the door to OR. Most editors here have not even looked at a pokemon article. Chances are if more started looking at them there would be a massive culling of material. However, i can't bring myself to spend time on those article when there are so many more important, in my opinion, stubs and clean up jobs on more academic topics. Fancruft is fancruft, I'm sure people that read those articles on wikipedia will understand why they have so much OR. David D. (Talk) 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not original research. Most of this information is clearly present in the original game, book, etc. It is not verifiable in secondary sources and it is a serious problem for creating a valid encyclopedia, but it is not the same thing as original research. —Centrx→talk • 17:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about Census data and crime stats

Do census data and official crime stats constitute primary sources? Is it OK to say 'X is the 3rd largest city in country Y, according to the latest census results'. Or is it OK to say that 'city Y has the third highest crime rate according to national crime statistics.' Curtains99 09:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Official government reports are considered reliable, because they have gone through layers of fact-checking. If the relevant report ranks cities by population, that qualifies as a non-controversial factual claim. The primary/secondary source distinction is mostly there to get people to read competent historians, rather than writing their own histories from letters and land grants. If the report does not rank, but you can trivially compute a ranking, the only objection I see is the possibility that you made a mistake, and the nuisance of checking up on it. Robert A.West (Talk) 09:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Raw data would almost certainly qualify as primary sources. For example, you can buy microfilms for 1930 and earlier census sheets filled out by the census takers who went from door-to-door. At the same time, the census bureau compiles the data and analyses them for trends; the analysis may be a secondary source. --Gerry Ashton 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You omit to mention that primary sources are fine for, "Descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge." I think that census figures and rankings fall within the central intention of that proviso. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation(s)

I am intending to translate this page into Urdu for Wikipedia ‎Urdu. In this regard I have one question.

Does this policy cover those situations where a ‎‎new translation is created for foreign words/terminologies for which the language doesn't already have any ‎words?

There are hundreds of scientific words and terminologies in English for which ‎there are absolutely no replacements/translations in Urdu. I have noticed some users at ‎‎Wikipedia Urdu are creating/inventing translations for such words and ‎terminologies. These translations have never been published before anywhere else. I ‎think it is a serious situation should be addressed at the highest possible level of ‎Wikipedia administration as, in my opinion, it is an open violation of No original research policy.

Szhaider 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO this should be addressed on the UR-WP NOR Talk page and agreed to by consensus, like all policies. My own opinion is that a translation should ideally have a source for the translation (of a word or term), e.g. from a dictionary, or sample translation of scientific papers, if any. In the case of no available source of any kind for the translation, I would go by simple logic and common sense. An alternative would be to insist on English (or some other foreign) words when no source for translation exists. But it boils down to what the consensus of Urdu speaking editors agree to, on the page I mentioned. WP is not about ruling by decree - we are ruled by common sense and consensus. Crum375 00:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to address this issue but because of one certain member's arrogant behaviour and total disregard for anybody else and the policies, most of the members have backed off (constant contributers are less than 10). I had only one success where he translated a trademark into Urdu and I persuaded him to delete the translation and use the tranliteration instead. Only two members were able to confront him on this recent issue. That is why I need some kind of force or backing by some clarification of policies to gather consenus to stop him from ruthlessly creating translations without any citations. Szhaider 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you are going about it the right way. If you have one editor who is not cooperating, there are ways to deal with that, through various conflict resolution methods, all the way to ArbCom. I am unfamiliar with the Urdu WP, but I am sure you have those mechanisms in place. I think you need to deal with the situation accordingly. It doesn't sound like a generic NOR issue - more like a specific (but common) content dispute. Crum375 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Info on translation

I've just edited the policy to include info on translations of outside text and using translations by Wikipedians of outside text as sources. Specifically, I've said it's out-of-bounds. Edit is here. It's new, but I'm trying to be bold and I think it's a good idea. Even if this is eventually beaten down, there should be a section saying it's ok. This came up over a minor content dispute I'm in about adding an original translation to an article, and to my surprise, I was informed that it's not covered one way or another by this policy.

