Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:53, 31 August 2007

Estonia Start‑class Low‑importance

Rein Lang is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles) Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it Maintain : Portal:Estonia Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Estonia) Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class.

Biography: Politics and Government Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Birthday bit

WTH is "beer restaurant" ? Never-ever heard such combined termin for these type of places. Perhaps it would be more sence to use "beercellar" or "pub" as they are usually called ?

Constitutional Assembly membership?

ISTR that Lang was one of the authors of the Constitution of 1992. Such would certainly be a high point in the life of any politician or lawyer, and if it can be sourced, merits notion in the article. Digwuren 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Adolf

I do appreciate very much Digwuren's effort to create page on this fringe play. I still think, however, that mention of Nazi flag being main decoration of the scene should be kept in Lang-related article, as it is the focal point of whole controversy.RJ CG 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but you shouldn't fall for the spin, nor propagate it. The flag is not a "decoration", it's an integral part of the play. Take a look at the author and first performer standing in front of the flag. Digwuren 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Nochnoy Dozor (advocacy group) needs to be briefed. They are not major, they have just been active recently.

I will definitely oppose your attempts to remove the artificiality from the article (have you actually read the sources?), as well as contextless flag claims. If you want the flag to be mentioned, put it into its proper context. Otherwise, it does not belong in this article any more than mentioning that Klenski and his minions ran for the parliament but didn't get a single seat. Digwuren 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think WP:NPOV requires you to put clear lies into articles if you find them appealing, merely because some yellow newspaper has found paper strong enough to not melt upon recieving them in printed form? Digwuren 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a quote of a review of the play into Adolf (drama). Furthermore, consider this: this play has been performed in Germany. German constitution prohibits any sort of Nazi glorification, to the point that the British TV sitcom 'Allo 'Allo! can't be shown in Germany because it depicts Nazis in humorous situations. If this play could be classified as such, shouldn't you be able to find articles reporting Pip Utton's arrest during a performance? Digwuren 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with context the flag it is now, thanks to your effort.

Then, you must also see why I couldn't have accepted its original out-of-context experience? Digwuren 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Klensky and his group, do you think that Estonian citizenship (and suffrage) denied to half of Russophones has something to do with it?

You have earnt an insult for having attempted to present weird fantasies as fact. Unfortunately, I am too civil to actually present it to you. Please think of a nasty thing, and then imagine I called you it. Digwuren 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm curious about your rationale to create article on Adolf the play and to move all Nazi-related stuff here, but to keep on briefing reader on Dozor's activities.

Ditto. Somebody not blinded by lingering Nazi ideas wouldn't make such a mistake you're making here. Digwuren 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I thought that it does not belong to Lang's article, since Dozor is in Wiki already. But, as I said on my talk page, if you want to diminish the seriousness of your statements by writing illiterate politically charged accusations, I should be the last one who opposes it. RJ CG 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Et icon REIN LANG: Mis siis tegelikult toimus? Sander Säde 11:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He refers to a review of the play in this article. Unfortunately, I was unable to find it in EPL's archive for September 22, 2005, and his blog's archive doesn't go back enough.

Addendum: the problem is only with the blog's indexing system. I have found the review; it is at . Digwuren 12:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

However, here's a translation of a relevant passage from the article. I'm not yet sure, how much of it is proper to be used in the article -- it's still rather stubical regarding his biography, and it would be inappropriate to allow such a quotation to dominate the layout.

It is important to understand that 'Caucasian-looking people' refers to a Russian idiomatic classification of people of South Central Asian heritage, with a characteristic physiognomy and recogniseably darker skin than that of most Russians; it is a distinct classification from the common English usage of Caucasian race. The relevance of this mention is that, in absence of black people in Russia, the local racists, such as the skinhead groups of Moscow and Sankt Petersburg, have chosen to victimise those "Caucasian-looking people" as a readily available outgroup of clear visual distinction. I am not sure how to represent this distinction in the translation; the best ways I see involve adding some sort of editorial remark. Digwuren 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, the most succinct way would be replacing the "Caucasian-looking people" in the quotation with " people" or "". Digwuren 12:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that wouldn't work, after all. A negatively inclined reader could easily suspect the rephrasing is done to cover up a racial slur. Thus, my best bet is still to add an editorial comment. Digwuren 18:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

