Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Using Google Books search links as surveys

I think using Google Books search links as surveys is original research. The example in question is at Talk:Elizabeth Bentley#Mother's maiden name. I suspect there are also other bits of original research going on there, where the line between referencing and aggregating historical sources, and drawing conclusions from them, is being crossed. Could people help out there? Specifically, the example is the proposal to put the following actually in a footnote in the article: Lauren Kessler's biography and a few other sources have spelled Bentley's middle name 'Turrill'. Kathryn Olmsted's biography and most other sources use 'Terrill'; see this vs. this. What do people think? Answers here or there will do, but general discussion should probably be here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Secondary sources often vary in the facts that they present and the way that they present them. Where there is such variation, it seems quite proper that we should mention the fact and support it with evidence of this sort. What is the alternative? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • We should mention or present the variation, but we should do so carefully and we should not go into excessive detail or push the reader in one direction or another by suggestive presentation. Doing that is the classic definition of original research. At some point, you have to stop and let the reader draw their own conclusions, not push them in one direction or the other. Sometimes you have to stop and say "the sources vary and no-one has comes to a definite conclusion on this yet". Carrying out original research to show the degree to which the sources vary is trying to push the reader towards a particular set of conclusions. "Look - this result gets more hits than the other one <hint, hint>". But quite apart from that, it is bad methodology. The search itself is only the first step, and a poor one at that. Real research would be better. So not only is it original research, it is poor research. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• An update. From a request at WP:3O, someone pointed out the following: "external link policy also sides with that stating "links to results of search engines should normally be avoided"." That resolves the issue for me at least. I would be interested to know where such link are acceptable, though. Carcharoth (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I could imagine some articles where reliable sources might mention a Google bombing or some other sort of search engine result. I think it would be acceptable as an illustration of the sourced claims. I can't think of any other example where it would be good practice. Vassyana (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For the example given, editors should simply cite two or three of the books that the Google search returned, as an example of the alternate spelling of the name. The use of the search results to decide which spelling is more prevalent should be used only for a debate on the talk page, not the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Are simple observations original research.

The opening statement of Wikipedia's policy states:

"(original research) includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."

To me, this clearly means that Wikipedia is no place for "crackpot theories", such as Solar Oblateness, that are unsubstantiated and out of mainstream thought. But, does this extend to an observation that is so simple that nobody has thought that anything needed to be published about it. I have had a small number of my own edits, which were nothing more than stating the obvious, challenged as original research. The best example was--after studying several maps published by the U.S. Census Bureau--I noticed that the latitude and longitude of a census designated place was at the geometric center of the the CDP. I stated this in the article about census designated places. The statement was immediately challenged as original research. That statement may have been "systhesis of published material" but it did not "advance a position". It was just an observation. After the statement was challenged--and after a futile search for a published reference--I contacted the USCB by e-mail and was directed to a statement on their web site that corroborated my observation. Okay, it's good that I was able to cite a reference, but really, if I say "fire is hot" do I have to find a published reference to validate the statement?

Should a statement that is easily confirmed by simple observation, that doesn't advance a position, opinion or argument--and is so obvious that nobody thought to base his or her doctoral dissertation on it--be excluded as original research? Rsduhamel (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I just found this statement on the No original research policy page (in the section titled "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources"):

"only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge..."

I think my example was no more than a "descriptive claim" that was "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". I think this bolsters my position that simple observations should not be barred as original research. Rsduhamel (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. First of all, many editors avoid the word "simple" because the term implies "obvious," a lousy word in an encylopedia. So I would flag content "that is easily confirmed by simple observation," since this language is favored by nutcases (as well as those people that I approve of). However, if the same observations could be made by other editors from the content within the article (e.g. a map, a mathematical equation, a picture), then such observations would not represent OR. Related to sarcastic comment about the need to reference the comment that "fire is hot": I dont think that WE should seek to tell readers that fire is hot, we're not an advice machine and we're not kindergarten. Of course, the topic of sourcing and POV is almost impossibly complex, so I'll stop.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research wanted...

... on Wikiversity.
Dear WP policy-makers and original-research-hunters! I want to ask you for a favor... Could you encourage users contributing original research on WP to do it on Wikiversity instead? Original research is generally not wanted here, and it is often deleted. We on the neighbouring server are generally more benevolent to this kind of activity, and happily accept the well-written and also developing original research entries. You could also encourage these users to move the articles to WV before it is deleted here. The promotion of this idea via templates like {{Original research}} would also help :)
You can read more about this issue here: v:Wikiversity:What shall we do with Wikipedia?. Thanks for cooperation and help! --Gbaor (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think 1 and 3 are excellent ideas. If you need some assistance on the Wikipedia end, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested also in expert commentaries possibility on WV. --Gbaor (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikinfo suggestion

Would it be practical to redirect "suitable articles containing too high a proportion of original research to meet Wikipedia standards" to be redirected to appropriate Wikis eg Wikinfo (the Wikipedia article on which seems to have disappeared)? This might resolve "a number of arguments/complaints. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

PSTS autobiographies

See Archive 34#Autobiographies and Archive 34#PSTS- autobiographies

Reading the archives has not changed my initial position on this (Archive 34#Autobiographies). In the case of military histories it seems to be a very arbitrary rule and depends on the style of how the the book is written eg: "Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall" or the "Downfall of Adolf Hitler".

I did not realise that autobiographies had been put back in and would like to remove it as the people who took part in the debate seem to agree that given the PSTS rules many autobiographies are also secondary sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

agree that this needs to be reopened. Cf. Churchill's autobiographies which are eminently usable history. Of course they have a strong POV, but so do most bios of political figures. At least in an autobio one knows out front what the POV is. DGG (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose keeping autobiographies out of this list. Autobiographies may be citable in the same situations in which other primary sources are citable. I don't see why they're different from primary research articles or "original philosophical research" in that respect. This is just a list of what are primary sources. If you think primary sources are citable in some instances (as I do), then that should be brought up separately. Note that the guideline currently alows for using primary sources.II | (t - c) 03:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, the problem I have with including autobiographies is this:

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Suppose a published military autobiography by the commander of an army makes a detailed comment such as "The Worcestershire Regiment moved up to the front on the 31st of May as planned, but the muddy roads hindered them, so by the time they reached the front they were six hours behind schedule." and cites primary source proving it (such as signal transcripts), is the autobiography a secondary source for that movement? If the autobiography is a secondary source then I can combine it with another source secondary source that says "On May 31st the Worcestershire Regiment was hindered by the muddy roads caused by the monsoon" and write "The deployment of the Worcestershire Regiment regiment was delayed by six hours because of muddy roads caused by the monsoons" (citing both sources). If the autobiography is a primary source I can not do that. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That quote that you take: interpretive, synthetic, analytical claims must be repeated in a source at all times. The autobiography is a secondary source in the case you describe. The autobiography is only a primary source when the author is writing on his account of things. When he supplements that account with sources, he becomes a secondary source for those claims. There is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding this on Wikipedia. But this also applies to primary research articles (which are currently in that list) and original philosophy articles. We are discussing this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Reliable_sources#RFC:Are_.22primary_studies.22_not_secondary_sources_for_information_on_prior_studies.3F. Would love to have your input, although it is a long discussion. In general there is too much of an emphasis on whether something has been labeled a "review" or a "primary article" on Wikipedia, and less of an emphasis on the authors' credentials and the content of the papers themselves. II | (t - c) 09:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Conceptual problem for newbie, concerning acceptable contributions. Related to: Are simple observations original research.

I entered some edits to the Rodenticide article (note in passing that it is a very good article that is far more comprehensive and more valuable than the matching entry in a long-established and very much respected comprehensive encyclopaedia that I myself use routinely. I observe that one of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is neither severely space-constrained nor cost-constrained. It also is more flexible; I had pointed out a major deficiency in that article in the other encyclopaedia several years ago, and it still has not been updated. These are advantages that it would be sad to sacrifice on the altar of unobjectionability. That is an altar with room for more adornments than the trappings of incontrovertibility in the eyes the publish-or-perish hierarchy. Do we really want to refuse to post anything that has not already been formally peer-reviewed? EB-envy is fraught with hazards.)

The relevant edit was this one which was partially reverted by this edit --Slashme (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One of those edits referred to personal observation that an item was of regional common knowledge within certain circles. This was not research on my part; I just happened to encounter the fact. The item is of practical importance, but not patentable and I have no interests in it apart from its value as general knowledge that I acquired adventitiously and that I personally regard as good to know in context and of value to such people as might refer to the article. In short it is just the sort of thing one might wish to gain from an article in an encyclopaedia. Technically the item is unexceptionable in terms of biochemistry, practical fact, and ethology. (It deals with the toxicology of ethylene glycol, which is hardly controversially ground-breaking!)

Now, to the chase. That edited item was (conditionally?) rejected as presumably falling foul of the [original research/personal opinion/lack of refereed publication] rules (check as applicable). Reading some of the discussion on such matters it seems that I am not the first to encounter similar difficulties. My reason for raising the subject is not primarily the rodenticide issue as such, but the fact that I expect(ed) to post other items of information in future articles, and they might very frequently include similarly non-peer-reviewable information. Some such might be open to doubt, but still worth inclusion in the context of such doubt; whereas others might be undocumented formally, but be easily verifiable (say, the interesting nature of the numbers 39 and 51, contrary to the entries in the valuable Penguin dictionaries of interesting numbers, or the observation of the frequently sematic coloration of the backs of ears in feline species.)

So let's consider this illustrative and actual example: in parts of South Africa (specifically including the Western Cape Province where I live) it is common practice among certain local lay populations to use ethylene glycol as a rodenticide. I have failed to find any similar reference in google. It is the sort of item that I might have referenced as "pers. obs." or "pers. com." in a professional publication. It would not require a major research initiative to verify it, but technically it is not clear how important verification is; the main point in context is that it is a very important observation in practice. The substance is cheap, commercially available, can safely be handled and used (though it is not necessarily so handled and used), unpatentable, easy to formulate in a safe form, practically resistance-proof, requires no pre-baiting, and addresses one of the most serious pest-control problems facing humanity. The ethological and toxicological aspects are common knowledge and have so been since the 1930s at least. A policy of refusal to publish such a thing in context seems to me perverse.

Now, this rant was in response to a specific item, but I think it applies to a lot of potentially desirable subject matter. Comments anyone? What do we do about publishing things that we cannot usefully reference? I realise that some people parrot the slogan that the plural of anecdote is not data, but that is a very blinkered view of the nature of either anecdote or data, let alone data about anecdote. Where do I go from here?

Cheers

JeanGeilland (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to encounter any truly "common knowledge" that is not available in a plethora of sources. Regardless, Wikipedia's purpose and mission is founded upon reliance on reputable sources. "NPOV", the foundational content principle, is about presenting topics as they are presented in the body of reliable references. Even reliably published opinions may be inappropriate for inclusion if they represent the view of a single person or very small minority. Original research runs directly counter to the basic and foundational principles of Wikipedia. Are there many interesting and potentially true facts this approach may exclude? Certainly, there is no denying that consequence. However, we do not have a system of credentials or editorial oversight, but instead use a wiki process employing (mostly amateur) volunteer labor, which is also a foundational principle of Wikipedia. In the absence of a system of experts and professional editorial oversight, we defer to the conventional wisdom of established reputable scholarship and publishing. There are many other projects and wikis that permit original research, and even encourage it, but it is simply incompatible with the underlying rules, ideals and realities of Wikipedia.

In terms of moving from this point forward, the best thing I could recommend to you is to do some good old fashioned library research. If the facts are truly common knowledge and noteworthy, I'm sure they've been noted in multiple sources. Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My take on the matter is:

• NPOV isn't relevant here. The crucial issues in this case are verifiability and notability.
• The observations per se are unremarkable and valuable, and an account of this practice should be published.
• I can not find any description of this practice in any online source, and I would be surprised if "good old fashioned library research" would turn anything up. This kind of "practical hint" typically appears on the internet very quickly.
• Wikipedia is not a venue for initial publication. As Vassyana pointed out, because we do not have professional editorial oversight, we can only publish that which can be referenced to reliable secondary sources.

Because the activity is unremarkable, I think a newspaper article documenting the practice would suffice in this instance (but I don't think a letter to the editor would, as they do not go through the normal editorial process). Many local newspapers in the Western Cape have online editions and good editorial oversight, and will on occasion accept freelance submissions. --Slashme (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I also searched everywhere I could with no success. I think no one would dispute that ethylene glycol is toxic to rats--there are lots of references for that. There are also many sources discussing the accidental poisoning of pets (mostly cats and dogs, but even rats, I think). The question is whether ethylene glycol is a notable rodenticide, because we haven't been able to find any sources for that. How do we know it's not used just by you and a few of your acquaintances? If it is used by so few people that it hasn't yet attracted notice from any printed or online source we can find, it is too early to include it in Wikipedia. --Itub (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a real problem that I ran into writing my personal demon, the blood donation article. Third-world practices, even common ones, that aren't used in wealthy countries aren't well documented. In this particular case, I agree that the burden of proof is pretty low (it makes sense that it would be used that way), but if the average wikipedia user would find it unusual, it does need a cite. Local governments and aid agencies (The WHO was very helpful in my case) sometimes publish information sheets on "recommended practices." Documenting this kind of "non-first world" practice is critical to Wikipedia from the standpoint of systemic bias. Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be having difficulty getting the system to accept my edits. The last bit I wrote seems to have relocated to bit heaven. I suspect that I fell foul of an edit clash. Here is the nub. The inappropriately named Somedumbyankee seems to be on exactly the same page as I am, except that his material seems more dramatically relevant than mine. I still feel vividly that there is a serious problem hobbling the power of WP. However, I cannot do much more about it than moan, which don't have the time to do much of and that you collectively should not have the time to put up with much of. Accordingly I shall see what I can do about references in reasonable time. See you all when all the rats are dead. I have just spent several minutes watching a free, wild specimen of Rhabdomys pumilio picking the inflorescences and eating the petals of a garden Euryops before discarding the cobs. Unlike the rats, it was welcome, not that many of my neighbours agree. Neighbours often disagree with me. Dunno why. They are nice neighbours mostly.

Cheers,

JeanGeilland (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you hit an edit conflict; I very rarely experience this problem, but it's irritating when it happens. If it does happen, read the instructions carefully. You will get two edit windows and only the top one (which is not your edit, but the other guy's edit) will be saved, so you have to put your text back in for a second time. Such are databases ;-| As for the Rhabdomys (way off topic here, sorry everyone!) they're really cute. Your neigbours are blinded by prejudice. Have you taken a look at the Rhabdomys pumilio article? It could really do with a good picture and some more detail. I'll keep my eye out and snap one if I see one. --Slashme (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Expert consensus

[Note: The following discussion emerged on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, where it was off the core topic but raised various points of interest. Judging it to fall within the scope of the present page, I have relocated it here for further comment.] Spinality (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I posted this at some other place, but this seams to be right place for a proposition. I am a new Wikipedia fan. Well, not exactly now. I tried to introduce minor corrections in some texts that belong to my academic expertise, when I realised that number of people jealously want to keep their contributions as they are. I realised that Wikipedia promotes not expert opinion, expert consensus but, what a surprise, the USERS CONCENSUS. The truth is not what is justified by a valid and sound argument, but the truth is what the majority of the “amateurs of knowledge” would accept as truth. For an expert it represents most often an extremely big effort to convince self educated people what is an accepted scientific fact and to develop, for a lay adapted full argumentation for every single issue that he finds false on Wikipedia. And there are too many mistakes, in fact few factual but which then “program” for milliard of failures of interpretation mistakes. Or inversely.

I realised that Wikipedia is knowledge based on the lay democratic argument. The truth is here what a majority of lay persons will accept as such. The Wikipedia is a game.

May I suggest something that I find essential? I suspect that this may violate your philosophy, but I would like to propose that you establish registered experts or groups of expert users who would establish what a consensus is. This may increase value of Wikipedia which, if left as it is – quite useless or quite, quite unreliable as a knowledge source.

The method would be that the registered person would have to justify hers/his expertise for the given subject (the publications list may be sufficient, or the academic degree). Although I think any academic degree higher then PhD or high teaching position at a university may guarantee adherence to a kind of coherent scientific method. Such users do not have to be necessarily very narrowly specialised to be reliable to judge on the application of the scientific method to may be not quite related subjects. This may provide greater number of the experts that would be available to build a consensus.

It may be that you already have that or some similar expert system in use. If you do have I would greatly appreciate if you would indicate to me where to find it on your impressive site and how to use it.

If such or similar expert consensus system would not be available and to decide “what is” and “what is not” would be left to the consensus of those who love knowledge and not to those who have knowledge, the Wikipedia will remain to be just – a game. Sincerely, Draganparis (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

At present I understand that there is a system that allows people to send in evidence of their qualifications to the Wikimedia Foundation, if the need arises for them to use that information. This was set up after someone prominent on WP had been falsely claiming to be a college professor. There is a proposal under consideration, based upon this initiative, where experts (often outsiders) may be invited to review an article - this would most likely be done only with a fact-checked Featured Article.

