Misplaced Pages

:No original research: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:54, 24 December 2007 view sourceVersageek (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators38,588 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 24.137.114.122. using TW← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:29, 18 December 2024 view source Traumnovelle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,073 edits Undid revision 1263138206 by N. Mortimer (talk) benign change that breaks a lot of incoming wikilinksTag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Wikimedia policy page}}{{Redirect|WP:NOR|the Norway WikiProject|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Norway}}{{Redirect|WP:OR|WikiProject Oregon|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Oregon}}
{{policy|WP:NOR|WP:OR}}
{{For|raising issues with specific articles|Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard}}
{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Policy|WP:OR|WP:NOR}}
{{Nutshell|Misplaced Pages ]. All material in Misplaced Pages must be ] to a ]. 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 {{section link||Routine calculations}}.}}
{{Content policy list}}
]


{{strong|Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research.}} On ], ''original research'' means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no ] exists.{{efn|name=Exists|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 {{em|reasonable expectation}} that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.}} This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that ]. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are {{em|directly related}} to the topic of the article and {{em|directly support}}{{efn|A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present {{em|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 ], {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section|Citations}}, etc.}} the material being presented.
{{nutshell|Misplaced Pages does ] publish original research or original thought.| All material in Misplaced Pages must be ] using a reliable, published source. | Articles may not include unpublished analysis or syntheses of published material that serves to advance a position.}}


The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be {{em|verifiable}} in a reliable, published source, even if not already {{em|verified}} via an ]. The ] says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything ]—but a source {{em|must}} exist even for material that is never challenged.{{efn|name=Exists|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 {{em|reasonable expectation}} that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.}} For example, the statement <!-- DO NOT CHANGE THE WORD ORDER IN THE Paris-France SENTENCE -->"the capital of France is Paris"<!-- DO NOT CHANGE THE WORD ORDER IN THE Paris-France SENTENCE - it was chosen deliberately because some other cities called Paris are not capitals of France --> 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 verifi{{em|able}}, even if not verifi{{em|ed}}.
{{policylist}}


Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not ] them or ]. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research.
'''Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought'''. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that ] the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. ] and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, 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.


] (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are ] (NPOV) and ] (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with ] and ], 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 ].


This policy does not apply to ] and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.
==Sources==
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken to '''not''' "go beyond" what is expressed in the sources, nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context. In short, '''stick to the sources'''.


===Reliable sources=== == Using sources ==
{{Policy shortcut|WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE}}
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources}}
Misplaced Pages is fundamentally built on research that has been collected and organized from ], as described in content policies such as this one. If no reliable ] 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.
Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken '''in context''' is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research. If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of ] or ]. However, using information from references out-of-context or to forward claims not '''directly''' supported by the sources is original research.


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 ]. In short, ''stick to the sources''.
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 more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see ] for exceptions.


===Using sources=== === Reliable sources ===
{{See|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources}}
Any material challenged or ] 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 ].


In general, the most reliable sources are:
Information in an article must be ] in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references are cited in context and on topic.
* 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 ].


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 ] for exceptions.
===Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources===
<span id="PSTS" />{{policy shortcut|]}}
Sources may be divided into three basic categories of how they relate to the subject being written about.<ref>Various professional fields treat the distinction between primary and secondary sources in differing fashions. Some fields and references also further distinguish between secondary and tertiary sources. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined here for the purposes of Misplaced Pages.</ref> For the purposes of Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined as follows:


Information in an article must be ] 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 sources''' are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Misplaced Pages passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
:* 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, and
:*make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.