His review of "Adolf" is here, same as on his blog. Sander Säde 12:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. It was published on September 26, 2005, however. I guess Mr. Lang made a mistake regarding the date. Digwuren 13:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote

Here's a quote copied from Adolf (drama):

Prevent Genocide International:

Digwuren 01:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Spin

Mikkalai may be mistaken about the content of the referred article of Postimees. The article is not a report of the supposed controversy; rather it is a report of the skewed reports in Russian media. Thus, the mention of spin is not a summary of the Russian-language article cited; it is a summary of Postimees, analysing the Regnum's article. Digwuren 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Opinion added. But there is no reason to keep the misquite, because Estonian media has its own "spin": Russian text says: "a huge flag with swastika was used a decoration of the stage, Eesti Eskpress reports today", i.e., it was quoting Estonian sources. If it is a Russian misquote, you are free to point this out, as a confirmation of the Russian "spin". `'Mїkka 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was referring to Eesti Ekspress, not citing it. It would seem most of the Russian media's spin was actually a fault of Nochnoy Dozor (advocacy group), who fed it distorted data. Unfortunately, I can't source it in this case. The Eesti Ekspress' article was very laconical, and only listed four main facts. Digwuren 09:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So if The eesti Express did not say "spin", then the sentence with this word goes away. `'Mїkka 18:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're being thick. Eesti Ekspress reported on the party. Nochnoy Dozor run to Russian media with it. Regnum did the spinjob, followed by others. Postimees reported on Regnum et al's spin.

It's obvious that Eesti Ekspress couldn't report on the spin, because the spin only appeared after Eesti Ekspress' article. Digwuren 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mistakenly crediting Nochnoy Dozor for all the publicity around this case. rus.delfi.ee reported it independently of Dozor, quoting Express. Amid laughable campaign of arrests and deportations of Nashist kids wearing plasch-palatka capes by Estonian authorities, Russian media bit into "costumed ball in nazi-themed beer hall" story as trained Jack Russell into it's victim. Contrast was too startling to avoid.RJ CG 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If no one is quoted as "spin", you cannot use this loaded generalizing term. The quoted REGNUM article carefully avoids any exaggeration. I have no doubt that some yellow press was happy to make noise, but again, calling it "spin" is your opinion, unless you quote someone. `'Mїkka 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a translated quote from Kesknädal:

(Alas, some of the wordplay and references are lost in translation.) Digwuren 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It reminds me that nobody has explicitly mentioned on this talk page that the pre-suicide monologue is not the whole play, but only its first act. RJ CG has, once again, chosen to repeat Russian media's spin as fact. Digwuren 19:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I requested the quotation about "spin" in Russian media. `'Mїkka 19:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the headline of the EPL's article: "Vene meedia haaras Rein Langi sünnipäeva mõnuga hambusse"? Digwuren 19:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article lists several russian media uncritically propagating news, kind of broken telephone. I don't see any particular "spin" described. Lang, as a politician, did a stupid thing IMO. Next time he will think better. BTW, please keep in mind that not everybody in English wikipedia reads Estonian. `'Mїkka 19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The play had been planned on months in advance. If he had cancelled it, do you have any doubt Russian media would have been all about "Estonian minister of justice refuses to see an anti-fascist play!"? Digwuren 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The headline translates as "Russian media gleefully started spinning on topic of Lang's birthday party". There's another, less charitable translation involving the image of old women making up nasty rumours, but because I'm so civil, I won't present that one. Digwuren 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the Russian media in question has also made assertions that Lang blocked the legislation regarding prohibition of occupation symbols. This is untrue; Lang initiated it. It fell through in a parliamentary commission that considered it too onerous for constitutional freedoms. I guess this should be mentioned in the article. Digwuren 20:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren's bad faith warning

Despite my numerous requests to provide any source but article of Lang himslef calling "Adolf" anti-fascist, he just reverts my edits with false accusations of vandalism. Digwuren, would you be a man and try to present your hollow lies and false accusations to arbitrage comission at last instead of peppering my talk page with warning and repeating resorting to name-calling? RJ CG 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotation of a review by Prevent Genocide International is provided above. And there are more in Adolf (drama). Digwuren 16:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotation of review does not contain word "anti-fascist". And statement "there are more in Adolf (drama)" is plain lie, as there are none in any English-language articles linked to page which contain word "anti-fascist". This is Wikimedia policy page"WP:NOR" redirects here. For the Norway WikiProject, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Norway."WP:OR" redirects here. For WikiProject Oregon, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Oregon.

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts WP:OR WP:NOR

This page in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought. All material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Simple calculations are not original research, see § Routine calculations.

Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. On Misplaced Pages, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified.

Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research.

"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. For questions about whether any particular edit constitutes original research, see the No original research noticeboard.

This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

Using sources

• WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE

Misplaced Pages is fundamentally built on research that has been collected and organized from reliable sources, as described in content policies such as this one. If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Misplaced Pages is not the place to announce such a discovery.

The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

Reliable sources

Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.

In general, the most reliable sources are:

• Peer-reviewed journals
• Books published by university presses
• University-level textbooks
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream newspapers

However, note that higher standards than this are required for medical claims.

As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable. See self-published sources for exceptions.

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic.

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

• WP:PSTS

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:

• WP:PRIMARY

• Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. Historical documents such as diaries are as well.

  Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,

  1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
  2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.
  3. A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
  4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
  5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
  6. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Misplaced Pages a primary source of that material.
  7. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

• WP:SECONDARY

• A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.

  Policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

• WP:TERTIARY

• Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Misplaced Pages is considered to be a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

  Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Misplaced Pages articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Misplaced Pages articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Misplaced Pages itself (see Category:Misplaced Pages and Category:WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles).

Synthesis of published material

• WP:SYNTH

Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

Here are two sentences showing simple examples of improper editorial synthesis. Both halves of the first sentence may be reliably sourced but are combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.

N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

In this second sentence, the opposite is implied using the same material, illustrating how easily such material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.

Here are two paragraphs showing more complex examples of editorial synthesis. They are based on an actual Misplaced Pages article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. This first paragraph is fine because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute:

Y Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

This second paragraph demonstrates improper editorial synthesis:

N If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Misplaced Pages editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and making the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Misplaced Pages.

What is not original research

Original images

• WP:OI
• WP:IMAGEOR

Because of copyright laws in several countries, there may be relatively few images available for use on Misplaced Pages. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.

It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.

Translations and transcriptions

• WP:TRANSCRIPTION

Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources.

Acceptable media

• WP:ORMEDIA

Source information does not need to be in prose form: Any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources.

Routine calculations

• WP:CALC

Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates.

Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote.

Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies.

Related policies

Verifiability

• WP:VERIFYOR

Misplaced Pages's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all challenged or likely to be challenged material and all quotations need a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at WP:Verifiability § Reliable sources.

Neutral point of view

• WP:NPOVOR

The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any individual editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, editors must provide context for this point of view by indicating how prevalent the position is and whether it is held by a majority or minority.

The inclusion of a view that is held by only a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it, or not—it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research.

See also

Guidelines

• Citing sources
• Conflict of interest § Citing yourself
• No original research examples
• No original research noticeboard—discussions of specific article content suspected of being OR
• Misplaced Pages is not for things made up one day

Templates

• {{Original research}}—used to warn of original research
• {{Original research section}}—to warn of original research in an article section
• {{OR}}—inline tag used to warn of original research
• {{Synthesis}}—used to warn of unpublished synthesis
• {{AEIS}}—used in talk/noticeboards to remind that analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims require secondary sources
• Template messages/Disputes—lists other warning templates related to OR, among others

Supplemental pages

• Core content policies § History, an overview of the origin of this policy
• Identifying and using independent sources
• Identifying and using primary sources
• These are not original research
• What SYNTH is not
• When to cite § When a source or citation may not be needed

Essays

• Cherrypicking
• Dictionaries as sources
• Identifying and using style guides
• Identifying and using tertiary sources
• Party and person
• POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
• Using maps and similar sources in Misplaced Pages articles
• 1.5 sources
• You don't need to cite that the sky is blue

Research help

• WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request
• The Misplaced Pages Library