As for how the system works at present, from my experience at WP:Chem (for 3.5 years), I have found that the system works by respect. We have a very good atmosphere of collaboration there, ranging from internationally renowned academics to undergraduates and the occasional high-schooler. I believe we have around 20 PhDs contributing in chemistry, of whom around 10 are pretty active. But these people didn't gain the respect of editors because of their qualifications, but because they write well. Some BS/BSc folks do equally good work, as do some smart undergrads. A diversity of skills and knowledge helps to strengthen the project. Once people know that you do good work, that "good name" counts much more than any PhD. I really like that, personally!

I would suggest that you contribute where you can, and when people really do know a lot the response is usually "Wow, that's great work!" You'll soon gain the respect of your fellow editors. Avoid getting embroiled in arguments (or playing the "game" as you appropriately describe it!) until you have established a (good) name for yourself. By all means present the evidence from reliable sources, but remember that even experts disagree, and as the "new kid on the block" you will usually need to defer to those with more experience at first. I've often done the same. I'd also recommend joining the relevant WikiProject, because through that you can develop mutual trust with editors of similar expertise. Once you command the respect of others in your field, you will be able to contribute a great deal, and people will listen to your views. Walkerma (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not the question whether people, I mean anybody, can learn. Neither is this a question of human value. Not to know in depth some specific subject - does not diminish our human values. In principle, as I said, it could not be decided what is and what is not by voting. It must be looked at it and first then we can say whether something is or is not the case. But to see, one needs to have some concepts already, some mentally built theory before even looking at the thing. Otherwise one can not see what is in fact there! Our observations are “theory laden”.

Where is the concrete problem then? Wikipedia has in principle the review texts. A basic article, an article that is first written for the Wikipedia page, can be written by an expert; or can be copied from some good textbook (these texts are written by the experts). So there is probably no problem there (although I saw some basic articles which obviously were the reproductions of the notes of may be some college or even graduate students). This is visible, but this even may be not a big problem. The problem arises after that, when various amateurs, some certainly good people, who acquire specific information from even scientific literature (I do not doubt this) start uncritically “improving” an existing text. What happens then?

A very difficult task for a scientist is to interpret, understand the whole, to make a synthesis out of the raw data. To build a theory around data, even a small theory about one isolated mechanism, and that that the theory is at the same time meaningful and probably true, more probable then the other possible theories. This is possible only if one has knowledge of majority of relevant facts, or the key facts, and experience in recognising them and using these facts to form abstract relevant concepts. An amateur is there almost always handicapped because of her/his isolation. Science is a community work which is hardly possible in isolation. A student and a PhD student is much better off, but still handicapped because they are yet to build up their experience. This is why I said that one level higher as a normal PhD or equivalent.

Other aspect of the problem is reflected in the fact that new, unconfirmed knowledge does not have place in these basic, review text. An amateur scientist can not judge this (or almost never can judge this).

Then, if the majority (majority, not all) of those who are active on the Wikipedia are at that level of knowledge and experience, and if they are a majority - as far as I was able to see, they probably are at least 10 against one expert, and if they are very eager to produce these pages, to see their own text - we have a salad. If now an expert starts correcting, he has against him 10 times more people who do not see the problem and who would oppose what he is doing and, as my experience is, start with intimidations and with building of a resistance against an intruder.

No, I am sorry. I think that the Wikipedia should use a model, for example, of the peer reviewing system that is a standard in thousands of scientific journals (one editor + editorial board that approves that an article can be reviewed by another (confidential) + 2-5 reviewers – and all these people are approved experts in the field. Further problem is that just a few experts would be ready to take part in the project. So … it should remain as it is: great fun, but not more.

I know, I AM an intruder here. My apology.Draganparis (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the best way to discuss this would be to start a thread at the Wikipedia:Village pump. Richerman (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I can not carry the issue further. I neither explored Wikipedie enough to be able to use it correctly and without wasting my time in the formalities and rules which are abundant. Nor I have time to do it now. The Wikipedia is an excellent source of the essential data and a real mine of wrong interpretations. I incourage strongly the project anyway. Introduction of one real peer reviewing system (expert system, in addition to one amateur reviewing system that already exists) I think is needed and I hope that somebody will take that proposition further. I may join it later. May be when I will retire, what will take another 10 years or so.Draganparis (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's Wikipedia's intent for majority to rule in scientific matters. All information must be backed up by reliable, verifiable third-party sources. True, experts are better qualified than amateurs to determine which sources are reliable. But in my experience, reasonable arguments on the Talk pages, along with a certain degree of patience and persistence, win out in the end. If, on the other hand, experts offer no verifiable sources to back up their edits, and expect a mere claim of expertise to suffice, it's unlikely that the community will accept those edits as authoritative. It isn't necessary to know all the rules, but a passing knowledge of the Five Pillars will improve an editor's success. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No. One can not know the validity of a proof or of a reference if one does not have appropriate knowledge. The most frequent mistake in History texts on Wikipedia is that one Wiki-researcher reads one article (even in a scientific journal!) where a new interpretation is offered. He/she, the Wiki-scientist, takes it for granted and offers the article as a proof. Since all the others, or at least those who read it on Wikipedia, have similar background, they might say, OK, this is a proof. An expert would know that there are 20 proved reasons why the “new” proposition is most likely false and he would not consider that proof as valid. He would wait for more scientific confirmation. A consensus, of course. This will hold until new, better proofs would appear and then the theory will be replaced. If the big, general principle would be replaced by some other principles, the scientist call it “Scientific revolution”. I am sure that Wikipedia has that entry.

It is how it is in science - in principle. Now you would say: But Wikipedia works exactly the same way. Yes, but it works on much lower level. So for what we agree here to be “true”, the probability that it is not is much higher then if the experts would reach a consensus that some proposition is true. Science is nothing more then more consequent normal thinking. Wikipedia will have in the end to accept the “expert systems” if it would desire to offer reliable knowledge, or it would have to accommodate to remain a source of second rate knowledge. And then, it will be only - a game. In order to be “real” game, this kind of discussion that we have hier will have to be avoided. There is little pleasure in playing a game for which we know that the outcome is set in advance! So, "there si no royal path to geometry". However, my question has been not whether Wikipedia offers reliable knowledge. It does not. My question has been whether we need reliable knowledge on Wikipedia and whether an “expert system” would destroy the wonderful knowledge search that takes place on the Wikipedia pages between non-experts. I think it would not destroy it. What do you think? Draganparis (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Useful though experts are, there have been a multitude of proposals to this effect to no avail. There is no credential policy. We have also seen (see the Essjay controversy) that using credentials as verification of information can have damning consequences. So while your argument makes sense, in theory, remember that Wikipedia does not work in theory, only in practice. You also might appreciate that this is a long-standing contention and the reliability of Wikipedia as a source is not as cut and dry as you seem to think. Adam McCormick (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Experts, at least in technical disciplines, have an advantage anyway. They know where to look it up, and if they don't, someone they know will. The old saying about two kinds of knowledge: things that you know, and things that you know where to look up. The first is marginally useful on Wikipedia, but the second is all-powerful. Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "cut and dry" in science either. Yu probably did not read all what I wrote about this. Or I really did not expend this well enough. The expert system works in the matters not only of the security, technology, or all serious even sometimes not expensive projects, but in science in general. In that respect, the expert system can not be challenged, although it does not ALLWAYS guarantee the best choice. This is particularly true if the best choice a priori can not be arrived at, because of the inaccessibility of complete knowledge of our world. I did not ask that question. The “expert systems” have other drawbacks that are inherent in their structure, but on the level of knowledge, it has obvious advantages over lay consensus. People often believe that since in politics a simple consensus works, that democracy is how we should ALWAYS take our decisions, even in deciding what is and what is not the case. This is simply not true. Although I suspect that this is the core of the problem here, we can not develop it right now.

I asked whether the Wikipedia should ALSO employ the expert system, in addition to the other rules and the lay consensus. This may depend (and I think it does not) on how we define the Wikipedia. The question is of whether Wikipedia is a knowledge data base - then we would need the expert system; or Wikipedia is a colourful “knowledge” game that includes learning some aspects of the “scientific method” - then we do not necessarily need the expert system. And then, I asked also, would an expert system destroy the charm of the lay research? I personally know, as may be many of you, so well that the most attractive research is one that is so often just marginal to my very narrow speciality.

Just one word more. There was a comment of some artist I think, that if, during my lay research, an expert would come to tell me what is the “state of the art”, the last knowledge about that what I was researching, this would destroy my research enterprise and the pleasure of research. I hold this for false. I tested this many times. This produces just a desire to go further in the same direction, now set at the new starting point; or this may produce a desire to change the subject of the research. I think, an you know this also, that learning and finding what is not known is extremely interesting. However, we - almost all of us, are learning and finding what is certainly already known and are just enjoying doing this all the time! So, to conclude, I think that Wikipedia will survive if the expert system would run in parallel with other rules that do not relay on the experts.Draganparis (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The topic of expert editing has been discussed at length in other parts of Wikipedia, and it would be good if you would add your voice to those exchanges. A key point to remember, though, is that a basic principal of Wikipedia is No Original Research, and that means the expert's analysis and synthesis you have referred to above basically do not belong here. Instead, such analysis should be located and quoted from a credible source, e.g. a peer-reviewed journal or textbook, and then cited/summarized here. Although a lay reader could not write such an analysis, a lay reader can indeed determine whether an article correctly cites and presents such an analysis. The goal here is for every substantive statement to be traceable to an expert's opinion somewhere else. There should be no expert statements here that cannot be verified. You may feel that you'd rather read an article written by an expert (so would I) but Wikipedia is not intended to hold that kind of original source material. Everything here is intended to be derivative, and to provide you the necessary citations and links to track down the experts. I'm sure others could describe this point of policy more clearly but I hope you see the distinction I am drawing. Once you posit that everything is derivative, the conscientious amateur lay editor is basically just as good as the subject-matter expert, because in each case they are citing the works of credible third parties. The expert has the huge advantage of knowing where to find those credible works. But the amateur can tell whether you have cited and presented the material accurately. Spinality (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that I did not ask that question. But the “democracy of knowledge” would require an answer from me.

Thanks for taking part in the discussion. You write “All what we discuss here has already been discussed”? Please tell me where was it discussed? But let us continue just one step more. You say: The goal here is for every substantive statement to be traceable to an expert's opinion somewhere else.

The problem is that “somewhere else” may be “doesn’t matter where” and often is “doesn’t matter what”. The amateur does not know were to search and when he finds, whether he has found it at all, or not. What we see in the physical world is theory-laden as you know (Pierre Duhem, The aim and structure of physical theory, 1905/6; the English translation arrived much later, in 1962.) It is even “worst” with the social sciences, which declare a priory adherence to some theory. So if we do not start from some “correct” theory we do not know what is what we see!

You say: “A key point to remember, though, is that a basic principal of Wikipedia is No Original Research, and that means the expert's analysis and synthesis you have referred to above basically do not belong here."

This is an illusion also. In my everyday praxis I see a lot of texts which are often wonderful collection of number of separate expert opinions and of the original works of other experts. The text that results is often just nonsense. The reason is simple: it is impossible to produce a text that does not contain some “intention”, “interpretation”, which does not express a “hypothesis” of the author, a “theory” behind the observer/reader (remember Duhem). So correctly citing and presenting is not enough.

There is also another illusion there: the whole construction of science is exactly what you want Wikipedia to be: to rely on verifiable quality research work and expert opinion. But there is one important difference. First explanation, as I said above, is: The amateur just does not know which research is quality research and which expert opinion is an “expert opinion” or not.

The second explanation is also very simple: Science is not perfect but is based on the best available knowledge. The Wikipedia is conscientiously not aiming at the best available knowledge. It is satisfied with the best available knowledge arrived at by the lay people. We can not say that what science offers is always the ”best available knowledge”. We can not always know this, but science at least tries this. Wikipedia, after your explanation, does NOT try to provide the best available knowledge. It tends to provide the best available knowledge that could be squeezed out from the amateurs.

So I am back to my question: would you agree that an expert system would be helpful and would not destroy the knowledge search which is, as I think, a wonderful aim of Wikipedia? Draganparis (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[<end of shifted discussion>] Spinality (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I will make a brief answer, but hope that others will chime in. Your assertion that perception is theory-laden rings true to me personally (you may be familiar with my father's views on this topic), although philosophers of science also argue other positions.

However, the core problem here is a pragmatic one. It is difficult to establish a cadre of elite editors who are experts in certain fields, and who are granted special editorial privileges. Who judges the credentials of such experts? In a peer-reviewed journal, there is a professional hierarchy within which such decisions can be made and enforced on the community. In a traditional encyclopaedia, similar authority is delegated by the editor-in-chief. But by design, there is no editor-in-chief of Wikipedia. In a framework where every reader has the right and ability to alter every article, it would be difficult to establish a preferential structure where some users have more persistent or credible edits than others. Or rather, the only mechanism that has been found is that of intellectual democracy. Discussion, on pages like this, is how we conclude whether a particular contribution has merit. Expertise is established within a collaborating group of volunteer editors, through dialogue. Alternative strategies often result in flame wars: "My credentials are better!" "No, mine are!"

It is not the paradigm (nor the fact) that Wikipedia editors are all amateurs. Many are seasoned professionals and experts, with exactly the type of experience and credentials you want. True, there are many amateurs, and in articles within complex fields there are often naive or uninformed contributions. The experts who see this correct, amend, and discuss as needed.

It will no doubt take years before most subject areas have a strong enough group of editors to eliminate the type of solecisms that concern you. If you peruse mathematics and physics topics today, for example, you will find articles at various levels of quality, some with highly-polished publication-quality content, and others that indeed suffer from problems. The technique that has been used, and that seems to have been working, is to attract experts into the discussions – and let them take the lead on issues of subject matter accuracy and reference source quality.

The alternative – setting up a cabal of privileged editors – has not been seen as practical or desirable. There are other Wikipedia-like sites that utilize active editorial control and peer review, and which can take a more didactic approach. They are also more able to accommodate original research, since a mechanism is in place for deciding whose original research is worth reading, and whose should be rejected as pseudoscience or fluff.

Nobody has yet proposed an acceptable mechanism for overlaying that type of expert infrastructure on the egalitarian model of Wikipedia – which relies on the use of collaboration and verifiable sources as a way to achieve technical accuracy. Spinality (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

An expert system would be disasterously useless and work only to create more content disputes. Although I'm aware I can't speak for Draganparis, it is my general observation that people who rail against "users consensus" aren't the most experienced in legitimate scientific content disputes. Considering guidelines/policies like reliable sources, verifiability and the page we're talking at right now, a user-based consensus that contradicts verifiable scientific consensus should always fail after enough dispute resolution. The actual monkey wrench in this idea is the existence of experienced POV pushers who game the system. While limiting who can form a consensus may seem a laudable goal, restricting who is allowed to participate violates the very concept of Wikipedia, and it would suffer problems of its own. For example, it can be easily demonstrated that many individuals with considerable academic credentials are complete cranks, and some seem to have gotten their credentials with the sole motive of making their crank publications seem more reliable (though not for Wiki purposes, as far as I know). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

though not for Wiki purposes – partly because they don't need credentials (verifiable or otherwise) to participate. Spinality (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I was just making it clear that I wasn't using our meaning of reliable in the last sentence. But in contrast to your statement, someone could, in theory, try to make his own publications seem more reliable so he can use them on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I omitted the tongue-in-cheek smiley above :) and of course you are correct.Spinality (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad we're thinking this through and all; and forgive my sarcasm, but once you're sick of being condescended to, or when you start feel like you're talking to the wall, thats probably a good time to take a look at Draganparis' user contributions, where you might discover why he isn't a fan of user consensus, preferring that Wikipedia be restricted to the peer review of experts like himself, all for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Macedonia! :) Those that disagree are 'GookWik' scientists and Greeks who need to go read Aristotle. Brando130 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Perhaps not unexpected ;). At any rate, I thought the issue of editor expertise (a non-trivial one) ought to be removed from the assessment discussion and placed here. More people may read these comments than just the immediate participants. As we all know, the WP framework does face an inevitable problem with editorial quality, consistency, and objectivity, and it is disappointing when a subject matter expert gets frustrated by strident flamers, and decides to drop out. When I see this happen, I scratch my head, but can think of no solution other than collegial discussion. Spinality (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

O la, la. It is not easy. "Perhaps not unexpected" ?? Thanks. Do you think this will make me stay on Wikipedia?

It was "not unexpected," reading between the lines, that there might be some history of acrimonious or ad hominem exchanges. Spinality (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, again: my question is whether it would make sense to introduce some “science” just in the form of peer review of some sensitive or crucial issues?

Thanks Spinality (Hmm) for a discussion. Sorry for choosing to refere only to Duhem, but he was one of the first who worried about man made world. But I would have put your father’s famous drawing or the Necker cube (from the Tractatus) if I new how (I am new on Wikipedia), because it would perfectly illustrate what I wanted to say.