=== Primary, secondary and tertiary sources ===
:Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.<ref>Definitions of primary sources:
{{anchor|Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources}}
*The 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, poetry; and '''relics or artifacts''', such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
{{Policy shortcut|WP:PSTS}}
*The offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. 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) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."</ref>
{{See|Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using primary sources|Misplaced Pages:Based upon|Misplaced Pages:Published}}
Misplaced Pages articles should be based on ], published ]s, and to a lesser extent, on ]s and ]s. 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 ], 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:{{efn|The ] provides typical examples of primary, secondary and tertiary sources.<ref>{{cite web |title=Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources |url=http://www.lib.umd.edu/ues/guides/primary-sources |publisher=University of Maryland Libraries |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130201122612/http://www.lib.umd.edu/ues/guides/primary-sources |archivedate=1 February 2013}}</ref>}}
:Unsourced eyewitness accounts or other unsourced information obtained from personal experience should not be added to articles, as this would cause Misplaced Pages to become a primary source for the added information (see ]).
{{Policy shortcut|WP:PRIMARY}}{{Anchor|Primary}}
{{Redirect|WP:PRIMARY|the article naming guideline|WP:PRIMARYTOPIC}}
*''']s''' 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 ]. 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 ] to be primary sources. Historical documents such as diaries are as well.{{efn|
{{Anchor|defs|NORPS|NOROPED}}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{{snd}}which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial{{snd}}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 {{crossref|(see {{section link|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: {{bulleted list |The ] 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=What is a Primary Source? |url=http://www.library.unr.edu/instruction/help/primary.html |publisher=University of Nevada, Reno Libraries |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070209235512/http://www.library.unr.edu/instruction/help/primary.html |archivedate=9 February 2007}}</ref> |The ] 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".<ref name=Berkeley>{{cite web |title=Finding Historical Primary Sources |url=http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html|publisher=University of California, Berkeley Libraries |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120702201241/http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html |archivedate=2 July 2012}}</ref> |] 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."<ref>{{cite web |title=How to Find Primary Sources |url=http://library.duke.edu/research/finding/primarysource.html |publisher=Duke University Libraries |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120313082729/http://library.duke.edu/research/finding/primarysource.html |archivedate=13 March 2012}}</ref>}}}}
*:{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Unless restricted by another policy,
*:# Primary sources that have been ''']''' may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.{{efn|Any exceptional claim would require ].}}
*:# 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 ] on its contents.
*:# 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.<!--That wording is quoted in full at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Primary – please update it if the text here is changed.--> 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.
*:# {{strong|Do not}} analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.<!--That wording is quoted in full at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Primary – please update it if the text here is changed.-->
*:# Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.{{under discussion inline|talk=New articles based on primary sources}}
*:# {{Anchor|I-SAW-IT}}<!--Anchor used by Misplaced Pages:I-SAW-IT.-->{{strong|Do not}} add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Misplaced Pages a primary source of that material.
*:# Use {{strong|extra caution}} when handling primary sources about {{strong|living people}}; see {{section link|WP:Biographies of living persons|Avoid misuse of primary sources}}, which is policy.
{{Anchor|Secondary|AEIS|aeis}}<!--Anchor used by Template:AEIS and WP:AEIS.-->{{Policy shortcut|WP:SECONDARY}}
*A ''']''' 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. ]. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.{{efn|The ] 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".<ref name=Berkeley/>}} For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.{{efn|The Ithaca College Library's page on primary and secondary sources compares research articles to review articles.<ref>{{cite web |title=Primary and secondary sources |url=http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary |publisher=Ithaca College Library |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131006053234/http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary |archivedate=6 October 2013}}</ref> 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.}} 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.{{efn|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 ]; 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: {{bulleted list |Princeton's Wordnet 2011 defines book review as "a critical review of a book (usually, a recently published book)".<ref>{{cite web |title=book review |url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=book%20review |website=WordNet Search 3.1 |publisher=Princeton University}}</ref> |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.{{nbsp}}... Reviews differ from literary critiques of books. Critiques explore the style and themes used by an author or genre."<ref>{{cite web |title=Book Reviews |url=http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |publisher=Virginia Tech University Libraries |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130105100902/http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |archivedate=5 January 2013}}</ref>}}}}
*:{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''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.
{{Anchor|Tertiary}}{{Policy shortcut|WP:TERTIARY}}
*''']s''' are publications such as encyclopedias and other ] that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Misplaced Pages is considered to be a tertiary source.{{efn|While it is a tertiary source, Misplaced Pages is not considered a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles; see {{section link|WP:Verifiability#Misplaced Pages and sources that mirror or use it}}, and {{section link|WP:Reliable sources|User-generated content}}.}} Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.
*:{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate ], 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 ] and ]).