Notes

1. ^ By "exist", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
2. A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research. For questions about where and how to place citations, see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations, etc.
3. The University of Maryland Libraries provides typical examples of primary, secondary and tertiary sources.
4. Further examples of primary sources include: archeological artifacts; census results; video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, etc.; investigative reports; trial/litigation in any country (including material – which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial – published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial); editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews (see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § News organizations); tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings; tomb plaques and gravestones; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. For definitions of primary sources:
   • The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, and poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, and pottery.
   • The University of California, Berkeley Libraries offers this definition: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer. Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period".
   • Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."
5. Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
6. The University of California, Berkeley Libraries defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".
7. The Ithaca College Library's page on primary and secondary sources compares research articles to review articles. Be aware that either type of article can be both a primary and secondary source, although research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources.
8. Book reviews may be found listed under separate sections within a news source or might be embedded within larger news reports. Having multiple coverages in book reviews is considered one of the notability criteria for books; book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book. A book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author, and related writing issues, not a secondary source for the topics covered within the book. For definitions of book reviews:
   • Princeton's Wordnet 2011 defines book review as "a critical review of a book (usually, a recently published book)".
   • Virginia Tech University Libraries provides the following definition: "A book review is an article that is published in a newspaper, magazine, or scholarly work that describes and evaluates a book. ... Reviews differ from literary critiques of books. Critiques explore the style and themes used by an author or genre."
9. While it is a tertiary source, Misplaced Pages is not considered a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles; see WP:Verifiability § Misplaced Pages and sources that mirror or use it, and WP:Reliable sources § User-generated content.
10. Jimmy Wales has said of synthesized historical theories: "Some who completely understand why Misplaced Pages ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history."

References

2. "Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources". University of Maryland Libraries. Archived from the original on 1 February 2013.
3. "What is a Primary Source?". University of Nevada, Reno Libraries. Archived from the original on 9 February 2007.
4. ^ "Finding Historical Primary Sources". University of California, Berkeley Libraries. Archived from the original on 2 July 2012.
5. "How to Find Primary Sources". Duke University Libraries. Archived from the original on 13 March 2012.
6. "Primary and secondary sources". Ithaca College Library. Archived from the original on 6 October 2013.
7. "book review". WordNet Search 3.1. Princeton University.
8. "Book Reviews". Virginia Tech University Libraries. Archived from the original on 5 January 2013.
9. Wales, Jimmy (6 December 2004). "Original research". WikiEN-l Mailing List. Wikimedia Foundation.
10. Wales, Jimmy (29 September 2003). "roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--". WikiEN-l Mailing List. Wikimedia Foundation.

Further reading

• Wales, Jimmy. Crackpot articles, mailing list, July 12, 2003.
• Wales, Jimmy. "NPOV and 'new physics'", mailing list, September 26, 2003.
• Wales, Jimmy. "NPOV and 'new physics'", mailing list, September 26, 2003 (followup to above)
• Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", mailing list, December 3, 2004

External links

• YouTube video demonstrating the dangers of original research

on your side. I was right to assume that Korps!Estonia will intervene to cover it's member from 3RR punishment. I was also to assume that Digwuren obviously understand how false his hollow accusations of vandalism are, as he chose to call in Korps instead of standing behind his accusations. RJ CG 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this... It is getting ridiculous. A mockery of something is always against the thing it mocks. An intelligent person does not need everything spelled out to him. --Alexia Death 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The aim is to lay bare the evils of fascism: its flimsy justifications, its perverted utopias. In a time when political theatre is in the poorhouse, Adolf is a call to arms. It is educational, but also divisive: you can be guaranteed a healthy discussion in the pub afterwards, if not a healthy fistfight.

Quote from BBC link. It spells ANTI-FACIST loud and clear...--Alexia Death 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The words "Separation of Church and State" appear nowhere in the United States Constitution. Guess how many constitutional scholars consider this a sufficient basis of not considering it a solidly established constitutional principle? Digwuren 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You forget that US Constitution has a number of amendments, including the one that addresses the issue.A power of American Constitution is that it is not cast in stone. `'Míkka 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You are being thick. But I repeat myself. Digwuren 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Temporary sources

is not a good source. When the minister's term will run out, this will likely have a biography of a new person. A temporary solution would be adding a remark of download date, but in long term, a more stable source will be necessary. Digwuren 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I sourced this to the fact that Rein Lang is a current minister of justice. And that should change anyways when he is not anymore. The second reference was accident. Suva 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The followup controversy