Let me give these references that the interested people could may be look for: Russell Hanson, Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge University Press 1958, chapter 1, in particular pp 13-14; or Perception and Discovery, Freeman, Cooper, 1969, which I unfortunately have not seen but I read various comments; Se also Ludwig Witgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 5.5423)

The problem of our open and anonymous discussions is that people start developing the arguments “ad hominem” or politically denigrate the others as soon as they run out of valid argumentation. Not because they are wicked, but mostly out of ignorance, I would think (like Someguy1221, Brandon130).

(Just for Spinality and others interested in this interesting issue, but to prevent them to succumb to above unfair accusations: I am neither a Macedonian, nor Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian, I am sorry, but wouldn’t mind being one, or would, may be, adore being one! Indeed, I saw that the old mistake of confounding political history and cultural history is taking place at some history pages that I visited. All empires used it to increase their dominance or simultaneously divide their opponents. I thought tha, like in the past, such mistakes may produce bad effects. I looked at the other issues in Wikipedia. I looked for the mistakes and bad interpretations. Well, I found that the more exact science was - less visible were the mistakes. But the biological sciences looked disastrous. I proposed then at one history place to pay attention to using correctly the historical method. Meeting the strong opposition of probably lay audience or interested parties, I thought that a peer review system would help to improve these pages.

Let me start again. The Wikipedia pages are full of information, data, data… The most “editors” are lay people who often chase out anybody who does not accepts lay consensus. (As it will happen this time also.) A lay consensus is possible in the politics (we call it democracy). But the issues that are treated in a democratic way are very limited. For example we would not ask for a consensus of Wikipedia users on how to construct a space shuttle, although we might ask for a consensus do decide whether our community needs one. For the knowledge questions we use most often the expert consensus. For the issues that are subjective preferences, we need a lay-consensus. OK? A lot of experts were burned after a consensus was reached, so people decided then, after this was done and damage realised, that the things may go smoother if we listen to the experts. The peer review has strong disadvantages, but these are at completely different epistemic level with the disadvantages that we may have if we would continue to burn the experts on our “inquisitory” fires. I personally suffered too often from the peer review system and (certainly - but unwontedly) made other people suffer too. That system is not perfect but, I think, if carefully introduced just for some chosen issues, it may help.

A "GoogWik scientist" is a special case of a "scientist" who as a sources uses almost exclusively Google and Wikipedia. Since for choosing a reference from the Google a user is his own arbiter, and since Wikipedia is unreliable, we have a multiplication of "referenced" mistakes: the references-supported nonsense. I find it charming and not offending. I am now one of them.

I am not discussing whether the Wikipedia is scientific. It is NOT! I am asking whether it would make sense to introduce some “science” just in the form of peer review of some sensitive or crucial issues. All the rest would remain the same. That is all.

Would the others who are discussing this here, please, first go on the Wiki “peer review” pages (that I just discovered) to see what is this all about, and then, O.K., denigrate me as you wish. But why somebody would need to show how “bad” he is? Why? I am convinced that “he” is much, much better man as he wants to present himself. Ignorance may be the reason. And ignorance is an easy problem to solve: learn more.Draganparis (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the issue this is a kind of „meta-analysis" that is asked for. So saying that something “does not belong to the Wikipedia” is a sign of misunderstanding. “Dagan” proposes a discussion “about” and not “within” Wikipedia. Please (Brandon) do not introduce insulting comments, including the assumptions about somebody’s bias no matter in which form. What is asked for are arguments and opinions “about” the subject of the discussion, not about the contributors.

My personal conviction is that some issues definitely need to be reviewed by the experts. This is however impossible on the pure voluntary basis. And please, could we have shorter communications? Some texts are really too long. Simple100 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is my response to the question of whether it is a good idea to introduce a mechanism for expert consensus at Wikipedia, to help elevate the level of scientific discourse: I have not seen any practical proposal for doing this, other than through discussion, consensus-building, and (very important) attracting and retaining expert editors. It is a mistake to view today's Wikipedia as a community of uninformed amateurs. Experts are involved in many segments of Wikipedia, and they can be recognized as such by their input to discussions. Other segments have more sophomoric contributors. The trend has been one of generally improving quality.

How could we create a two-tier editorial structure, with blessed peer-reviewed expert editors? How would we attract experts to join? Who would certify them? And most importantly, how would their edits be given extra weight? Display their text in purple? Put little "trustworthy" footnotes on their entries, instead of citations? Yet credentialed experts can be just as guilty of bias and bloviation as highschool students; and a bright highschool student can do a credible job explaining and sourcing a complex topic. (Maths and physics have a traditional of youthful excellence, for example.) If there is a useful and fair way to qualify editor credentials, it's worth discussing; but other than lamenting the fact that we sometimes see some bad science, bad history, bad logic, and bad faith, I don't yet see an alternative to collegial discussion – which historically has often succeeded at eliminating junk and preserving quality. Spinality (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry “T”. You will permit me to miss the meaning sometimes.)

An expert knowledge system that exists is just normal, printed cyclopaedia; and there are all kinds of different lengths and of different depths of knowledge that are offered. These books have texts written by the experts. This is what I would call a “core text”. There is a tradition of producing that kind of texts since Diderot (or may be even earlier – look in Wikipedia!) and I find it ridiculous to have a discussion here about “how to do this” in principle. The real question is how to do this in Wikipedia and whether we want it or not.

To try to prove how Wikipedia is in fact a reliably knowledge source is, I am sorry, time wasting too. Wikipedia is just inverse of the above: Quite reliably knowledge source about unreliable knowledge. Wikipedia would let the students or complete amateurs editors write “the core text” (from their notes presumably) introducing an amateur style and lay-person mistakes, here and there… Then comes the next “editor” and puts something what he read somewhere. And….

An easy example. Let me take that condemned “Macedonian” example: There is a study showing that the Greeks are genetically similar to some West African people. So the conclusion was that they came from West Africa 15.000 years ago or so. The GoogWik scientist will find this and introduce it in Wikipedia and will fight to keep it on the page. Luckily, an another reads the comment of an expert that was published also (Sforza’s comment) who critically evaluated the work and introduced a lot of doubt. What we do then? We must know that we have here the authors (6-7, a group of experts), then one editor of the journal which published this paper, then may be 3-5 reviewers (the members of the peer reviewing group). All experts! AND Sforza and one his collaborator as the authors of the comment + at least couple of the editors who published that comment. All experts also!! So 10-15 people on one side and 5-8 people on the other side, all experts. Hard to decide or? I presume we withhold the results of the first study, because trained biologists would read both texts and decide on the account of the strengths of the arguments, what a GoogWik simply ca not do. But the Wikipedia consensus may be not to withhold the text! So I conclude that the GoogWik scientist can not know and must relay on the expert opinion and NOT on the consensus of the other GoogWik scientists.

Harder example. One from the history of biology. It was presumed for quite long time that the increase of the cAMP induces the relaxation of the smooth muscle and that the increase of the cGMP promotes contraction of the smooth muscle (still thought at some universities!). Then I think about 20 years ago one paper was published that showed that the cGMP does not promote contraction but does the same as the cAMP, although using slightly different pathway. How will a GoogWik scientist decide? He may ask another student and will get some answer. And another, and get different answer. So the GoogWik scientist can not know and must relay on the expert opinion.

In history, this is even more complicated. Since history uses most of the time, natural language, we all believe that it is just the right science where we can jump in and do science also! If we would deal with facts, it may be reasonably easy. But when we start mixing political science with history, trying to describe social structures or political profiles of the long disappeared states and societies… this needs substantial knowledge of the facts and concepts. Then, unfortunately, we who just love reading history, very often do not have the necessary means to make sensible judgements.

But as I can see from this “consensus discussion” we better leave it to the amateurs. However, I think (and see) that if left to the amateurs, we have a salad. What then? Yes, this is what I ask, what then? This is where I will give up this discussion. Before doing this I will conclude:

Yes, there can not be any relatively reliable knowledge on Wikipedia without may be a core text that will be written by the experts. The core text should be reviewed monthly or less often by the experts. In the mean time the GoogWiks can play as they wish. Or the main text should probably have a free section where the GoogWiks can play as they wish and all the time, but only in that section.

Also, there is a problem of how to organise a peer review on voluntary bases (as „Simple100“ also pointed out). Since I do not know how Wikipedia functions, I do not have a proposal. The encyclopaedias obtain the review articles for free (it is an honour to write a chapter in an encyclopaedia!). If Wikipedia would be a reliable source of knowledge, even if this will be in the main text section only, it might get such expert texts for free also.

In my professional career among many hundreds of disputes about scientific facts, I did not have ONE SINGLE dispute that involved personal attacks (ad hominem). Here on Wikipedia this has been every third dispute that included arguments ad hominem concerning ideological bias, racial or national origins, even membership of secret or public political organisations and so forth. Sad.

I promis I will not disturbe you any more. Draganparis (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me summarise before I’ll go:

A. The main text will have a Core article (it could be edited only by the peer reviewer), and the main text (that is open for editing).

Explanation: The text of one simple entry will contain what I called "Core text", a section that is "more reliable", and is edited only by a peer reviewer. All the rest (the main text) will remain the same as it is. The content of the "Main text" is edited by everybody and will, after being reviewed, slowly flow up into the Core text. The size of the entire text will probably even slightly increase.

B. A peer review may be demanded occasionally for some disputes.

C. The per-reviewers will be the people with the 1. academic titles one level higher then a PhD (for example: Associated Professor in the USA, in France and Germany “Habiltation”, in England Senior lecturer). 2. + publication lists, 3. and should be evaluated by a small body within Wikipdia.

D. Each “Science” will have one or more administrators who will contact the peer reviewers.

E. The peer review will be established only for the subjects belonging to the narrowly defined sciences (arts, culture, biographies, literature and similar will be left free for editing).

F. The registering procedure for Wikipedia will contain a question about capability for peer-reviewing and a suitable longer questioner (as number of scientific journals have) so that potential peer reviewer can be immediately registered and classified. All claims MUST be verified by ordinary procedure (deposition of certificates, verifiable list of publications).

G. Initially the peer-reviewers will be asked to produce/correct the core articles under their expertise; then they will every month re-examine the text and eventually register the suggestions. In the mean time they will serve as arbiters on request. It should not be expected that one peer reviewer spends more then 1 hour per month on these activities.

Well. I do not have anything else to say except that I am certainly not a person who will organise this. I know: “we do not need the ideas, we need the people who will do the job”. Draganparis (talk)

An interesting section. For an article on scientific revolution see paradigm shift. For the underlying philosophy of Wikipedia see the Free software (Open source software) and the The Cathedral and the Bazaar. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My perspective is this: Wikipedia articles are targeted at a general audience, and so even if an expert is able to provide a correction or new information, if they are unable to convince amateurs that that information is correct, they will certainly be unable to convince readers. Encyclopedia articles are as much an exercise in persuasion as in simply informing, and examining the responses of amateur editors can be an effective way of evaluating widespread misunderstandings that deserve clarification. Dcoetzee 19:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

a few specific comments. In the US the academic rank higher than someone with a PhD is, in the sciences, Postdoctoral fellow, and in the humanities, Assistant Professor (though there are beginning to be a few postdoctoral fellowships available). Associate professor is the rank that normally comes along with tenure. Peer reviewers for journals in the sciences at least are normally rather junior people, who are the only ones prepared to do the intensive work for no remuneration and who have the detailed knowledge to give a detailed critique. (Peer reviewers for grants tend to be at a higher rank.) It is very frequently the case that the customary two reviewers of a paper disagree rather sharply. I doubt that in most fields we have a sufficient number of specialized people to do proper peer review to any generally acceptable standard. We certainly dont have people adequate to evaluate the reviewers.

More generally, if we did, we would be undertaking the responsibility of certifying the academic quality of the material. Unless we were prepared to certify all the material in wikipedia for quality, doing it for only a few challenged articles would be deceptive and give the wrong impression entirely about our general quality. I suggest you example Citizendium, which uses an abbreviated system such as you suggest. I don't think it works very well there:the disputes tend to be about who has the higher qualification, and there's a strong tendency for someone with a degree & position but an eccentric viewpoint to dominate an article. Further, i don't think it necessary. Most of the intractable scientific disputes in wikipedia are where are two schools of thought, where the only thing to do in an encyclopedia article is to present both of them, and where the typical problem is that each side wants to keep out the other. Common sense and a broad understanding of the way such disputes go will solve the problem.

Most generally, the necessary quality of an academic who can work here successfully is the ability to persuade--a true expert will be able to be convincing. Some experts cannot mange this to a nontechnical audience, and they should not be working here, but on projects more suited to their abilities. This is a general encyclopedia, and everything here should be understandable to generally educated people. We have a working ,method that has proven--to I think general surprise--exceptionally successful. It wont do everything. But it should keep on doing what it does well, and see how far the model can be carried and extended. Radically different methods are of course fully appropriate experiments, and they should be carried out in separate projects, rather than run the risk of ruining this one. Undoubtedly its not the best method for all purposes, and will seem quite naive 50 years from now. But we're writing for use, use in the present. We're not trying to do encyclopedia galactica, just a convenient early 21st century free public content encyclopedia. Let other information resources flourish also. DGG (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Turning to a more serious note, may I comment on your proposal, Dagan:

Your peer-review system (particularly items A - E) does not realistically take into account the fact that in order to keep Wikipedia free and ad-free, it has to be done in a framework in which the large, large majority of tasks are the result of volunteered free time. Thus even if you could round up the academics necessary, the limited amount of time they would have to contribute (on every level, from professors to first year grad students) would ensure that Wikipedia would be less than 1% of its current size. As Wikipedia's explicit (and idealistic) aim is to be a collection of all human knowledge, this system would not help Wikipedia achieve its goals, in my opinion. Brando130 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I only just noticed this thread about NOR and expert editing which is very apropos to this issue. Many good points are made about the technical accuracy of scientific articles. Spinality (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

O, yes! A good, long discussion that, unfortunately, drifted away form the main point. I could not follow it to the end. This is why I repeat the main point again and again in this, as somebody said, metha-analysis discussion. Let us have it again.

• Please for a discussion about the following assertion: If we want Wikipedia to be, in its central part, a reliable source of knowledge, would it be acceptable that we run, in parallel to the current system of editing, an expert system, a peer review of the core section of the texts on science? I proposed just a frame of one such a system above.

short answer: Yes: go join Veropedia and help. DGG (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For Brando130: good objection; I corrected the point A. above. And dear friend, my mother tongue is French, so do not bother about my small mistakes in English. I do not. Draganparis (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The END.

Thanks DGG. I looked it up briefly. Veropedia is THE right answer! Finally. Cheers!Draganparis (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Please, what about Bible stories?

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." It seems there is no problem with publishing religious beliefs as facts in WP as long as they are Judaeo-Christian. Pardon my cynicism, but WP is merely a white anglo saxon propaganda machine. Fourtildas (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC) PS: anyone object to me deleting all those Bible Stories? Can you help me with the etiquette for that? Fourtildas (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is definitely a published document, but it's more of a primary source. Treating it as a reliable source on history is a dubious prospect at best, and reliable secondary sources should be used in discussions. Deleting things like Parable of the Good Samaritan is inappropriate, they are referenced in reliable secondary sources and are notable elements of certain cultures. Notable passages from the Qur'an or the Rigveda should have articles too, but most editors on the English wikipedia are American, Britain, or the Commonwealth, and they don't know enough to write a decent article.

There's a project, WP:BIAS, thgat attempts to deal with the problem that most editors of the English Wikipedia are white anglo-saxon protestants, and they may be able to put you to work if you want to help fix the systemic bias in Wikipedia. That's the joy of wiki: you can be part of the solution. It generally helps to assume good faith, though, people are much more open to ideas when they have not been confronted by hostile demands. SDY (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be some misunderstanding about the encyclopedia's scope. Publishing content in no way means Wikipedia or its editors believe the content to be true. It just means the content is notable. A great deal of cultural content is about material that isn't intended to be fact or whose factual status is disputed. Bible stories are generally highly notable, so they're highly appropriate content whatever one thinks of their nature. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy prohibits passing judgment on points of view or claims. Whether these narratives should be regarded as history, or as metaphor, or as literature, is not for Wikipedia to say. Important people have regarded them as each, and it is appropriate for Wikipedia to mention all three perspectives. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the solution to a perceived Judeo-Christian bias is not to remove J-C articles, but to add non-J-C articles, isn't it? ntnon (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Eschewing original thought is virtue?

What we really need is an exception to the policy -- in its entirety. SamNZDat (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not everything in an encyclopedia is a virtue, and not all virtues are encyclopedic. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tie-in books

Shouldn't e.g. works that build on a particular fiction franchise be regarded as primary sources unless they provide substantial discussion above the level of narration? User:Dorftrottel 13:07, January 30, 2008

They are not independent third party sources, so yes, they should be treated as primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We need some exceptions to the policy

I think this policy on Wikipedia is a bit annoying, and promotes deprivation of some information that could be vital. For example, I am under the impression that MP3 players are a probable replacement to radio (more to this topic can be read in Talk:digital audio player). However, my efforts to claim that ordeal on Wikipedia always get reverted (owing to this policy).