== Synthesis of published material ==
*'''Secondary sources''' are secondhand accounts, at least one step removed from an event.<ref> 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."</ref> Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.<ref> notes that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets primary sources", is a "second-hand account of an historical event" or "interprets creative work". It also states that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results" or "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries".</ref><ref> states simply that: "Secondary sources are works of synthesis and interpretation based upon primary sources and the work of other authors."</ref> Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors.
{{Anchor|Synthesis of published material that advances a position}}
<!--Note: If this heading is changed, update ] and the link in the lead section.-->{{Policy shortcut|WP:SYNTH}}
{{Seealso|Misplaced Pages:What SYNTH is not|Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Text–source integrity}}


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'''.{{efn|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."<ref>{{cite web |last=Wales |first=Jimmy |title=Original research |url=https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZMPYZNORFFA7QOPXZDJIVT5Q6B4RJQNE/ |website=WikiEN-l Mailing List |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation |date=6 December 2004}}</ref>}} "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable ''only if'' a ] 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.
* '''Tertiary sources''' are publications such as encyclopedias or other ] that sum up secondary and primary sources. For example, Misplaced Pages itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent they sum up multiple primary and secondary sources. Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. ] describes some criteria for assessing reliability of sources.


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.''
Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on individual article talk pages.


{{Quote box|bgcolor=#FFFFF0|width=70%|align=center|salign=right
==Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position==
|quote={{xmark}} '''The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.'''
<span id="SYNTHESIS" />{{policy shortcut|WP:SYN}}
}}
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.<ref>Mr. Wales disapproves of synthesized historical theories and states: "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." (Wales, Jimmy. , December 6, 2004)</ref> "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.


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:
Here is an example from a Misplaced Pages article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:


{{Quote box|bgcolor=#FFFFF0|width=70%|align=center|salign=right
<blockquote>Smith says that Jones committed ] by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.</blockquote>
|quote={{xmark}} '''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:
That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Misplaced Pages article just after the above two sentences:


{{Quote box|bgcolor=#FFFFF0|width=70%|align=center|salign=right
<blockquote>If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the '']'', 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.</blockquote>
|quote={{tick}} '''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:
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. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed ''that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute'' and makes the same point about the ''Chicago Manual of Style'' and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source ''in relation to the topic'' before it can be published in Misplaced Pages by a contributor.


{{Quote box|bgcolor=#FFFFF0|width=70%|align=center|salign=right
== Citing oneself ==
|quote={{xmark}} '''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.'''
{{policy shortcut|WP:COS}}
}}
This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our ]. See also Misplaced Pages's ].


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.
== Original images ==
Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Misplaced Pages editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the ] or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not ''propose unpublished ideas or arguments'', the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a 💕, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Misplaced Pages editors' pictures fill a needed role.


== What is not original research ==
A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using ] to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image, they should be posted to ]. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.


=== Original images ===
==Related policies==
{{Policy shortcut|WP:OI|WP:IMAGEOR}}
===Verifiability (V)===
{{See also|WP:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature|WP:Image use policy#Image titles and file names}}
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}}
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 ]s 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.
The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is '''verifiability, not truth'''. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages.


It is not acceptable for an editor to use ] 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 ]. ] must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.
===Neutral point of view (NPOV)===
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view}}
The prohibition against original research limits the possibility that 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 NPOV 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 one editor to research ''all'' points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.


=== Translations and transcriptions ===
The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. ], Misplaced Pages's co-founder, has said of this:
{{Policy shortcut|WP:TRANSCRIPTION}}
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:Translation}}


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 {{section link|WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources}}.
* If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

=== Acceptable media ===
{{Policy shortcut|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 ] among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources.