A new one is brewing. Postimees today printed Langi nõunik toimetas ministri kohta käivat artiklit Wikipedias. The headline translates as Lang's advisor edited a Misplaced Pages article on the minister, and it details yesterday's events. Digwuren 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is understandable, I always thought that the "Artificial Birthday Controversy" section was given too much weight compared to the rest of his short biography that it can be misleading and damaging to his reputation. I don't know what the libel laws are in the USA, I could be wrong but in Australia it may be sufficient to prove a person's reputation was damaged regardless of whether the underlying facts were true or not. Martintg 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian libel laws, developed after old English laws, are actually notoriously draconian. American laws are much more lenient. For the record, so are Estonian laws (although it merits notion that Lang himself has pushed for harshening them).

As for the 'too much weight' problem -- yes, so it was. But I believe you can imagine how foul RJ CG and Mikkalai would have cried if this removal had attempted without the support of the OTRS ticket.

The uprising scandal, actually, is more about the behaviour of Gerog112, who is presumed by the journalist to work at the Ministry of Justice, than about the excessiveness. (Take a look at User talk:Gerog112 for a taste.) Digwuren 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian libel laws are indeed draconian. A recent high profile Australian High Court case Gutnick v Dow Jones regarding internet defamation established the precedent that Australian residents can sue US based companies running US based websites for defamation. So I am not surprised that Misplaced Pages is sensitive to this issue, hence the OSTR ticket. Martintg 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In , Peeter Marvet (of Tehnokratt) has recruited Alexia Death to talk about the issue on radio this weekend. Presumably, the broadcast will also be available through Web. Digwuren 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Alexia will have memorized core Misplaced Pages guidelines/rules both backward and forward by then ;) Sander Säde 09:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a radio show, so I can cheat a little *thinking what to put in notes* ;) What I hope most from this show is some new editors already aware how things work here... --Alexia Death 09:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I hope from this whole mess as well - some new Misplaced Pages editors with a basic understanding of both WP process and rules. Do call for more editors to join and participate - with explanation that if Lang's birthday controversy was too "prominent", then not deletion but expanding of the rest would have been a wise course... ;) Sander Säde 10:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, I always wanted to be on the radio :-p --Deskana (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Peeter Marvet in Kuku: Sander Säde 10:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And now, Eesti Päevaleht has an article: . Digwuren 11:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Minut, too -- a kind of Estonian version of Slashdot -- has a post: . Digwuren 13:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And delfi.ee: . This one is a shortened version of the EPL article. Digwuren 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange manipulations by Mikkalai

Mikkalai has repeatedly, as RJ CG before him, attempted to remove the sourced classification of spin as spin, in violation of WP:SPADE. Furthermore, he has misclassified and rephrased the Prince Harry incident, in an attempt to create a false analogy, and claimed that this originated in the Russian media. This is incorrect; the original similarity (*without* this distortion) appears in the first (very laconic) article of Eesti Ekspress.

Then insert the correct phrasing and reference about prince. I saw it in Russian media, hence I quoted what I saw. I invented nothing. `'Míkka 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Consequently, I have reverted. I cite WP:BLP, too. Digwuren 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding "interesting", so it reads "interesting distortion", isn't WP:NPOV, as it's your opinion that it's interesting. I don't find it interesting. I find it a distortion. --Deskana (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also "a critically acclaimed" sounds wrong. There used to be award winning, witch is a sensible and true statement.--Alexia Death 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ive put these changes in. hope this meets with your approval.--Alexia Death 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I can compromise to 'award-winning'. Digwuren 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

After some research I inserted a more specific term instead of "spin": wikipedia has the article artificial controversy. I hope this make you happy. `'Míkka 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not! These concepts do not replace each other. While spin was the process, a manufactured controversy was the outcome. Replacing concise 'spin' with something artificially long such as 'partook in generation' is not constructive, and I suspect, is only designed to avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article on 'spin'. Digwuren 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would dare to say the comparsion with prince harry is very unappropriate. This is an encyclopedia, not tabloid. Hey! Let's add "Prince Harry is nazi too!" to every WW2 related article in wikipedia? Suva 06:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It merits notion that the original article of Eesti Ekspress contains at least one clearly verifiable factual mistake. It states that Vanemuine "last" played Adolf (drama) on autumn of 2006. In fact, its last scheduled play was on 4 April 2007. Digwuren 07:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai is continuing his crusade. However, it seems he's missed out on a much more striking similarity between Mr. Lang and Mr. Hitler: they both had heads, with one nose, two eyes and two ears. I wonder why that is? Digwuren 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Artificial controversy"