Besides, I think peoples' personal experience with concepts may be a basis for public awareness that is largely deprived as people could be missing out on experience that ancillary advantages of concepts may provide. Besides, people are so under some impressions that they forget the research is "too original" thus they get annoyed.

So, will the admins legislate some exceptions to this policy so Wikipedians can be less annoyed by it? Because I know I am. --Roadstaa (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't legislate policy, the community does. You could create a proposal, but it's not too likely to succeed. WP:NOR is one of the core things that makes Wikipedia not "just a bunch of guys on the internet makin' stuff up." Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But other websites can make information "sourceable" if the rumor becomes rampant elsewhere. --Roadstaa (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominally we shouldn't be using just anyone as a source. Check out WP:SOURCES for criteria. Just because the rumor mill grinds it out doesn't mean it should be on here. Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to my suggestion above - how feasible would it be to develop a policy along the lines of "this OR is more appropriate for (Wiki X/Website Y than for Wikipedia"? Some cases will always be marginal/personal experience/leading edge etc but it may be possible to place some work more appropriately than Wikipedia. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need exceptions to this policy. I did some research on a game to collect statistics about certain aspects of the game. However, I didn't realize until after I posted the information that no original research could be used. What I'm saynig is, I think that original research should be allowed if it has ___ people who agree, and can verify that said information is true. The underscores above indicate a number of people that would be needed to verify the information. --MaggotSoldier (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's understandable that you would want to get information you believe is correct and important out to the world, but Wikipedia has a very longstanding policy of not attempting to vet new research itself but relying on previously-established channels to do that, for a host of reasons. This means that if you have new ideas you want to present, you're probably better off presenting them in a different forum. Having the policy means there's going to be a lot of very valuable stuff that has to be turned down. Suggest finding a more open web site to present it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is understandable. If I present my information on another forum, is that a credible source, or will everything I find information-wise not be accepted here, even if it is on another site, due to the fact that I did, indeed, gather it myself? --MaggotSoldier (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If that "forum" is the National Academy of Sciences or the Communist Party's General Meeting, sure. If it's a forum on a website that anyone can post to or a personal website, that's not a reliable source. SDY (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

...and obviously there are many shades of grey in between. In the case of first-person research, there are usually better specialty sites where such details can be published, for access and discussion by people who share the same interests and experience (i.e. who can spot bullshit). Often on such sites there will be great subject-matter experts, who will be able to critique and expand on the issues you might raise. These sites may or may not rise to the level of peer review where they could be suitable for reference by WikiPedia articles.

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense that there should be lots of sources that are full of accurate information, but that nevertheless don't have the level of peer review and widespread notability expected for WikiPedia content. (And of course not all WikiPedia articles meet this standard, but that is the goal.) The only way for a resource like WikiPedia to maintain easy UNIVERSAL access is to have HIGH standards for source quality. For tighter groups, with shared specialty interest, it is possible to take more on faith – because the participants are already part of a circumscribed community, one that imposes its own quality standards through dialogue and the personal reputation of participants. (For example: If you post a bunch of inane bilge on a game site, the other regular contributors will flame you until you shut up. But that won't happen here. Instead, the standard for getting flamed on WikiPedia is posting stuff with no credible third party sources.) Hope this perspective is useful. Spinality (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC related to WP:SYNTH

I have been involved in a content dispute with an editor largely about WP:SYNTH for several months. There is (another?) RfC open here. There are several problems (notably COI), and we're clearly dealing with a WP:SPA, but I think that the fundamental one is that the editor truly doesn't "get" WP:NOR.

The background is this: The editor has self-published a book on his idea about a medical condition. Since the article he wrote specifically on his idea was deleted as non-notable, he's been steadily trying to introduce his idea into the Wikipedia article on a related, vaguely defined medical condition from the 19th century. Under threat of ban for obvious COI violation, he now confines himself to long complaints on the talk page.

His past work and talk page arguments primarily involve (carefully selected aspects of) primary sources. The rest is the addition of related conditions (like Chronic fatigue syndrome) that line up with his POV (and surely they're practically the same thing, because many of the symptoms are the same). He asserts that his work can't be "original research" because some of the studies are more than 100 years old. Thus he believes that he's only reporting someone else's original research, and (inevitably) drawing conclusions from those papers that just happen to support his novel, non-notable idea.

Now you know, and I know, that drawing novel conclusions from primary medical studies is practically the definition of WP:SYNTH. But this editor doesn't seem to know that. I am honestly wondering whether he's ever read this policy. Instead, he seems to think that I (and the other involved editors) are just invoking SYNTH as a form of anti-Truth™ wikilawyering.

I don't think that he needs a bunch of people to jump on him -- he's probably feeling pretty embattled already, and he's remarkably unfamiliar with basic WP conventions, like "{{Otheruses4}} belongs at the top of an article", so I think WP:BITE might apply -- but I do think it might be helpful if several editors who are particularly familiar with this policy would leave a polite note on the RfC's talk page to indicate that, indeed, the community consensus is that drawing your own novel conclusions from 100-year-old medical reports really is a violation of WP:SYNTH, and not just something that the other editors have invented as a means of obstructing him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Application of definitions: synthesis?

Is applying a definition of a term an act of SYN?

In other words, for example, if the definition of discrimination is to treat people differently on a basis other than merit, and I can show source indicating a case where people are treated differently according to merit, is it SYN to therefore say that the case was one of discrimination, is that synthesis? Do I need an explicit source that actually associates the exact word with the topic? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the spirit of SYN to prohibit trivial logical deductions, but in cases like the one you describe, you have to consider the connotations of your word choice. For example, a simple change of wording: Employees were discriminated according to merit is pretty bland in my consideration, but XYZ Corporation discriminates against its employees is blantantly displaying a context probably unintended by the reference. In a sense, whenever we choose to paraphrase a source instead of directly quote it (which is virtually all of the time) we are exercising some form of original research. But as long as our rewording gets across no more ideas than the references did, we're in the clear. As such, it's often a good idea to be careful around or avoid words that can easily be taken out of context, especially into a negative context. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not only WP:SYN, but a classic example of it, and something I or any other administrator would immediately remove if it was done. "Discrimination" is a legal wrong, and any claim that a person committed a legal wrong has to be very carefully reliably sourced to sources who clearly and explicit say "discrimination." There are reams of law books and court opinions about what discrimination is and how the term applies in particular cases, and you can take a whole law school course on the subject and come out more confused than when you came in. You may think you know it when you see it, but Wikipedia can no more accept an editor's personal say-so on whether something is "discrimination" than it could accept a editor's say-so on whether something is kosher or obscene. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination as a word far predates the modern implications, and it is still used today in its innocuous form (Oh, and it's not always a legal wrong by the cultural definition, anyway). The suggestion that the mere use of this word where the source did not is quite reaching of a statement; as I stated, avoidance of culturally charged words, or the negative connotations thereof, is sufficient to avoid SYN in this example. If Keith had been planning my second italicized example, you would be correct in removing it under this reasoning, but not in the case of the first, although it still may not be the best word choice. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your definition at all, and I doubt many sources on discrimination would support it. Gobs and gobs and gobs of discrimination has (and does) occur within the confines of the law of the land. Nor does the definition of the term dictate a value judgment, so neither "legal" or "wrong" are relevant terms. And WP:NPOV prevents us from applying one-sided value judgments. Every form of discrimination has had its proponents who saw it as a good thing, so this notion that we must tread lightly because we apply or presume "wrong"ness (or "good"ness) to the concept is... well, POV.

I think focusing on applying presupposed value judgments to a term and then using these strawmen to dictate how we apply them in a neutral-POV encyclopedia is missing the point of what I'm trying to figure out. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh... wait, so you're saying that because a topic is currently considered to be negative, regardless of its true neutral meaning, it has to be carefully applied? That flies in the face of NPOV in my opinion... If the neutral definition of the term applies to a neutral description of the topic, what's the problem? Besides, this has nothing to do with SYN but with some sort of non-objective sensitivity issue. I don't see how using the passive voice in your example makes a difference, either ("employees of XYZ were discriminated against" versus "company XYZ discriminates against its employees" is the same thing, except one is in poor prose in order to pussy-foot around some company's PR image.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Because good intentions, grammatical accuracy, and the neutral definition althogether are still insufficient from preventing people from having a bad reaction. Company XYZ discriminates against its employees is entirely accurate in this case, but invokes negative connotations unintended by the source. Like Shirahadasha did above, many people are going to look at that statement and assume the intended implication is that XYZ is an evil company that treats its employees unfairly. Where such deductions are possible, it is far easier to avoid certain words or skillfully construct sentences such that any negative deduction unintended by the source is impossible to arrive at; this is far easier than inviting edit wars and debates on the meaning of words every time someone misinterprets the sentence. Whether this is actually a SYN problem is as unclear as the meaning of the sentence that is written. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, though I disagree... so, then, is it valid to include this story on a page called Workplace discrimination... or categorize it in Category:Workplace discrimination? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate, given that merit-based discrimination is so incomparable to the other forms of discrimination listed at that article. In fact, Webster's considers the two connotations of discrimination so distinct it gives them seperate definitions. Thus, the theme of Workplace discrimination is utterly distinct from merit-based discrimination, which should not be listed there on the technicality that it is called by the same word. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Using a phrase like "XYZ Corporation discriminates against its employees" is mentioning discrimination in the context of a workplace, and as Someguy1221 points out, such a use tends to conjure up an impression that XYZ Corporation is doing something illegal. One has to be careful about giving such an impression because it could be libel. Using the word "discriminate" in a different context, (such as saying "The food critic showed a discriminating palate") might not be a problem. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. I thought Wikipedia was WP:NPOV, not dependent on some point of view, particularly one that has no basis. Like I said, many forms of discrimination are completely legal. Why should the content of WP be based on some people's false beliefs? That's not NPOV -- that's succumbing to one POV. Maybe workplace discrimination is a bad example, I don't know, the point of the question is being lost in reinterpretations and this notion that, well, some people will think something negative, so don't say it, even though that conclusion is presumptory and the characterization is perfectly accurate. So I have to come up with a synonym for "workplace discrimination" or "discrimination" itself that follows a subjective rule of thumb... which is forking, and leaves the original fork to be hopelessly defined by POV instead of by NPOV. Can you reconcile this dilemma for me? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 15:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We are required to abide by the law, whether we think it has a basis or not. This includes refraining from unsourced statements likely as a practical matter to convey an impression that negatively affects reputations, whether we think it should or not. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a non-answer. I put it to you that the "law" says that we should not allow POV to influence the content of the encyclopedia, either by addition or subtraction. If there is a neutral, objective basis for a characterization or categorization, saying "it makes someone feel bad" is not a sufficient argument for avoiding it. NPOV is a pillar -- "making sure people feel" good is not. The question I asked, which relates to OR, isn't answered: Can I categorize duck under waterfowl or say that it is a waterfowl in the content, if I have a source that says it is a bird that spends its time in water, or do I actually have to have a source explicitly saying the words "A duck is a waterfowl" ? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is actually very simple, and it has nothing to do with abiding by any rules, just common sense. You can even throw out all concerns about NPOV, OR, SYN, and RS...it's still very simple. Naturally, a goal of this project is to be reasonably comprehensible. So whenever we write something that may be reasonably misinterpreted, we should endeavor to make the actual meaning quite clear. It need not be a sensitive issue of possible negative perceptions; if you can bet that a good fraction of people will make the wrong conclusion from your words, you should reword them! That the alternative but still reasonable interpretation in this case is negative is a reason to be extra careful only because it is more likely to trigger edit wars and accusations of bad faith. So I'm looking at you here, and I see you have the choice between being correct and understood, or correct and misunderstood...I'm not asking you compromise the integrity of Wikipedia in consideration of others' feelings. Rather, I'm trying to advise you on how to add the same information with a minimum of fuss, because if you do what you were suggesting, then other editors will think you're violating this, that and the other thing. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What would the wrong interpretation be? Ahh, perhaps you are saying there is "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination, and perhaps a person might think I mean the "bad" one when I really mean the "good" one. The problem is... "good" and "bad" have no place here. Both are applications of POV. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"if the definition of discrimination is to treat people differently on a basis other than merit" Hold your horses. Who decides the what deeds are meritous or not? Recently in my country Henry Morgentaler was awarded the order of Canada. Those who awarded him said pointed to his unwavering commitment to the woman's right to abortion. Those who opposed him, pointed to the exact same actions of the doctor, and said he was responsible placing a "scourge[of abortion]" on Canada. Two very different views on the same deed.

Also what about treating people based on need, as opposed to merit? Is that discrimination? Surely everyone would agree that a hospital's treatment of some patients differently than others can't be called "discrimination".

But even if we do agree with the above definition, it is way too broad. Under it would fall international borders (discrimination based on national origin). Is that discrimination?

In short I'm making a case to stick to wikipedia's spirit of sourcing. If something is "obviously" an example of discrimination, then shouldn't that "obvious" observation have been made by reliable sources? Bless sins (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[1]. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the word "discrimination" itself. Why not just use the word the sources uses, instead of using "discrimination" (where the souce doesn't use it)? Why can't one be satisfied by simply saying what the source says? This makes life much simpler in my view.Bless sins (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the word "discrimination" does have to be handlded with special care. We have to abide by the laws governing the Foundation,including the libel laws, and this means we sometimes have to take into account the rather strange ways the law sometimes looks at things. One of these oddities is we have to be careful using certain legal "magic words" that connote illegal conduct or similar issues, even though in ordinary English (as distinct from legalese) the very same words may have a different meaning. For better or for worse, "discriminate" is one of those special magic words that have a special meaning in legalese. The law basically compels us to go by the legalese meaning, even though the ordinary English meaning is different. The ordinary English meaning of "discriminate" might well be what you say it is and be no problem here, but the legalese meaning has to be the one we use here. The law sometimes leads to results that don't always seem logical. It's just the way it is. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If third party sources show that X does Y, whether or not they use the word Y but a synonym, then Y is acceptable. Otherwise, every category will have to be split into all of its synonyms, based on what word the sources used to categorize the topic used. Madness, nonsense, and not the sort of exercise we should undertake. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll just point out the classic, long-standing example of synthesis given in the policy:

"If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them." -This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it.

As the example illustrates, WP:SYN has long prohibited the specific thing being done here -- an editor claiming a person has or has not done a wrong based on the editor's own application of a definition of that wrong to a set of facts. That's what the plagiarism example says can't be done, and that's what's happening in the example you gave here. Hope that helps. If you're requesting that this longstanding interpretation of the policy be changed, I wouldn't support such a change. The fact that the example you're giving is (like the plagiarism example) one where claims of legal wrong are involved, together with the fact that claims of legal wrong are fraught with pitfalls, makes me even less inclined to dare to tread, let alone rush in. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep asserting that the definition of discrimination is necessarily tied to the notion of a legal wrong, but this is not supported by any source on the topic of discrimination. So I simply do not accept this basis for your argument, because it's unsubstantiated. Countless forms of discrimination both today and in the past are firmly within the law and many are even explicitly directed by law (black codes, affirmative action, ketuanan melayu, reservation in India, the list goes on). Go and read discrimination or many of the other articles in Wikipedia on discrimination topics to review. To assume that discrimination is "wrong" or "bad" is to endorse a particular POV. NPOV dictates that we assume a neutral point of view. You suggest that there is some sort of unwritten guideline of worrying about false assumptions that overrides NPOV but I don't see it.

Take the following source. [2] I can say based on this source that (as of the time that page was current) that "Jews are not permitted to enter Saudi Arabia." Yes? But I can't say "Saudi Arabia discriminates who can enter the country based on Jewishness" because the Saudi government does not use the word "discrimination" to describe their policy, even though the definition of religious discrimination is "treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe"? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be preferable to have an independent reliable source to provide some context (and establish the noteworthiness of the fact), but your example is correct. Stick to the plain reporting of what the sources state. If you need to make an argument that the data in a source fits a particular interpretation or if you require multiple sources to establish a claim, it is very likely to be considered original research and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't give legal advice. Please contact a lawyer about the meaning of legal terms. Please contact your legislator if, after that advice, you think the law should be different from what it is. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of wikipedia content, "discrimination" is an emotionally-loaded word which many people react to immediately rather than perceiving it in its technically neutral way, so it would seem to many editors, myself included, to qualify under Wikipedia:Words to avoid. If there are other, more clearly neutral terms available, which do not have the emotionally-charged nature that word does, they should be used instead. In this case, I have every reason to believe that the point could be made just as clearly with alternate phrasing. John Carter (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Discrimination" is the neutral term. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 08:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of law, nor is there a legal term involved, and I find your insistence on it without any basis, and you won't give me one. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 07:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

published court decision

The WP:OR article defines trial transcripts as primary sources, and thus out of bounds. But what about a published decision? In my opinion, published decisions should be considered secondary sources (for the limited purposes of WP:OR), and potentially citable/quotable in WP. One relevant passage from WP:OR is: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..." Certainly a published court decision meets this qualification. Verklempt (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a misconception as to what the policy is saying. While WP:OR defines trial transcripts as primary sources, that does NOT mean they are "out of bounds". Primary sources can be used. The key is to use them with care... and to not use them in ways that constitute Original Research. For example, a trial transcript might be appropriately used for a statement as to the opinion of a witness about some aspect of the case, but it should not be used to support a statement of fact about the case.

