|
Why is his middle name commonly spelled as Amschel, when it is actually Anschel? The inscriptions on his children's graves spell it in Hebrew as אנשיל.
*[[Wikipedia talk:No original research (archive 1)]]
Many of the children have Mayer in their names, so it doesn't seem logical that this is a given name. Could it be the family name in Hebrew, to which the Rothschild name was appended?
*[[Wikipedia:No original research (draft rewrite)]]
*[[Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite)]]
__TOC__
==Template for violations==
It would be nice to have a template <nowiki>{{original research}}</nowiki>, similar to <nowiki>{{disputed}} and {{NPOV}}</nowiki>, that could be used to mark articles that include material that is arguably original research and needs to be fixed (but which may be subject to dispute and can't be deleted out of hand without igniting an edit war). Currently, none of the dispute tags really fits this problem, which is rampant. [[User:Stevenj|—Steven G. Johnson]] 18:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
:Currently, the closest tag is [[Template:Cite sources|<nowiki>{{</nowiki>Cite sources<nowiki>}}</nowiki>]], which may be adequate. [[User:Stevenj|—Steven G. Johnson]] 02:13, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
::We have a tag <nowiki>Template:Original research</nowiki>. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 02:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
:::And they deleted <nowiki>Template:Cite sources</nowiki>. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 02:50, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
== Bibliographies and etcographies ==
I have tried to find an answer to this, but can't: in compiling a bibliography, are the originals the primary source, or is the bibliography original research? Is there another category, "observation" perhaps?
For example, suppose I looked at [[J. G. Ballard]] and saw a reference to "The Wind That Came From Nowhere". I look on my shelf and see "The Wind From Nowhere". So I correct it. Or, is it only valid if I find a bibliography that someone else has prepared and use that? It is further complicated because several web bibliographies do list this (presumably) erroneous title, perhaps from a single bad source.
The same argument applies to, for example discographies, episode guides, etc. Can I produce a track listing by picking up a CD, or do I have to find someone else who did it?
Off topic, but perhaps someone can point me to where it is ON topic: what are the limits on bibliographies? Should they be complete e.g. is there any barrier to moving on from J.G. Ballard's books to a complete list of his short work, and each collection it appears in? A complete list of the contents of each issue of [[Astounding Science Fiction]]? Is the level of detail found in http://www.snpp.com/episodes.html and each page directly linked from its episode guide too much for Wikipedia? etc. [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 10:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:What you raise is covered in the new draft of the policy (still in progress). You are not making original analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or explanatory claims -- so it isn't original research. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Recent changes==
This is really very good. Two queries:
(1)"Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It usually does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere, though it might in some circumstances."
I added "usually" and "though it might in some circumstances," though arguably that makes the second sentence contradict the first, so it's not ideal. The reason I added it is that the arbcom, in their August/Sept decision, ruled that the LaRouche editors were engaged in original research when they quoted from LaRouche's original research. The way our sentence above stood originally, they would have been allowed to do that because the research was not theirs, though they would have fallen at the reputable-publication hurdle. Do we want to rely exclusively on that second hurdle to stop editing like that, or do we also want to be able to use the term "original research" to describe Wikipedia editors lifting badly done original research from outside sources?
(2) "For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in a Socialist Workers' Party magazine to publish a statement about President Bush being gay. However, if that same claim was in ''The New York Times'', then Wikipedia could refer to it (and probably also to its claimed sources). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself."
I'm not sure what's meant by "and probably also to its claimed source" in the second sentence. Do we mean if the New York Times published a story that Bush was gay, and had obtained that story from the Socialist Workers' Party magazine, we could then refer to the SWP? We could, but I wonder if that's worth pointing out, because we can refer to anything that's in the New York Times. But perhaps I've misunderstood. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 02:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
==Examples too broad; major change==
For the record if nothing else, I'll repeat (but for the first time on this page) my disagreement with the following: "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"."
It's too broad, in my view. I know [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] disagrees. I don't want to make a big deal out of this particular point.
But I do think that these changes are major. And whether I agree with them or not, I think they should be brought to the attention of the wider community. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 04:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Hi Maurreen, I've put the word out to a few people to stop by and read it, and there's also been a lot of talk on the list recently about the issue of original research and what's understood by it. Let me know if you'd like me to find the link for you so you can read through the archives (I'll get the subject headers and dates for you too so you don't have to pore through everything). [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 06:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks, Slim. You don't need to look it up in the archives. I was thinking more like at some point, it could be pointed out at RFC or the Village Pump or both.
::I haven't Wikipeding much lately or kept up with the changes. Other things going on right now. Ciao. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==New theories==
I think the problem with how it's worded now is that what's not wanted are not new theories as such, but just new theories invented by Wikipedians! And you already covered that in the previous par. It's slightly misleading as it stands. I definitely think you could tweak it to ensure that there's a clear understanding that Jimbo didn't want to see a novel narrative on ''our part'' not a novel narrative per se! If some prof prints the quantum theory of elephants next week, we want to cover it, no?[[User:Dr Zen|Dr Zen]] 07:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, reading further, I think you should tone down the whole approach to theories. You could arguably ban any deep discussion of intelligent design because it has not been peer reviewed. This is rather contradicted later when you say that theories with few adherents can be included!
Of course, this is one of those concepts where the thrust is very clear, and we mostly know it when we see it, but putting it into precise, legalistic terms is a lot more difficult. [[User:Dr Zen|Dr Zen]] 07:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:As you say, the emphasis is on "not previously published" rather than new, and by and large that does mean we're talking about original research carried out by Wikipedians, which is not allowed. But it will also cover LaRouche-type situations, where an external group is basically inventing material (theories, purported facts) and publishing them: but because the publications aren't reputable/credible/authoritative (take your pick), we discount them, and treat those claims as though they are unpublished. So perhaps we should replace "new" with "unpublished." You're right: the thrust is clear, but just try writing it down! ;-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 22:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
::"Unpublished" is better. I think the key thing with the larouchian stuff is it is disreputable, so maybe we need to say more about what is disreputable. One thing we might want to add is that propaganda does not constitute a reputable secondary source, but can be used as a primary source describing the views of its author. ? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]]
:::Yes, good idea: the National Front's website can be used as a source to describe the National Front's views where the story or section is about the National Front. It could not be used as a source in a story about Jews or, indeed, anything else. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 22:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
==Apple Pie==
I can see the reference to the [[apple pie]] article was introduced after a lot of discussion but, to someone looking at this page for the first time, the reference does look rather bizarre! I expect it is an echo of the great apple pie controversy. Anyway, is it true that the apple pie article is based entirely on primary sources? For example, it tells us what the ''Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings'' has to say on the subject. Even if the primary source claim is right, to me it really doesn't shed any light on the matter. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] 16:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I am not sure I follow you. The policy claims that articles need to consult secondary sources. This is true for most articles, but there are some exceptions, articles where only primary sources suffice and don't violate the policy. Is it that you do not think this point is clear, or that you do not think "Apple Pie" is the best example? If the former, can you suggest clearer wording? If the latter, can you suggest better examples? Thanks, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Thank you for your remarks and I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Taking your questions in turn. The "no analytic ... claims" if an article is "based entirely on primary sources" is clear but puzzling. Surely if in an article I insert something based on a secondary source it does not affect what claims I may make eleswhere in the same article based on primary sources? I suppose "Apple Pie" is a possible example (but unfortunate in that I think it is at least partially based on secondary sources though these parts may have been added after "No research" was redrafted). As it is it seems rather arbitrary. I actually read through "Apple Pie" trying to see what was especially acceptable about it despite its reputed lack of secondary sources. I was being naïve! For something like a recipe for apple pie it may be entirely unknowable whether one is referring to a primary or a secondary source. However, the "current events" example is a good one and I think is helpful. I'll see if I can suggest a redraft (I'd post it in "talk" first) but I may not manage! [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] 13:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=="Appropriate to the subject"==
I do not see the words "appropriate to the subject" anywhere in the drafts or any discourse. Without this overarching guide, these rules about "original research" are a recipe for needless interference and groundless petty tyrannies. Not all Wikipedia entries need to be footnoted to a single standard.
Examples: [[Woody Woodpecker]] is a sensible report, currently without any documentation, apparently based on a good deal of perceptive understanding that would pass as "original research" if one were inclined to fault it. The original research embodied in [[Necktie#Ties as signs of membership]] is a contribution that should not be disallowed on petty grounds.
