Content deleted Content added
NATTO (talk | contribs)
OR and other erroneous interpretations
Line 93:
 
:::That would be a good idea. There are plenty of good articles out there that are pretty neutral. I have to run now, but I just noticed the x-ray comment at the VS article. Is that even true at all? One gets the impression that chiropractors developed the x-ray! -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 
== OR and other erroneous interpretations ==
 
Definition: Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
 
The ABMS data in the article is
 
1- is taken from a reliable source 2- has been previously published 3- is not a theory 4- is not an argument or an analysis
 
It is simply a fact that is real and referenced from a reliable, reputable site.
 
So does not fit the definition of OR as per Wikipedia.
 
It is also highly relevant, it is factual and neutral information directly related to the item at hand. The reader can draw their own conclusions once they are provided with correct, verifiable, relevant information. That is what an encyclopedia does.
 
Also the deletion of posting on the Barrett talk page is a wrong interpretation of Wiki policy that applies to the article itself. Please refrain from applying your unilateral interpretation of Wiki rules. Finally citing the point of view of notable critics when it is properly referenced is fully acceptable, Whether you do not like the point of view or not. [[User:NATTO|NATTO]] 13:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)