In the case of a published court decision... while such documents are indeed primary, they are definitely reliable published sources. If you stick to the source (ie limit the discussion to what is contained in the decision), and avoid drawing any conclusions from it... avoid interpreting it, analizing it or saying what it means... you should be fine.

All that said, I would have to see how it is being used in a specific article to know if you are using it appropriately or not. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The classification of a source as primary versus secondary depends on context – on what elements from the source are being used to substantiate what points in the article. The majority of publications are primary sources for some new theses, syntheses, facts, findings, analyses, etc., because without offering some novelty, the only nonfiction works that would get published are textbooks, surveys, and encylopaedias. (If we forbade the use of all sources that contain ANY primary material, we would essentially limit ourselves to tertiary sources.)

In the case of a published court transcript, such a document would clearly be a primary source for details related to the subject matter of the case – it would be an error to cite deposition X as establishing fact Y. Fact-finding is left to judges and juries.

However, a properly published court transcript is a secondary source for some factual points – such as venue, parties to the case, dates of proceedings, and perhaps (depending on publication medium, transcription method, etc.) for reliable transcripts of verbatim testimony, establishing what statements were made by whom. Again, the transcript would not establish truth of falsehood of issues being addressed by the case, but rather about facts and events related to the court proceedings. Thus we could say "the transcript establishes that Smith said X" but not "the transcript shows X.") This at least is my reading of policy. Spinality (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe an appellate decision, particularly a decision of a court like the United States Supreme Court, can be treated quite differently from a trial transcript and will often be usable as a secondary source. Appellate opinions meet all the necessary qualifications. Appellate judges are specially vetted for expertise and reliability. They check facts. Particularly for Supreme Court decisions, the very fact that they take and publish a case (The Supreme Court has a published opinion on only 1 or 2 percent of the cases appealed) is a reliable indication that the subject matter is notable and important in the legal world. Trial transcripts, on the other hand, are completely different. They often reflect mere allegations. The papers people file and the things people say at a trial aren't necessarily reliable, and there's no guarantee that anyone reliable has vetted them. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary

A phrase from Emanuel Ringelblum is literally quoted in History of the Jews in Poland as an alleged secondary source. I believe it's still a primary source if we don't quote the comment in Polonsky.Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The citation is correct... According to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, if you took the quote from Polonsky you should say so. I would slightly reword the citation to make it clearer that Polonsky is quoting Ringelblum:

• "Was it inevitable that ... face of the greatest tragedy of all time?" Emanuel Ringelblum, as quoted in Antony Polonsky & Joanna B. Michlic, The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland. Princeton University Press, 2003

As for whether it is a primary or secondary source... that does not really matter. It is stated as being opinion and not as fact. There is no original research involved. In otherwords, even if the source is primary, it is being used appropriately. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese cash

An issue related to original research in titles is under discussion at Talk:Chinese wén, specifically the use of common names of currencies as currently recommended by the style guidelines as well as WP:OR. If interested, please discuss a resolution of a titleing issue and give suggestions there. — AjaxSmack 01:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What is Original Research in the UEFA Cup?

I was hoping someone could help me out here, specifically someone with a good idea of what constitutes WP:OR. There's an increasingly-bitter argument going on at Talk:UEFA Cup 2008-09 over whether the inclusion of a table of goalscorers for the competition which includes goals scored in qualifying should be allowed. UEFA doesn't consider goals scored in qualifying to be part of their Golden Boot (top scorer) award, and so does not list any qualifying goals in their table of top scorers. We tried adding them to the Wiki article, on the basis that just because they are not part of the Golden Boot competition, doesn't mean the information isn't relevant. However, a couple of people who objected to this step have used the "OR" term as a reason we should discount this and revert to the previous format (no qualifying goals shown). Now, I am confused by this step because it doesn't seem at all like Original Research to me. It's hardly original, the goalscorers are known and published by UEFA and countless other media sources, and there are also numerous websites, some reputable, some not, who compile their own lists of goalscorers including qualifying goals and have done since way before we started doing it here a week or two back. To my mind, it's also certainly not research because it's not in any way an argument, speculation or idea; it's not analysis or synthesis and doesn't serve to advance a position, and the only facts here as said above are published, not unpublished. To me, that discounts any possible idea of it being Original or Research. The counter-theory appears to basically be that any compilation of facts about football not already compiled by the football organisation relevant to it (i.e. UEFA for the UEFA Cup) is Original Research, and I've seen one person as good as say that because qualifying goals don't count towards the Golden Boot then they officially don't exist, making them unpublished facts (I've already presented my opposition to this above).
The argument has now gone on long enough that I decided to come here for assistance - I'm picky about these things, and while I don't mind being told that I'm wrong, I'd really like to find out what really constitutes OR in this instance, so I can get my facts straight. Any advice from those with a clear sense of what OR is would be much appreciated. Falastur2 ^Talk 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like your chart is a synthesis of information available elsewhere... while the bits and pieces that go into making the chart are not OR, puting them all together in one chart might be. (I do wonder why you want to list goals that are not counted by the UEFA in an article about the UEFA, but that is a different issue.) Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to rework the chart into two seperate sections... Part one would list goals scored in qualifying (noting that they are not counted by UEFA for Golden Boot) and part two would list scored during competition (noting that they are counted by UEFA for Golden Boot).Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason we wanted to do it is because to football fans it is desired information - a football fan will generally want to know who has scored, and not everyone agrees that a goal is unnoteworthy because it was in qualifying. And I agree about the two table format, and indeed we've proposed it there, but those people in the article arguing in favour of the claim of OR claim that any use of the qualifying goals in any way, shape or form is OR and must be eliminated. Falastur2 ^Talk 14:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because putting sourced facts in a chart simply isn't "Original Research". A "synthesis" would be if you used two published facts to deduce a third, novel, fact, which you aren't. However, there are some policies about relevance, such as WP:COATRACK, you might take a look at. You can put the facts in a subsection of the table to keep things nice and neat, but the NOR policy has nothing to do with this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is essentially my point of view. There's no attempt to establish an argument or to use these facts to deduce other facts, therefore I dismiss the claim of OR. I thank you both for your comments and welcome others, it seems there's still a bit of disagreement here, so a more comprehensive answer by incorporating more peoples' responses would be great. Falastur2 ^Talk 14:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"directly related" edits/reverts

All right, I don't understand why this is controversial, someone fill me in on the history. It says "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I would delete (or at least tone down, or at the very least remove the bolding from) the first clause, since it seems to have nothing to do with originality of research (the topic of this page), and therefore distracts attention from the message. Can anyone explain why it's there or what it's supposed to mean?--Kotniski (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Colleague, your are approaching from wrong direction. People have been working long and hard on the texts of policies, with long talk pages. Of course out of courtesy someone may explain what exactly each and every word of the policy intended to mean. But this is not the issue at the moment. The major issue is that if you are initiating some change, then it is your obligation to prove that old test was bad before you start editing a policy page. This is why you were reverted. No hard feelings, please.

Having said that, to your edits. One of things you deleted was "without specialist knowledge". - While it may seem redundant, it is a reasonable clarification. Some people may "read between lines" and understand the phrase "reasonably educated" and "reasonably educated in the topic". While you may say it is stupid, but you may be surprized how many people make unjustified assumptions, and this clarification helps to prevent unnecessary heated discussions. I am sure someone else will explain you why the phrase "directly related" is important in this context to be repeated several times. Mukadderat (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all; WP:BRD works. So let's discuss this "without specialist knowledge" as well. What is it supposed to say? The only interpretation I can find is that we shouldn't be letting experts help us make WP more accurate; this is absurd to me, but in line with how some people on WP seem to think, so I guess it might mean that. But as the phrase stands it doesn't even say that - it actually says something even more absurd: that experts' interpretations count less than other educated people's. Somehow it needs changing. (Still waiting for an answer on the "directly-related" thing.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are confusing wikipedia readers and wikipedia writers. There are two basic issues. One is related to all encyclopedias: they are written for laymen. Another is specifically to wikipedia: traditional encyclopedias heavily rely to an authority: a reader of Encyclopedia Britannica believes it because it was written by experts. Wikipedians are not experts, and in order for a layman to believe in what was written in wikipedia, he must be able to verify its claims with layman's own eyes. Finally, per "absurd": you misread the policy, I am afraid: the part in question says exactly the opposite: unless the primary source is exceptionally clear, its interpretation may be entered into wikipedia only via a reference from an expert. Mukadderat (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is doubtless something that could be argued about unproductively for ever, so let's not start here; but I don't see where you're coming from with your last point. The sentence I attempted to edit says: "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify...". That seems to say that if a specialist's verification fails while a layman's succeeds, the layman is deemed right. That can't possibly be what we mean; we must at least do something like add "even" before "without", although the emphasis still seems wrong to me - we ought to be tending to give (not expressly avoiding giving) greater weight to specialists' readings, inasmuch as we can determine within our community what those specialist readings are.--Kotniski (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There were many reasons for including "directly related"... go through the archives of this talk page and you will probably find several. The most obvious to me is that it limits editor's ability to cite sources out of context. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example (real or hypothetical)? I would have thought the second part of the sentence, "and directly support the information..." would be sufficient in all cases. (Unless the problem is that the statement being made is considered not relevant to the article subject; but that wouldn't be primarily an OR issue.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure... let's say you are editing the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories... and you want to say that the Freemasons were behind the bombings. You are able to find a source that talks about how the Illuminati were behind 9/11, and you have a source that says the Freemasons are all members of the Illuminati... unfortunately for you, you can not bridge the gap and make the connection between 9/11 and the Freemasons. You can not use the second source as a citation, since it does not directly mention 9/11. To do so in the context of the 9/11 article would be OR. It is not "directly relevant" to a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Does that make it clearer? Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly clearer than it was. But I'm still not convinced the issue is what you say it is. Does it matter whether or not the second source directly mentions 9/11? It may even mention it, for all we care, but that shouldn't provide any more justification for our including irrelevant facts as insinuations in our article. On the other hand, let's say that politician X has denounced these accusations about the Illuminati, and we want to mention that denunciation, but with the rider that X is known to be associated with the Illuminati himself, as is demonstrated by sources A, B and C. However neither A, B or C mentions 9/11. Should that prevent us from citing those sources for that purpose? I suspect most reasonable people would say not; if Wikipedia policy is otherwise, then it needs a lot more emphasis, and preferably under a different heading than "original research", which it clearly isn't.--Kotniski (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a source that explicitly connects our hypothetical politician's defense of the Illuminati to his membership in that group, then to discuss it would be OR. You, the editor, are making the connection (that he is defending the Illuminati because of his membership), not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the precise wording used. If I write something to the effect that his defence is "because of" his membership, or is rendered less credible by the fact of his membership, then clearly that's OR. But if I simply place the two facts together ("X, himself a member of the Illuminati(ref AA \ref), has denounced the accusations(ref DD \ref)") is that OR? I would say not. There's no original synthesis going on; we're simply presenting sourced facts in a neutral way, and letting readers decide what to make of them. Omitting the fact of his membership is more likely to mislead readers than including it (indeed, the writer of source DD might have omitted this information only because she expected her readers to be already aware of it). However if, in the face of what I would regard as common sense, Wikipedia does prohibit such use of sources, then it should say so explicitly and at length, with examples, instead of just quietly implying it through this strange wording of the NOR policy.--Kotniski (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Selective strings of material

• I've added a point that use of PS should "avoid assembling a selective string of primary source material that in itself is suggestive of a particular interpretation, point of view, or analytic train of thought." That wording has been in WP:DE for a while and has served quite well.
• As the above example shows, you can make an OR point just by assembling uninterpreted primary sources to support a particular POV or conclusion, just by stringing them together in a suggestive way; satisfying the letter, but not the spirit of WP:OR. Jayen466 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything about this over at DE. This is a policy page. To change it, you need more than a couple people who say "this would be nice". Let's see what other people have to say. I have concerns that this will lead to people trying to use this policy, which may be contentious, to keep out information in primary sources that they don't like. In many cases there are no reviews on the subject, and in some cases delving into the primary literature is the best way to actually represent, in detail, what the literature says. One example is, say, lithium orotate. There are no reviews on it, and all the primary research is negative. One might conclude that people are "suggestively citing a bunch of primary studies". I think these decisions are best made editorially; your wording introduces more possibility of harm than good, and this is best handled through editorial consensus on individual pages. II | (t - c) 20:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess what makes the difference to me is the word "selective". If we are simply presenting what there is, as in your example, then that's all we're doing. But if we're picking and choosing, and especially picking and choosing from areas that are only connected in our minds, rather than linked by reliable sources, then it becomes a different thing.

For reference, the relevant sentence in DE governing the use of PS is

Auf analysierende oder interpretierende Aussagen, selbst eine selektive, suggestive Aneinanderreihung von Primärquelleninhalten, muss verzichtet werden, bis entsprechende Sekundärliteratur verfügbar wird.

— http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keine_Theoriefindung

A translation of that is:

Editors must abstain from making any analytic or interpretative statements, and abstain even from presenting a selective, suggestive string of primary source contents, until relevant secondary literature becomes available.

But I can see your concern, so let's mull it over and think about whether there is any merit in this line of thought. Jayen466 20:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That effectively makes it impossible to cite primary research, and those numerous areas where there are no reviews, or where reviews are way outdated, are effectively left with no content. That would be an enormous change in policy. It seems we have a philosophical difference with the Germans here -- some sources are better than none, in my mind. PubMed makes it easy to find out if there's selective citing. Also, there are widespread misunderstandings on the definition of "primary" and "secondary" -- all "primary" studies are actually secondary sources in that they discuss prior literature. II | (t - c) 21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to give a made-up example of stringing together primary (and secondary) source material:

In an affidavit submitted as part of their divorce case, Mr X's wife alleged that her husband was at times subject to uncontrollable rages.(source:Affidavit) Following their July 2008 divorce, Mr X moved to the couple's second home in 48, Any Street, Anytown, while Mrs X retained the family home in Othertown.(source:court record) In August 2008, a car was damaged outside number 42 Any Street, Anytown, by an unknown vandal.(source:police record) In September, there was a murder at no. 50 Any Street, Any Town.(source:newspaper).

I am afraid this is a really daft example, but perhaps it will help to get across the sort of thing I mean.

What I have in mind is not about making it impossible to cite primary research, the point is that we shouldn't build a story from it that no one else has told, by doing our own selection and juxtaposition. Jayen466 21:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Doing that is already prohibited under our current policy. That is exactly what the current policy targets. Let's not engage in instruction creep, especially when it can be so easily misinterpreted. II | (t - c) 21:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - but would point out that some of the current policy is also worded in such a way that it can be easily misinterpreted (as is clear from the discussion section above this one).--Kotniski (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess much (but not all) of it is covered by WP:SYNTH.

Sometimes a good approach to avoid "telling stories" is to go strictly by timeline. Not always the best thing to do, but works sometimes. Jayen466 21:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

SYNTH is very tricky. There must be a very fine dividing line between "just" stating the facts and drawing (perhaps implicitly) some kind of conclusion from them. There's also no easy answer to the question of when a particular fact becomes relevant to the topic. The policy ought to address these issues in a way that recognizes the fuzziness. Luckily I'm off on vacation tomorrow so I won't have to think about it for some time;) --Kotniski (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity

I was visiting wikiversity, and they are very interested in having original research moved to that website. Multiple pages in wikiversity discuss trying to establish a policy of having claims of original research in wikipedia examined by/for wikiversity, and possibly being moved there. In fact, this article was linked from just such a page. How do other people feel about mentioning this in this page, or elsewhere? Does the idea have merit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.130.94 (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The applicability of WP:OR to user-created illustrations of extinct animals...

...is being discussed here. I started the discussion out of the concern that such illustrations, which are necessarily speculative when based only on a fossil record, violate WP:OR, at least when no cites are provided to any sources upon which the images are based. There seems to be a presumption in some of the comments that illustrations are categorically excluded from OR considerations, or that there's no difference between articles including speculative illustrations first published in a reliable source and speculative illustrations first published on Wikipedia. Postdlf (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... is this original research?

There is a discussion going on at Directional Michigan concerning original research. Essentially, "Directional Michigan" is a term used to refer to as a single group the following: Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, and Western Michigan University -- particularly their college football programs, although it can extend to other sports and even outside sports.