In the studies of [[mythology]] and [[art history]], many sensible mainstream remarks are not susceptible to "proof." Look at [[Baroque]] and [[Rococo]] for examples. Aspects of Rococo that are pointed out in Francois Boucher's painting are either useful to the reader, or they are pretentious and confusing. The image is the equivalent of a cited source. Under rules that offer no flexibility,and which may not be "appropriate to the subject," many articles might be reduced to a mere tissue of cited quotations.
Take a tip from the way the expression "NPOV" has so consistently been reduced to a club to justify users' own POV, and retain some ''explicit'' flexibility in this area.
Two excellent rules for us self-important Wikipedians: ''Avoid unnecessary interference'' and ''Keep the reader firmly in mind.'' --[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 05:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Wetman, I agree with the need for flexibility, but I disagree that it ought to be explicit, because some editors will take advantage. I also agree with your other two principles, and very much with the last one. Regarding your point that some subjects are not susceptible to proof, we don't require proof. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We require that the material, if challenged or likely to be challenged, be referenced to a credible publication. That doesn't mean that every sentence needs a reference. It means that any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor. If this were not the rule, we could all just be making things up. It also means that editors should use their commonsense and act like professional researchers, and not try to "get away with" unreferenced editing when no-one's watching what they're doing. They should anticipate future challenges and provide references for edits ''most likely to be challenged''. Most sentences in most articles are not likely to be challenged, so no article will end up as a "tissue of cited quotations." As you say, keep the reader firmly in mind. The reader may want to verify what we've written. We should make it easy for them to do that, without going to extremes, of course. This is how we will build up a reputation for being reliable. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 05:41, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
:"Appropriate to the subject" makes sense to me, but I'm not sure where it would go. [[User:Maurreen|Maurreen]] 07:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to adding something on "appropriateness" but the very first paragraph states that research might be excluded if it is not appropriate, so doesn't that make it implicitly clear that research must be "appropriate?" Also, I don't see how Wetman's objections have anything to do with appropriateness. If I understand Wetman's concerns -- well, I think the policy as written ''does'' address them explicitly:
:In some cases, where Wikipedia articles make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, Wikipedia articles may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events).
Doesn't this make it clear that not all articles need to follow this policy strictly? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I think most readers will understand that documented sources appropriate to some articles would be preposterously pretentious in other. I contend that ''wit'' is even appropriate in some articles: but see [[Talk:Appositive]]! All too often, challenges oppugning "original research" are based on the challenger's ignorance in the particular area. See a good recently-handled case in point at [[Talk:Theophoric names]]. An unnecessarily owlish former page heading ''Theophory'' may have been part of the problem, doubtless. The idea that "any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor" offers a grim future for all of us. And still there is to be no explicit call for flexibility and common sense because "some editors will take advantage." There are ''many'' ways some editors will take advantage: look at the current use of labels. --[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 03:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Wetman, how would you want to express the flexibility issue? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 07:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
I think most editors understand that ''all'' policies must be applied flexibly ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines see the introduction to policies and guidelines]). I just do not understand what Wetman is objecting to or asking for. He writes:
:All too often, challenges oppugning "original research" are based on the challenger's ignorance in the particular area.
And yes, I know that this happens a lot and sometimes an editor might find it irritating. But so what? I firmly believe that this is a good thing in most cases -- an ignorant editor poses what I myself think is a stupid question -- but it makes me realize that many readers will probably ask the same question, and so it needs to be addressed, by adding more information about the sources. The end result is, the article is improved. This is what our process is all about. And in the case of trolls, whose demands and challenges about the sources soon reveal themselves to be based not on a good-faith desire to improve the article, but rather a POV warrior or simply someone who wants to throw a wrench into our process, well, this is easy too: ignore this persons challenges, revert his or her changes, and if they continue seek redress from the community. My point is, in neither case do I see anything that warrents a change to this policy.
Wetman also states:
:The idea that "any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor"
Now, Wetman, you put this in quotation marks as if you are quoting this policy. But where on earth does it actually say this? Nowhere! The policy simply does not say this. So how do we respond when you insist that any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor? We tell you this: please read the policy. Your interpretation of the policy is wrong. And Wetman, if you delete a sentence just because that sentence has no reference -- without following the policy and making sure all the conditions that call for a citation apply -- well, we will revert your change. If I am working on an article and someone deletes a sentence just because there is no citation, I will revert that editor. We have policies for a reason, they provide a common point of reference for all editors. You ae not allowed to create your own policy, "any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor." That isn't what our policies call for, and you can't get away with it. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 18:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Wetman, ''please, please'' do not invent misleading quotes that misrepresent our policy, it can only confuse newbies. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 18:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I think Wetman may have been quoting me from this talk page. I would urge critics of this policy to read it carefully, because it seems to me that it's very clear. No one is saying that "the sun will rise tomorrow" needs a reference, and that without one it may be removed. But "Doctors have confirmed that Yasser Arafat died of AIDS" does need one, and if the editor who makes that edit doesn't supply a reference, it can and should be removed immediately. It's mostly a question of commonsense. If you're challenged, you must supply a reference. If you make an edit that is likely to be challenged, supply a reference. Don't add guesswork to articles, your own original research, things you think you've heard somewhere, or things you can't provide a reference for. Don't write personal essays. When you do provide a reference, don't use dodgy websites or other dubious publications. That's really all the policy says. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 14:24, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well, sure Slim, but you yourself were not quoting policy, and Wetman shouldn't have taken it that way. Moreover, you made it very clear that ediotrs need to use common sense and that this approach should be reserved for highly controversial claim More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite.s -- two conditions ''that Wetman now seems to think s/he is proposing''. It's just my impression that Wetman is not reading anything carefully. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 19:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:In fairness to Wetman, I think his concerns about appropriateness are well founded if you read the guidance as it stands. The guidance on citing sources is positively draconian. e.g: "More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite." Authorative references for what I wonder? The best practise in Wikipedia and academia is to cite appropriately, e.g. one needs to provide citations for contestable claims. In view of this, I've added the following to the intro. (I've italicised the changes).
:"It is very important to cite sources ''appropriately'', so that readers can verify any ''contestable'' claims made in the article." :[[User:ChrisG|ChrisG]] 21:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Good edit, Chris. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 00:00, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
:Further comment to explain revert to myself. Citing sources must be appropriate, otherwise a person would have to put a reference for every claim in an article, we wouldn't be able to move for the footnotes. In practise in Wikipedia we ask people to cite appropriately any contestable claim. What constitutes a contestable claim is not something you can always know in advance, so often you would have cite a source for a specific claim in response to someone choosing to contest something. If you can't find an appropriate source, then the other contributor is within their rights to remove the claim. :[[User:ChrisG|ChrisG]] 00:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Right. The point of this part of the policy is simply to make clear that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who inserted the claim that's being questioned. We don't want readers and editors to be left wondering what the truth is regarding such-and-such, and having to search around for a source themselves. Any editor (and any reader) should be able to request a reference of the person who inserted the material and that person must supply one, or risk having the material deleted. This applies to any material, but in reality most edits will not, in fact, be contested. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 00:26, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed. And this is also why I suggest 'contestable' claim rather than 'contested' claims. Some claims in certain subject areas will obviously require referencing from the get go. But for large parts of Wikipedia referencing isn't really necessary; because the debate is not so 'political' and/or 'academic'. Though again if you want to make a pop culture article featured you need to reference far more stringently, which again brings us round to appropriateness. :[[User:ChrisG|ChrisG]] 01:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::The way I judge appropriateness when I'm editing is by asking myself: if I were the reader, would I want to know where this information had come from, either because I might be suspicious of it, or very interested in it. And that question is going through my mind the whole time I'm writing. (That's over and above citing sources for reasons of intellectual honesty, which is a given.) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 01:09, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
==An example of officious interference==
At [[Talk:Capitalism]] today, the following notice appeared:
:"I removed this sentence:
::The first use of the word "capitalism" in English is by [[William Makepeace Thackeray|Thackeray]] in [[1854]], by which he meant having ownership of capital.
:because it is unverifiable. Let's have a proper citation, and a fuller paraphrase, if not an actual quote."
We are going to be seeing a rash of text removed from Wikipedia as undocumented "original research" or "unverifiable" in the near future. Let us remember that "first citations" of English usage are reported in ''[[OED]]''. Genuine concern might be better expressed by providing the ''OED'' citation, or simply asking for it. Removing text in this fashion is officious: it benefits neither Wikipedia nor the ''reader''—a person not often considered in discussions on this page. Let us be sure that our censorship is not based on our ignorance.--[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 23:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:That's exactly the kind of sentence that needs a reference. However you found out about it, it's surely worth supplying that reference, so the readers and other editors (who are readers too, don't forget) can verify it easily. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 00:04, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
::Bear in mind, not everything can be linked to on the Internet. Sometimes you need to go to a [[library]].--[[User:Benapgar|Ben]] 06:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My point, perfectly clearly made, is that genuine concern might have been better expressed by providing the ''OED'' citation, rather than by officiously removing the offending sentence. As [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] stated previously, "any sentence for which no reference can be found may be removed by any editor." It may not be policy, yet, but it is an increasing practice among some Wikipedians, as my example demonstrates. Common sense is as rare as good manners. --[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 04:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Wetman mentions good manners, and I suspect he is pissed off at me because I removed this passage in question (and perhaps because of what I wrote above, to which he has not responded). What Wetman fails to provide is the context: the last month or so there has been some heated debate over "the definitions of capitalism." My concern is two-fold. First, I am not quite sure Thackeray means "having ownership of capital." Wetman writes "Genuine concern might be better expressed by providing the ''OED'' citation" and I am not sure what he means -- if I ''knew'' the citation obviously, I would have put it in myself. As a matter of fact, I suspected that the cite comes from ''The Newcomes'' except Thackeray doesn't actually define the word there. So I thought, perhaps it comes from some other essay Thackaray wrote. Bette for whoever put this in to provide the citation. But this is my whole point. Wetman thinks there is something wrong with my having taken the passage out. The problem is ''not'' my having taken it out, the problem is someone put it in without any source at all. By the way, OED is the source only for the claim "first use" which I am not challenging. The real source for this is ''The Newcomes.'' It is editors who put such information in without any sources or citations who are doing the real damage, not I. When people put stuff like this in without any citation, '''no one''' can verify it, '''no one''' can look for the passage to see if this is indeed what Thackeray meant. All of us are aware of the way urban legends and myths gain a hold in the popular imagination (an analogous example: there are still many people who thought that in Columbus's day people thought the world is flat. Try to imagine how widespread this claim would be today if whenever it was mentioned the source was provided!). I did not delete the passage, I removed it to the talk section until someone can fix it. This has been common practice at Wikipedia since I have been here. This is not "interferance" and there is nothing "officious" about it. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::People who have been active in reworking this policy are attempting to effect a shift in the culture of Wikipedia. Up until now NOR has been enforced in a sloppy and weak fashion, if at all. People just need to learn to provide sources when they add to an article. I really do not see why whoever wrote this passage could not minimally have written: The word "capitalism" first appears in Thackeray's novel ''The Newcomes'', published in 1954. How hard is this? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wetman, I really don't think good editors like yourself have anything to worry about regarding this policy. No one wants to turn articles into lists of citations or quotations, or keep interesting edits out of articles. One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it can be a little bit quirky, which is what makes it interesting. It's a question of ensuring accuracy and verifiability too, and I believe we can have them all. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 03:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
== Attempts to refute a position ==
The existing No original research guidelines are fairly clear that original attempts to refute a given position in an article are "original research", yet I don't see that as clearly here. In my experience one of the more significant problems of original research are editors who see a position in an article they don't like, and therefore come up with an argument to refute it. I think we need to make it clear that refutations must also come from published sources, and not just arguments people think up on their own. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 20:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: Quite recently - four months ago - someone seems to have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=8240686&oldid=8092418 added], with little if any previous discussion, that something is original research if "it purports to refute another idea". This is far too vaguely phrased, and - sure enough - is being used exactly contrary to the No original research policy: to prevent criticism of claims too bizarre to have attracted any significant quotable criticism. By this dictum as currently phrased, I could find a quote of someone saying any conspiracy theory too extreme or weird to easily find a quote dismissing - eg, Burton's concept of a "[[Sotadic zone]]" - and remove any efforts to point out facts that cast light on its implausibilities or flaws on the grounds that they were banned by this policy. This needs to be removed. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 20:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Hi Mustafaa, every part of the draft of this policy was discussed for months, so nothing is there that was just edited in by one person and not talked about. What that phrase means is that editors are not allowed to make cases of their own in order to refute a position. They are only allowed to report the refutations or criticisms of others. For example, an editor recently put forward a refutation of special relativity, and when it was checked by an editor with a PhD in physics, it was found to be quite an interesting refutation; but because it had not been published anywhere, it was not allowed to be edited into the article. So in theory you are right: you could find a crank theory that no one has bothered to dismiss, and you could edit it into Wikipedia without criticism. However, in practice, there would be very few, if any, examples of this, because anything so crankish that no published criticism of it exists, will almost certainly not have been put forward in a credible publication, and therefore would be ineligible for entry for that reason alone. If you did find a crankish, uncriticized theory in a credible publication, then it would still be the case that, in the interests of NPOV, other opposing theories about the same subject could be put forward. NOR and NPOV need to be read together as they're the two core policies and they're complementary. What editors are not allowed to do is to write personal essays, searching out facts and constructing arguments ''of their own''. When you wrote above that this is being used exactly contrary to NOR, did you have a specific example in mind? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 21:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::Discussed where? Can you provide a link? The specific crank theory I was thinking of is [[Yehuda Bauer]]'s claim that opposition to the existence of the state of Malaysia is anti-Malay - an idea so ridiculous and counterfactual that no one, so far as I know, has ever attempted to refute it or even noticed it, yet one that has been inserted as a quote into [[Arab-Israeli conflict]] (an article, incidentally, whose length would be about halved if this ridiculously excessive policy were followed strictly.) - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 22:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::You mean this: "Yehuda Bauer, for example, says that: "If you advocate the abolition of Israel ... that means in fact that you're against the people who live there. If you are, for example, against the existence of Malaysia, you are anti-Malay. If you are against the existence of Israel, you are anti-Jewish." (As this is quote, it needs a citation by the way.) This is Bauer's argument. If you were to mount an argument against this — ''an argument of your own'' — you would be carrying out original research. If you report Bauer's argument, you have to report someone else's argument against him. Of course, it need not be a published argument specifically addressing what Bauer wrote. It can be a published argument that addresses an argument ''like Bauer's'' that was made by someone else. You would have to stick very closely to that type of argument though, and not extend it to bring in other arguments you felt you could use. The key is this: as soon as you find yourself looking around for material ''with which to build a case'', you're probably doing original research. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 22:52, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
-----
I agree completely with Mustafaa — published arguments are sufficient, all my articles are written in this way, and I am confident they meet scholarly standards. But as for his mistaken impression of Yehuda Bauer (a product of the incomplete and out of context quote above), see my correction at [[Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict#Revisited]]. [[User:El C|El_C]] 11:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-----
::: Arguing speculatively against it might be original research. Pointing out known and citable examples that disprove a claim, and noting the fact that they do disprove a claim, is not "original research" and should not be classed as such; yet the current wording could be, and sometimes is, interpreted to allow such an absurd classification. I can find no authoritative source anywhere to deny that President Bush visited Mars last weekend; if I find a conspiracy theorist who believes that, is it "original research" to point out that this is physically impossible? - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 23:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, it would be original research for you to point out that Bush visiting Mars is physically impossible. But note (a) you would not find that claim in a credible publication and therefore it wouldn't be in the article anyway; and (b) if you did find it in a credible publication (e.g. the New York Times), then they would have pointed out that it's impossible, so then you could attribute it. I can't think what a "known and citable example that disproves" Bauer's argument would be, because it's an ''argument'', and so you can't "disprove" it as such. Can you say what it is that you want to say about Bauer's argument? If I had an example to work with, I could perhaps more clearly explain this. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 23:15, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree; it would not be original research to point out that Bush visiting Mars is physically impossible, and more to the point it would be crippling to Wikipedia to impose a taboo on saying such a thing. I think we may need more people's views on this... I note that you still haven't given a link to wherever this discussion took place (mailing list, perhaps?) (But since you ask, the immediate example is that ''of course'' one can be against the existence of Malaysia without being anti-Malay. One can think that it should be broken up (say, into its separate emirates), that it should be incorporated into a larger state ("Pan-Malayo-Polynesia", maybe?), or even that it should be incorporated into China or Thailand without having anything against the Malay population. It's honestly harder to imagine why he would think this than why it's wrong.) - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 23:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:The Bush example is not a real one, so take my answer with a pinch of salt. It's better to stick to actual examples so we don't go off on tangents. The discussions about this page took place on the draft talk page, which I'll have to look for. But you see you're saying "of course," Bauer's just wrong. That's ''you'' arguing, and that's exactly what we're not allowed to do. We can't use our own deduction, or our own opinions. I take your point: that there are times when things are so obviously right or wrong that it's absurd to call for sources. But I don't agree that the Bauer example is one of those. I'd also guess that if you looked hard enough, some journalist or commentator somewhere ''will'' have published against that kind of argument, and it's just a question of finding it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 23:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry, it was at the top of this page, but I didn't see it. You can find the archives here [[Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite)]]. Best, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 23:49, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Judging by this, it looks to me like this particular part of the policy has scarcely been discussed at all, let alone a consensus established. There's a post introducing it (Eclecticology, 3 Dec.) followed soon after by a post arguing against it (Wetman 6 Dec.) and much later by Jayjg's post arguing for it. I'm inclined to suggest that this should be removed pending further discussion. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 00:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:It's also been discussed by e-mail, and in various forms on the mailing list. It would be better not to remove it, though by all means start up the discussion here. [[User:Jayjg]] should be invited to join in as he has a very strong grasp of what counts as original research; as does [[User:Slrubenstein]]: he was also involved throughout the draft discussions, but I believe he's away for a few days. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 00:54, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
::Well, I wasn't notified, but I finally discovered it. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 03:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't see it on the mailing list - do you mean Wikipedia or Wiki-EN? - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 01:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:In general reply to SlimVirgin and Mustafaa, perhaps part of the difficulty is that, of the six types of item to be excluded, all are “new” or “introduces” except the refute item. Also, “purports” is rather pejorative. I suggest changing “it purports to refute another idea” to “it introduces an original argument refuting another idea”. Also, although material cannot be maintained unless it is from a reputable source, I think it would be helpful to change the second point of the next paragraph “reported in newspapers or news stories” to “reported in a reputable newspaper”. I also suggest deleting “independently”. Does this mean independently of the editor? . This requirement does not seem to apply elsewhere. Is it permissible to cite one’s own peer-reviewed publications? [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] 12:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::"It introduces an original argument refuting another idea..." would certainly be superior to the current wording, insofar as it explicitly does not cover non-original arguments, which the current wording, strictly speaking, does. My worry is that this wording might still be (mis?)interpreted as banning stuff like writing that (to take a hypothetical example) "[[Baron Von Munchausen]] claims to have seen a herd of wild [[orangutan]]s on an iceberg in Greenland, although orangutans are unable to survive at temperatures below zero." (Imagine the potential rewrite: "[[Baron Von Munchausen]] claims to have seen a herd of wild [[orangutan]]s on an iceberg in Greenland. Biologists have not commented on his claim. The ''Home Manual of Orangutan Care'' claims that orangutans are unable to survive at temperatures below zero."!) - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 03:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::If an argument is truly "non-original" then it will be cited somewhere, by definition. And "[[Baron Von Munchausen]] claims to have seen a herd of wild [[orangutan]]s on an iceberg in Greenland; the ''Home Manual of Orangutan Care'' notes that orangutans are unable to survive at temperatures below zero." is far superior to the first version. BTW, biologists will undoubtedly have commented on this somewhere as well. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 03:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::: It is not true that "if an argument is truly "non-original" then it will be cited somewhere." If you tell any biologist that you saw "a herd of wild [[orangutan]]s on an iceberg in Greenland", they will tell you exactly why this is impossible, which makes that argument distinctly non-original (and certainly worthy of inclusion here) - but I guarantee you can find no citation to literally say "it is impossible to find a herd of wild [[orangutan]]s on an iceberg in Greenland". "[[Baron Von Munchausen]] claims to have seen a herd of wild [[orangutan]]s on an iceberg in Greenland; the ''Home Manual of Orangutan Care'' notes that orangutans are unable to survive at temperatures below zero." is far inferior to the first version, stylistically and by massively understating the objection's correctness by failing to make it clear that any sensible observer, not just the HMOC, knows this is impossible. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 05:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::Biologists will undoubtedly have commented on the temperatures at which an orangutan can exist; a simple mention of that fact, with a footnote, or any other reasonable source, takes care of the problem, and is again vastly superior to the uncited argument in the first version. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 07:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::: To the contrary. When an argument's correctness is self-evident, uncited is preferable to cited. If someone cites the claim that ~~p => p, the only possible conclusion would be that they know no symbolic logic whatsoever. If someone cites the claim that orangutans can't survive in Greenland, the only possible conclusion would be that they know no biology whatsoever. There is a limit past which citation makes an article look uninformed, rather than improving it. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 08:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Uncontroversial facts generally do not require citation; as soon as reasonable controversy is raised, NPOV requires citation. The Baron von Munchausen example is a strawman argument, since extreme minority views need not be cited (and thus no refutation is required). However, if the view that orangutans can live in Greenland does indeed become more widely held, then it must be cited, and countering views must be presented. And if it does indeed become more widely held, rest assured there will be plenty of biologists who respond to the belief and who can be cited to counter it. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 09:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
==NPOV and No original research==
:::::::: As soon as reasonable controversy about the argument's ''accuracy'' is raised, NPOV requires citation. When the only controversy is over whether the argument constitutes original research or not, NPOV does not require citation. As to the allegation that this is a straw man argument, I selected [[Baron Munchhausen]] deliberately, although I mislinked him - he is certainly notable, but do you know of any scientists who have bothered to refute his claims? - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 10:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mustafaa, I don't know where you get the idea that NPOV requires citation when accuracy is challenged, but NPOV does not require citation when OR is alleged. Any edit that is challenged, on any ground whatsoever, requires a credible citation. If no credible citation can be found, there's probably something wrong with the edit: that is, it's false, and/or original research, and/or a tiny-minority position that should not be mentioned. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:47, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::If the controversy is about an argument's ''accuracy'', the NPOV demandes citation. If the controversy is about an argument's ''originality'', then NOR demands citation. And if the argument itself is an extreme minority opinion, then it need not be mentioned at all, except perhaps in an article about the author of the argument. Munchhausen is notable (as a liar), but his extreme minority opinions on all sorts of topics are not. They can be cited in the article about him, but they need (and in fact should) not be cited in article about Orangutans or Greenland, as the NPOV policy makes clear. As SlimVirgin has pointed out before, NOR works in conjunction with NPOV and Cite your sources. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::: Taking the Baron Munchhausen hypothetical above, I am assuming that the Baron's alleged statement about what he saw would be removed from the [[Greenland]] and [[Orangutan]] articles without the need to add a sourced statement in the article itself, correct? But in the [[Baron Munchhausen]] article, his statement and the statement from the ''Home Manual of Orangutan Care'' would both remain in the article, because the Baron's statement, although factually untrue, says something about the Baron's honesty/sanity/etc. However, adding a further, unsourced sentence saying "The Baron was insane when he made the claim of seeing orangutans in Greenland" could be prohibited as original research, correct? [[User:JimCollaborator|'''Jim<sup>Collaborator</sup>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:JimCollaborator|«''talk''»]]</sup> 10:57, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
::::::: Absolutely, because all sorts of other explanations for his claim (lying, really bad eyesight, etc.) could be envisaged. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 11:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, that's right. A more typical case of original research in the Munchausen article would be one created by his defenders "e.g. The Baron did not actually make this claim, but his detractors later attributed it to him"; in my experience original research typically comes about when someone sees an argument they don't like, and feels a need to "defend" against it. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think in general assumptions about users knowledge should be avoided, and that this is supported by [[Wikipedia:Explain jargon]]. Many articles already contain basic information supported by one unobtrusive citation at the end of the paragraph. Many contributors feel Wikipedia's reputation rest on citation, and hope for a day when all facts are supported by multiple references. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 08:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: Explaining what you're saying is certainly important, but is a totally separate issue from citing it. You wouldn't footnote a claim as tautologous as ~~p => p, or cite it as "according to Hofstadter 1980"; rather, you put a good introduction to symbolic logic in the bibliography and leave tracking down the enormous list of people who have said that ~~p => p to the reader, should he or she be bored enough. Conversely, you wouldn't footnote or cite the claim that <nowiki>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p => p</nowiki> (an utterly trivial corollary of the former); rather, again, you'd put a good introduction to symbolic logic in the bibliography and leave it as an exercise for the reader. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 09:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::It ought to be cited as Hofstadter 1980, if the claim was first made by Hofstadter; otherwise not. It's not clear what you're saying here, except that citation gone wild is a bad thing, and everyone agrees with that. (The symbol you're using by the way is for implication; for a tautology, it would be better to use equivalence <=> .) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to Jayjg for bringing this new discussion to my attention. The whole point of the purported refutation clause had to do with introducing arguments that don't need to be made. Thus if Bauer '''claims''' that a united Malaysia is anti-Malay, or if the ''National Enquirer'' '''claims''' that George W. Bush was abducted by Martians during an airforce training flight, or if Baron Munchausen '''claims''' that he saw Orang-Utans in Greenland these are all merely '''claimns''' that do not require refutation. The only point that can be challenged is whether the sources if fact made those claims. ''National Enquirer'' has been published for many years, and it is not up to the person challenging the claim to go through every issue of the publication to not find something that is not there. It would be the duty of the person introducing the statement to specify the page in a particular issue where the claim is made.
Any attempt to disprove these things only appears or "purports" to disprove them. More often, it is only excess verbiage that further confuses the issue. One needs to distinguish between "Baron Munchausen claims that he saw Orang-Utans in Greenland," and "There are Orang-Utans in Greenland." Only the latter needs to be addressed on a substantive level. The kind of argument under discussion is common in areas relating to what some call "pseudoscience", where a great deal of zeal is applied by opponents refuting claims that were never made. If a seer '''claims''' to have communicated with your grandmother's spirit you have no way to prove or disprove that claim by the application of logic. Attempting to do either is futile. [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 19:20, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
== Scientific Data Presentation vs. No Original Research ==
Scientific articles on Wikipedia benefit from being able to show the actual data. So for a while now, I have been donating figures to Wikipedia that replot scientific data from published sources. See: [[User:Dragons flight/Images]].
However, data selection and presentation is something of an art, and data by itself can call for conclusions. In making this post, I am looking for some community feedback regarding how the policy of [[Wikipedia:no original research|no original research]] relates the preparation of scientific figures.
I am assuming that merely replotting and compositing someone else's data (e.g. [[:Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png]]) would never qualify as original research, however there are a number of cases that are more ambiguous than that.
In order to offer the best possible presentation, I have sometimes been creating comparisons among data that may not exist in quite the same form in the research literature (e.g. [[:Image:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png]]) In some cases, I have been scaling or smoothing the data to make comparisons possible. I believe that all of these manipulations are reasonable and follow well established principles, however, if I am the first one to smooth the data in a particular way or make a particular comparison, then one might argue that it is original research.
Of potentially greater concern is the presentation of scientific data when the data itself calls for a conclusion (e.g. [[:Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png]]). I've been fairly careful to not draw any conclusions from any of the plots I have made that can't be supported by other published research (though in some cases better documentation of supporting material is probably appropriate), but would it be a problem in Wikipedia, to say that X data supports the conclusions of Y even if neither X or Y actually chose to point out the connection?
Of the plots I have prepared probably the most problematic (on several levels) is [[:Image:Holocene Temperature Variations.png]]. First I am combining data in a way that is strightforward, but has never been done before for this particular set of data, and then I am saying that the average thereof supports the conclusions others have made about temperature changes during the [[Holocene]]. Even if you agree that it is okay to say that X data supports the conclusions of Y, I can understand someone who might still have a problem with allowing that the average of X1, X2, X3, etc supports the conclusions of Y is an appropriate statement.
Since I am asking for community feedback, there is a related, but somewhat off topic issue on which I would also appreciate feedback. All of the images I have produced are used in articles on Wikipedia, but I have also chosen to use the Image description pages themselves to not only document the data used and describe the construction of the figure, but also to provide some summary of what it means. One user has objected to me, perhaps paradoxically, that the [[Wikipedia:image description page|image description page]] should not be used for extended description and interpretation. In essence saying that those details should only be given in the main namespace. Personally, I feel that since the Image namespace is dedicated to the images that this is the appropriate place for any extended description or explanation of images that might be useful.
Thanks in advance for any guidance.
[[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 21:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
:The crucial test is this: can your replotting of data be used to suggest or confirm a new synthetic or analytic claim, interpretation, or explanation? If the answer is no, I think you have strong grounds for including the data. If the answer is yes, then you should represent the data as it is plotted in whatever source you are drawing on. In the case of Holocene temperature, I don't think it is enough to say that your presentation of the data supports existing conclusions. If you are the first person to use this data in this way to support the conclusions, well, this is exactly the kind of argument that can be published in a peer-reviewed journal mdash; but not here. If others have used the same average to support the conclusions mdash; in other words, if all you are doing is making aesthetic changes to the way the data is being presented – then I think you can add this data to Wikipedia. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Are we offending someone? ==
"If you have a great idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."
I'm not sure...this doesn't offend. --[[User:VKokielov|VKokielov]] 07:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I don't think it is offensive. It is a constructive suggestion for those who might feel frustrated by this policy. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 14:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Steve is absolutely correct. Indeed, this is the same advice that one is given in any field, for any purpose. People who intend to "contribute" to the corpus of mankind's knowledge solely by publishing their own hypotheses on websites are trolls or cranks. No serious and sincere academic, scientist or scholar has a problem with being told that they should publish in a journal. [[User:RK|RK]] 14:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
:I see no reason why it would offend, or why it would be relevant even if it did. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 16:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Perhaps VKokielov could say more about why it might be offensive. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 16:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
:::I think I'm letting my emotion get the best of me again. This "you" is about the average Wikipedia reader, no? And the one whom the entire expose is to teach? It looks like poking fun, no less poking fun than would be to tell whomever grumbles about the prices of stamps that he should become president. --[[User:VKokielov|VKokielov]] 22:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::This was written, I believe, with editors in mind who in the past have attempted to introduce new scientific theories into Wikipedia, theories they have developed, but which haven't gone through peer review. I see what you mean, though: that someone might interpret it as sarcasm. Perhaps it should be reworded slightly. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 01:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
:In fact, I think it is written very clearly to address itself ''not'' to the "average" Wikipedia editor but to those ''specifically'' who have developed scientific theories (and we certainly want these people contributing to Wikipedia too, right?). [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Believe me, they're the last ones to need us to tell them what to do. --[[User:VKokielov|VKokielov]] 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::The ''great'' could be seen as a bit patronizing — what about those ideas which are WP-worthy in notability but are far from great and are, in fact, lame(!)? Otherwise, it's a constructive advice that I offer routinely. [[User:El C|El_C]] 21:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
==Grocery-story analogy==
Hi Vkokielov, I've partially reverted the changes you made. I've left your addition to the intro, which I didn't mind, though others may disagree, as follows:
<blockquote>In order to become known as a reliable source of information, Wikipedia has to impose this restriction on its content. Another way to consider it: what do you expect from your grocery store? Your grocery store doesn't make anything: everything it sells to you, it buys from someone else. Now ask yourself: would you buy from your grocery store if you so much as ''suspected'' that what you were buying came from no one knows where? So, too, here at Wikipedia. It's an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable.</blockquote>
I've restored your deletion of the "if you have a great idea that should become part of" section, because I think it explains the position quite clearly, but I've deleted "great" because, as you and El C pointed out, it might be seen as patronizing or sarcastic. I also restored your deletion of the sentence saying we'd have to turn away Pulitzer-prize-level journalism or Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it here first, as that gets the point across well.
I deleted your grocery story/FDA analogy, which you had replaced the above with, as I felt it labored the point and that the analogy broke down in places, as follows:
<blockquote>If you ran a grocery store, how would you decide from whom to buy your food? Which questions would you ask Mr. Doe if he came to you and said he will sell you the same food you sell now for less than anyone from whom you would buy? If you have an original idea, Wikipedia cannot - and will not - publish it, unless it is good to eat. The only way to make sure it is good to eat is to send it through the [[Food and Drug Administration|FDA]] of original ideas - the professional publications. Now, of course not every food the FDA forbids will kill you; and so not every original idea which you can't publish is not worth publication. But it would be unfair to sell you beef from England just because [[mad cow disease]] doesn't happen very often. In other words, the fact that we exclude something does ''not'' necessarily mean that material is ''bad'' – Wikipedia is simply '''not the proper venue for it'''. We would have to turn away even [[Pulitzer Prize|Pulitzer]]-level journalism and [[Nobel Prize|Nobel]]-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia.</blockquote>
Others may disagree with me, so of course feel free to restore if that's the consensus. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 05:05, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
: Thank you. Don't expect me to argue. I'm not sure what I'm doing, editing a Wikipedia policy page. ...e...what '''am''' I doing, editing a policy page?!! ;) --[[User:VKokielov|VKokielov]] 06:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A chance to engage in original research, perhaps? Sorry, could'nt resist. :p [[User:El C|El_C]] 06:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, VKokielov. Well, I'm glad you said that and not me. ;-) Actually, we ''are'' allowed to edit policy pages, but the chances are high we'll be reverted unless it's a minor change. It's always best to argue these things out on talk pages first and get some kind of consensus. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 06:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
== An article about finding research? ==
How about an article that helps people find quality research for their article, especially in controversial areas? Like that Google Scholar is an amazing tool to find free online scientific papers? Or that blogs about particular subjects often summarize and explain that latest findings and studies in a particular field? Or that prior research is often summarized selectively by opponents in controversial areas (like gun control), so it is a good idea to read what the major opposing organizations present as evidence. [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 20:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Usenet as a secondary source==
Being bold, I just added a paragraph to the "what counts as a reputable publication?" discussing Usenet as a source. Lay on, Macduff, and damn'd be him that first cries, "Hold, enough!" [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 18:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
:Please don't be bold. This is a policy page and substantive changes have to be discussed here first. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
::I must say that I was expecting something more articulate and polite than simply hitting the "rollback" link. Or is that the sum of your argument? For the record, the paragraph that [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] so brilliantly refuted read:
::[[Usenet]] is an example of a source whose "reputability" is highly questionable. Most posters to Usenet are effectively anonymous, unaccountable, have unknown expertise, and often have opinions and beliefs outside the mainstream. However, other posters are well-known and reputable authorities in their fields, and the ability to correspond with them over an extended period of time is valuable. Accordingly, Usenet is no more or less useable as a source (not only as a primary source about itself, but also as a secondary source about ''any'' subject) than any other popular medium, provided the usual standards of verifiability are applied. [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 20:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
:I'll put up some argument when I have time. Just to make it clear: I don't, of course, object to Usenet as a primary source (as a source of information about itself), but I do object to it as a secondary source (as a source of information about someone or something else).
:Meanwhile, Slrubenstein has given me permission to post the following from him. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 20:56, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
::Are many editors trying to use usenet as an authoritative source? If so, perhaps we do need more explanation of the policy vis a vis usenet ... I think this may be a symptom of a bigger problem: people using other web-pages of other encyclopedias as sources. I see the value in comparing ourselves to other encyclopedias, but it seems to me patently absurd that one encyclopedia rely on another encyclopedia as a source. Similarly, it seems patently absurd for one web-page to use another web-page as a source. It is some kind of incest. Computer-ignorant though I really am, in the 10th grade I took data processing (learning BASIC) and the most important thing I learned from a very good teacher was "Garbage in - Garbage out." [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
I know nothing about Usenet, but I find it highly unlikely that anyone will run across a topic that has no sources outside of Usenet posts. To me, this makes the need for a specific policy on the use of Usenet citations less critical. Furthermore, I agree with Slrubenstein's comments above (if I understood them correctly): that maybe it's best for us to try to stay away from websites too much. [[User:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue>→Iñgōlemo←</font>]] [[User_talk:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue><sup>talk</font></sup>]] 21:39, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
:How about something like [[Pleasant Street Incline]]? Yeah, if I was in Boston and went to the State Transportation Library or the Boston Globe archives I could find primary sources. But I'm not in Boston and all I have is this knowledgable person posting on Usenet (as well as whatever else people have posted online - that PDF external link is very useful, but again could be argued to be unreliable). --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 21:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
:: How do you know that the information that can only be found on Usenet is reliable -- in short, how do you know some bored Usenetter isn't trolling you? If you can offer an objective procedure to determine the reliability of a given Usenet post (other than "I know it when I read it"), I'm happy to reconsider. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 23:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
:::And how do you know s/he's knowledgeable if you haven't found his/her claims confirmed elsewhere? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 23:34, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
::::The fundamental question should be whether there is any reason to doubt the veracity of the information? Is it asserting some sort of dubious theory or promoting a crackpot agenda? If not, then why is there any issue with using a Usenet source or any other sort of publicly accessible resource? The information is inherently verifiable, and if it contains any obvious inaccuracies, it will come out it in the wash, eventually. If you insist on having only reputable (by your standards) sources for every factual assertion before it can be included in an article, then most of Wikipedia would quite simply not be here. And if someone is basing an article on information from Usenet, wouldn't you rather have that clearly indicated so the reader can make their own judgements? I mean if you simply bar Usenet citations (or other internet sources that do not satisfy your criteria for reliability), then people will simply add information without providing any sources. I think it is a much clearer message to emphasize first to always cite sources, whatever they might be and secondarily to make it clear that some sources are less reliable than others and may be subject to greater scrutiny and criticism. I think that is all [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] was trying to do with his/her addition. While I'm not attached to any particular phrasing, I find the idea quite reasonable. {{User:Bkonrad/sig}} 01:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
:::::If there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the information then there is no need to supply a source, i.e. if it is common knowledge. Wikipedia is mostly built out of people writing what they know without backing it up with references. However, if a piece of information is questioned, then there is a need to provide a reputable source.
:::::Usenet would be a perfectly reasonable place to learn stuff; but it doesn't qualify as a reputable source to substantiate something if used as a reference. You might use a usenet post on the talk page to support an argument; but it wouldn't be authorative. If we used usenet posts as references we undermine our standards of referencing. :[[User:ChrisG|ChrisG]] 12:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Because I've been reading that newsgroup for several years, and I have never known rtspcc to post anything false. As I said, you're free to find better sources. But I'm not flying to Boston just to make you happy. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 16:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
::::: SPUI: I was asking for a general rule for Usenet, & you have given me a specific example. That doesn't answer my question, & doesn't tell me anything more than you trust what this particular Usenetter contributes.
::::: {{User:Bkonrad/sig}}, as I wrote on Wiki-EN, the problem I have with Usenet in general is that the onlydifference between performing research from Usenet queries & from asking questions over a beer or two is that the text of a Usenet answer can be verified. However, the intent of the text, & the credibility of its author are not easily determined: an answer can come from an expert or it can come from an ignorant dog (to allude to a famous cartoon). As unreliable as the Corporate Media & published books can be shown to be, at least everything that is published is reviewed at least once for content (& hopefully once for spelling & grammar), thus providing some bare minimum level of accuracy.
::::: Further, the rules of No Original Research as they currently read explicitly exclude personal communications -- the example given is what Stephen Hawkings might say over a beer; there is nothing in the current policy that explains why this would be different than drawing material from Usenet, which is an interactive medium of personal exchanges. If the consensus is to include Usenet as a citable source, then this part of the page should be changed.
::::: As for your point that if I "insist on having only reputable (by your standards) sources for every factual assertion before it can be included in an article, then most of Wikipedia would quite simply not be here", let me agree with you: most of Wikipedia needs better sourcing. (I thought that [[Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards]] was created to help address that.) But that is another issue.
::::: More to your point, I see the point of offering sources & citations as a gradual process: one person adds a statement for which there is no source; another alters it, but add a source; the next changes it again, but adds a better source; & still another changes it to the best possible source. In my eyes, the value between offering material that has no verifiable source & offering material that can only be verified from a Usenet source is minimal, & in some cases I'd sooner believe an unverified assertion to one that references some Usenet sources. The only real advantage I see to quoting a Usenet post might be to carefully side-step the problem of adding a personal opinion to a Wikipedia article -- but frequent reliance on this trick only weakens its use. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 19:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
::::::So you're saying that you'd rather I just didn't include the source? I'll ignore that bullshit. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 00:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
::::: Are you bothering to read anything I'm writing? This is twice where you have clearly misunderstood what I have written. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 03:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
::::::To llywrch, if you really are saying that it would be better for someone who makes an edit to an article based on information from Usenet to NOT cite that as their source, then I competely disagree with you. In practice, I agree that in general using Usenet as a source is pretty much the bottom of the barrel in terms of consistent reliability. However, I think it is a terrible mistake to pre-emptively bar it as a source. There is valuable information to be found in Usenet, although it is easy to miss because of the overwhelming volume of drek found there as well.
::::::I think there may be a bit of a realos/fundis division here between holding to unrealistic standards of ideological purity regarding citations and references and trying to work with the reality of the situation as it is. Wikipedia is a community work of volunteers, open to everyone, some with academic training and many more who care little for academic standards. I think the first hurdle is to promote a culture in which citing sources, whatever they may be, is expected. To my mind, sorting out the quality of references can only be done if references are provided. {{User:Bkonrad/sig}} 01:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
::::: As I mentioned above, using Usenet as an authority conflicts with the No Original Research rule, & pointed to one point in our policy as they are written where this is clear. I could expound on others.
::::: I've been with Wikipedia for a few years, & remember when we worried that too many users confused "NPOV" with uncritical use of any source that confirmed a given POV -- no matter how unrepresentative that POV was. Usenet was one of the examples mentioned in the past as a source that does not meet acceptibility. While it's possible that I've missed seeing a sea change in the attitude about Usenet -- & at the same time an understanding of how to properly use other questionable sources -- I still doubt enough Wikipedians have thought thru just how to allow intelligent use of Usenet on one hand, while knowing how to fight abuse of its resources on other than a "I know garbige when I see it, & I will delete it repeatedly" basis. Aggressive POV pushers will exploit any opportunities they find. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 03:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin quoted me above and accurately represented a general view I have about Wikipedia and the Web. As to this discussion, there is one point I want to add to this conversation: policies cannot cover all possibilities and indeed are meant to be written in such a general way that they can be applied to differenc cases as they come up. Epopt I believe initiated this discussion with a brief comment about usenet. If he is correct (and I will grant that for present purposes) there is simply no need to mention usenet in this policy. Perhaps there is a need for a general discussion of usenet (I know there was a long one on the mailing list) but honestly I just do not believe it belongs here. A general discussion of the strenghts, weaknesses, and uses of usenet belong on the talk page of the usenet article. As to the question of whether it constitutes original research or is a reputable source, I think that has to be debated on a case-by-case basis. Let's wait until someone wants to use usenet as a source on "race" or "Jesus" or "Creationism" or "Fascism" (and so on). Then, the people working on those articles can discuss whether the incorporation of something from usenet violates our NOR policy, or qualifies as a reputabble and verifiable source for that topic. I think our policies are clear enough, right now, that if two people got into an argument over using something from usenet on, say, the Jesus article, the policies as written will be able to guide them in evaluating the appropriateness of that use. In short, this discussion belongs on the talk page of the Usenet article, and more focussed discussions of usenet belong on the talk pages of articles where editors are actually relying on usenet as sources. I don't see the value of talking about it here. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 21:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
:Two comments. I find llywrch's absolutist position rather disturbing (and there is a distinction between what you describe as ''using Usenet as an authority'' and someone citing Usenet as a source for their contribution). To Slrubenstein, my comments here were prompted by Slimvirgin's argument on Wikien-L (and I paraphrase from memory, my apologies if I am unfairly representing your views here) that since neither No original research nor Cite your sources mention Usenet, therefore any reference to Usenet as a source outside of the context of a Usenet-related article was categorically invalid. Although I agree that Usenet is in general a lousy source, and that <s>most</s> nearly all of the time better sources can be found (though not without some effort) -- I don't agree with her conclusion to bar it's use in Wikipedia outside of Usenet-related articles. So long as that rather peculiar reading of policy doesn't gain currency, I've no problem with leaving things as they stand. I agree with Slrubenstein that the place to hash out the appropriateness or validity of any reference (not only Usenet) is on the talk pages of the article. I just don't want to see a novel interpretation of policy turn into a blunt object used to bludgeon unsuspecting contributors. {{User:Bkonrad/sig}} 01:52, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
:: I'm in basically complete agreement with Bkonrad (older!=wiser) here. If Usenet (or a Web page - to me, the difference is minimal) is the source for some of the content of an article, then it should be listed as a source. Both the readers, and other editors, can then make ''their own'' value judgements as to whether they trust that particular source. (I assume I don't need to point out that being printed is no guarantee of accuracy either - I can show you all sorts of bogus drivel in widely distributed books.) Yes, if better sources are available, prefer them - but if we don't let people cite Internet sources, they just won't list their sources at all, which is definitely worse. At least when they are listed you can i) verify that the article correctly reports what the source says, and ii) independently decide whether you trust the source. [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 01:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
==Grocery-store analogy==
Thodin, I reverted your edit because I felt it labored the grocer-store analogy a little by going into detail about bakery and deli items, and price. If you feel the analogy as it stands isn't helpful, could you make a suggestion for change here? Many thanks, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 23:38, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin,
It really needs a better analogy, but the best I could come up with was to exclude certain parts of a grocery store. Maybe a bunch of encyclopedias in book or CD form might work better. I was hoping someone would edit to improve it and not just merely erase my changes, but you did start a chat.
Another idea is a bakery. That you have to trust what is produced in a bakery -- that the food is safe to eat and what bread is supposed to be. Or if you think the news on TV is lying, you don't trust it. Personally, I'd say comparing it with an encyclopedia you buy or a respected news source (although a lot of news sources aren't so respected and seem biased). So maybe something like if you buy a bunch of encyclopedias from a salesman you except them to be accurate and not just some made up information, badly researched information, or propoganda.
-Thodin (Forgot to sign my name)
:Sure, Thodin, by all means come up with something, but could you put it on this page, instead of directly onto the policy page? I was never hugely keen on the grocery-store analogy, and in fact I'm not sure we need one, as the page seems pretty clear to me, but if an analogy is needed, the grocery-store one did hit home, I'd say. But I'd like to see any other suggestion you have. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 21:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I was frankly surprised that the page was even editable by people who didn't have special privladges, but in the history I see everyone tinkering with it. Thing is when I read the grocery store analogy, I immediately thought of all its contradictions. I'd still say just working it by comparing it with a reputable journal or encyclopedia would do better.
-Thodin
:We're not supposed to edit it, except for minor adjustments, without discussing it here first with other editors, because it's policy. But don't worry about it, as you seem to be new. Another thing in case it helps, if you type four tildes after your posts, like this <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> that will produce your name and the date and time of the post. And if you fill in your user page, that'll stop your name being a red link. Not that you have to, of course. You can remain mysterious if you prefer. ;-p [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 22:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. How do I instant message other users through this system? Also, another analogy idea is buying a car -- I think that would fit the grocery idea with possibly some word changes as people are more picky about a car they trust and that places that sell cars don't make them. Or maybe extending the analogy to a chosing a hospital? [[User:Thodin|Thodin]] 00:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry, Thodin, I only just saw your post. I don't think people can be instant-messaged through WP; if they can, I've never heard of it. Regarding your suggestions, by all means compose something if you want to, but it would be appreciated if you could post it here first, so that other editors can comment on it if they want to. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 05:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Hi, this probably isn't the place to post this. Who were you trying to reach? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 05:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
::Quite right, my apologies[[User:Sumergocognito|Sumergocognito]] 06:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
== On talk pages addition ==
I added a section discussing the fact that this policy does not apply to talk pages. While perhaps this should be obvious, I've found that occasionally people cite this rule to support removal of a new user's ideas regarding a subject, which is not only discouraging them from editing but from continuing to think about new ideas. I don't think it says anything that isn't already true, just a reminder. [[User:Dcoetzee|Deco]] 02:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC]] ==
An important policy discussion has started concerning ways in which our content-related polices, such as [[Wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]], [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] could be better enforced. I've made a proposal to give the Arbitration Committee the ability to consult Wikipedia users who are knowledgeable in subject-areas that apply to cases before them. Such consultation is needed due to the fact that the ArbCom does not by itself have the requisite knowledge to easily tell what is NPOV, original research, or a fringe idea in every field. Please read my proposal at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC#Alternate solution #9 by mav. Content subcommittee]] and comment. Thank you! --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 02:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==Bludgeon==
It seems to me that this policy is used as a bludgeon by some people to force their POV on to other people. If primary research was as easy as some people implied then we would all have the title Dr. To be original research it has to be more than one sentence or a list of things!
Let me give you an examples:
# Several historians regard Dresden more as a cultural landmark than anything else and assert that the number of civilians killed was excessive to a criminal degree.
# General Sir Alan Flemming Hartley was appointed Commander-in-Chief in India on January 5 1942.
The first sentence may or may not be true. The first thing that someone who disagrees with it will say is "This is a POV without references". When the author of the sentence provides references, then the objector is able to say that "this is original research because no one else has linked those sources together before, provide me with a reference which has done that or remove this original research".
:You would have to find a credible, published source who said something like: "Dresden was more a cultural landmark than anything else and the number of civilians killed was excessive to a criminal degree." If ''you'' are the one who builds the case (even using sources), it's original research; if the source builds the case, it isn't. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 01:08, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
::No I do not think it is to be original research it must be substantial not inconsequential. Saying that "3 historians have published statements[1][3][3] which can be paraphrased as 'Dresden was more a cultural landmark than anything else and the number of civilians killed was excessive to a criminal degree.'" should not be construed as original research. To be original research it needs to be something more substantial than counting up sources. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 17:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::If three sources correctly paraphrase as that then there isn't an issue in the first place. Just point out the source. If you're combining different statments from different sources into a conclusion, that may be a different story. See below. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 19:30, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
In the second case it is possible to prove from primary sources on the web that General Sir Alan Flemming Hartley was C-In-C of the Indian army for two month, from January - March 1942. But the only source Web source for a list of C-in-Cs for India gets this wrong. So should one leave the known mistake in the list of C-in-Cs even when a primary source document on the web clearly shows that the secondary source is wrong? Because synthesising a new list which fixes this problem could be construed as primary research. If it is original research and so should be be in Wikipedia, should Wikipedia publish information which it can be proven is false?
In Europe any "collections of information" [http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/professional/collection_law.html], which a list is, can be copyrighted so in theory any list on Wikipedia which is not a copy from somewhere else could be construed as original research because under the EC Databases Directive [http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/ipr/database/text.html] which defines a protected collection as "a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means". So does this mean that all lists on Wikipedia which are not copied from somewhere else (which would often place them in breach of copyright) are original research and should be removed from Wikipedia?
See also the 1995 ruling in the "Magill case" [http://www.panix.com/~jesse/magill.html][[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 11:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==Data Mining==
If one uses [[data mining]] technique where one trawls data to see if any links appear and them fit a theory to explain the links, is not considered to be legitimate scientific research. To be scientific research, one is meant to come up with a hypothesis and then look to see if the data to prove or disprove the theory. (Reminds me of a policeman in South Africa who explained to me "By law you have to fire a warning shot. So the first shot hits the man with the gun and the second shot is fired at the ceiling".) Does data mining count as original research on Wikipedia and if so why? [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 11:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I think you'll need to provide a concrete example as it pertains to Wikipedia. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 01:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Why a concrete example let us use a hypothetical example. Suppose that you are looking for all the references for Gorgon so that you can correct a date on the Gorgon page. Using Google you notice that the pages returned show that there is a correlation between the word Gorgon and the geographical spread of the articles returned by the search, so you add a paragraph to the Gorgon page pointing this out. This new fact has not been discovered using "original research" methods, it been acquired via data mining. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 14:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Cited sources =/= original research-free ==
I'm not sure the page makes it clear enough that citing sources, although necessary, is not a ''sufficient'' guard against original research. Any academic dissertation is a piece of original research that's absolutely crawling with cited sources. --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 00:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Hi Angr, citing published sources ''is'' a sufficient safeguard against original research, so long as sourced material is not put together in a novel way by the Wikipedia editor in order to build a case. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 01:05, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Well precisely. The "so long as" clause is absolutely necessary. But all too often I see a page up at VfD on the charge of being original research, only to have people vote to keep, arguing that it isn't original research because it cites its sources, and failing to remember your "so long as" clause. I just want to make it clearer that the presence of cited sources alone is no guarantee that a page isn't original research. --[[User:Angr|Angr]]/[[User_talk:Angr|<sub>{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}</sub>]] 23:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, I would agree. If you can find a way to make it clear citing sources is necessary, but not sufficient, and without being too wordy, that would be an improvement. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 12:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
::How does one judge if the sourced material is put together in a novel way. If it is not novel then it is a copy and liable to copyright violations. I do not think that a sentence or two can be defined as "original research" if it were then Doctorates would be handed out with the rations. Besides I have known people in the UK, who were dismissed from their academic posts for not doing enough original research, if all they did was to collate sources and quote other peoples research. And yes they did draw conclusions from others research but that did not count as original enough for them to remain at a first class institution. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 13:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::It's fairly simple. If you draw conclusion X and that conclusion is not drawn in any of the sources, you have done original research. Citing a source and even quoting small portions is not a copyright violation in the least. You are missing the point on original research. Something does not have to qualify as ground breaking research to fail the no original research policy. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 15:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
::Statement of fact "No Allied service men were tried at the Nuremberg war crime trials". Statement of fact "Major [[Denis Healey]] was not tried at the Nuremberg war crime trials". Original research: "Major Denis Healey could not be tried at the Nuremberg war crime trials, because he was an allied service man"; because there is no source which says such a thing. (<small>BTW I am sure that Denis Healey might have wanted to "squease the rich till the pips squeak" but I am sure he was talking metaphysically :-) and am not implying that he ever committed any war crimes or crimes against humanity</small>) I think to try to call such a sentence original research is to make "Original research" into a bludgeon. I think that the cry of "original research" is used far too often on Wikipedia talk pages. One could never claim that such a sentence as original research in any historical publication, but you seem to be advocating that it is in Wikipedia article and I do not think that helps with writing concise, precise, and informative articles. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 17:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia is a reference work. It is very different, in many ways, from other written works. What is fine in other formats is not fine in Wikipedia if we want to have any relevance or accuracy. See [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. If you think NOR is a bludgeon, you are thinking the wrong way. An appeal to NOR to get sources for a claim is an appeal to improve the quality and reliability of Wikipedia. It is very important that we don't put our own opinions or analysis into article, and the NOR policy is the formal way to avoid that. Instead we should cite the most reliable external sources in the event of a challenge. The NOR policy is strongly supported by the NPOV and Verifiability policy. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 18:37, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Name one credible academic journal which would consider publishing as original research a sentence which says: "Major Denis Healey could not be tried at the Nuremberg war crime trials, because he was an Allied service man". If an undergraduate tried to present such as original research project to their professor, she would die laughing. Just because it is a combination of two know facts does not make it is not original research. I am in favour of a ban on original research but it has to be ''substantive'' original research. I may not be able to find any article which says "Major Denis Healey could not.." but I can find two references which say that he was a British soldier during world war II and that allies were not tried for war crimes at the Nuremberg war crime trials. To ban the use of such a sentence because it is original research would mean that huge chunks of this encyclopaedia would have to be re-written into a set of quotations. It text would be even more stilted than it already is (A Camel is a horse designed by a committee) and would then probably run into copyright infringements. [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 22:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:You keep missing the point: Wikipedia is different from other written works. What would apply in other situations does not apply here. Stop trying to act like it is the same. And cited facts can be woven into good prose. It's just a little harder, but certainly very possible. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 23:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that I am missing any point. I do not think that the "original research" ban
:You are in that you keep trying to apply the standards of research publishing or employment at a research organization to deciding what is OR at Wikipedia. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 19:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
should be applied to things like "Major Denis Healey could not be tried at the Nuremberg war crime trials, because he was an Allied service man" even though it is a synthesis of two facts which although they can be found, can not be found in the same document. Given that do you think that:
# The sentence "Major Denis..." is original research and should not be allowed.
# The sentence "Major Denis..." is original research but is should be allowed.
# The sentence "Major Denis..." is not original research.
--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 17:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:In general direct combinations of facts from two different sources, with no additional novel analysis added is not original research, it's just citing two sources. But your example points out one of the possible pitfalls. You have combined the facts in a way that does not follow from the original facts. "No allied servicemen ''were''..." does '''not''' lead to "Major Denis ''could not be''". He could have been, he just wasn't in this example. You may have been thinking of "could not" meaning "was not", but that's part of the danger, it has another meaning, that of "there is no way he could have been". The fact that you have repeated this point multiple times and not reallized you have a ''non sequitur'' is worrisome, and points to the danger of doing what you are talking about. And no I don't want to lean too much on this one specific example, so I'll speak more to the general issue. If the facts are combined in a way that is not at all novel and the combination correctly, logically follows from the precedents, then that is not original research. So yes, there is a little subtlety involved in deciding what is novel and what is not, it's certainly not black and white. I would suggest that the more contentious and/or important a point is to a topic the lower the threshhold would be for considering it novel and thus OR. A highly important point, central to a topic, or one that is highly contended, should allow little to no wiggle room in what is considered OR and what is not. In that case any combination of facts into one not found in sources would be OR unless the conclusion is blatantly obvious. To correct your example "No allied servicemen..." and "Major Denis was an allied..." do lead to Major Denis ''was not'' tried at Nuremberg, if both of the premises are fully correct. Now that is not very novel if we're just talking about one serviceman that didn't have an impact on later events. But for ex if whether Major Denis was tried at Nuremberg was a central fact causing World War III, then that systhesis of facts may be unnaceptable as OR. Also, if the premises are not fully correct or are questionable, the conclusion of course does not follow. If you've been "bludgeoned" with the NOR policy, it is more likely that your conclusions don't follow from the premises, the premises are not as solid as you'd like, or your conclusions are a lot more novel than you think. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</sup></small> 19:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
| 