Please stop this "artificial birthday" nonsense. Reword the heading, or, better still, quote reputable sources who find this controversy artificial. Because a different point of view is entirely possible. And I am NOT a member or even supporter of Rahvaliit. I support NPOV. AdaHeidelberg 09:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Birthday is not artificial. The controversy is, after all if was entirely a result of misrepresentation of facts. Digwurren has provided you with the explanation of the term. --Alexia Death 10:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified deletions

It turs out that the "articficial controversy" was started by Estonian media and only later was "spun" by Russian media. Some editors insist on deleting the corresonding referenced text. Please explain. `'Míkka 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're mistakenly thinking that the controversy is "Lang watched an antifascist play. Prince Harry went to a birthday party wearing a Nazi armband." This is emphatically not the case, but this is the essence of the Ekspress article.

The artificial controversy was born when Regnum spun the original report into "Lang watched a play with Hitler in it! There was a large Nazi flag! When Prince Harry did that, outrages rose to the highest heavens!".

Now that the artificiality of the controversy is fully explained, but the incident's section in the article is essentially, a summary, citing this piece of the artificial controversy constitutes a violation of WP:UNDUE. Save such details for Rein Lang's Adolf incident. Digwuren 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to my point. My point is that the "artificial controbersy" (note that I do not object this term) was started in Estonia, not in Russia, and this is an important point. `'Míkka 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No controversy was claimed nor started by the Ekspress article. If by "started in Estonia", you mean to implicate the Nochnoy Dozor activists, go ahead, but don't forget to add reliable sources. Digwuren 16:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what was written in Ekspress. Russian newspapers refer to it. Please provide the original source, translated in English, if necessary. Rissan press wrote: "The newspaper <Eesti Ekspress> reminds that three years ago a scandal occurred in Europe after UK Prince Harry came to a birthday party dressed in Wehrmacht uniform with a swastika on his sleeve." Is the quote correct? What is the political affiliation of Ekspress? `'Míkka 16:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a quote, but it's close. The Ekspress' artile dedicated exactly one sentence to the Prince Harry incident, and this, by and large, represents that sentence. No claims of controversy; not even claims of similarity; 'reminded' is misleading summary. In Ekspress' framing, it constituted an impassionate 'You might be interested in this possibly related story' remark. (Such remarks commonly appear in Estonian news reports; in electronic news, though, they're rapidly overtaken by automatic keyword-based 'related story' suggestions.) Regnum's story is reasonably faithful in *that* aspect, but by the ITAR-TASS' "aegis" story, this had "become" an important international precedent applying to Lang's choice of theatres.

Broken telephone at its best. Digwuren 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you apparently know this history better, I would take you to your own suggestion and write the Rein Lang birthday incident and replace the corresponding pieces in Rein Lang and Adolf (drama) with a link in the "See also" section, both to avoid unnecessary duplication and remove the undue weight. `'Míkka 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to, but I'll wait for the wikigate incident to wind down first. Digwuren 18:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a proven way of dealing with such incidents: to move a controversy into a separate article, so that the related edit wars do not cteate an obstacle for editing the main article. `'Míkka 19:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

This page is hereby protected due to edit warring. Please discuss the matter below then contact me to request unprotection. --Deskana (banana) 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please unprotect article: you have no rights to do this. You are involved in editing. My disagreements with Dwiguren are already resolved, see talk. the new editor made new change. There is no unresolved conflict that warrants page protection. `'Míkka 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I mistook the revert warring for a dispute that had not been resolved, and have unprotected as such. I dispute the fact that I was "involved in the dispute". I had no part in the addition/removal of the disputed sentence(s). True, I had helped to write the paragraph, but I've had no part in the actual sentence that was involved in the dispute. --Deskana (banana) 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say you were involved in dispute. The policy says it clearly: do not. Period. Protection is not matter life and death and may wait for "reuest for protection". Since you edited the article, you may be easily accused of having vested interest in the version protected. `'Míkka 00:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a request for Deskana to do something. I had requested Deskana to come over and oversee your and Digwurens dispute on his talk. Also, accusing Deskana from protecting "that" form out of selfish interests is wrong. If he had reverted himself and then protected you could say that. He did not. He protected just the current version. Even more, his original edits were made out of need to fill an OTRS ticket, not out of any particular vested interest in the matter. He has no reason to have any bias. How about assume good faith?--Alexia Death 10:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The protection was requested mainly to keep away vandals because the article was mentioned in estonian media. Suva 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't one add something about the controversy (in Estonian newspapers) concerning Misplaced Pages's entry of Rein Lang (see links above)? This debate is a fact now, the users who started the campaign to 'defend' mr. Lang actually reminding me of the intriguing topic of the Internet brigades. Erik Jesse 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It should. That's a reason I collected the links above. Digwuren 17:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