The issue at hand is that if an editor finds sources for budgets and game attendance of each university's athletic department, is it original research to add those numerical amounts together and come up with a sum total of athletic budget and game attendance for the group of schools that make up "Directional Michigan" ?? One editor says yes, another says no... a third (me) is now totally confused.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is OR to simply add numbers. But, I do think it inappropriate to do so. "Directional Michigan" is essentially a slang term. It is not an official body. Heck, it isn't even an unoffical body. It is mearly a discription... an unoffical grouping created by ESPN to be cute. Thus, I seriously have to question whether it is appropriate to discuss joint numbers. You can do it... but why? Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly sure why the editor in question is doing it myself... but the term has started to gain widespread use among college football sportswriters and fans alike--so the term has exceeded the original ESPN intnet. It also appears to start being used in other areas such as "Directional Illinois" ... In any event, I wanted to bring the "OR" question here... Thanks!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to bring this discussion to a wider audience Paul. I think portions of the article are original research (synthesis, specifically), not because of summing numbers together, but because conclusions are being drawn based on those numbers and no other references also draw the same conclusion (if fact, the references don't make any conclusions—they just say "Directional Michigan"). — X96lee15 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the top of this talkpage, I wonder if this question would be better posed here: Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard — X96lee15 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment User X96lee15 (commenting above) is the editor on the Directional Michigan page taking the stance that it is original research. (Not that there's a problem with the user commenting here, just working to be clear).--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved — I copied this discussion to Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Synthesis question in college football article since that appears to be the correct place to get more eyes to view it. Any further discussion should probably occur there rather than here. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed Publications Should Always Treated As Reliable Secondary Sources

WP:Sources states

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Clear enough, but I've seen wikilawyers use the claim that peer reviewed studies are a "primary source" to oppose and block reporting of studies in Wikipedia, arguing that text books or even newspaper articles covering the study (if they exist) are preferable because these are secondary sources. This has the effect of closing the door to reporting any newer studies which have not been included in text books or in media reports. This "block" thereby limits the scope of the encyclopedia as a comprehensive summary of known information on a subject.

I therefore believe the defininition of a secondary source should be clarified to include all peer reviewed journal articles, except in those rare circumstances where the article has been retracted by the journal...but even in those cases it may be especially important to report that the article was published and retracted.

Further reasoning is as follows:

1. Lab notes and raw data are clearly primary sources. Published raw data collected by national regisitries, surveys and the like are also primary sources.

2. Once these notes and data (whether collected by an indivdiual research or third party compilations of data) have been analyzed and intepreted by a researcher, or team of researchers, and this synthesis and analysis and review of data and literature has itself been reviewed by peers with expertise in the field and published in a peer reviewed, indexed journal, that publicaion is now an reliable secondary source, by definition. Afterall, the information has been vetted by experts and considered at least worthy of consideration as having added information useful to the field. That is roughly speaking the standard and purpose of peer review. While peer review is sufficient, I add "indexed journal" as an additional level of quality verification since the academic journal indexing houses verify that the journal, even a new journal, has editorial processes worthy of the journal being indexed.

3. A core policies are reliability and verifiablity...not truth. That some wikipeida editors do not find peer reviewed studies convincing does not justify wikilawyering efforts to block their inclusion in articles. Peer reviewed sources are and should remain highly valued and not subject to suppression by ideologically driven editors.

I've read previous discussions of this subject and believe the policy is currently correct, but it is frequently being misinterpreted and should therefore be clarified. --SaraNoon (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The devil is in the detail. For example articles in old peer reviewed journals are not as useful as more recent peer reviewed journals, but some very recent articles in peer reviewed journals may be rejected by most scientists working in that field in the coming year or two. This paragraph has to be read with common sense and trying to make it more detailed will probably detract from its usefulness as a policy. I do not know if such points have been added to a guideline, but that is probably where such details should be put. -Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review does not guarantee reliability in general. If you and your flat earth society peers agree that the earth is flat, that does not make "the earth is flat" a reliable statement. Journals associated with notable professional societies are generally a reliable source, but it really depends. The acid test is essentially if articles from the journal are routinely cited in other journals, especially broadly recognized ones. SDY (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Flat earthers do not get their "studies" published in peer reviewed, indexed journals of geology. So that's a red herring argument. I added the provision also that the journal must be indexed by the indexes covering the field of the subject. If you're adding that the journal must be cited by other journals in the field (proving that it is accepted by other journals in the field as a journal, not a basement publication of flat earthers) I'm fine with that.

For wikipedia, "reliability" does not apply to whether the claimed fact is true but whether it was published in a reliable source -- which peer reviewed journals are, by defintion. If for example, the wikipedia article and source accurately report that an article in Flat Earthers Review" states that the earth is flat, that is a true statement (that they claim it, not that it is flat). I'm all in favor of having facts and analyses opposing a postion of one source included in articles. What I object to is proponents of one view deleting peer reviewed material simply because it doesn't agree with their view.

Regarding old and newer studies, again if they are peer reviewed and an editor wants to include them, I think that's fine and those edits should be respected. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that contributor should object when other editors put his sources in perspective by adding material showing that the analyses in the older cite have been supplanted by newer research or that the latest new research has been questioned by some experts (giving citations, of course.) My general view is that the more information and citations given the more valuable the article is to those starting to research a subject. As noted above, my main concern is with the wikilawyering of some editors who try to twist these common sense definitions into excuses for deleting material from reliable sources, ie. peer reviewed journals, because they are more concerned about pushing a perspective or agenda of their own rather than letting Wikipedia be a record of the literature...and even the back and forth disputes...of the experts in the field as recorded in the peer reviewed journals. --SaraNoon (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is a real journal, I agree with you totally. The only qualification given, though, was that it was peer reviewed, which means nothing if the quality of the peers is dubious. SDY (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, but drawing from original articles which are highly technical has problems. Reviews can also be technical, though, so that's not something that should be directed entirely at original articles. Reviews are, in many cases, a better source, but reviews are often less common than original articles, and, in some cases they are more prone to error, since the reviewer cannot be an expert on everything she is looking at. II | (t - c) 19:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with and appreciate your points that (1) review articles are often less common, or perhaps even unavailable, and (2) that review articles may have their own limitations, errors, omissions, and POV.

Regarding the concern that some papers may be very technical, I don't see that as a core problem. If the wikipedia aritlce deals with something which is nuanced and technical the readers are looking for some such details. What is very important, however, is that each editors should know his or her own limitations and not try to summarize something they don't understand. At the same time, all editors should generally respect that some, perhaps even many editors, are contributing to the article precisely because they do understand the technical details and are qualified to reflect the findings of a paper, generally by quoting the original author, et cetera. That doesn't mean an expert editor should engage in OR, but it does mean that an expert editor should not be deprived the right to cite a peer reviewed study just because another editor objects to the study because it presents material that goes against some preferred POV.

While policy is that the burden of proof is on an editor to supply a reliable source (in this case a peer reviewed study), once that is done the burden of proof for changing (much less excluding) the contribution falls on editors who believe the contested contribution mistates or misrepresented the peer reviewed source. If there are misrepresentations, the solution in such cases is to correct the article to reflect what the peer reviewed source really says. What I really object to is people who just delete reliably cited material with excuses in the vein of:"I don't believe it," or "I've found another expert who disagrees," or "You don't have the approval of myself and other editors (consensus) for making this addition to the article."

It is the unwarrented deleting of reliable sources which underlies much of the edit warring around here. It is my hope to see peer reviewed sources more firmly identified in policy as reliable secondary sources to reduce the risk of such edit warring and to "force" those disagreeing on a citation to work at ways to properly report the findings or fact without deleting the citation itself. How a reliable source is reported, and in proper balance with other sources, is certainly a fair editorial decision that requires consensus. The fact that a peer reviewed source is a reliable secondary source should not be an issue, however. --SaraNoon (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We do say that peer-reviewed journals etc. are the most reliable sources. The problem may lie in the inclusion of "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" under the subheading of "primary sources". This would include results published in peer-reviewed journals, given the present wording. I can see the concern that published experimental results are sometimes found to have been in error, or prove irreproducible by others; so there may be good reasons for caution. On the other hand, if some groundbreaking research results are published in Nature, or some other mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journal – say, the discovery of a new particle or element – are we really saying that we should not mention this in Wikipedia? And what about sociological studies, for example, published by the sociologist who has done the fieldwork? Surely, such studies are reliable sources, certainly more reliable than newspaper articles.

Where did you have these problems, SaraNoon? Which scientific fields are involved? Jayen466 22:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed sources are generally primary sources and are always subject to the WP:PSTS issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's an interesting view, given that we have "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses ..." prominently displayed in policy. Could you explain? Jayen466 18:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PSTS is very carefully worded so that only the following parts of peer reviewed papers are classified as primary sources:

"written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research;"

Any parts of that make analytic or synthetic claims are classified as secondary sources in PSTS. This is a reasonable division, in my opinion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with ScienceApologist for exactly the reason raised by Jayen. I also agree with Carl, and underscore that nearly every peer reviewed paper that includes "published experimental results" (for example) also include analytical and sythentic claims and some review of the literature. So in many if not most cases where a peer reviewed article contains primary source material it also includes secondary source material. It is therefore appropritate as a source, but editors should take care in using any of the primary source material (ie. a data point, such as the melting point of zinc) to not draw inferences or make their own analysis, but it is clearly fair game to summarize (or better) quote the analysis of the published researcher as that is from the secondary source portion of the paper.--SaraNoon (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If a peer reviewed article is later challenged by another such article, per NPOV we ought to mention both, in particular when it concerns scientific disputes. WP:V and WP:OR do not preclude the inclusion of competing views, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

among the problems

One is the low quality of many so called peer reviewed sources, and the other is the very high quality of some that are not. I have reviewed for journals where the clear expectation of the peer reviewers was to find some reason for accepting anything that might be submitted from anyone in the industry or profession or academic field, and the only things ever rejected were off the wall stuff from people without any familiarity at all with the subject. -- and even then, if they were short of papers for an issue, this was interpreted pretty flexibly. Some "peer-reviewed" journals in such cases publish the proceedings of symposia, under the authority of the symposium convener--who in turn sometimes has their main purpose the need of getting enough papers to hold a symposium. I have also reviewed for journals in the position of accepting the top 5% of papers , or only those papers which in addition to being excellent, are considered to be of broad interest. But even these journals of the highest quality always have a few papers that it turns out nobody else even bothers to cite again--and even the lowest quality journals sometimes publish a paper that turns out to be of major significance--sometimes where one of the editorial board is induced to submit some actually good work to help the journal along.

On the other hand, some non-peer reviewed sources--in my subject, Library Journal, in science Chemical and Engineering News, and Physics Today--as examples only--are technically professional magazines, where decisions are made by the editors of the journal, responsible in some cases to professional societies, in some even to commercial publishers. Such journals typically contain state-of-the-art summaries that are in practice treated by academic and professionals to be of the highest authority and are very widely used as standard treatments. I've written for one or two such journals, and the editing was the most careful I ever received.

I think one must evaluate individual cases. I have seen here at Wikipedia many instances where a person with a lack of sophistication attempts to override the consensus of the academic world on an academic subject with popularized sources that at best can be used for showing what the popular misconceptions of the subject may be. In the other direction, have also seen people using isolated peer reviewed journal articles to support the most dubious ideas. Even more, I have seen people selectively picking out unrepresentative peer-reviewed sources for quotations to justify a particular not-universally accepted position. In a controversy, there's nothing easier to find than a distinguished scholar in an unimpeachable journal saying that his position is widely held,and everyone else has been refuted. In anything interesting , one can do this for both sides of the question.

With respect for the weighting of primary articles in the scientific literature versus review, Sara is generally correct that there is no simple rule. Many primary articles provide an encyclopedic evaluation of the prior literature. Many review articles are purely POV, published because of a friend who's the journal editor. Though many review articles are themselves peer reviewed , sometimes quite heavily, they remain to be understood in most cases as being the personal view of the people who write them. To illustrate the lack of separation, PubMed (and other indexes) regularly class as review articles any article with above a certain number of references, on the empiric grounds that it can be used by someone seeking a review of the literature. DGG (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask... Why is this being discussed here? How does all this relate to No original research? No matter where a paper (even one supporting a completely rejected theory) is published, it isn't OR ... unless the author of the paper is the person who is adding it to Wikipedia. If it has been published elsewhere, it can not be original research to state what it says here. Doing so might violate several other policies... but not WP:NOR. This sounds like a topic that would be better discussed at WP:RS or WP:V. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

true, it really belongs in RS. However, there is actually no such thing as simply following the sources to provide V. In anything really interesting and contentious, you can find sources to support almost anything, and the judgement as discretion to select them is very close to original research in many cases. To provide one's own synthesized opinion is not actually any worse than to find from among 20 opinions the one that coms closest that one wants to say--it is just a less wikipedia=worthy way of giving one opinion. either can be honest NPOV work, either can be POV-pushing. The way the theme got to this was i think the discussion of whether reporting primary published scientific papers was OR as distinguished from citing reviews. RS or no RS, the proper use of sources is not intellectually different from much OR.DGG (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

From the WP:SYNTH aspect of OR, you mean? I find SYNTH, as presented, is easily misinterpreted -- giving rise to the problems you discuss.--Father Goose (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

@DGG" Though many review articles are themselves peer reviewed , sometimes quite heavily, they remain to be understood in most cases as being the personal view of the people who write them. ... which makes these personal viewpoints perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia articles if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• yes, in the class of opinion, but not with the same authority as edited material. DGG (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Peer Review/Secondary Sources Discussed Here

Regarding the thread above, I brought it up here because I've seen WP:PSTS, which is part of No OR, cited by wikilawyers as an excuse to exclude any mention of citations -- even from major journals. They simply argue, as ScienceApologist did above, that peer reviewed journal articles are generally primary sources.

This conflict over how peer reviewed sources (whether from a fantastic journal or a "any opinion goes" journal) is therefore a source of ongoing of editing conflicts and edit warring. Clarifying this definition would help to reduce such editing conflicts. In my view, this clarification should be done in a manner which encourages inclusion of more material and tries to discourage exclusion of material.

In short, I can see why the definition at WP:PSTS can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with WP:Sources. Therefore, WP:PSTS it should be clarified to reiterate that peer reviewed sources are highly prized as verifiable sources with an explanation that they often combine both primary and secondary material. In that regard, editors should be reminded that any use of the primary material (raw data) should be used with caution and not with OR, and that it is generally best to rely on the scondary source materail from the peer reviewed source, which is usually in the form of the textual description of results and discussion. The "background" sections are also valuable secondary sources as they often provide a review of the relevant literature undergirding the new paper.

Some of these points should be developed in guidelines explaining this policy. But as this is a policy page, it should be clarified in a way that reduces conflicts between interpreting WP:PSTS and WP:Sources.

Regarding guidelines, as stated above, I believe in inclusion rather than exclusion. If some editor thinks that a third rate paper from a third rate journal should be cited in an article, I would be all for keeping the citation, but might insist that it be just that, an additional citation associated with better cites to the same point raised. After all, even a third rate paper is verifiable and rather than edit war, it is best to find at least a nominal place to include it out of respect for the other editor's insistence that it should be included.

My main point then is not that every peer review paper deserves equal weight or discussion. Not at all. But I do object to POV pushers deleting peer reviewed papers simply because the findings and opinions expressed conflict with what the editors insist (usually without sound basis) is the "accepted" viewpoint....often relying on well known newspaper or magazine articles as "reliable secondary sources." In my view, peer reviewed sources should always be more highly preferred than newspaper articls...unless you are looking for a synthesis of what so and so said at this political rally, of course.--SaraNoon (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

--SaraNoon (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this as a draft proposal? Perhaps someone can tighten it up.

Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.[3] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.[4][5] Peer reviewed studies including original data are one step removed from the gathering of the data in that they generally provide an analysis and synthesis of the data along with an expert opinion, all of which has been reviewed by third parties. The raw data in a peer reviewed paper, however, should be treated with the care due to primary source material. SaraNoon (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think these matters are too subject-specific to belong in policies. The fact of the matter is, journal articles can be primary sources in some fields and contexts and secondary in others. Moreover, journal articles are not the only example of peer-reviewed sources. A one-size-fits-all decision in a policy page would simply not be appropriate on such a matter. Making a universal rule based on evidence taken from a narrow context leads to mistakes, in policy-making as in science. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The current WP:PSTS statement can be read in a way that contradicts reliable source policy and is therefore a cause of much edit warring. Some clarification, including perhaps additional guidelines, would benefit the project. Peer reviewed sources, whether in journals or elsewhere, should be definition be recognized as reliable, verifiable sources which for the most part are also reliable secondary sources. Policy should reflect this and put the onus for excluding any particular peer reviewed source on those arguing for exclusion, not on those bringing material to the project. Such a clarification would emphasize the goal of including material so that the arguments will be limited to how they are included rather than if they should be included.--SaraNoon (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The onus of providing reliable sources has long been with those who wish to add material, not with those who may question it (see WP:V). By extention, when a conflict occurs about a source (such as whether the source is infact reliable, or whether a statement being derived from the source violates NOR), it is up to the person who wishes to add the material to demonstrate that the material conforms to our policies. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SaraNoon, this has been a longstanding weak-spot within the policy article, and has been resistant to change, but most people except Wikilawyers ignore it. The distinction between primary and secondary is a subtle one derived from historiography, actually all sources are both primary and secondary in some sense. So don't worry about reading the section too closely--rather, follow the general principles of the article, which is to avoid original research in any form, and make sure everything is verifiable, which means that you use reliable sources. If your source is reliable, and you cite it fairly without synthesis, it isn't original research. Period. Don't worry about whether a source is primary or secondary, because the answer is, it's both. COGDEN 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Shirahadasha, could you please give an example of a journal article published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed academic journal that you would consider a primary rather than a secondary source – just to help understanding and communication here around this issue. Jayen466 18:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You and SaraMoon may wish to read over this discussion, as it is fairly typical of discussions about peer-reviewed journals and scientific articles that have repeatedly occurred on this page. Vassyana (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

coGDEN, I agree with you that it should be clear enough already for reasonable editors, but the fact is, as you noted, it is a weak spot and is being used for wikilawyering and obstruction and disruptive edits by "tag teams" are especially difficult when they resort to this "you can't use that source because it's a primary source" nonsense. Obviously, this is especially problematic on any article that is even remotely controversial where one editor, or teams, want to 100% suppress verifiable sources simply because they don't like the evidence or conclusions of those sources. Rather than go to dispute resolution constantly over these matters, at least some edit warring could be avoided and people could focus on how to include sources rather than if sources should be included, if this was properly clarified in policy. I think my suggested change comes close to tightening this up. If it is not clarified in policy, it should at least be clarified in some higher level guideline. Would you support some kind of tightening up?

One of my pet peeves is that a truly comprehensive encyclopedia would give readers tons of citations to follow-up on. Even if a cite was not worth discussing, if an editor believes it should be included and can add the cite to an appropriate passage, other editors should respect that instead of deleting it because it leads to an article, evidence, and synthesis that undermins their POV. But I've seen open edit warring just to keep a disfavored cites (much less discussion) out of an article even though they are cites to major peer reviewed journals. Lack of clarity on this issue leaves room for disingenous efforts to block reliable and verifiable information from having any place in Wikipedia. That's a crying shame and a real disservice to the project.

Reading Vassyana's recommended log of a previous discussion, I see the argument raised that peer reviewed articles should only be cited in a manner that conforms with some other secondary review. For example, one editor writes: "I am proposing that journal articles should not be cited in a manner that directly contradicts the findings of more secondary sources." In other words, one editors preferred secondary sources can be used to veto or silence peer reviewed journal articles cited by other editors. Even if the latter are newer? Or if the preferred secondary source represents just one of many views presented in sedoneary sources. This is all fertile ground for edit warring.

A clear policy, "Though shalt not delete reliably cited peer reviewed articles (but you can clarify or cut back material from such sources" would help to force editors to respect the sources brought forth by other editors and work together to fit them in with some due weighting, of course, which is easier to hammer out once the relevent sources are all cited. --SaraNoon (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana, that was helpful, and food for thought. Jayen466 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Patents and research articles

Are patents really always primary sources? They are indeed nominally published by the person who was involved in the research, and I suppose the first telephone patents would clearly be considered as primary sources in most contexts, but is a patent by a large, modern corporation, which is based on lab data, edited by company policymakers, vetted and further edited by company or third party patent attorneys, and finally reviewed by the patent office really a primary source? I would rather say that lab notebooks, original research data, emails etc. would be the primary source in this case, and that the patent itself would be a secondary source.

As for research papers, I have similar questions. Isn't the lab notebook (which often comes up in court cases) the real primary source here? After all, a peer-reviewed paper has been edited and commented on by third parties, and usually modified in response to editorial and peer review commentary. --Slashme (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think is comes down to acknowledging three separate things: (1) The primary source; (2) A primary source; and (3) a secondary source. (1) is important in the hard sciences. (2) and (3) are important in other areas.

This is where there is real confusion as to the meaning of a “primary source”. Often, especially scientifically, the primary source is the original, authoritative source. The lab book is a primary source for the discovery in the lab. However, this is different to a primary source in the primary/secondary source distinction. Mere repetition of information from a primary source doesn’t make a secondary source. The original publication is also a primary source for the discovery, as in not a secondary source (discounting any discussion section that may attempt to view the discovery from an alternative perspective). A similar but later publication in another publication, perhaps more general journal would also be a primary source, if it is essentially a reannouncement of the same results, but it is not *the* primary source in terms of being the original, most authoritative source. In this sense, I see a patent as probably always being a primary source, even if it is rarely “the” primary source. For it to be a secondary source, it would need to contain analysis or commentary on a subject, and I guess that that subject would never be what would be consider the subject of the patent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to remember here is context... the discussion of Primary and Secondary sources in this policy is to be taken within the context of preventing Original Research. The policy does not ban primary sources. Thus, it does not really matter if a patent or lab book is Primary or Secondary so long as it is not being used to support Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, context is nearly everything. Source A can be a secondary source for subject B, but a primary source for subject C. And no, primary sources are far from banned. Primary sources, especially “the” primary source, are usually the most reliable sources. It’s that an absence of secondary sources is an OR flag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess I can go along with that definition then. --Slashme (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The real splitting point for me on when primary sources are forbidden is when establishing notability of the subject. Primary sources are often reliable sources for supporting information. WP:SYNTH is the inevitable pitfall if an article is written entirely from primary sources and not from reliable secondary sources, but quoting the population of a city from a census is obviously appropriate. SDY (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes... several of our policies and guidelines limit how we may use primary sources. None forbid their use entirely.Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a basic rule of thumb is that people are not reliable sources for their own fame or importance. This rule strikes me as simpler than the primary/secondary/tertiary paradigm (although not as comprehensive) and remains true even in cases where the paradigm may be difficult to apply. Somebody else has to place people and their discoveries/inventions/idea/art/whatever into context and give an assessment of their notability, value, etc. Thus, the discoverers of an invention may be reliable sources for what the invention does. But if they claim it's the best thing since sliced bread and will become the product of the century, they are not reliable sources for the truth of those claims. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would take that back a step further... the creator of an invention is reliable for statements about what the invention is claimed to do ... they may not be reliable for what the invention actually does (I am thinking about snake oil salesmen, and the inventors of perpetual motion machines here). Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Granted that the primary/secondary/tertiary terminology has been dragooned from historiography to serve Wikipedia's particular needs. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable mapping for scientific articles.

1. Raw data in a lab notebook answers to the primary source in the hands of an historian: it generally requires a specialist to interpret it.
2. Peer-reviewed articles, scholarly textbooks and so on answer to the historian's secondary source: the opinion of a specialist under editorial conditions that suggest we should take the opinion seriously.
3. General textbooks answer to the historian's tertiary source: a generalist's redaction of scholarly research with all the attendant advantages and disadvantages.

Its not quite the same thing, but the same general concept applies. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Census as a primary source

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations)#A_census_as_a_source_of_notability about whether or not a census is a primary source (and hence a basis for notability under WP:N). AndrewRT(Talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat related point: does anyone think that citing the census data on an individual constitutes original research? Coemgenus 14:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR unless there was some synthesis of the census data involved. Simply quoting a number found in a reliable publication, and fairly representing what it is, is never original research. COGDEN 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant quoting census data as to a particular person. For instance "After his career in baseball ended, Joe Connor worked as a salesman for several Waterbury companies." The only sources I have for this are the 1920 and 1930 censuses. --Coemgenus 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

newspaper erroneously quoting poll

I would be interested in this too. At John Howard we have a newspaper that erroneously quotes a reputable poll. Under the current WP:NOR policy, the newspaper reference cannot be refuted. (side note: I have a big problem with the assertation that mainstream newspapers are among the most reliable sources - bad journalism abounds everywhere) --Surturz (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Surturz needs to clarify as to whether any news source has erroneously quoted a poll - I see no evidence of that in the discussion referenced - ie at Talk:John Howard#Iraq War . If it is the case Surturz should be bringing that evidence to that discussion. Suruturz has looked at the poll results and interpreted them himself - it is called original research. In this particular instance he has quoted figures which supported the war if it was supported by the UN - the war was not supported by the UN and hence the variation in figures. --Matilda ^talk 07:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

While I now agree that the numbers quoted are correct, I still believe that the nature of the poll was misrepresented. --Surturz (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If a newspaper article cites a poll in a new way, and adds spin or synthesis, then the newspaper article is also a primary source for the spin or the error (and secondary for the underlying poll). The newspaper is both primary and secondary, but for different things. COGDEN 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My question is if a reliable newspaper prints and article, and an editor does some OR to show it is wrong (e.g. a newspaper copied a number wrong from a poll), doesn't that justify removing the citation, even though the newspaper is usually considered a Reliable Source? Even highly reputable newspapers have articles that basically reformulate news articles from other international newspapers, and these articles can change the meaning quite a bit. --Surturz (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think it makes it a dubious source in that example. To give an example of a non-hypothetical instance, in the article on the Australian plebiscite, 1977 (National Song) the source for the plebiscite figures was clearly wrong with its numbers despite it being the Parliamentary Handbook, reprinted several times - see the annotation to the References . The citation wasn't removed altogether but qualified. --Matilda ^talk 02:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion might be better in Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. I'm going to suggest a 'What if a reliable source publishes an unreliable article?" section. --Surturz (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications needed

Someone, once told me "Phenylalanine, what needs to happen is to gather sources and then write the article from sources that use the article title [...] You should google the article title and use those sources and their content to avoid violating WP:NOR." But what about "descriptive" article names, such as Evolution of the human diet or Environmental effects of meat production. Must the sources use the exact words "Evolution of the human diet" or "Environmental effects of meat production" to avoid WP:NOR? For example, if I create an article called "Sustainable diet", is that title a general "descriptive" name (that doesn't have to appear in the references) or a specific term that must appear in the sources? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes. Sources must explicitly discuss “Evolution of the human diet” or "Environmental effects of meat production". The content must discuss the subject. Descriptive titles are not a way to avoid this, and in fact make it worse. Not only does it start to encourage OR, without obvious sourcing to justify the title, the article name itself starts to bump against WP:NPOV. Without an obvious source, you can’t justify the title asserting implied facts, such as: “The human diet has evolved”; “meat production has environmental effects”; or “diets can be unsustainable”. Obviousness is not an excuse. The more obvious something is, the easier it should be to source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I'm not sure if I'm being clear here. I'm asking whether descriptive article names, such as "evolution of the human diet" have to appear in exactly those words in all the sources for the sources to be useable in the articles (I do have sources that use the phrase "evolution of the human diet")? I have lots of sources about the evolution of the human diet. It would be quite restrictive to only use those sources that use the exact expression "evolution of the human diet". On the other hand, I would agree that "term-like" article names, such as "sustainable food system" have to appear in exactly those words in the sources for the sources to be useable in the articles. I'm not sure whether "sustainable diet" is a descriptive name or whether it fits in the other more restrictive category of article names. Cheers. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the words don’t have to appear exactly. The title needs to be a non-contentious summary. If the sources clearly cover the evolution of the human diet, then the title is OK. However, is “evolution” the correct word? Do diets evolve? Do you mean “changes over geological timescales”, or is that what “evolution” effectively means. To answer these questions, draw on the usage of these words in your best sources. Note, however, I haven’t seen much of questions like this, and there is probably a style guideline that is important here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I also see the problem as one of duplication of article content--as i think is in fact what i consider the most important problem with the articles inquired about. Its like making a series of article, X, Controversy about X, History of X, X in literature, Famous exponents of X, and so forth. Some very large and important topics need this degree of detail; most do not. Article titles should be chosen to give the clearest short description of the subject being treated, not to match the titles of what happens to be the good referencs. (Sometimes it is necessary to say that the specific descriptive phrase is used specifically if it is somewhat unusual or specialized, and then specific use in article title can be evidence.) But if it is necessary to have a separate page on Human diet and History of the human diet, then I agree with SmokeyJoe, that Evolution is not the best choice of words. I'd also say that a specific article on the diet before the transition to agriculture, or the diet among a specific cultural group, such as hunter-gatherers, might be splitting the topic too far. I may be wrong there, but it would seem better to first try expanding existing articles, and then discussing a possible split. DGG (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) One very obvious reason why sources don't have to use the exact words of the article title is that Wikipedia allows foreign language sources, which won't even use the same script. Also, WP:Naming conventions explicitly says not to use the terminology in the "best" sources, it says to use the most easily recognized name, which will be the terminology most used in common English. It also says to prefer common expressions to specialized, limited-use ones. The reason for this policy preference is that the purpose of article titles and sourcing are different. Article titles need to use the terms that users who want to know about a topic are most likely to include in a search. Thus, they have to take into account users as they are and the search terms they actually use, whether specialists agree or not (Users have to find the article to be informed, so if we use a title they won't be able to find we've done nobody any good). Sources, on the other hand, need to reflect the expertise and often the jargon of specialists. For this reason, there are many situations where an article title should (if WP:Naming conventions is followed) use a common term for a subject, while the "best" sources may use a formal or specialized term. This convention isn't always followed (if it was, we'd have more human anatomy and behavior articles with four-letter titles and fewer with latin names then currently). But it is the guideline. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to use editorial judgement and creativity. To some degree you can use a source that says something equivalent to the title; but if someone objects, then move that data to a related article with a similar but different title that reflects terminology used in that source. For example in an "Evolution of the human diet" article you may put in a claim related to "Evolution of cooking" or "Evolution of human teeth" or "History of farming techniques" and someone may delete it as original research. You can then create new articles on those subjects, add the data there, and link to those new articles in the "Evolution of the human diet" article. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your responses. I see a fundamental difference between descriptive article names, such as "Evolution of the human diet", or perhaps more clearly, "History of the human diet", and article titles that correspond to specific terms such as "Sustainable food system". In the case of the "history of the human diet", it is not necessary to define the expression in the article lead, the expression being quite clear, while "Sustainable food system" appears to be more specialized, it being necessary to define the term in the article lead. In the case of descriptive article titles, any sources and material about the topic should be acceptable in my opinion (when the article name is unusual, one or two sources using the exact article title in their terminology should be sufficient). For articles with specific titles, sources using the article name in their terminology are necessary in my opinion. For example, in the article "Sustainable food system", I could examine how the term is defined in expert sources and see that a "sustainable food production system" is part of a "sustainable food system", and use sources employing the term "sustainable food production system", but not "Sustainable food system". This in my opinion would constitute original research (correct me if I'm wrong). But is "Sustainable food system" an acceptable article name, considering that article titles must correspond to commonly used terms, as indicated by Shirahadasha? Shirahadasha, are you saying that I have to create an article like "sustainable diet" (commonly used and understood term) and then discuss "Sustainable food systems" (more specialized term) in the body of the article "sustainable diet" (perhaps including a section in that article on "Sustainable food systems"), sourcing the information added on "Sustainable food systems" with references that use the expression "Sustainable food systems" in their terminology? Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Confusion and Disagreements

I agree with DGG's classification of sources at Notability_(Geographic_locations), and I added a note to that effect there. Census reports, for example, are compilations of census forms.

But then I started looking at the sources listed in the notes (2 through 4) used in WP:PSTS I see the definitions and examples are all over the place. For example, this one lists Encyclopedia Britannica as a secondary source, while most put encyclopedias as tertiary.

Actually, I would actually agree that some encyclopedias, like Britanica, are compiled secondary soruces since they commission experts to write the articles, which are therefore essentially review articles by an expert who synthesizing his or her interpretation of a body of knowledge. In my book, I wouldn't object to WP editor starting an article using a Britannica source (though defined as WP as tertiary), though it is always better, in my opinion, to move sources back to peer reviewed scholarly articles whenever possible.

To me, in regard to definining the quality of sources for WP source material, tertiary includes not only distance from the original source but expertise. A newspaper article reporting what a scientists says at a press conference is a great secondary source documenting that scientist's statements. The same article providing a summary of what "most scientists believe" or what "most research shows" is reflecting a tertiary view, expressing the view of a reporter with limited expertise who has most probably looked at only a few sources and spoken to a few scientists. But a Britanica article by an expert, while in a compiled encyclopedia, is closer to being a reliable secondary article.

And there is part of the rub. Primary, secondary and tertiary vary depending on use, authorship, ane even intent.

• Gettysburg Address, primary. No dispute
• Contemporary newspaper articles about it, secondary.
• But those same 1864 newspaper articles about the Gettysburg address are treated as primary sources when used by a modern scholar to write a dissertation on media treatment and public reactions to Lincoln and the Civil War.
• And even that modern scholar's papers will be treated as primary source material two hundred years from now when scholars are investigating the 21'st century's understanding of Lincoln.

Another source of confusion: many sources contain both primary, secondary, and even tertiary material. For example, peer reviewed science article typically includes introduction which will contain a literature review of studies related to the subject of the stdy and in a concluding section where the authors discussion, synthesize and intepret the results of the study. Whether the results reported in the tables are primary material (since this is the first reporting of the findings) or secondary material (since this is a synthnsized statistical analysis of raw data which is not reported, but is the true primary source) depends on one's preferences for defining primary and secondary sources. But the presence of primary material does not change the fact that the introduction and conclusions are secondary source material representing the peer reviewed opinions of an expert in the field.

The current NOR page contributes to much edit warring and wikilawyering because there is no universally clear definition for primary and secondary sources in all contexts and fields. In addition, it makes two "definitive" but (at least to wikilawyers) competing statements: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" and "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care."

A policy that breeds confusion and contention isn't very helpful. The main point of NOR is to stick closely to the source, whether one believes it to be primary or secondary. That should be the focus, not trying to define secondary or primary sources (where there is plenty of room for contention).