I really think it should be forboden, as it's no more verifiable than an original scientific experiment is. After all, when you analyze (even without performing) an experiment on your own, you're "translating" the data into a readable conclusion. So why should an editor be able to translate something on his/her own and include it as verifiable fact?

No translation of significant size is going to be identical, similar to how no opinion on global warming statistics, symbolic effect in The Scarlet Letter, or the signifance on the recent swing in power in the U.S. Congress will be identical. Therefore, Wikipedia should rely on verifiable, outside translations only. 66.231.130.70 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Link to section is here. Also please don't blindly revert me if you disagree, I've edited a sentence elsewhere that is a useful clearing of of ambiguity. 66.231.130.70 01:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion is that if there is no translation available by outside parties, then a WP editor can provide it. Others may disagree and/or tweak the translation by consensus. Even if an outside translation is available, that doesn't make it unique - if there are several versions (of something important and relevant) they should all be presented. I can also see a WP editor using a dictionary or equivalent source to add a note that "X can also be translated as Y". IOW, we shouldn't just apply a blanket ban on translation by editors. Of course the original foreign text must always be presented (or linked) as 'primary' evidence in these cases. Crum375 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I concur wtih Crum. >Radiant< 13:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going in to the argument whether the policy page should or should not be changed. However, I will try to explain the disputes of translation by using a couple of examples.

Einstein's theory of relativity is called in Urdu Nazriae Izaafiat. Nazriae or Nazria is universally accepted and used word for a scientifc theory. All Urdu scholars have used the word Izaafiat for Relativity in scientific terms. One user (who is also an admin there and blocked at English Wikipeida) at Urdu WP is using Nisbiat for Relativity simply because he doesn't agree with the usage of Izaafiat. In the same way all Urdu-speaker and writers have practically accepted the word Computer as an adopted word. All computer related scientific books in Urdu use English terminologies of computer science except for a few. But this particular user at Urdu WP has translated all of computer related terminologies including the word computer which he calls Shumaarinda. This kind of words are nowhere to be found in Urdu dictionaries or any other books, and causing a lot of trouble for other editors who are trying to write scientific articles without unnecessary translations. In addition, his such articles are completely useless for those who are trying to read about any scientific terminology at Urdu WP. Szhaider 18:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your presentation of the problem is clear. It seems to me that if there is a dispute regarding the translation of a word, then it should be resolved using the existing WP dispute resolution techniques. Ideally it should be solved on the Talk page, otherwise it can be escalated through mediation all the way to ArbCom (I am assuming there is an Urdu ArbCom). My own personal opinion is that the most common translation be used, as decided by consensus. As a footnote, other translations may be added, if they are supported by verfiable and reliable sources. I would also set up a special 'WP:Translation' policy in the UR-WP to clarify this. But the point is that one editor or admin should not bully the rest. The Urdu community must use the various Talk pages to reach consensus, and ultimately ArbCom if that fails. Crum375 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Working through the backlog

I am trying to begin the painful work of working through the backlog of pages tagged as OR. Most of them seem either incorrectly tagged or tagged without any further comments on the talk page. If anyone would like to help out it would be great because I really do feelthat the OR tag should be temporary and not something just slapped on the article because someone disagreed with it or didn't know how to tag it correctly. For example, a lot of pages are tagged as OR when the correct more indicative tag would be to tag it as unreferenced or containing weasel words. The OR tag is a pretty serious one and should be used with caution and an explanation why it was used. MartinDK 15:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question Regarding Self Publishing

Could someone please define this for me? Is this material someone submitted for publication themself, or a company publishing something themself, etc? Thanks! Q Jenkins 15:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's when you publish something that you have written yourself e.g. your blog, or when you send a manuscript you've written to a vanity publisher, and you pay them to turn your manuscript into a book. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so that excludes company self published material, like, an instruction manual or a FAQ? Also, I know this probably isn't the place, but how do you do the indent? Q Jenkins 16:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To learn about formatting, just look at what others are doing in the 'edit' mode. In this case, indent is via a colon ':' at the beginning of the line. Regarding the self-published manual, if it's published by the author/inventor or a program or device, it would be acceptable as a source in an article about that program or device, per WP sourcing policy. Crum375 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)