Wikipedia talk:No original research/FAQ
- I disagree with the definition of secondary source.
- Wikipedia mostly follows the definition in use by historians, which requires more than simply repeating information from some other source or rearranging information from the author's notes. The earliest definition of a secondary source in this policy was in February 2004 "one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources".
- This published, reliable source is engaging in original research.
- We prohibit Wikipedia editors from posting their own original research in Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors can only put in Wikipedia what has previously been published in a reliable source.
- I've proven that general relativity is wrong, but the physics journals won't publish my proof. Can I use Wikipedia to publish my ideas about how Einstein was wrong? I can cite lots of sources in the article to support each piece of the puzzle.
- No. If you want to put a whole idea in Wikipedia, you need to be able to cite a source that contains the whole idea, not just isolated bits of it.
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Wikipedia:No original research/FAQ" page.