I will post a recommendation for clarifying policy in the near future. At the very least, the policy should state that secondary sources are preferred but primary can be used (provided they are used without adding interpretations) within the same sentence. But first, what are your thoughts? --SaraNoon (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Gettysburg address isn't a source at all, as it was simply a successsion of sounds that dissipated into the air. Primary sources would be Lincoln's written text, if it survives, & any notes taken by anyone who was present, whether such notes were written down at the time or later. Peter jackson (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There are five copies written by Lincoln.[3] All would be primary sources. Other than that observation, do you generally agree with my assessment?--SaraNoon (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem this page is trying to address isn't the use of primary, secondary, or tertiary sources, but the misuse of them... there are situations where all three are appropriate to use in Wikipedia. If you are writing an article on the Gettiesburg address, it is appropriate to quote and cite the original text (the primary source)... to cite a noted historian's analysis of it (a secondary source)... and to note the date it was given by citing another encyclopedia (a teritary source). What would not be appropriate would be to include our own analisis of the address.

We get so wrapped up in definitions that we keep forgetting why they are there in the first place... to tell editors not to enguage in Original Research. If our examples are confusing the issue... let's remove them. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

SaraNoon, if we use the primary/secondary distinction, we ought to describe what primariness is, and what secondariness is, and how to tell the difference. I don't think we should classify types of sources (like peer-reviewed journals or newspapers) as one or the other, because whether a given source is a primary or secondary source depends on how it is used. For example, a contemporary newspaper about the Gettysburg Address could be either primary or secondary. It would be a secondary source for the text of the Address, but a primary source of any commentary or observations about the Address. (In this case, using the primary source for the Address would be far preferable to using some 19th century yellow journalist's version quoted from memory.) COGDEN 18:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would suggest dispensing with the definition lists and simply creating thorough explanations as to what constitutes a primary or secondary source, and how both should be used properly. Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the SYNTH section is already far more important than PSTS, which has problems we're talking about. I'd like to move PSTS below "Citing oneself" without any other changes. Doing so not only helps to bring readers to the SYNTH section first, but may help alert those watching policy to look in on this discussion regarding rethinking the PSTS section to join in the discussion.--SaraNoon (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No objections to SaraNoon's proposal on my part... but may I suggest that, before people attack this problem, they review the archives for this page. There have been several attempts to clarify or modify PSTS in the past (all met with a lot of resistance), and it I think it will help the discussion if everyone is aware of the arguments (for and against) that have been made before. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

part of the problem comes from the specialized use made of "primary source" in the experimental sciences, s compared to history or to literature. Strictly speaking, the primary source of scientific research is whatever record the observations--traditionally the laboratory or field notebook, now often the automated record of the experiment--sometimes even a physical specimen. But scientists use the term "primary literature" to refer to the published papers that result from analyzing the work represented by these experiments and calculations--all textbooks present it this way. And then they use secondary literature for review articles and advanced textbooks further evaluating and summarizing them. In terms of their use at Wikipedia , the difficulty is that to the extent that these "primary" articles contain facts that need evaluation they are not usable here except under special circumstances, such as the interpretation being uncontroversial or obvious, but to the extent they contain facts evaluated by experts they are usable here as reliable secondary sources. Unfortunately, the extent to which any one paper will be one or the other is subject to no fixed rule. DGG (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed at least much of the previous discussion. It only confirms to me that because there are so many nuances, the bulk of what is now in PSTS should be moved to a guideline status for PSTS so more examples can be presented and also so this "measure" will not be central policy which wikilawyers can misuse to trump commonsense. In place of this large section on PSTS I think a shorter section refering to the guidelines and re-emphasing the focus on NOR would make the policy both more brief and focused. But for now, I'd just like to try "demoting" PSTS to a lower section in the policy to spark more feedback while also not disrupting the existing policy.--SaraNoon (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I’d suggest instead writing a new guideline “Interpreting WP:PSTS”. Agreed, there are so many nuances, and examples would be a good idea, but disagree that it should not be policy that, in simple terms, secondary sources must be used, supplemention with primary sources is OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Joe, both that we need such a guideline, and also that for the ordinary sort of Wikipedia article, the simple policy as he words it is exactly the sort of basic instruction to give. DGG (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I think that this page should be split.

I think that the information here is great, but that few people will read it.

The initial section on sources in particular should be required reading for all Wikipedians.

But few do, simply because of the name of the page. The page name suggests that this is a page outlining what not to do, when it (the sources section at least), is a great guide.

So I'd like to see this split between the two concepts.

(I'm not placing a split template yet, because I want to first discover if there are any obvious reasons (for or against) that I may be unaware of.) - jc37 02:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Merge all policies

I oppose splits on principle, simply because we already have far too many policy and guideline pages. In fact I'd like to merge NOR, V and NPOV into one single page, since they cover very much overlapping ground (though I know people around here are far too conservative to accept any such move). Maybe you could consider moving information between these three pages rather than creating still more (which are even more unlikely to be read)?--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My initial reaction is to agree with your suggestion. I know that I was put off initially by the enormous labyrinth of policies & guidelines, & just ignored them. Fairly recently I discovered that there were "only" about 40 policies, so started going thro' them. I've now read most, despite more being added while I was at it, & now have a much better idea how the system is supposed to work. However, I have to point out that they're often not self-explanatory. Peter jackson (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone gets wrapped up in the idea of merging our core policies... you might want to know that it has been tried before and rejected. See the archives at WP:ATT. Essentially, the reaction is that since people are used to the current policies, we should leave them be. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A strange argument, since it's not generally those who are used to them who have to read them, but there you are. Anyway, glad to see there are some others who share my view on this. Certainly I think a lot of the non-core policies and guidelines could be merged (some of them are so obscure they are probably not even being watched, as I found when I proposed one of them for de-guidlining the other day). And please don't let's create any more:)--Kotniski (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of certain exceptions

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

"That would be a descriptive claim about the contents of a primary source whose applicability is easily verifiable and obvious to any reasonable, educated person without the need for specialized knowledge — and therefore not OR." The link is to the original article that the quote was taken from. [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holamitch (talk • contribs) 05:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposed text addition to the policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on proposal (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on proposal (3)

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

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

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

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

PSTS Moved. Proposed Policy and Guidelines Draft Input Requested

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

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

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

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

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

Question about NOR and maps

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

• Interstate 15 in Arizona 6 citations to a map, 1 to a road atlas
  • Actually this one seems to be a problem - it links to a map database search interface and not the map in the data base? (I have not looked at the others.) Peet Ern (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Interstate 355 11 citations to maps
• Interstate 70 in Utah 24 citations to maps, 6 citation to atlases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not looked at your examples, but any "reliable source" media should be able to be used as a reference. Maps, photogpraphs, schematics, audio, etc., as long as people would find the meaning relatively obvious and similar to the next person, should be okay. The converse applies to text references as well. Poorly written ambiguous text should be no better a reference than an ambiguous map or photograph. Some non text media will sometimes be better than their equivalent text. Peet Ern (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So long as the conclusions you draw from the maps are obvious and incontrovertible, there should be no problem. WP:OR is basically a protection against editors using their own biases to draw conclusions from sources, but in the case of a map, bias is pretty much irrelevant (unless you're talking about controversial political boundaries). Kaldari (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy clarification proposal

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

“ When adding content to a Wikipedia (WP) article, the Wikipedia:No original research policy states that you must cite reliable sources that (1) provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that (2) directly support the information as it is presented.

As a general guideline, you should also ensure that (3) the reliable sources which you cite directly relate this information to the topic of the WP article, and in the same way that the information is presented in the WP article. For example, if the information added serves to criticize the subject of the WP article, then you are required to cite sources where the information is clearly presented as a criticism of this topic. Whether the information added serves to contrast certain aspects of or statements about the subject-matter with opposing or mainstream points of view, or to support such statements or aspects, or even to point out aspects related to the topic of the WP article which happen to cast the subject-matter in a more favorable or unfavorable light, the same principal applies.

When developing the context for a subject described in a WP article, if no sources can be found that comply with the above guideline, you may occasionally cite reliable sources that provide information relevant to an aspect of that subject, but which do not directly relate that information to the topic of the WP article. However, to avoid breaching the Neutral point of view policy, you should never do this when adding information that may misrepresent any aspect of the subject or cast it in a more favorable or unfavorable light, for example if the information supports, discredits, highlights or downplays any aspect of that subject.

”

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

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

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

Thanks for weighing in WhatamIdoing, I fixed the link. If the connection is patently obvious, then we are likely to easily find sources that make that connection, which we can then use, and if no readily available sources can be found that make the connection, then the connection probably isn't that obvious after all, and should not be mentioned in the article. I agree that the food safety issues are obviously relevant to the healthfulness of Raw foodism, but I can imagine some cases where what appears obvious at first glance really isn't after further examination. Since we can avoid making this kind of mistake by relying on the sources to make the connections for us and since it should presumably be easy to find information on food safety issues in sources that make the connection, I think we really have nothing to lose by following this approach, and, IMO, a lot to gain by it.

Furthermore, there is, IMO, a strong case for avoiding sources that don't make these sorts of connections in cases where the said connections are as obvious: belief "A" is based on a number of arguments, including "B"; research pertaining to "B" is therefore relevant to "A". In such as cases, I believe it would be inappropriate to add information on "B" in an article on "A" if the source cited did not directly relate research regarding "B" to belief "A", and I am not the only one to believe this. The current policy text does not prohibit such cases. One reason to avoid this, is that, if we follow the approach you recommend: "If the connection is patently obvious, your personal interpretation of the author's original intent is unimportant.", then there would be no way of accurately gauging the balance of the total body of reliable sources on a topic, e.g. Raw foodism, and so, it would be easy to not present the information in roughly the same proportion as it appears in reliable sources on the topic, e.g. Raw foodism, as required by the NPOV policy (see this comment).

For a specific example of this situation, see Raw foodism#Criticism and controversies. In that section, the following statements would constitute original research by the OR definition I suggest above, but not necessarily according to the current policy definition: Most other anthropologists oppose Wrangham, contending that archeological evidence suggests that cooking fires began in earnest only 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East.[38] This stance of Wrangham's, re cooking leading to bigger human brains, [can be] contrasted with several studies showing that average human brain-size has actually decreased in the last 35,000 years by 11%.[39][40][41] If you click on the refs, you'll notice that none of the sources discuss/mention/describe the concept of Raw foodism. None of the references for these two statements directly relate the information to the concept of Raw foodism. The first statement is verified by a source which refers to (i.e. criticizes) Wrangham's arguments suggesting that cooking played a major role in human evolution, but without mentioning (i.e. directly criticizing) Wrangham's criticisms of the concept of Raw foodism which are based on a number of arguments including the arguments in question which suggest that cooking played a major role in human evolution. The second statement is verified by sources that don't even mention Wrangham. Nevertheless, the editor who included these two statements considered that they were both directly related/relevant to the topic of the article (presumably because these two statements serve to contextualize Wrangham's criticisms of Raw foodism).

For another example, in a WP article on physics, such as "General relativity", would it be acceptable to add information that contextualizes this theory but that was not intended to do so in the source(s) cited, for example, recent research in physics that you believe calls into question Einstein's theory and that does indeed "relate to the Einstein's claims", but which the source(s) cited to not relate to the Einstein's claims. Such information would quickly be considered OR in the "General relativity" article and speedily removed. The "Raw foodism" article is no different in this regard (since it refers to or is based on a point of view, just like Einstein's theory of General relativity). We should adhere to the same standard that would be applied in the "General relativity" article.

On a final note, to interpret the intent of an author is not original research when that intent is clearly spelled out. When the intent is not clear, the source should not be used for that purpose. I don't see a contradiction between OR rule number (2) "directly support the information as it is presented" and the guideline I am suggesting, rather I think they go hand in hand. Cheers. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Phen, I understand that you have some concerns, but I don't think that this is an appropriate way to address them. I think this proposal creates more problems than it solves.

Criticisms of Raw foodism is a useful example. The Wrangham piece is poorly written IMO, but it's not actually original research. Some pro-raw people believe that the human body is better adapted to a raw food diet than to a cooked food diet. This is "verifiable" -- in the sense that you and an internet search engine could verify that some people do believe this -- but simply not sourced in the article yet (last I looked; it will presumably appear at some point in the list of rawist beliefs).

So we have pro-raw people saying that humans have evolved to thrive best on a diet of primarily or exclusively raw foods, and a scientist that says that humans have evolved to eat primarily or exclusively cooked foods (and specifically that a diet of primarily or exclusively raw foods does not provide sufficient food energy). This is very basic point-counterpoint. I do not think that it constitutes original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But WhatamIdoing, I never said that Wrangham's work was original research in the context of the Rawism article, indeed his piece does refer to raw foodists and their beliefs. What I illustrated above was studies used out of context as counterpoints to Wrangham's piece. Could you take another look? What problems will this proposal raise? I appreciate your feedback. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not basic facts espoused by Wrangham are accurate/accepted is obviously relevant: How else will the reader be able to decide whether to accept Wrangham's view, if we don't provide any context at all? Context can be provided by writing "Wrangham's theory is rejected by research Joe Smith" or by providing concrete information like this author has chosen (noting that I'd want to look long and hard at the specific sources and wonder why 35,000 years was chosen as the relevant measuring point...)

Your proposal basically outlaws common sense and context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Vassyana's comment and Someguy1221's remarks about my previous proposal. Based on these comments, I conclude that my current proposal would be the only interpretation of "original research" that could be consistent with the WP:NPOV policy. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks for the response Kaldari. I'll maybe get back to you with a simpler proposal. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Add WikiInfo Link to Introduction

I'd like to add the following to the introduction:

If you have original research or commentary to contribute to a subject, the place to do so is at [WikiInfo], not here at Wikipedia. Original research and original ideas are welcome at Wikinfo and editors have the opportunity to edit more freely.

I think this would be a good way to encourage those who just can't curb themselves from original research to find a welcome venue for their ideas. Any support or objections to this proposal?--SaraNoon (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We would welcome that at Wikinfo, although in certain cases it will result in export of troublesome issues. Fred Talk 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since not objections, will add. I am sure Fred at Wikinfo can help to head off any "exported" troublemakers.--SaraNoon (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is highly inappropriate to highlight a single external project in this fashion. Additionally, there are other WMF projects that permit (and encourage) original research, making the promotion of a specific external project unrelated to the Foundation even more of a concern. We could create a section listing wikis where original research is appropriate and welcome, listing the appropriate WMF projects and a selection of other external projects. Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include additional alternatives, please do. I'm not sure what they might be, but just add them right after the WikiInfo link, or if you have a WMF project in mind, put it in front. It is better to add than to delete. I'm replacing so other editors can comment. In my view it is very important to include something of this sort within the first section precisely because it does point "original researchers" to go somewhere else, which is good for Wikipedia.--SaraNoon (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

<undent>W.r.t. this edit, I must say I agree with Vassyana's basic take on it above, though not necessarily the "modest list" below. For the moment, I didn't want to unilaterally revert it, so I've pared it down to a simpler statement here, making clear that Wikinfo is only an example, as Vassyana has pointed out. I figure the next step, consistently with what Vassyana says above, is someone else cries "foul! we've got an OR website too!", then I imagine in short order it is likely to be a place where virtually every "OR friendly" website will want to post their names and URLs, perhaps next we'll need to collectively decide which of the numerous blogs meet WP:Notability, etc., etc. Perhaps the statement might be consensused to be appropriate without any specific mention of particular sites wherein it is permissible for users to publish OR? Either way, the proposed statement appears to me to require the scrutiny of a somewhat broader sampling of the WP community than has weighed in on it thus far. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Places where OR is welcomed

Following SaraNoon's lead above, it would be appropriate to make a modest list of places where original research is welcomed (adding such a section before or after "See also"). It would be easy to make a short list such as:

Some Wikipedia sister projects welcome original research:

• Wikinews
• Wikiversity
• Wikibooks

Some external collaborative projects welcome original research:

• Wikinfo
• Everything2
• h2g2

Starting a new wiki accommodating original research can be done at wiki farms:

• wetpaint
• Wikia
• Wikidot

Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I made a comment above. I think it's an excellent set of examples of where OR is welcomed, but also think it will very quickly become a linkspam magnet. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kenosis's abbreviation is fine. I took the extra line from WikiInfo itself at a time when I was mistakenly under the impression that WikiInfo was one of the Foundation's projects and would therefore be a reasonable cross link between projects. Oops. But the concept is still correct. After all, the reason people violate NOR is because they are wanting to contribute "Truth" as they see it. So instead of having a policy designed only to frustrate OR, we should include in the policy at least one line and link to redirect that desire (and energy) somewhere where it will be more productively used. The sooner, and more often, OR contributors see this "lead" for finding places that welcome OR, the better.

I have no particular favorites to recommend and have no connection with Wikinfo. But I do think we should not just say, "Don't do original research here" but should instead actively encourage people to find a place that does welcome original research. And to make a reasonable recommendation we should include some link...perhaps to a Wikipedia article or a guideline about "Original Research Wikis"(?).--SaraNoon (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)