One has to be careful about continually adding new material so that the section becomes bigger and bigger, until it is so huge that everyone will think the only notable thing that Mr. Lang has done in his life is to hold a birthday party. :) Martintg 21:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, his most notable skill is that of Saying Outrageous Things. When he was a talk radio host, it was a rather marketable skill; when he decided to convert his media career into a political career, it may have become a liability. If you recall the Cyberattacks on Estonia 2007 incident, one of the first people to point his finger towards Russian high echelon was Lang, as a Minister of Justice, and many Estonians remained skeptical of this precisely because Lang's history, and waited for a separate confirmation (which, in this case, did arrive).

In any case, the Delfi Bill needs an article (by the way, recent news have Hans H. Luik's Ekspress Grupp having negotiated for buying the whole of Delfi in a leveraged takeover, so it might become more Lang-friendly in the future), and I would consider the Wikigate incident separate from the birthday incident. There are at least claims, if not strong evidence, that Wikigate was instigated by Lang's office, but not without the knowledge of Lang himself. Furthermore, Kairioun, who has been confirmed as an advisor of the ministry, has publically denied knowing Gerog112's identity, which would imply that the latter could just as well be a rather mundane troll. Due to Estonian newspapers generally moving to web a number of years ago, there are thousands and thousands of people who -- sometimes rather aggressively -- say and do weird things in Estonian-language web media, and sometimes these drip around to non-Estonian-language web. Digwuren 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"The party featured a performance of the play /.../. In an additional note, Lang pointed out" - in addition to what? "Lang pointed out that this era was characterized by poverty" - what era? 195.80.96.210 13:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Calls for resignation.

In it's present form article completely misses calls for Lang resignation made by Parliament fraction, although it mentions statement by informal group Nochnoy Dozor, which mostly include individals who are denied Estonian citizenship. This is as POV-ish as it comes. Unless some Estonian contributor will explain why one have to be here and another doesn't (I mean, except your zealous efforts to present this as attack by wile T...lad), in the next 24 hours, I'll restore reference to calls for Lang's resignation. RJ CG 13:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats the purpose if trying to add a completely irrelevant quote?

SO? --Alexia Death the Grey 15:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What looks irrelevant for you may be pretty relevant for others. Velliste is as Estonian nationalist warhawk as they come, so I guess if it is allright to use political accusations in an article, it is allright to explain to a reader who is author of those statements. Problem is, anyone remotedly interested in region's affairs knows Zhirinovsky, for example, but Velliste is relatively unknown. BTW, could you comment why calls for Lang's resignation from Estonian parliament fraction should be ingored in the article but one from Dozor should be there? RJ CG 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That relevancy cannot be established sensibly, because its a POV matter. Right now it looks like you are inserting some random stuff to make a WP:POINT. You are free to put any quotes to Vellistes article. As to the whole Adolf thing I will not get into the that argument again.--Alexia Death the Grey 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RJ CG's lack of creativity

RJ CG has dozens of times attempted to claim that Adolf (drama) features a "pre-suicide monologue by Adolf Hitler". I find it fascinating that he's so many times parroted Russian propaganda sources instead of trying, say, to switch to claiming that it features "Adolf Hitler" -- which is just as accurate (that is to say, just as misleading). Something to meditate on ... Digwuren 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class Estonia articles
• Low-importance Estonia articles
• WikiProject Estonia articles
• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Automatically assessed biography (politics and government) articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages content policies
• Misplaced Pages verifiability