=== Routine calculations ===
{{Policy shortcut|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 ]. ], such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also ].

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 ===
{{Main|Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}}
{{Policy shortcut|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 {{section link|WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources}}.

=== Neutral point of view ===
{{Main|Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view}}
{{Policy shortcut|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. ] 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 a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then &mdash; whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not &mdash; it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research. <ref>Wales, Jimmy. , September 29, 2003.</ref> * 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.<ref>{{cite web |last=Wales |first=Jimmy |url=http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html |website=WikiEN-l Mailing List |title=roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle-- |date=29 September 2003 |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref>


==See also== == See also ==
{{Wikiversity-c|allows ]}}
* {{tl|Original research}} &mdash; template used to warn of original research
* {{tl|Synthesis}} &mdash; template used to warn of unpublished synthesis
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


=== Guidelines ===
{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]{{mdash}}discussions of specific article content suspected of being OR
* ]
=== Templates ===
{{div col}}
* {{Tl|Original research}}{{mdash}}used to warn of original research
* {{Tl|Original research section}}{{mdash}}to warn of original research in an article section
* {{Tl|OR}}{{mdash}}inline tag used to warn of original research
* {{Tl|Synthesis}}{{mdash}}used to warn of unpublished synthesis
* {{Tl|AEIS}}{{mdash}}used in talk/noticeboards to remind that ''analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic'' claims require secondary sources
* ]{{mdash}}lists other warning templates related to OR, among others
{{div col end}}


=== Supplemental pages ===
==Notes==
{{reflist}} {{div col}}
* ], an overview of the origin of this policy
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


{{div col end}}
==Further reading==

{{Spoken Misplaced Pages|Misplaced Pages-No_original_research.ogg|2007-01-27}}
=== Essays ===
{{Wikiversity|Wikiversity:Publishing original research}}
{{div col}}
*Wales, Jimmy. , mailing list, July 12, 2003.
* ]
*Wales, Jimmy. , mailing list, September 26, 2003.
* ]
* - a wiki welcoming original research.
* ]
*, a proposal for a wiki for original research.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
{{div col end}}

=== Research help ===
{{div col}}
* ]
* ]
{{div col end}}

== Notes ==
{{Notelist}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
{{Refbegin}}
* Wales, Jimmy. , mailing list, July 12, 2003.
* Wales, Jimmy. , mailing list, September 26, 2003.
* Wales, Jimmy. , mailing list, September 26, 2003 (followup to above)
* Wales, Jimmy. , mailing list, December 3, 2004
{{Refend}}
== External links ==
*
{{Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines}}


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 06:29, 18 December 2024

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. For raising issues with specific articles, see Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard.

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
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.
Content policies
Outside Misplaced Pages, original research is a key part of scholarly work. However, Misplaced Pages editors must base their contributions on reliable, published sources, not their own original research.

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

Shortcut

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

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages: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

Shortcut Further information: Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using primary sources, Misplaced Pages:Based upon, and Misplaced Pages:Published

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:

Shortcut

"WP:PRIMARY" redirects here. For the article naming guideline, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
  • 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.

Shortcut
  • 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.

Shortcut
  • 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

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:What SYNTH is not and Misplaced Pages:Citing sources § Text–source integrity

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:

checkY 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

Shortcuts See also: WP:Manual of Style/Images § Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, and WP:Image use policy § Image titles and file names

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

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:Translation

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

Shortcut

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

Shortcut

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

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability Shortcut

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

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view Shortcut

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

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

Essays

Research help

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

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

Further reading

External links

Misplaced Pages key policies and guidelines (?)
Content (?)
P
G
Conduct (?)
P
G
Deletion (?)
P
Enforcement (?)
P
Editing (?)
P
G
Style
Classification
Project content (?)
G
WMF (?)
P
Categories: