Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:23, 24 April 2010

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Template:NORtalk

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Misplaced Pages. University of Illinois U-C.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64

Rewrite 2004-2005: Draft • Talk "Primary v. secondary sources" subpages "Change needed": Proposal • Talk "Various examples": Examples • Talk "Transclusion example": Example • Talk List all subpages

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:OR
• WT:NOR

Duplication of Verifiability

Much of the lead and sources section are a repetition of the verifiability policy. This duplication confuses and dilutes the principal of No original research.

I suggest that most of the duplication be moved to the Related policies - Verifiability section or removed from this policy.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a discussion on a rewrite of the lead going on below, I'll leave that for now and restrict my suggestions to the Reliable sources and Related policies - Verifiability sections.

Reliable sources

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources See also: Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources

Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way to establish that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains that same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below.

Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see the discussion of self-published sources for exceptions.

If you are able to discover something new, Misplaced Pages is not the place to premiere such a discovery. Once your discovery has been published in a reliable source, it may be referenced.

Related policies

Verifiability Main page: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.

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

The No original research 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. --SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I struck out a sentence in Reliable sources, above. The sentence that follows it says pretty much the same thing, and says it better.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes made to Reliable sources--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated a few minor wording changes made by SlimVirgin--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes made to Related policies - Verifiability--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

We had agreement last month to reword this a little, but it didn't get done at the time, so I've just added it. It says the same thing, but the writing's clearer. Reproducing below part of the discussion from last month. SlimVirgin 02:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin 02:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks very good to me. The first paragraph is wonderful. My only suggestion is to replace "but we know that sources for that" in the second paragraph with "but also because we know that sources for that" or "and also because ...". — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good re-write. Jayjg 02:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That would turn it into a slightly different point.

My suggestion is: "'Paris is the capital of France' needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist."

Your suggestion is: "'Paris is the capital of France' needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but also because we know that sources for that sentence exist."

The first says it's okay without a source, and it doesn't violate NOR because we know that sources exist for it. The second says it's okay without a source because we know that sources exist for it. But we often know that sources exist for something and yet we still need to see them. The point here is that it's okay without a source for a different reason, namely that no one is likely to object. SlimVirgin 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of the NOR policy is that what we call "original research" comes down to claims that are not already published. So claims that really are already published elsewhere are not "original research" for us regardless whether sources are explicitly cited. Indeed, according to the second paragraph of the policy as it stand, what matters is "you must be able to cite reliable sources" (my bold). We might say that we don't know whether some particular claim has been published before, and so we need to see sources to tell whether the claim is original research. But if we already know that the claim is published elsewhere, then we know we are able to cite sources for it, so it is not original research here. So one reason we know that the claim about Paris is not original research is that we know we can cite sources for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my only point is that the reason "Paris is the capital of France" doesn't need a source is not that we know sources exist for it. We know sources exist for lots of things that we insist on sources for. That we know there's a source may be a necessary condition of not asking for one, but it's not a sufficient condition. The reason we don't ask for a source (per V) is that we know no one will reasonably object to the sentence. The first version of the sentence I proposed avoids all these issues. SlimVirgin 02:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Editors don't usually require citations for statements of plain facts for which everyone knows that sources exist.

I don't think that you haven't taken the logic back far enough. WP:V does not require a source for "Paris is the capital of France" because no one will "reasonably object" to it. Now: Why will no one "reasonably object" to this statement? Well, because everyone knows is sourceable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Refinements of wording: I recommend the following slight changes to the wording, to provide clarification of meaning:

• Old: "what we call original research"
• New: "what we call original research"
• Old: "doesn't need a source"     
• New: "doesn't need a cited source"
• Old: "in harmony"  
• New: "in conjunction"

Should other phrases be adjusted? -Wikid77 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the lead is only a part of it, but I think that about half of all of mis-uses of this policy and it's biggest fundamental problem could be solved by merely giving more weight to the "challenged or likely to be challenged" part of this policy (quoted from wp:V). Including adding something on the order of "if the accuracy of a statement is challenged, if it is not directly supported per wp:verifiability, it is to be removed. This adds the hint that a challenge (however brief and unsupported the challenge is) of the accuracy of the statement is required (not merely a claim of "OR" or "Synth") in order to have it removed. Again, the disparity between reality (about 1/2 of the sentences in WP are from knowledge/synth and undisputed rather than from statements in references) and the rule leaves it open to abuse, and such has been widespread. I believe that this subtle change would help fix that.

A better example than "Paris is the capital of France" would be "most people believe that the sun will rise tomorrow". We have no reason to believe that such a poll exists to reference. If someone challenges the accuracy/correctness of the statement, they can remove it for being unsupported. However, there would be nothing implying they can remove it for merely claiming it is OR/Synth.

One could claim that this is the purview of wp:V, not wp:OR, but in reality the subject of wp:or is a subset of wp:v and so it has to deal with that. If it is going to make up what are essentially wp:V rules, it has to do so in a way that will prevent them from being widely abused. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is an advantage to retaining "original thought". We don't want to get trapped in "but it's just a new idea I had, not research!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that "advances a position" is not well enough defined. I agree with the thought. The problem is that there can be synthesis that doesn't "advance a position" but does clarify or illuminate. The bad effect is that while the wording forbids synthesis that "advances a position" (a good prohibition) the practice too often is the prohibition of all synthesis, even when that synthesis doesn't "advance a position," it clarifies or illuminates. Such clarification or illumination is one of the best attributes of an encyclopedia and ought to be encouraged.

Yes, that can be difficult - but that difficulty is inherent in the nature of a (good) encyclopedia. It would be grievously wrong to throw out one of the best attributes of an encyclopedia through the over-application of a rule. The question is "Is this instance of synthesis one which advances a new position or is it one that clarifies or enhances?" That is, does the synthesis illuminate some aspect of a topic or is it an attempt to manipulate sources in order to create false favoritism for an idea? "False favoritism" implies that sources are being misused in order to create flawed support for a "novel" idea.

Perhaps what is needed is examples of valid synthesis, synthesis that does illuminate, does not "advance new ideas." (Here I am strongly attached to valid syllogism: if both the major premise and the minor premise are valid in an encyclopedic sense then I favor the embracing of the conclusion, whether or not such conclusion has been explicitly published elsewhere. This statement does hinge on the meaning of "valid." I embrace meaningful and thoughtful enforcement of "valid" in this context. I am not advocating any sort of loophole that allows actual "original research" to intrude. I do not believe and I think the responsible persons who contribute to Misplaced Pages similarly do not believe that original research is bad or invalid. The assertion and the policy is, simply, that Misplaced Pages is not the place for such to appear. Misplaced Pages and its supporters and maintainers do not assume the burden of vetting original research. All such belongs elsewhere. This prohibition, however, should not be interpreted to forbid all thought. "Thought" and "encyclopedia" are not disjoint. An encyclopedia that excludes thought is a weak encyclopedia.) Minasbeede (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a little more discussion on a re-write of the heart of one of the core content policies. I'll add this to the WP:centralized discussion list.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• "but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged." must? Sole Soul (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good (though why we need three different pages saying pretty much the same thing is still beyond me).--Kotniski (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove "original thought"

Why remove it? I thought it added to the policy.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"The term "original research"..."

This sentence defines the term by what it is not (i.e. published). It would be better to begin by trying to explain what original research is. The previous version had the same problem, but was a little better because it tried to explain what the policy includes rather than defining a term.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians

It's not a word that is in common usage. This could be reworded or linked to WP:Wikipedians.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove "Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own..."

I liked the link to WP:NOT#OR--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

I don't think it adds much, and using "source" without explaining that it must be published and reliable opens the policy to arguments.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Paris is the capital of France" example

What aspect of the policy does this example illustrate?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The "current version" doesn't look like an improvement over the "previous version" and one of the reasons may be the Paris example. Perhaps we should review the guidance on writing a lead that is given in WP:LEAD, e.g.,

"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."

Just my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"If no source exists..."

The same problem as with "but a source must exist..." (above)--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN allows strawman fallacy & false premises

Many people have been troubled by the policy of WP:SYN, to reject synthesis of reliable sources to promote an unpublished, so-called "conclusion". After years of consideration, I have finally pinpointed the problem: the policy of WP:Synthesis allows people to assume untrue conclusions which can form the basis of 2 major logical fallacies:

1. a strawman fallacy, by claiming an untrue conclusion similar to the most typical true conclusion; or
2. an argument from false premises, by claiming any reasonable, but false conclusion, and then proving anything from that false premise (such as "delete all that text").

In particular, when people claim the sources had stated A & B leading to an "implied conclusion" C, that actually empowers the assumption that C is the intended conclusion. Anyone can claim the nature of C, because it need not be stated (big mistake), and thus, C is wide-open to interpretation, as being the assumed, unspoken conclusion. Hence, by allowing any potential assumption, that allowance has opened the door to claiming a false premise, as a false basic assumption to argue against the article's text. By using the logical fallacy of argument from false premises, then anything can be proven; therefore WP:SYN could be legitimately used to prove that almost any text should be removed from an article. For example, consider the following extreme, but legitimate case:

• Fact A: The lake's water level was 75 feet deep last year.
• Fact B: The lake's water level is 50 feet this year.
• Conclusion: "OMG, delete that text because you're saying the lake will be empty in 2 years and they're all going to die!!! Aaargggg!"

Unfortunately, that implied conclusion cannot be rejected (because any unspoken conclusion is allowed by WP:SYN), and hence, quite possibly, arguing from the false premise of an empty lake in 2 years, then perhaps many people would die. Result: per WP:SYN, those 2 facts must be deleted from the article, as the complaint is indeed valid, per policy, for removing that text. The policy has failed because of a critical major mistake: anyone can assume almost any conclusion. Example:

• Fact A: The glass was totally full yesterday.
• Fact B: The glass is half-empty today.
• Conclusion: "Oh no, you're saying the glass will be totally empty tomorrow, oh POV...delete...POV POV...delete delete.

A similar example:

• Fact A: The glass was full yesterday.
• Fact B: The glass is half-full today.
• Conclusion: "Oh no, you're saying the glass will be full again tomorrow, oh no, a full glass with no space for more, oh no, oh no, that's WP:SYN...delete delete delete."

Once again, despite how twisted or rabid the conclusion, those are indeed valid reasons to completely remove the related text.

A related, but more subtle, fallacy would be to substitute a "similar, unspoken conclusion" to be refuted, by condemning that nearby-conclusion using a strawman fallacy. Simply put: a Misplaced Pages policy must not reject anything based on a user's own assumptions. All policies must deal with what is actually written in an article ("put it in writing"), and not prosecute a "pre-crime" action as if it were based on hard evidence. Absolutely nothing based on assumption should be the basis to reject text: once unbounded assumptions are allowed, then anyone can validly do anything to an article. People often use WP:SYN to remove questionable text. However, because of allowing false premises (and subtle straw man fallacies), the failed WP:SYN policy can also be used by any desperate or frantic person to slant or censor any article, and thus it has been.

Recommendation: Issue a major retraction of WP:SYN, and issue a meta-policy that prohibits any future rejection of text based on a user's mere assumptions, rather than tangible hard evidence, to be compared against policy standards. -Wikid77 01:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to one real example in a real article where material kept out by WP:SYN as currently written, should be allowed in your view? Crum375 (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• In general, see them all: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:SYN, select a page and search for "WP:SYN" or "synthe". No removals are really permanent, and people could later re-add material, so the phrase "kept out" is not accurate, but rather, the focus is that someone wanted information excluded, claiming WP:SYN, during a debate. I fear listing any particular articles here, because many people still think WP:SYN is a valid reason to axe text, so I don't want to list any titles which could be viewed as "marked" for death by WP:SYN fallacious thinking. Some broad examples would be:

• Claiming some particular "Category:" names were too original, as a form of WP:SYN.
• Rejecting a list of related atrocities in an article as WP:SYN which advances some "outrageous" conclusion about societies, even though those events are all actually examples providing some real-world details, as pertinent to the subject (An example could include viewing the "local natives" as "massacred" but all the many white people were merely "killed" by natives trying to defend themselves or their land)
• Demanding that rebuttal of evidence in a trial all flow from one source, lest multiple sources be used to "prove he didn't do it" when a source doesn't explicitly state that conclusion, but rather that the evidence was improperly handled. Gripe: "You're implying he's innocent, when that source just stated 1 item of evidence seemed tainted" or similar wiki-weaseling to prevent the listing of more details.
• Removing tangent statements from articles, based on the notion of how details from other sources were "advancing a cause" rather than just expanding the broader coverage of a subject.

In general, the powers of exclusion, stemming from WP:SYN, are a "POV-pusher's dream" to systematically remove text from an article where all sources don't contain the alleged "conclusion being implied" when listing all the related facts in one section of text. Again, the unfortunate truth is that WP:SYN really does empower censorship of details coming from multiple articles which don't "explicitly state" a conclusion claimed as the nefarious position being advocated. In fact, I suspect that WP:SYN, ironically, is itself an original-research notion of a content policy: what 10 reputable news-broadcasting groups have policies similar to WP:SYN? I doubt there are many, as WP:SYN is just too peculiar. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested above, please provide one specific example, not a group or dummy cases. If you focus on one specific article and one specific point there, and show how the current WP:SYN policy excludes specific material which in your view should be included, we can address it and see if we agree. Crum375 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Crum. We do need specifics. It is not difficult to construct hypothetical situations where a policy would be misapplied (we can probably do this with all our policies). The fact that it is possible to misapply WP:SYN does not negate it, and is overshadowed by the more numerous situations where it can and has been applied properly. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, taking this on philosophically, I think there is a point here (though I don't currently agree with the conclusion wikid offers - and yes, an example would be useful). The problem is that wikipedia expects, against all common sense and observed evidence, that all editors can and will operate using functional scholarly reasoning, but wikipedia provides no structure for distinguishing between well-reasoned arguments and crapulently-reasoned arguments according to scholarly principles. It's like setting up a collaborative software design team where half of the collaborators only partly understand the computational syntax of the programming language (and a small percentage wonder why all those curly-braces are there), but everyone gets rewarded according to how much they produce. You end up with people being blindly insistent about conclusions drawn from bad scholarship, and no real mechanism to point out that their scholarship is bad, thus reducing the debate to matter of personal relativism (something no scholar would ever in a million years accept). I see highly experienced editors do this all the time, in various forms (usually on fringe articles, where for some reason they tend to fight irrationality with bigger irrationality).

I don't have a solution; I'm just saying that the problem has merits for consideration. --Ludwigs2 14:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

When rules are written such that normal practices widely "violate" them you create a potential for abuse. For example, by people who want to make articles POV, or to use articles as a boxing ring, or people with other anti-social tendencies, such as those whose psychological needs require attacking other people and their work rather than creating anything. As Misplaced Pages matures, the 30,000' view is that overall things are taking a turn for the worse in this area. With out-of-context pieces of WP:OR/Synth being one of the most widely violated rules, it would be a good one to look at with respect to this. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• If there is some crucial value provided by WP:SYN, then let's consider alternatives. What if the indicated "conclusion C" were required to be stated? It would only be WP:SYN if a writer added, "The U.N. is thus a total failure." By requiring actual, tangible text which states the disputed conclusion, then a WP:SYN problem could be pinpointed to the existing text, rather than to an "assumed conclusion" which gets used in an argument from false premises. When I hear the "160 wars" after the UN was formed, I might conclude, "I wonder how many wars there were before the UN?" rather than, "Aha! I knew the UN was a terrible, utter waste of money: let the guys with the biggest nuclear blasts decide who rules the remaining fall-out shelters, and who cooks the bodies for food!" or whatever rabid conclusion people worry might be claimed. We need to see what POV problems are arising, and find policies to address those issues directly, not open a false-premises Pandora's box, of diseased thinking, to reject facts from articles which do not "directly state" some assumed nefarious conclusion. WP:SYN should not be used as a crutch to cover for a lack of other policies. WP:SYN enables people to claim some sourced facts are not allowed, because they bolster some "evil" conclusion. Instead, simply require NPOV balance, by the addition of alternate viewpoints. That is the fatal problem with WP:SYN: allowing censorship of facts based on assumptions of misuse. That dog won't hunt to collect real knowledge. -Wikid77 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77, I asked you twice above for one real example of a real article where the current WP:SYN policy excludes material which in your view should be in the article, and have yet to see it. All the hand waving in the world can't replace one simple example showing how the policy fails in a real article. Unless you can actually show where it's broke, there is no point fixing it. Crum375 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Examples: The issue should be decided on multiple examples, because focusing on 1 example might imply, in itself, a strawman decision, that the application of WP:SYN could somehow be decided by the outcome of debate over a single article. With that stated, a recent, single example was discussed in "Talk:Submarine#Women" when noting: (Fact A) some Navy officials wanted to have women in submarine crews, while (Fact B) those officials were not qualified in subs and had never served in subs. The claimed "assumed C" was that people with no credentials in submarine operations were not qualified to decide that role of women, rather than just being a statement of fact. Similarly, someone indicated it would be improper to state those officials were all men (none of them women) as another case of WP:SYN. The censorship then became: can't mention those officials had no submarine training; and can't mention they are all men. Meanwhile, no one ever said, "Only women with accredited knowledge of submarines should make decisions about women submariners". The problem of WP:SYN is not specifically about submarine service, but rather the censorship of sourced details: censored because those details might bolster an unsourced, assumed conclusion which no one ever advocated in writing. That violates WP:NOTCENSORED. I suggest to reword and only apply WP:SYN when someone states a specific conclusion, such as: "Only women should decide women's duties" or such. Remember to consider other examples in the 6,590 pages listed (during April 2010) with Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:SYN. -Wikid77 06:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The implication of mentioning those characteristics of the officials in this context is pretty clear. Unless a reliable source has made that connection, it is original and should continue to be prohibited by this policy. I don't see a strawman fallacy or false premise. Can you choose another example?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the women submariner example shows any deficiency in the current SYN policy; if anything, it shows the policy working exactly as intended. If the proponents of women submariners share certain characteristics, it is not for Wikipedians to decide what those are and write about them, as that would constitute original research, and more specifically WP:SYN. If all the proponents do in fact share a characteristic, and it is notable and relevant, some news organization or another reliable source would pick it up and publish it, and we could then cite it. In this specific example, the lack of such sources could mean that there are other proponents who don't share the characteristic (for example who spoke to reporters off the record), or other reasons the news organizations don't feel the information is valid or reliable. The whole point of Misplaced Pages's WP:V and WP:NOR sourcing policies is to only add information which has been published elsewhere by verifiable reliable sources, not to make up, synthesize or imply new material or novel interpretations to suit our POV. Crum375 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the example is clearly a case of WP:SYN (the implied conclusion clearly being that those who were not qualified in subs and had never served in subs are not qualified to comment on the subject of women in submarines). Even if there are multiple possible interpretations, what is obvious is that the reader is being led to form a conclusion... that is improper. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless, of course, a proper reliable source discussed these things (which is not unreasonable to assume, in this example). If the RS connects the dots, then the Misplaced Pages article can, too.

In such a situation, my first thought would have been, "How did I even know that these decisions were put forward by all men/all women/all submariners/whatever?" If the answer is "Because I read it in ____, which clearly thought the all-male (or whatever) characteristic was worth mentioning," then I've got a citation -- and a citation for a direct and explicit statement of my claim is essentially at "Get out of SYNTH free" card. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Here is an article where I am one of the parties to an ongoing dispute over WP:SYN. It is the " Criticism and context section of the Hutaree article". In this instance, the statement is made: A. The Hutaree have planned acts of violence. The reference is made: B. "Jesus consistently opposed violence." Then the unstated assumption is made: C. Therefore, the Hutaree were not acting in accordance with Jesus' teachings. Because B implies C, and the author of the reference re: Jesus' teachings on violence did not specifically mention the Hutaree, other editors are using WP:SYN to declare reference B as Original Research and to delete it. If you follow this rationale, it seems to me that perhaps 25% of the text of most Misplaced Pages articles should be removed as OR. If in an article about weatherman Smith: A. He predicted rain in 2009 25% of the time in Phoenix, B. Records show that it only rained 2% of the time in 2009 in Phoenix. Therefore the unstated assumption is that Smith was off on his rain forecasts by 23%, therefore, according to WP:SYN, reference B must be deleted, as someone might conclude C! This seems to me to be rather counterproductive. I think that the wording for WP:SYN might read better if it stated something like: "... and conclusion C that is implied by statements A and B can reasonably be argued as being an inherently inaccurate or unfair conclusion."

In the case of the submarine officers reviewing submarine policy, by adding the above sentence to the WP:SYN policy, then it becomes a "reasonable argument" that the officers may still be qualified to review these policies. There is no reasonable argument to defend the inaccuracy of the weather forecaster, thus the weather forecaster's reference would stay, but the submarine reference could go, but only after the logical fallacy of the submarine argument had been well stated. Scott P. (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If no source has compared the Weatherman's prediction and actual rain fall, then yes, it would indeed by OR for Misplaced Pages to compare them. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Under the current policy, yes you are correct, however it seems to me that roughly 25% of the text of current Misplaced Pages articles has implied conclusions built into it which are not explicitly stated, and which are however undeniably reasonable and accurate. Using WP:SYN, slash and burn editors could have a heyday. In the case of the clearly inaccurate weatherman, citing an undisputed published fact which may shed light on his performance, does not seem to me to be in any way misleading or inaccurate, and ought to be allowed, if nobody can call the accuracy of either the 25% fact or the implied conclusion into reasonable question. Isn't the addition of this sentence imminently logical? Could you give me any example whereby the addition of this sentence could cause more trouble than the idea of having to weed out 25% of all current articles?

Please allow me to give you an example: I chose a random article for illustrative purposes only. I randomly chose our article on "Cake". Here is the current text of the lead paragraph of that article (which is entirely unsourced):

Cake is a form of food that is usually sweet and often baked. Cakes normally combine some kind of flour, a sweetening agent (commonly sugar), a binding agent (generally egg, though gluten or starch are often used by lacto-vegetarians and vegans), fats (usually butter, shortening, or margarine, although a fruit purée such as applesauce is sometimes substituted to avoid using fat), a liquid (milk, water or fruit juice), flavors and some form of leavening agent (such as yeast or baking powder), though many cakes lack these ingredients and instead rely on air bubbles in the dough to expand and cause the cake to rise. Cake is often frosted with buttercream or marzipan, and finished with piped borders and crystallized fruit.

According to the current WP:SYN wording, the entire first sentence must be slashed, unless the editors can find direct quotes that cake is food, that it is usually sweet, and that it is often baked. Same with all subsequent sentences.... "Slash and burn" editors can simply rightfully delete most of this article, even though we all know it is all imminently logical and well known, much of this information probably cannot be found in "direct quote" references, therefore, slash and burn baby! Scott P. (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Food, sweet, baked: Yup, the basic dictionary definition covers all those points.

It is worth remembering that WP:LEAD discourages citations in the introduction, which is supposed to be a summary of details that are cited later. Also, as always, the relevant standard is WP:VerfiABLE, not "already WP:CITEd". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Syn continued

The wording of the first paragraph could read: "It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources, which position could be reasonably argued as being an inherently inaccurate, unfair or fallacious position."

Unless something like this is added to this policy, it seems to me that we might have a policy that could really harm Misplaced Pages here.

Scott P. (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, because the wording can (and will) be taken to mean that it is somehow OK to advance an OR position that someone argues is accurate, fair or logically true. The entire point here is that we don't create synthetic statements... period. This goes directly to WP:V... If a source doesn't say it... neither should we. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you are saying that the Cake article, and all others like it should essentially be deleted? How does your logic apply to the Cake article? Isn't the fundamental basis of Misplaced Pages that it is essentially a "synthesis" of information from other places, synthesized in a unique way that helps others, that is not available in this form of "synthesis" anywhere else? One definition of a synthesis is something new, formed from old things. What is inherently dangerous about stating that evidence shows that a weatherman's forecasts for rain are off by 23%? Are we so mindless that now even risking the implication of the obvious has become dangerous? If a Misplaced Pages editor happened to be the first to put two published facts together, realizing that since the king was wearing no clothes, and he had not put anything more on since he went out in public, that he must be publicly naked, would his citations to this effect be censured because we were afraid that we might offend the king by simply stating facts that might imply that he might be naked, even though everyone knew he was naked in public, but everyone else was absolutely mortified to even imply that such a thing might be happening? Scott P. (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job to tell the world that the King has no clothes. It is our job to summarize what other sources say on the given topic, not to synthesize what they say. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even saying that we should be stating that the king is naked, but I think it would certainly be fair to simply state facts that might imply that he could be naked.Scott P. (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What position is the Cake article advancing?

Several positions.... Actually the first sentence may be mostly reference-able in a dictionary, but let us proceed to the second paragraph of the lead:

"Cake is often the dessert of choice for meals at ceremonial occasions, particularly weddings, anniversaries, and birthdays. There are countless cake recipes; some are bread-like, some rich and elaborate and many are centuries old. Cake making is no longer a complicated procedure; while at one time considerable labor went into cake making (particularly the whisking of egg foams), baking equipment and directions have been simplified that even the most amateur cook may bake a cake."

While you and I know that it is an accurate paragraph (yet still un-sourced) it appears to you and I to still be truthful and accurate. It may have been written by a professional baker, or a person who does much baking. Per Wiki policy, as there is no sourcing for either of the first two paragraphs, both paragraphs should rightfully be deleted. Now let us say that a "slash and burn" editor wanted to get into an edit war with the current author(s) of that article. He could delete both lead paragraphs and insist that the current editors must source "verbatim" all that is written there. If for example, the current editors could not find anything written saying that cakes are "often a dessert of choice for ceremonial occasions", then out must go that part. If the editors cannot find another author who wrote something like "there are countless cake recipes", out must go that part. By the time the "slash and burn" editor is done with the original editors, the original editors may have left Misplaced Pages in utter disgust, and the article will be left in disarray. Is this the type of editorial behavior we want to encourage here? Scott P. (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You still have not said what position the Cake article is advancing. What argument, interpretation or conclusion (stated or implied) is being synthesized?

(also, please note that an article lede is supposed to be a summary of the entire article and are not usually cited... the idea being that things stated in the lede are covered and cited in more detail later in the article... so a seemingly improper synthesis in the lede may actually be fully and properly cited later in the article.) Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Per current WP:NOR policy, approximately 50% of the Cake article should be deleted as OR. There are no citations until approximately half way down. The references used are done incorrectly, there are no direct quotations (synthesis). etc. etc. A "slash and burn" type editor could have a virtual heyday with this one article. The majority of the article is a "synthesis". And under current WP:NOR and WP:SYN policy, we would probably have to support most of the "slash and burn" editor's deletions. The position taken by the article's editors is that some forms of synthesis are permissible. Scott P. (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that the Cake article contains a synthesis... but you seem to be unable to be more specific and explain exactly what and where that synthesis is... I am beginning to think that you do not actually understand what a synthesis is. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, I think you are very confused about what WP is about. Our goal is to summarize in our own words what others have published about a topic, not to add any new information, interpretation or implication. If any material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it needs a direct citation. Nothing needs to be slashed or burned, unless it's novel information or a novel interpretation not directly backed up by reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am referring only to implications here, not to explicit novel interpretations. You seem to be mixing these two things up. What you are saying is that any citation that might naturally lead a reader to think about anything that was not specifically in the citation, is impermissable.

What I am saying is that I think our readers are smart enough to think for themselves, and the only standard we need for citations is that they are accurate, true, and that they are not explicitly interpreted by the Misplaced Pages editor in a way that might naturally tend to mislead the reader into an arguably fallacious train of thought or logic. Why do you think that our readers should not be permitted to make any reasonable or logical conclusions from a Misplaced Pages article that they might not be able to derive elsewhere? This seems more like thought-policing to me than the free editorial policies that Misplaced Pages was founded on. Scott P. (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We could easily find sources for the parts of Cake that you cite. They're attributable, even if not actually attributed, like "Paris is the capital of France." As the others have said, all we do on WP is tell people what reliable sources have published. SlimVirgin 15:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, there is no "thought police", but we do have policies. And our core content policies tell us we can't make stuff up, or even imply new ideas which have not already been published by reliable sources. In the Hutaree case you mention above, you seem to want to advance the position that the Hutaree are not good Christians because they promote violence, while Jesus was a peaceful man. But you need to find a source which makes this point about Jesus in relation to the Hutaree — if you are the first to introduce this connection, you'd be violating WP:NOR and WP:SYN. If you don't understand this crucial point, you need to re-read WP:NOR and specifically WP:SYN very carefully. Crum375 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, current WP:SYN policy prohibits referencing any information that might lead a reader to a new thought. Not only does WP:NOR prohibit Misplaced Pages editors from explicitly stating new thoughts, which I agree with, but it also prohibits the dissemination of any known, accurate, truthful, and uninterpreted information that might lead a typical reader to simply think in a novel but logical way. It is this second prohibition that I am choking on. What is the danger of this? I simply cannot see the danger of accurately stating known facts, if they might happen to inspire one to think something different? Scott P. (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

How do we know something is a "known fact" if there is no source for it? Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all saying that WP:SYN should be modified to allow uncited statements of novel 'facts'. I'm only saying that if an uncontestedly accurate citation is made, it should not be prohibited, simply because it might lead a reader to have a new hitherto unpublished thought, despite the fact that such a thought might be uncontroversial, logical and beyond any reasonable argument. Scott P. (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotta go to work now to pay my bills. Will see you guys tomorrow. Scott P. (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that "unpublished" is not quite the right word. Most of our articles contain only previously unpublished sentences, unless they are copyright violations. Really, WP:SYN asks us to assess whether the claims made by an article (implicit or explicit) are part of the overall picture of the subject that is given by the literature. This isn't a black-or-white question, because it depends both on the literal content of the claims being made and on their connotation.

For an example of how these are related, if we take a newspaper story about "A-Rod" and rephrase its claims to be about "Alex Rodriguez", this is fine even it synthesizes two sources (one for the claim about A-rod, another for the fact that A-rod and Alex Rodriguez are the same person). On the other hand, if we randomly replace "Jesus Christ" with "Jesus of Nazareth" in various religion articles in the same way, we will quickly run into problems.

The exact dividing line for which syntheses are OK is difficult to pin down exactly. It takes a broad reading of the literature to assess what the overall narrative about the topic at hand actually contains. However, the spirit of the policy is correct that we should not add claims to articles that materially change or extend the narrative from the literature. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree specifically about written claims. I think we all do. Any written claim that is not previously published cannot be written into an article as either a claim, or even as a written 'implied' claim. Here is the 'rub' as I see it. What about the editor who simply lists two well documented facts in his article, without embellishing them in any way in his citations, but what if these two well documented facts might happen to align in such a way that they might cause a reader to understand something new, that has not been previously published? What if say a Misplaced Pages editor happened to be the first one to put together the documented facts that A. A-Rod = Alex Rodriguez. B. That there was a warrant out for the arrest of A-Rod. C. That Alex Rodriguez aka. A-Rod had a job in a shoe factory in the Bronx? Now if that editor were to publish all three of these facts, they would result in the obvious assumption that the police could find the guy they were looking for in a shoe factory in the Bronx, and this information has never been put together in this way. Should the fact that these three facts have never been listed in one place prohibit Misplaced Pages from publishing this information, simply because they had never been published before in the same place? I say that so long as the editor met all of the list of these certain requirements, he should not be prohibited from publishing these three bits of information in the same place. Here is the list of requirements;

1. He must first conduct thorough research in good faith, looking for any possible place where this information had all been published at the same place before, and for a reference where any of the obvious conclusions might have been published before as well.
2. His facts must be fully and properly documented.
3. He must make no written statements or even hints that the cops could possibly find this guy in a shoe factory in the Bronx. That must be left up to the readers to infer.

To arbitrarily delete these three facts from Misplaced Pages simply because a normal reader might infer something 'new' from them seems to me to be a bit overly zealous.

As a result of my hope that WP:SYN might review some of these proposals for incorporation into a revised WP:SYN, I have put together a slightly edited revision of the WP:SYN section, which I would like to get some feedback on, and possibly revisions by others. It is at: Scott's Proposed Revision of WP:SYN. If anyone might be able to take a look at it and to comment on it, I would be most grateful. Scott P. (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to "what if these two well documented facts might happen to align in such a way that they might cause a reader to understand something new, that has not been previously published?" — we ask whether the "new" thing materially changes or extends the narrative about the topic that is established by the literature. This will be a judgment call in many cases. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, when I say "materially changes or extends the narrative about the topic established by the literature" this is what the policy calls "advances a position", and the issue you are raising is why the policy is phrased the way it is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• More below: #WP:SYN is Galileo-persecution fallacy. -Wikid77 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN is Galileo-persecution fallacy

When Galileo started collecting and reporting various facts about the movements of the planets, and indicated the Earth could revolve around the Sun, he was placed under house-arrest and commanded not to write ("Misplaced Pages articles") in the common language of the people ("Italian Misplaced Pages") about those dangerous sourced facts, to be considered as a whole. Some Church officials even told Galileo that his ideas seemed correct, but the local people would not be able to handle his ideas in "their little minds", so Galileo's sourced data had to be withheld, or the world of the little people would erupt into chaos.

As the record shows, after some years, Galileo did die while still under house arrest; however, he managed to smuggle numerous chapters, to the outside world, written in common Italian, so that many people could understand and copy (GFDL) his writings about the planets. From those writings, Galileo became the Father of Modern Physics. Censorship is censorship, and it is very difficult to keep in check. In fact, where excess censorship exists, then people often find the means to publish sourced text in alternative ways.

In the example, above, about the officials that recommended women could be stationed in submarines, I noted only two issues: 1. the officials had no submarine training, having never served in submarines; and 2. they were all men. Immediately, conclusions were drawn, "Arrgh! It's clearly WP:SYN, as 'implicitly claiming' those officials were not qualified to decide a woman's role in submarines". However, suppose in the next chapter, which wiki-Galileo would smuggle into the article, other facts were then revealed. Instead of submarine training, all those officials had trained for years with underground bunkers where men and women were both assigned for months, remaining inside those bunkers for long multi-month periods. Plus, all those male officials had wives and daughters who were also interviewed and said from their experiences, living together, that they, as women, shared the same views as the men. "Call the new Pope!" Instead, the actual result is that the article would have informed the world that experience in some underground bunkers relates to submarine duty, and men can have discussed issues with women, for their opinions. So now, the "assumed conclusion" is realized as untrue ("a false premise" - hint, hint, hint) of a nefarious condemnation of the officials as "unqualified to decide about women on submarines". How could experienced Misplaced Pages editors have reached such a horrendously incorrect "assumed conclusion" that totally contradicts the other data collected about the situation? Because, in general, unless the conclusion is stated ("put it in writing"), then the danger is the pre-censoring of sourced text, based on half-baked, half-assumed ideas of what intelligent people really think. Never assume people have the same level of intellect as you. As history recorded, 350 years after Galileo, a new Pope John Paul II reversed the Church policy, and decided that Galileo was correct in writing about those ideas. The ideas that Galileo had written, 350 years earlier, did not cause the "little people" to scream in confusion and destroy the Church. It is never too late to correct a bad policy, even after 350 wiki-years. WP:SYN is the Galileo-persecution fallacy, that pre-censors sourced text, based on assumed dangers, not based on reality. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77, your post demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of what this site is about. You seem to believe that Misplaced Pages is a vehicle for its editors to expose the truth or discover new science, which is absolutely wrong. Our mission here is not to invent or uncover new things or ideas, or publish original research, but simply summarize what others have written elsewhere. If we juxtapose two bits of reliably published data in a way that suggests or implies something new, as you are trying to do in the women submariners case, that implication must also be directly supported by a reliable source, or else it is original research. This is the core principle behind this site: don't write or imply anything which is not directly supported by reliable sources. If Galileo were around today, we'd be more than happy to report on his research, once it was reliably published. But he would not be able to use Misplaced Pages itself as his first publishing venue, since his work would be a primary or secondary source, while Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, i.e. a tertiary source. Crum375 (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I guess the example was not clear enough: Galileo was reporting old ideas but in the Italian language, and the Church claimed the "assumed conclusion" that those ideas, as read by common Italian peopple, would prove the Church was wrong about the Earth's rotation and everything. Galileo was using sourced data as old research, but the Church claimed the original conclusion that he intended to discredit Church doctrine. -Wikid77 02:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a scientist, I can say that Misplaced Pages is not at all the venue I would want to use for publishing new research. In addition to not having expert peer-review, publication here would not be weighed highly by a promotion and tenure committee. If Galileo was alive today, he would not be trying to publish his work here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor would he try to publish it on Encyclopedia Britannica. Tertiary sources are not where you publish your original work. Crum375 (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Read more about Galileo and Copernicus, in reliable sources. Galileo was writing about previous sourced data, but in the Italian language (rather than Church Latin), because he was trying to inform the Italian-speaking, broader public about that data. Those were not "WP:OR" ideas. I suspect, that in fact, Galileo would have definitely written articles on, perhaps, the Italian Misplaced Pages, because the data he reported was old research, just not widely known among the Italian-speaking populace. As with many famous people, Galileo did not invent all those ideas as original, just as Thomas Edison did not "invent" everything but rather, used other people's research. Instead, it was the Church who claimed the original conclusion in assuming Galileo intended to discredit all Church doctrine by writing about the Heliocentric system, with the Earth revolving around the Sun. I hope that clarifies the problem: the failure of policy WP:SYN is not about allowing original research but rather, empowering those assumed, original conclusions. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what we mean by OR. Original conclusions, original arguments, original opinions, thoughts, experiments, you name it. If not already published by a reliable source, it's not appropriate for WP. SlimVirgin 02:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• More below: #Review WP:SYN removing text when no original research. -Wikid77 06:01, 15 April 2010

Review WP:SYN removing text when no original research

Let's review, Galileo, one more time. Who had the original conclusions? It was the Church, who concluded that Galileo, by publishing old ideas in Italian (not Latin), would discredit Church doctrine among Italian-speaking commoners. Again, who wrote the old ideas? Correct, it was Galileo, as he wrote about prior data that indicated the Earth revolved around the Sun. Copernicus (from Poland) had written about these ideas of a Heliocentric system. Plus, the Church had reviewed these ideas, published, if you will, within the clergy. However, the Church would not let Galileo write such (old) ideas in Italian, for the masses. Why did the Church want to suppress those OLD ideas? The Church had invented, as an assumed original conclusion, that Galileo publishing old ideas (from rare sources) was intending to "advance the cause" that Church doctrine was wrong and the Church would be destroyed. Galileo, later, did smuggle Italian writings, out of his residence. Also, many people learned about a Sun-centred Solar System, but the Church was not destroyed. So, again, where was the original research? There was NONE. Instead, the Church imagined or invented or WP:SYNed a bogus conclusion, not stated (but implied, by them) that Galileo's writing would discredit and ruin the Church. There was no original research, but the Church had invented original conclusions (not stated) as original fears which they used to arrest and censor Galileo. Similarly, WP:SYN can be used to censor text, when there is no original research, at all, but merely original fears of some original conclusion which does not really exist. Hence, WP:SYN can be used to censor non-original research. Thus, that absurd reality proves that WP:SYN is a failed policy, by reductio ad absurdum (an idea reduced into an absurd conclusion). WP:SYN, intended to block original research, can block the non-original. Instead, WP:SYN should require conclusions to be explicitly stated before deletion; any imagined conclusions are merely a matter of one-sided text which lacks NPOV balance, where other viewpoints could be added to downplay the feared conclusion. Text should NOT be removed simply because someone fears an unstated conclusion. Instead, that situation is considered "unbalanced for NPOV" but not a case of original research. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Galileo was changing the narrative that was common at the time. The goal of Misplaced Pages articles is to simply follow the established narrative, not change it. However, as I pointed out, the Galileo example is not very good because Galileo would publish today in a scientific journal, not on Misplaced Pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Um... if Misplaced Pages had existed back in Galileo's day (with the same policies), we would have excluded discussion of his theories completely, as being WP:FRINGE. At least initially. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And if he had a WP article he'd be in Category:Pseudoscience. :) SlimVirgin 13:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

April 15 proposed revision of WP:SYN, per Wikid77's suggestions

Thanks, Wikid77 for pointing out that the current version of WP:SYN actually advocates the deletion of properly cited references, simply because they might cause people to learn something new. This seems to me to be against the basic spirit of Misplaced Pages. Wasn't Misplaced Pages designed to be something new where new ideas could be presented together in a new way? Still, I think there is something about WP:SYN that is worth saving. Based on some of your comments on my talk page, I have now updated my proposed revision of WP:SYN to incorporate most of your thoughts and suggestions. I think my April 15 draft of the proposed WP:SYN is much shorter, and I hope improved. If you get a chance, please look at it at: April 15 proposed revision of WP:SYN, and let me know what you think. Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages was not designed to be "something new where new ideas could be presented together in a new way". it was designed to be an encyclopedia - a summary of existing knowledge and ideas. The only thing "new" about Misplaced Pages is the idea that anyone can contribute and edit. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages was itself a new idea. One of the main reasons why Misplaced Pages is one of the most popular websites in the world is because people come here to find fresh thinking that may not be available elsewhere. Whether you like it or not, Misplaced Pages has become far more than a mere rehash of Britannica. People can find things on Misplaced Pages that never have been in Britannica, and never would be in Britannica. The word encyclopedia is derived from the phrase, "Well rounded education". It is not based on the phrase "Only stale second hand information". To arbitrarily delete anything that might possibly only tangentially invite fresh thinking, to me seems rather square, and not very well rounded. Please take a minute to read through my proposal before you apparently dismiss it out of hand. Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You may come here hoping to find "fresh thinking" but I can tell you that this is not what you will actually find. Nor should it be. That is not the job of an encyclopedia. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So when are you going to actually read the proposal that you seem to have already rejected sight unseen, so we can have a real dialogue here, and not just a war of truisms? Scott P. (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read it... I still reject it. It is overly complicated and unclear. It is fundamentally flawed as to what it allows. It can easily be abused by POV pushers. Need I go on? Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making a 'slightly' more specific objection to it. It seems to me to be much much clearer than the current WP:SYN. Exactly what is unclear about it? The current WP:SYN basically states that any two citations put together in such a close proximity that they might somehow lead someone to have a "fresh thought" must simply be rejected, deleted, and censured, lest someone might accidentally have a "fresh thought," heaven forbid! This seems to me to be something from out of the dark ages. It seems to me that the complaint is that the current WP:SYN is already leading to senseless deletions by POV pushers that are deleting good citations. It seems to me that the current policy may be discouraging good editors from writing here. They put in a properly referenced citation and the next thing it is deleted, simply because someone said it could lead to a new thought! If I were a new editor and I was told this is how Misplaced Pages worked.... 1.) I insert a good citation. 2.) Someone claims the fearful thought that someone might possibly think something new after reading my neutrally worded citation. 3.) Bang, deletion. If I knew this, I would run away as fast as I could, and never return. Could you please give me a specific example of how you feel that the revised rules that I am proposing could be abused? I've been a Misplaced Pages editor since 2004, and I have only seen this strange version of WP:SYN policy in place over the last 9 months, since the version that focused more on what people might happen to think, than on the accuracy of the text of an article, was first developed. The type of POV pushing that this newly developed policy enables seems to me to be quite irrational, counterproductive, and against the spirit of the free flow of accurate and verifiable information that I thought Misplaced Pages stood for. In my proposal, I have tried to rewrite WP:SYN so that it might re-focus the primary concern to textual accuracy, rather than abstract mental exercises about what someone might happen to think after reading a citation.Scott P. (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The current language was developed about a year ago, after a lot of discussion (look back through the archives). It was developed with the specific goal of closing the "but gee I didn't state any conclusion... I can't help it if the reader draws their own conclusion from this" loophole that was commonly abused by POV pushing wikilawyers.

Seriously Scott... if you think that there is any place for unsupported synthetic conclusions in an encyclopedia, maybe Misplaced Pages isn't the right venue for you. You might be happier working on articles at Wikiversity (which encourages well researched OR). Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not support any "unsupported" written conclusions in Misplaced Pages either. I just support old citations, neutrally phrased, that might happen to enable someone to personally gain a new perspective, without any 'coaching' from us, and only within certain very clear, predefined bounds, as set out by us in WP:SYN. Actually, last night I did a thorough search and I found that the first use of the word 'imply' or one of its derivations on the WP:NOR page was on June 25, 2009 by user WikiLaurent in a context that did not prohibit against making an implication by using a citation, it only recommended against intentionally "arranging these facts" (or phrasing these facts) in a manner that might mislead a reader. From there the idea of forming an 'implication-thought-police-squad' then bloomed into the idea that to even imply a new idea with a citation, despite the fact that the citation's phrasing might be absolutely neutral, was 'Misplaced Pages heresy'. I appreciate your willingness to put up with my 'admittedly vigorous objections' for this long. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, I think your version would introduce unnecessary complications just because of the length (though maybe for other reasons too). It's best when writing policy to keep things fairly tight. The more words, the greater the risk of misunderstanding. :) SlimVirgin 18:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly it is perhaps 50% longer than the current version. I have no objection to tightening it up. If you find a logical loophole, or an unnecessary sentence, by all means, please feel free to cut away, reword, plug the loophole, or tighten as you please. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• More below: #Streamlining WP:SYN to bring new ideas into Misplaced Pages. -Wikid77 23:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Streamlining WP:SYN to bring new ideas into Misplaced Pages

I agree with User:Scottperry's assessment, and the problem is that WP:SYN is fatally flawed to let people's original fears delete sourced text, as he stated, "lest someone might accidentally have a fresh thought". It does seem mediaeval, or definitely like the Dark Ages, in fearing some unknown article sorcery as speaking dangerous words, so have their wiki-tongues pulled out (!). However, it's not the Misplaced Pages people who are awry, but rather, a lack of wiki-education for coping with new ideas. Scottperry's instinctive understanding of Misplaced Pages seems fundamentally correct: "Misplaced Pages is the sum of all knowledge" including past, very ancient, and brand new, but the problem has been the "verifiability" aspect: for that reason, it is often difficult to post new ideas and defend them as "verifiable" (due to a lack of quick sources), but the same can be said of very ancient ideas from texts whose translation might not be easily obtained. We get around the "this-aint-the-news" fears by anticipating news reports, such as an earthquake or celebrity death, where people were collecting data about common earthquake regions, or someone's illness and dangerous habits. As you suspected, when "the word" gets out to the people, then numerous readers descend upon Misplaced Pages to find the latest sourced information about a topic. Pageviews about a celebrity or scientific topic might skyrocket to 300x times the typical daily pageviews. When a celebrity gets arrested, or an ancient tomb is opened, or water is discovered on Mars, then masses of people come to Misplaced Pages, and quite often, they find what they wanted. You have triggered an interesting line of discussion: methods to adjust WP policies so we can streamline the addition of new reports into the existing articles and give people the encyclopedic (all-around, old+new) answers they seek. Plus, here's a core problem: when the masses come to Misplaced Pages and DON'T find the answers they seek, then typically, some particular people have been actively censoring text to conceal that information. With 12 million users, when something is NOT there, it typically hasn't been "overlooked" but rather, purposely omitted from Misplaced Pages. Hence, several policies need to be adjusted to allow all verifiable information to be properly reported, while still protecting privacy and other concerns. For WP:SYN, I again, advocate: only novel conclusions stated in writing should be censored as "original research" while facts that support some unpopular, feared conclusion should not be removed. Misplaced Pages should not be the thought-police which prevents people from thinking in "scary" ways. I realize that concept might be difficult to understand, after years of removing sourced text, but consider how many times Ann Sullivan had to hand-sign "W-A-T-E-R" in Jimbo's Alabama, before Hellen Keller understood why the concept mattered at the water pump. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "For WP:SYN, I again, advocate: only novel conclusions stated in writing should be censored as 'original research' while facts that support some unpopular, feared conclusion should not be removed." - How do you feel about including facts in such a way that they advance a conclusion that is neither unpopular nor feared but is a conclusion that hasn't appeared in a reliable source and may not be true? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think advancing a position, as an unstated conclusion, is a issue of WP:NPOV unbalanced text, such as listing all the successes of someone, without their failures, as implying that they are a "perfect" person. The "fix" is to tag-box that section as "NPOV unbalanced" and seek text about their failures, not delete their successes because they imply super-human ability. As you might know, in some home-improvement TV series, the footage of construction activities is heavily edited: when someone hits a nail sideways and bends, or someone drops a board and ruins a drill, then film editors remove those scenes from the film, as if every time a hammer is used, nails never bend, or boards never get dropped where they break valuables at the site. It can be difficult to remove a bent nail, plus marring the surface or requiring putty to conceal marks. It's a problem of one-sided coverage about events, as NPOV imbalance, but not "original research" in using a hammer. Sourced data which leads to one unspoken conclusion, but not others, is an issue of NPOV imbalance, not WP:SYN synthesis. -Wikid77 09:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "Sourced data which leads to one unspoken conclusion, but not others, is an issue of NPOV imbalance, not WP:SYN synthesis." - My question wasn't concerned with the existence of any other possible conclusions. It was concerned with the case of presenting facts in such a way that the reader is led to an unspoken conclusion that hasn't appeared in a reliable source and may or may not be true, regardless of the existence of other possible conclusions. I hope that helps clarify my original question which you may want to read again. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Spirit of the proposed major revision of WP:SYN, April 15th draft

I don't care if the exact version of our proposed major revision to WP:SYN at April 15 proposed revision of WP:SYN is accepted verbatim or not. It is the spirit of our proposed changes to WP:SYN that I am behind. For those editors who may not have yet had enough time to wade through the specific details of the new proposal, please let me summarize here the 'spirit of the changes' in synopsis form:

1. WP:SYN is still used to address potential editorial problems related to the potential of WP:NOR that tend to arise when citations regarding new areas of research are used in Misplaced Pages.
2. WP:SYN henceforth will limit itself to dealing only with the textual accuracy, reliability, and neutrality of any such citations, and will no longer also deal with the question of what thoughts might possibly be conjectured in the minds of others. Henceforth, WP:SYN will strictly deal with the accuracy of the text that is specifically written on our pages, and no longer with any potential evil thoughts that might arise in the minds of others! Misplaced Pages policy is designed to create and present well written citations, and not to worry about what new insights or forms of reasoning such well written citations might point out or awaken in the minds of our readers.
3. Specifically, the problem that WP:SYN will henceforth deal with is the tendency for editors to sometimes 'excessively editorialize in writing' about the new and heretofore unpublished ramifications or implications that multiple citations can sometimes point out. Please see the specific example given in the proposed revision. This specific example that is central to the new proposal is essentially a major rewording of the old WP:SYN example using the allegorical citation about the 160 wars and the United Nations. Again the proposed revision can be found at: April 15 proposed revision of WP:SYN.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as your revision does not address the problem of implied conclusion, it will remain unacceptable to me. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Assumed original conclusions are worse than original research

Also see above: #Review WP:SYN removing text when no original research.

A fundamental problem, in policy WP:SYN, is the empowering of original conclusions which might not be, at all, what the author of the text was even thinking. The policy empowers people to reject (censor) sourced text, if they can assume that an original conclusion is being implied to "advance a cause". Unless such conclusions are actually stated in an article ("put it in writing"), then the author's intent is wide open to rampant speculation. Even popular culture is replete with adages that warn of multiple interpretations of the same events: "One man's trash is another man's treasure" or "One man's rebel is another's freedom fighter" or "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Hence, the problem, with WP:SYN, is not a matter of rocket science: the problem is, quite simply, that someone can claim an original conclusion when the author of the text held a different view (trash v. treasure).
Unless the supposed "original" opinion is actually stated, in writing, then WP:SYN can be used to pre-censor sourced text, based on claiming some, invented original conclusion that the author did not intend. The author is not allowed to include original research, but the censor is allowed to remove text based on assumed "original conclusions". Is there still anyone who cannot grasp the problem with that policy? A conclusion to be censored must be explicitly stated in an article. Any other situation is merely an incomplete view, as a NPOV imbalance, where the text might seem to indicate a particular conclusion, but if more text were added, then the NPOV balance could shift to a more neutral position. The result is not to censor by WP:SYN but rather, to add more text to achieve an NPOV neutral converage. WP:SYN must insist that censorship be used to remove actual text stating a novel conclusion, rather than sourced text presenting a one-sided view (in someone's opinion of one-sided). -Wikid77 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem with it. Be it by WP:SYN or simple editorial discretion, if an author's statement is considered by consensus to be excessively vague in its implied conclusion, there's nothing wrong with removing it. This is not a matter of censorship but of good writing. We do a service to our readers by making sure our articles clearly convey significant viewpoints. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

With SYN violations the problem is the original conclusion... in many cases a WP:SYN violation can be resolved by simply rewriting the section in question; shifting the wording around, moving A away from B so the reader is not led to form conclusion C. If the text no longer leads to a conclusion then there is no SYN violation, and no need to remove (or "censor") either information or sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem whatsoever with WP:SYN. It's clear, it's necessary, and it's in no way whatsoever a violation of the NPOV policy. I find it to be the most unambiguous clause of any among the small set of policies we're to adhere to here at WP. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar's comment above that the problem isn't the sourced facts themselves but the way they are presented and positioned in the article to suggest an unsourced conclusion. They should be repositioned or presented in a way that doesn't suggest an unsourced conclusion, if they are worthwhile, rather than deleted. The positioning aspect is somewhat mentioned in WP:SYN with the excerpt, "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• That topic is not about policy WP:SYN as being a violation of WP:NPOV, but rather some collections of one-sided sourced data being an NPOV non-neutral view, rather than original-research synthesis. -Wikid77 09:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the old version of WP:SYN unnecessarily confuses the idea of original research "writing new ideas as if already established by others" with simply good research, "writing published ideas that are neutrally and supportably laid out, even if these ideas might indirectly point others to a new concept". This to me is quite confusing! A good neutral well supported citation is not made OR, simply because someone might disagree with the nature of its content! Scott P. (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One problem here is that you keep talking about how the source is being removed... but in WP:SYN violations it is the article text that is the problem, not the sources. If you can rewrite the text so that it no longer forms an improper synthetic conclusion, you can return the information (and the source) to the article. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN accuses author Jones of United Nations plagiarism

In re-reading policy WP:SYN, I analyzed the specific usage of 2 examples in that policy, as to possibly implying some unsourced conclusion. I was surprised to learn, in fact, that there is a real connection, implying a WP:BLP violation:

A. "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace".

B. "Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying...".

At first, I thought that text couldn't really imply some unstated conclusion, but then I decided to check a Google search, and "Aha!" I found 168,000 matches for "United Nations" plus "plagiarism". However, it gets even more sinister: there is a WP article titled "List of plagiarism controversies" which specifically states, "unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports". I know it can't be proven to be, intentionally, accusing that author of plagiarism. However, the evidence is overwhelming: there is A + B, which leads to C (plagiarism of United Nations documents), where that connection is even written on Misplaced Pages, itself. Perhaps the people who re-wrote WP:SYN to have those 2 examples thought it would be okay, as an inside joke, if the policy actually had tricked people into accepting the policy as mere policy, rather than a veiled attempt to lead people to conclude, yes, the man did commit plagiarism of UN texts (but did he actually, according to valid sources?). Because the policy explicitly states that people could conclude "C" (if they so choose, like it's really a choice in the policy), then the policy itself seems to be clearly trying to plant the seeds of the accusation, without listing reliable sources which could confirm the guilt or innocence of people disguised as so-called "Smith" or "Jones" as if that wasn't a transparent attack on the real author, as a WP:BLP insinuation. Policy WP:SYN needs to be deleted or re-worded to avoid that unsourced BLP text, soon. Perhaps next time, the examples could be about 2 fictional guys debating on Mars and the "Intergalactic Peace Federation" or such, not trying to sneak an unsourced real-world conclusion into the policy. If only WP:SYN had not advised to BEWARE implied conclusions, then readers would be free to ignore any inferred conclusions; however, since the policy clearly states to beware any implied conclusions, then it self-validates those conclusions as being the intended meaning. It's like a guy telling a police officer, "There's a handgun in my backpack, or NOT", so now, the officer has no choice: he must arrest that guy and search the backpack (per policies about implied suspicion). A policy cannot warn people to fear implied conclusions, and then imply an author plagiarized UN documents. Per policy, WP:BLP, such a conclusion must be backed by a source footnote, rather than just verifiable in common sources. Since the names are disguised as "Smith" and "Jones" then it cannot be properly footnoted, and that text should be deleted as a WP:SYN synthesis claiming he plagiarized United Nations documents. Am I assuming all these implied conclusions correctly? Does anyone know the real names? -Wikid77 09:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a bit more flexibility is needed when reading Misplaced Pages's policies - this is not like pure mathematics where you have rules that can be applied strictly and work 100% of the time. Common sense helps and so does consensus, especially for WP:SYN because blatant syntheses are rare - it's usually more subtle. In your particular example, if there was a consensus between editors that this is indeed a WP:SYN then it should be removed or rewritten. Obviously that wouldn't happen because your conclusion is not something that any sensible readers would make (unless of course they are trying to make a point but in this case they would be a minority). Laurent (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, many editors just remove unwanted text because they explain the implied conclusion as WP:SYN, and they do not wait for consensus before deleting that text. This is not like pure criminal cases, where a suspect is given a jury trial and only executed after a unanimous verdict of "guilty". Instead, people explain their feared conclusion, and immediately delete the text per WP:SYN. However, I like your novel idea of needing a consensus. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Numerous problems to avoid in rewriting WP:SYN

Before re-writing the WP:SYN policy to become more effective, and less likely for abuse, then several problems need to be avoided. I have begun the following list (feel free to insert more entries, tagged with your user-signature):

• A1: No more current-day examples, such as the United Nations, which has real-world cases of plagiarism being debated. Set examples in the future, or distant past.
• B1: Avoid examples of personal guilt or moral failures, because those examples risk WP:BLP violations, even by insinuation, that some particular living person has committed plagiarism.
• C1: Use examples of novel conclusions, not old success/failure viewpoints. For decades, people have claimed, "The UN is a failure" or "The UN is a success". Neither conclusion could be, honestly, claimed for being "original" as never stated in sources. Some readers will become highly confused when examples are based on nonsense which claims that age-old conclusions about the United Nations are "original" now: consider how goofy some readers have perceived the policy.
• D1: The rewritten policy should note that "original conclusions stated in writing" should be removed or changed, but implied conclusions cannot be controlled, because implied conclusions are in the "eye of the beholder".
• E1: Explain that, when multiple sourced statements seem to imply one particular original conclusion, but not others, then that is not a case of WP:SYN but rather, WP:NPOV unbalanced text, as promoting a one-sided view, and hence, that text could be flagged for an WP:NPOV_dispute, to request more-neutral wording be edited.
• F1: Require a local consensus before deleting an "original conclusion stated in writing". I suggest, Step 1: post the original-conclusion debate on an article's talk-page; Step 2: attempt to contact the author of the disputed text, to request a rewrite or removal of that text. No more simply declaring the feared conclusion to be WP:SYN, and then self-righteous deletion of text. Perhaps even use the word "self-righteous" to emphasize that the person deleting text has no greater authority than the person who added the text.

Those are some of the major issues I've detected. Please feel free to insert more entries (in the list immediately above), tagged with your user-signature in brackets "". Otherwise, continue the discussion below. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly feel that this is taking us down the wrong path. WP:SYN does not need a rewrite. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The proposals are wordy and seem to want to allow OR, if I've understood them. I'm joining this thread to the other, Wikid -- it's best to keep them together so that people can get an overview. SlimVirgin 12:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, you have yet to explain the logical fallacy of the new revision. You have yet to give a single example of how the new proposal could allow a single bad edit. I am beginning to wonder if you have yet really even taken the time to carefully read the new proposal. Why do you keep us here spinning around in verbal circles with your still vaguely worded platitudes, which you are calling objections, without your being able yet raise even a single specific objection that shows that you have seriously taken a few moments to carefully analyze the logic of the new proposed revision? I am not going to even reply to any more of the vague platitudes you are using as objections until you are able to show me that you have actually seriously read the proposal. Blueboar, could you please give me a specific example of how you feel the proposed revision might allow true OR, meaning "a written claim made by a Misplaced Pages editor, presented as if it were an already established researched and published fact, when it was not", into Misplaced Pages? (And please do not try to claim that the content of a good citation can make it OR.) Scott P. (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is simple, you think that implied conclusions should be allowed under certain circumstances. I strongly disagree. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, I fully agree with Blueboar. I think the current WP:SYN text is well-written, and expresses our policy very clearly. I don't see where there is a problem. And if it ain't broke, ... Crum375 (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've listed 6 reasons (A1-F1), above, that WP:SYN is broken and the policy is still disputed. -Wikid77 14:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• I apologize that it takes so much writing to address all the problems in the WP:SYN policy. -Wikid77 13:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wikid, Crum, the current policy enables a good properly referenced neutrally worded citation to be deleted, simply because someone may have a problem with what such a citation might "prove". This is broken. Again, we are not here at WP:NOR to worry about the thoughts of our readers. We are here to worry about the accuracy of the written citations of our writers. Truth is not lies. A properly written citation is not OR, and we are not administrators of the Grand Inquisition either. We are here to keep the text accurate. Not the minds of our readers pure. Why can't you see this simple fact? Jeesh!! Scott P. (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, can you please show a real example in a real article where "the current policy enable a good properly referenced neutrally worded citation to be deleted"? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Crum375. Please see A real example of a bad deletion of some good citations below. Scott P. (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, I believe that the Hutaree diff you cite is a perfect example of why WP:SYN needs to be enforced, and I also believe the current version is very clearly worded. It seems that in this case, one editor's view is that the Hutaree are not "good Christians" because Jesus was against violence. But instead of finding a reliable source to support his view, the editor finds a source which says that Jesus was against violence, not in reference to the Hutraee. And this is exactly where WP:SYN steps in: we may not create new implications or conclusions to advance a position, which are not supported by a reliable source, which makes the point in direct reference to the subject we are adding. So this example is classical WP:SYN, which shows that the current policy is working correctly and needs no modification. Crum375 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are several problems with using WP:SYN to reject the claimed conclusion that "The Hutaree are not good Christians'":

1. WP:SYN ranks a feared synthesis above verifiability: The policy neglects to emphasize how synthesis is not a problem if the conclusion can be verified elsewhere. The key issue is NOT synthesis, but rather the verifiability of the conclusion. Hence, if any other sources can be used to verify a conclusion, then it is perfectly fine. However, WP:SYN claims the conclusion violates WP:OR regardless of a 3rd source. That's a big mistake, utterly fatal for a policy.

2. WP:SYN ignores generalized sources: The Bible is considered a generalized source about Christianity, as a whole, and the Bible has been applied to millions of discussions about religious groups. To allow WP:SYN to reject the Bible as a source in an article, about religious practices, is a fatal problem, and therefore WP:SYN is a totally failed policy, in addition to all its other fatal problems.

3. WP:SYN denies common sense: Fundamentally, Misplaced Pages does not "subset" reality, by creating an artificial environment where standards and practices of the real world do not apply. By denying the use of multiple sources, simply because they do not contain the same word, again, WP:SYN is fatally flawed and completely useless in the real world.

Those are just a few of the problems with WP:SYN, but those are enough to show the policy is utterly worthless. The proof has been simple, just logically apply WP:SYN to real examples and show the totally absurd results, ergo by reductio ad absurdum, policy WP:SYN is an invalid concept and must be rejected. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Example as original: Lawnmower using water as fuel

I checked the history of WP:SYN, and it seems that the controversial examples about the United Nations were added, and then heavily disputed, circa 2 July 2009. Despite opening the door to rejecting an implied-conclusion synthesis (that the UN was a failure), that example also asked the user to believe that, despite decades of debates about perceived UN failures, no source ever claimed the UN was a failure because wars are still fought (hard to accept no source about that). Instead, let's use a hypothetical example, without awakening those success-of-the-UN debates. Consider a lawnmower example, based on two hypothetical witness sources "" & "":

• "A person tried to use water as a lawnmower fuel. While mowing a steep hillside, he stopped the mower, then added a funnel full of water. The mower then started quickly, and was still running almost 2 minutes later. Hence, water is a good lawnmower fuel when gasoline (petrol) is not available."
  
  In that hypothetical example, the lawnmower story is being traced to 2 witnesses in reliable sources. The conclusion is the synthesis (not found in either source): "water is a good lawnmower fuel". However, with no source, that conclusion must be changed or removed. Perhaps, in reality, the lawnmower continued running because it was on a "steep hillside" and tilted so that the water did not mix into the fuel line, during 2 minutes of operation. Regardless, an editor had stated "in writing" the non-verifiable conclusion: "water is a good lawnmower fuel" and that would be invalid synthesis.

Using the lawnmower example (rather than the U.N.), the issue is better illustrated, especially since the conclusion definitely seems highly original, and meanwhile, few people would believe the conclusion is valid, despite the mower running 2 minutes. Also, there is no connection to the hot-topic issue about politics of the United Nations, just a mere hypothetical case with a suspicious conclusion "stated in writing". I suggest using that lawnmower example as a better example of WP:SYN. -Wikid77 13:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, we chose the UN example because it came from an actual article debate. As such, I think it is a better example of the problem than your lawnmower one. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Many people know the UN has been described as a failure, for years; that's not an original idea (search Google & find: "Wars have been fought all over the globe…with the participants mostly members of the UN" ). You can't expect all readers to truly accept UN failure an as original idea. Wikid77 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't follow what's being proposed here, or why it's being proposed. Could Scott or Wikid give one real example of material that was wrongly excluded from an article because of SYN? We need to know whether a real problem is being addressed. SlimVirgin 14:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, see: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:SYN and review perhaps 100 of those pages (hunt words "WP:SYN" or "synthe" on each talk-page). There are so many problems, but the disputes are just now being (re-)awakened. Consider the list of A1-F1 as a start. If you do not have time for this massive discussion now, we will try to keep it organized for your comments, later. -Wikid77 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In the reworded example of the UN example of the proposed rewrite, the indisputable well referenced facts about the UN would not have to be deleted. Only the overly presumptuous conclusion. As the current policy is now being employed, editors are not being told they must rewrite their conclusions, but their citations are being wholly deleted and rejected simply because I don't think that our typical readers of the current WP:SYN policy are yet able to understand what the real problem that is trying to be conveyed here is. I think that the current policy is confusing people and I don't think that this is what was intended. Thus, the need for a proposed revision.

I think that the most common example is of a statement which is obviously correct, and, due to it's obviousness, not likely to have been so stated in a published source,and where the persons who want the article to be POV in the opposite direction knock it out by just claiming "OR", without even the slightest challenge to the accuracy of the statement. For example, if I said "President Obama has never served time in prison." Based on a preponderance of evidence, this statement is certainly true. But I would be hard pressed (and would take more time than any productive person would want to invest) to find a wp:ver grade cite which says this. A person who wants the article to be POV against him knocks out the sentence simply for being "OR" without even having to make even the weakest claim that the statement is not correct. This type of thing is pervasive in Misplaced Pages. If you address this from a "guidelines for deleting" standpoint rather than "guidelines for content" it would be much simpler. Simply say that deletion also requires an assertion that the statement is not correct. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A real example of a bad deletion of some good citations

OK SlimVirgin, what first got me over here to WP:NOR was this: on April 12, over at the Hutaree article I had two citations that I considered to be neutrally worded and properly referenced, yet they were deleted by other users as WP:SYN. Please see: an example of a bad deletion of good citations under current wp-syn. The explanation given by the other editors was that these references were by definition OR. I thought to myself, 'How can a neutrally worded properly referenced citation be considered OR?' I've been editing here since practically the beginning of Misplaced Pages, and I've never seen any similar logic used before by a Misplaced Pages editor for a deletion. I decided to go to WP:NOR to see if there have been any recent significant policy changes, and sure enough, there was one.

Beginning last summer, WP:SYN first began to concern itself not only with the accuracy and textual neutrality of a citation, but also with the possible implications of a citation. It seemed to me that there was some confusion in the writing of WP:SYN that enabled these authors to misunderstand the intention of WP:SYN. People were confusing the need to have neutrally and fairly written conclusions in Misplaced Pages with a perceived need to prevent people from possibly thinking new thoughts after merely reading a neutrally and fairly written citation. Please take a look at this edit and tell me what you think of it. Scott P. (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The statements that Scottperry sought to include in the article are not synthesis, in that the two sources are not combined in a way to reach a conclusion that is not contained in either source. It is, however, original research to place general statements about the bible and religion in a way that suggests the statements apply to a particular modern organization. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's SYN because he's combining the sources to imply that the group isn't really Christian, though the sources don't mention that. SlimVirgin 15:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the example. I'm afraid it's classic SYN. You wrote in Hutaree (your edit bolded by me):

Amongst some of the leadership of the "Christian far right", there is some tentative and qualified support of the actions taken by the Hutaree. The rationale given for such support is the apparent belief that the teachings of Jesus would have advocated and justified the killing of random local police officers, if such officers supported a government that abused its power, and which had fired the first shot. Such a 'first shot' is believed by them to possibly have already been fired in what is described by them as an armed conflict apparently already under way between their people and the US government. However, the Biblical Jesus "consistently opposed violence". During the first three centuries of the Christian Era, the teachings of the early Church ruled out violence as an option, even in self-defense.

It is OR and specifically SYN because your sources don't mention the Hutaree. Here's an anology, Scott. Imagine I write an article about you. It says:

Scott Perry came to public attention in April 2010 when he won the World Chess Championship. However, according to the lobby group, Mothers against Chess, chess is played only by isolated geek types who should be focused instead on getting a real job.

We don't allow that unless Mothers against Chess has singled out Scott Perry for particular comment. The reason we don't allow it is it's possible to find a source that says something about anything, and randomly adding commentary not directly related to the topic means the article would lurch from one barely related POV to another. SlimVirgin 15:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

See also my reply above. And the reason for SYN is not just the "lurching" effect, but also because that, as Wikipedians, we may not introduce new conclusions or implications unless they have been directly stated by a reliable source. The act of taking a general quote about Jesus and deciding that it applies to a specific situation is original research, unless there is a source making that point for us in direct relation to this specific subject (the Hutaree). Crum375 (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary that not all chess champions are geeks. The implication here is clearly misleading, and it would be quite easy for an editor to prove that the connection that is trying to be made is logically unsound. But the citation about the women's league is not technically OR. It is accurate, and rather than giving it the misnomer of a type of OR, it should be called something like "slippery-slope-logic", not "original research". An accurate but incorrectly used citation is not really OR, it is merely a citation incorrectly used out of context. Now about the second citation, according to our own Misplaced Pages article, there is no known evidence that the Christian church ever adopted an offical policy that advocated violence in its first three centuries. It would be easy to contest the accuracy that all chess players are geeks, simply by pointing out to the citation's author, a single non-geeky type chess player. Then that author would have to agree that his citation was inaccurate. In the case of the second citation, there is no known evidence that the early Christian church ever adopted a formal policy of advocating violence. Therefor the logic supporting the second reference remains sound, until otherwise actually and textually disproven. It should not be deleted with a simple broad-swipe using the label OR, when there is no counter-proof even felt as necessary. It is not really OR either. If there were counter-proof, it would merely be out of context. Scott P. (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott P., In the Hutaree example that you gave, note the edit summary for the main reason for the deletion, "removing two sentences based on sources that do not discuss Hutaree per WP:NOR, see talk for explanation". This reason for the deletion is supported by the lead of WP:NOR and here is the relevant excerpt, "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 that directly support the material as presented."

If a reliable source was provided that made those statements while discussing Hutaree, it would have been demonstrated that original research was not added. Instead, only the editor made the connection between the topic Hutaree and these statements by placing them in the Hutaree article, and thus they were deleted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that because there was no discussion of the Hutaree in the second citation, it must be so irrelevant to the article that it must be automatically called OR and instantly deleted as such? That would be like saying that because an article is titled "Cake", that a citation that did not have the word "Cake" in it must automatically be called OR and deleted as such. What about a reference in the article to the best ovens for baked goods? Should that citation be deleted and called OR because it doesn't have the word "Cake" in it? Scott P. (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent point about questioning that, now, "related" means contains the same word. Meanwhile, many people will assure everyone that Jesus relates to everything, by definition, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Plus, that's not just in English, but also written in the original Greek dialect, as almost a word-for-word translation (Word=Logos, except the end part is re-ordered as "God was the Word" ). It is really bizarre to claim Jesus does not apply to "Hutaree" or anything else in the Universe. What part of "King of Kings" or "Lord of Lords" (or "Alpha to omega") is hard to comprehend, here? Hence, that argument has been refuted, so if there are no other objections, then the Hutaree text can be restored, as intended. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, let me add a point to Bob's reply. You seem to think that we need a "counter argument" to your addition of an unsourced implication or conclusion. This is fundamentally wrong. The core principle of WP:V and WP:NOR is that the burden of finding a source is on the person adding the material, not the one removing it. So if you want to add a conclusion or implication that Hutraree are not good Christians, you need to find a source which directly says it, and not ask your fellow editors to "find a counter-argument". We don't "argue" here: we find reliable sources which directly support what we write. Crum375 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference may be subtle, but I don't think you realize you have now crossed over into the realm of the 'thought-police' when you call something that is unstated as an unsourced implication and therefore OR, delete. I am saying that logical uncontestable unstated implications are not ours to police. Unstated implications should not be subject to the same rigorous standards that written conclusions are. They should be regulated, but under a more lenient set of rules, and an unstated conclusion that someone might not agree with does not make a good citation OR, it may make the citation inapplicable, but not OR. That is all I am saying. Gotta go now. Bye for today, Scott P. (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

See also my reply below. There is no "thought police". There is simply a requirement to find a reliable source directly supporting any material which is challenged or likely to be challenged. "Material" includes direct statements or implications, or conclusions. We can't be the first to introduce new information of any kind to the world: our goal is to summarize what other have written, not to create new material. Crum375 (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, a major disconnect: when found in a reliable source, then, indeed, Misplaced Pages can introduce new information of any kind to the world. There's seems to be a fear that Misplaced Pages can only report the majority opinions, but nothing new which might be rare. Please, re-read "Thought police" to better understand that concept. -Wikid77 17:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confused, Wikid77. If something is already published in a reliable source, we are not introducing anything new to the world. There is no "fear" of any kind on Misplaced Pages: if reliable source X says Y, and we deem Y important enough, we will include it. We just can't make up stuff here. That's the key. Crum375 (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To reply to your point about cakes, if you find a source about "baked goods", and there is no contention about the point you are making, it could be acceptable for cakes. But once there is contention, you must find a direct source which refers directly to cakes. This is part of our requirement for reliable sources in general: you need to supply a direct source if the material you add is challenged or likely to be challenged. Crum375 (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• I understand the desire to censor ideas that someone, personally, does not want to see in print, and the current WP:SYN will allow that, but that doesn't make it "right" (2 wrongs don't make a right ). Perhaps we need to define a new policy "WP:LURCH" which specifically questions text which jumps off into wild tangents, such as "The sky is blue, and blues music is often performed outdoors, under a wide-open sky". As you can imagine, there is no end to wild tangents, and I don't see any "scary" original conclusion about the "wide-open sky" but let's define a real policy that can deter wild-tangent writing, rather than pervert policy WP:SYN to claim awkward text, which someone doesn't like, is guilty of being "WP:SYNFULL text". I think it is clear, now, that policy WP:SYN is being warped to compensate for a lack of other text-content policies. Meanwhile, policy WP:NOTCENSORED deters deletions, even if the text might seem offensive to a person's religion, even if Jesus were mentioned. -Wikid77 16:24, 16 April 2010

There is no desire to "censor" anything: if we have a reliable source that Jesus said X about Y, it can go into the Jesus article or the Y article. But it can't go into the Z article unless Jesus mentioned Z directly. That's what SYN is about. Crum375 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps material from the following two excerpts from the indicated source could be used for the idea that you want to add at the Hutaree article without violating WP:NOR.

1) "The news of the dramatic raid came the morning after many Christians heard the account of the Passion of the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed at the beginning of the Holiest Week in the Christian year. In the account from St. Luke´s Gospel read at the Catholic Liturgy for Passion/Palm Sunday (Luke 22:14 – 23: 56) we heard of the encounter between Jesus and His captors in that Garden called Gethsemane. There, one of his disciples sought to wield a sword of violence to repel the authorities. It is absolutely clear in this account where Jesus - and thus His Church - stand on the improper use of the sword - outside of legitimate self defense."

2) "Links on this bizarre website lead to anti-Semitic sites; sites containing other apocalyptic nonsense and sites where anyone can learn how to build an underground shelter and purchase survivalist products. The rhetoric is bizarre and in no way can be called 'Christian'. "

Fournier, Deacon Keith (2010-03-29). "Members of Extremist Group´ the Hutaree´ Arrested. Terror Plot Foiled". Catholic Online. Retrieved 2010-04-16.

I found it by googling: Hutaree Jesus peace . There may be other articles that you might find by googling. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't have to google to find material. It's already in the Hutaree article in the section Criticisms and context,

"According to area religious leaders, the Hutaree have completely misconstrued the teachings of Jesus, which have 'nothing to do with violence or using weapons or anything and could hardly justify what they were trying to do.' "

Seems like this expresses the idea that Scott was trying to put into the article, and this excerpt does it in accordance with the policy WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bob_K31416 for that source. -Wikid77 00:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusion from 10,000 problems with WP:SYN

All the flurry of recent discussions stems from the massive implications of the logical fallacies inherent in the WP:SYN policy fiasco. There is no end to the problems it will cause, by fearing implied conclusions. Let me clarify again: when any chain of reasoning begins as an "argument from false premises" then it is common knowledge, that those those false premises can be used to prove anything. This is a fundamental concept in "sentential logic" or "predicate logic". A false premise can be used, while following correct reasoning, to "prove" that 1 = 0, or black is white, or right is wrong, or 2 = -2, 3 = -3, 4 = -4,... 10,000 = -10,000, etc. When I noted "confusion from 10,000 problems with WP:SYN" that was just a placeholder number to indicate infinite problems, in all those article disputes, which stem from basing a policy on the false premise that someone might fear an imagined conclusion (a "false premise") is being implied by mixing sourced text from 2 sources. Do you realize that means most articles can only be based on a single source? Naturally, hundreds of people have been derailed by this WP:SYN policy confusion. Plus, combine that confusion, with other problems in the WP:SYN policy, and the problems just spread in all directions. Again, I have emphasized, above, that no person with worldly experience will stomach those United Nations examples, with the idea of the UN denoted as a failure (or success) as being an "original idea" not found in a source. Here's an "original" idea: go inside the UN and try those examples! One source even noted, over the top, that most wars are conducted by UN member nations!!! If you re-read the above discussions, it is clear that policy WP:SYN has more than 7 major disconnects with reality. Perhaps what is making these discussions so difficult, to absorb all at once, is the fact that all the problems in WP:SYN are being exposed in a massive revelation of all the failed ideas that it contains, in every facet. WP:SYN is a Ball of Confusion, with numerous problems all twisted together. We have not even begun to elaborate on all the ideas presented above. -Wikid77 00:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The real kernel of OR

To all of those who have shown an interest in this dialogue about OR. I just found this historical nugget, that I thought you might find interesting. The actual kernel of OR. Everyone here these days seems to be labeling anything that they don't agree with as OR and instantly deleting it.

Here is what the original entry in the article about OR said. It was entered on December 21st, 2003 and it is a direct quote by Jimbo Wales:

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.

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 ancilliary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research.

Now the idea of OR seems to have been so significantly altered, that we are sometimes no longer permitting others to publish the actual majority view, as under the new WP:SYN policy, we are now sometimes labeling even the majority view as OR. Witness the citation about the early Christian church's policies towards advocating violence, which was promptly labeled as OR, and deleted, despite the fact that it was clearly the majority view, and it possibly does not even have a significant minority disagreeing with it.

I ask, "Is the current WP:SYN policy of labeling even a majority view as OR and promptly deleting it... is this new WP:SYN policy harmonious with Jimbo Wales' view of OR?" Or are his views now considered as OR too?

Please, somebody, anybody... please just finally carefully read the proposed WP:SYN revision and give me a single example of how it would be less harmonious with Wales' definition of OR than this new recently installed WP:SYN policy is. The proposed revision can be found at: April 15 proposed revision of WP:SYN.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The key sentence in that quote is:

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

If the viewpoint is found in reliable sources it is not WP:SYN.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SaskatchewanSenator. I would agree, except that the way WP:SYN is now written, and being enforced, as according to the arguments of the majority here, actual majority views are now sometimes being labeled as WP:SYN and deleted as such. Scott P. (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, you seem to be conflating NPOV with NOR/SYN. Unlike NPOV, SYN has nothing to do with the majority or minority views, or neutrality. It is simply an extension of WP:V, clarifying that everything we write that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be directly sourced. In other words, we can't make stuff up, regardless of how fervently we believe it to be "true". If somebody challenges the text you add, find a reliable secondary source which supports it directly. Nothing to do with majority views. Crum375 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm conflated. So the citation about early Christian church policy was not sourced? I'm very conflated now.... Scott P. (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You still don't get it. The point is not that Jesus or the Christian church said X. They have to say it directly in relation to the Hutaree. If they just make a general statement, it does not belong on the Hutaree page, and any attempt to put it there is WP:SYN. If you believe that this is so clear cut, with all the news media out there, find a reliable source that makes your point directly about the Hutaree and cite it. It's when you try to create or synthesize a view point by building it up yourself from (individually well sourced) pieces that you are violating WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Crum375 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The proposed revision is unacceptable because the example it promotes as an acceptable use of the sources is original research. It claims that "Some may see a trend" but the only one who saw the trend is a Misplaced Pages editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously Jc3s5h, you're telling me that you saw no trend there? I must be very confused. Gotta go, thanks to both of you for all of your insights..... Scott P. (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the first example in WP:SYNTH may have given Scott the wrong impression that Synth is only or mainly about unstated conclusions. I concluded this from the lead sentence in Scott's April 15 proposed revision of WP:SYN. I think he got this wrong impression because we failed to put a simple example of Synth with a stated conclusion as the first example in the section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my dumb question, but are you talking about a specific proposal to revise, and, if so, where is it? Thanks North8000 (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This confusion stems from us failing to get the WP:ATT policy through. NOR and V should be on one page as Misplaced Pages:Attribution. It then becomes clearer how SYN fits in. Scott, I don't know how else to explain it to you. Can you respond to the example I gave earlier? Imagine the article:

Scott Perry came to public attention in April 2010 when he won the World Chess Championship. However, according to the lobby group, Mothers against Chess, chess is played only by isolated geek types who should be focused instead on getting a real job.

If both sentences were sourced, would you feel this was fair enough? SlimVirgin 01:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, obviously your citation about the chess championship and the women's league is logically unsound, but if the cites are sourced, yet the logic unsound, then it seems to me that it should be deleted as unsound logic, but not as OR.

I see the term OR being applied to any type of writing that anyone disagrees with for any reason. It's like some sort of a magic bullet in a magic gun that gives POV pushers seemingly invincible power over those whom they would do battle with. It no longer seems to bear even a faint resemblence to Jimbo's original definition of it. I am told first that the properly sourced cite about the early church is OR, then I'm told that it's really WP:V because WP:SYN is not WP:NOR but really WP:V, yet WP:SYN is listed on the WP:NOR page as a subcategory. Does anyone even care about Jimbo's original definition of it anymore? Has anyone yet found a single example of how the proposed revision is less true to Jimbo's original definition of it than the recently implimented WP:SYN policy? Scott P. (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that WP:SYN has become a "magic bullet" which many people have discovered, to be used when they want to remove sourced text from articles. I think the problems in WP:SYN have reached a "critical mass" so that the whole policy should be re-written to better reflect reality. Some forms of logical connections need to be allowed to avoid suppressing of common sense. I'm not saying that sourced text should be synthesized using "spline curve interpolation", but we seem to be thwarted by excessive limits on collecting data from multiple sources. -Wikid77 12:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You hit the nail right on the head. It has become a big problem. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages's content policies are a "problem" for editors who want to post unsourced material. This is why we have these policies in place. Crum375 (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, respectfully, I feel that your arguments have been circular (in essence saying that the policy defines the goal, and the policy implements the goal that it defined, so everything is fine) and have been missing the point which Wikid77 made so well. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no circularity at all. The mission of this site, as reflected in our core content policies, is to only allow attributable material in articles. This means that any material which is challenged, or likely to be challenged, must have a source directly supporting that material. "Material" can include any type of information, such as data, interpretations, conclusions, or implications. All such material must be published elsewhere before a summary of it is allowed on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not the place to first publish new information of any kind — it is intended to be a summary of material already published by reliable sources elsewhere. This is our mission, this is what the content policies say, and they are only viewed as a "problem" by some people who mistakenly think this is a forum to publish their favorite home-brewed ideas, confusing Misplaced Pages with MySpace. Crum375 (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Location of the proposed revision of WP:SYN

For those who were asking for a link to the revision proposal, it is at April 15 proposed revision of WP:SYN.

I think that the proposed revision is a roundabout way of addressing a two subtle but important facts of writing.

When you juxtapose two facts, you a are implying cause-effect.

And "some people believe" ..... is a trojan horse writing trick to "hide" the actual assertion inside of a platitude.

Once you recognize this, I think that the example boils down to making a controversial and unsupported cause-effect statement between the UN and wars.

North8000 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about Crum. Above he just made the rather unique claim that "SYN... is simply an extension of WP:V"! Since when did WP:SYN get reassigned from being a subcategory of WP:NOR to being a subcategory of WP:V??? Apparently it has already been secretly reassigned in Crum's mind without any of us being told! His reasonings are becoming more and more confused. Now that I've pointed out the original definition of WP:NOR, suddenly in Crum's mind, WP:SYN no longer has a thing to do with WP:NOR!

Later he uses the rationale that, "everything we write... must be directly sourced," as his apparent support for the deletion of what was clearly properly sourced material. Since these last two arguments in the last section, I've finally given up on attempting to comprehend Crum's seemingly rather circular arguments, and am not going to waste any more of my time and energy trying to follow his reasoning any longer.

Regarding your statements above, juxtaposing two facts "may sometimes be used" in a manner that could imply cause and effect. In the specific example used in the proposal, that would be the case. But such a juxtaposition does not necessarily make the implied cause and effect either accurate or inaccurate, it merely makes that implication. Making an unstated implication should not be deleted simply because it is an unstated implication. Once the unstated implication might be made, then common reasoning should be used to determine if the unstated implication might be misleading, or logically sound. 'Stated implications', such as 'some people believe,' unless they can be sourced, showing the actual 'some who believe', and then also showing that those 'some' are at least, as Jimbo said, a significant minority, are obvious POV statements, and also OR. Scott P. (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that we both ended up at the same place. The cause-effect statement (first implied, then wrapped in the trojan horse)should NOT be deletable with a mere OR/Synth claim. But (under what I would suggest) if someone makes a good faith challenge of the accuracy / correctness of the statement, THEN it would have to be either supported or removed.North8000 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not intended to be the "Thought police" and readers are expected to do their own thinking, even about cause-effect situations. The fallacy of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (about mistaken cause-effect conclusions) is even described in an article. Hence, people can do their own thinking, about 2 sourced phrases, and decide whether (or not) some cause-effect relationship exists between them. Wikpedia does not prevent "thoughtcrime" by creating policies to prevent people from thinking dangerous conclusions, whenever they read 2 phrases in a row. I realize that WP:SYN has probably been used, for months, to attempt to control such conclusions, but that was an oversight due to volunteers being too busy to correct WP:SYN. -Wikid77 14:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Since when did WP:SYN get reassigned from being a subcategory of WP:NOR to being a subcategory of WP:V???"... Given that WP:NOR was created as split off from WP:V (which itself was split off from WP:NPOV), I would answer that question with... since the policy was created. None of our polices stand alone. All are interconnected. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Who has been vandalizing the main WP:NOR project page???

Someone has been vandalizing the main WP:NOR project page, please stop. 70.88.94.134 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Scottperry's IP sock did . Are you looking for a block?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I see someone was not amused. Thank God you found the miserable culprit. A thousand curses upon the wretch. A thousand pardons to you oh magnificent clean keeper. I pray none of the poor people who might have read the vandalized versions for the 5 minutes they were there might not have been mislead, heaven forbid!!!

Actually, I am getting a bit worn out by this debate. Perhaps that is why I was willing to stoop to playing thinly veiled sock-puppetry to try to point up exactly how ridiculous the current WP:SYN policy really is, and making sure that you would quickly realize it was me. Really... sorry. But also, If you guys want to vote on this, maybe now is the time..... This page has grown long enough as it is. So I put my vote above now....

Scott P. (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No original policies: replace WP:SYN with a cited policy

Quite clearly, the obvious warning of "no original policies" needs to be heeded. At this point, we need to find some well-recommended policies, backed by reliable sources, which can be used to deter original research, without attempting to control people's thoughts as being Thought police. Many other organizations have had difficulties in setting policies. Also, I understand that people might think they could re-invent WP:SYN to actually become a viable policy; however, developing "standards and practices" is a difficult problem, due to the effort of coordinating multiple suggestions, as if organizing a committee decision. The easiest solution will be to follow some well-established polices that are used (in the real world) to limit the extent of original research in articles. Unless some real-world policy is followed, there is a great risk of creating another "original policy" which is basically "original research on steroids" with a far-reaching, off-balance multiplier effect being leveraged on thousands of articles. -Wikid77 14:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is the world's leading example of a useful encyclopedia created by anonymous users who's contributions are not reviewed in advance. Thus Misplaced Pages's policies are real-world policies. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but it looks like the discussion has reached the state of WP:DEADHORSE. There seems to be a consensus that is not budging after much discussion. Perhaps you and Scott might collaborate on an essay to express your views and invite any other interested editors to participate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The underlying issue

Since our earliest days, Misplaced Pages has had endless debates between "inclusionists" and "exclusionists". Such debates have raged at most of our policy pages (most recently over WP:BURDEN, and WP:HANDLE). I think the above is another example.

The underlying issue always comes down to this: Should problematic material be removed? The answer to that question is inevitably... sometimes, sometimes not. This is, of course, a very unhelpful answer. We need to ask another question: When is it OK to remove problematic material, and when is it not OK to remove problematic material? The answer to that is... it is OK to remove problematic material when you can not fix the problem by some other method.

Wikid and Scott make a valid point when they note that (too) many editors jump right to removal when confronted with WP:SYN violations. However, I strongly disagree with how they deal with this issue... I strongly disagree with changing the policy to allow synthesis. I think the right way to deal with it is to make it clearer that removal is a last step... that it is what you do after you have found that you can not fix the problem in some other way. In the case of WP:SYN violations, editors should first see if they can resolve the violation without removing the information (for example: searching to see if the conclusion is actually verifiable and, if so, adding a citation... or rewriting the section in question so that it does not form a synthesis... or adding a tag so that someone else will fix it).

Deletionists need to understand that sometimes removing material is not the best option... Inclusionists need to understand that sometimes removing the material is the only option. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed major Reversion of WP:SYN

The recent alterations to WP:SYN in which WP:SYN attempts to police not only written conclusions but also unstated implications have seemed to cause this wild tangent and confusing of the actual meanings. I agree with users Wikid77 and North8000 that Misplaced Pages policy has significantly failed in its attempts to police potential unstated implications. This attempt to expand Misplaced Pages editorial policies to not only deal with written conclusions but to also attempt to deal with the thoughts of our readers has caused a great deal of confusion amongst many, as is evidenced by the large amount of recent conflict on this page.

I would like to propose what I am calling a major reversion of WP:SYN, as opposed to a major revision. I am proposing that we revert WP:SYN to its last version from June 21st, 2009 01:56, by SlimVirgin, which was the last version of WP:SYN that did not attempt to deal with mere implications. As such, I have just created a new page at Proposed major Reversion of WP:SYN, which I have started as an exact copy of this June 21st version of WP:SYN. Comments welcome. Scott P. (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Gone til tomorrow.... bye. Scott P. (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - If you look in the archives, there was good reason why we decided to deal with implied synth. those reasons are still valid. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, this is not a vote. You know that we have not yet come to any semblance of a consensus yet, so you are using this maneuver of trying to turn this dialogue into a 'vote' before anyone has yet even fully reviewed it only so you can keep your status-quo by procedural default. Scott P. (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You proposed something... I am strongly opposed to that proposal. I am sorry that you don't like the way I stated my opposition, but that will not prevent me from stating it. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have been looking at the insanity that is going on on this talk page with increasing disbelief. At some point it just has to stop. Hans Adler 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SYN clearly express the fundamental policy that we can't make stuff up. If there is some important conclusion, observation, interpretation, implication, analysis or any other material which you feel belongs in an article, find a reliable source which directly supports it. Crum375 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott P, are you sure you don't want to propose something more "surgical" than a 9 month revert? North8000 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could state in the reversion of WP:SYN that editors will be free to re-insert any material that was developed regarding other issues besides unstated implications. Scott P. (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have no idea what's going on here, or even what's being proposed. SlimVirgin 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia_talk:No original research#Location of the proposed revision of WP:SYN

• Support proposal, in crisis. I think this revert to the 21 June 2009 revision is the first step in resolving the crisis of policing people's thoughts about some feared conclusion they might imagine. Then, I suggest stating "or conclusion C could be backed by another source" which doesn't even connect A + B. That was a loophole in WP:SYN: people could delete conclusion C regardless of verifiability in some 3rd source. For articles with "dangerous" unstated conclusions, they could be handled by consensus discussions about wording in each article. -Wikid77 21:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• The only difference between this and the June 21 revision is that we now have an additional example, which several people had been pushing for for a long time. I agree that a second example wasn't necessary, but it was strongly argued that the lone example was too complicated and a simpler one was needed too. It didn't change the meaning of the section in any way if that's your concern. SlimVirgin 21:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest "#Example as original: Lawnmower using water as fuel" perhaps in a 2nd update to WP:SYN. The UN examples seem too confusing for worldly readers, because few would believe there is no source for "UN is a failure" (debated for decades), with people even noting many wars are fought by UN member nations (!), a political hot potato. -Wikid77 22:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Whether or not there's a source for "UN is a failure" misses the point. The lawnmover example is very confusing. People have rejected it (rightly or wrongly), so please don't keep on proposing it. SlimVirgin 22:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "implied" phrase is absolutely necessary. If there is debate over whether that applies or not to a particular circumstance then that can be done on talk pages or noticeboards. Most of the arguments against the current policy are a form of argumentum ad absurdum, where the policy is stretched and twisted till it comes up with an unreasonable outcome. It is hardly a new idea that interpretation of policy or guidelines varied between users, and that is why we rely on consensus. Quantpole (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The wp:nor policy and the policy which it is subset of (wp:ver) as written have made them become ever more widely mis-used by POV pushers, deletionists etc. to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. These policies definitely need work, but I'm not so sure that this proposal is a good way to start. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of posts

I can't follow what the proposals are because there are too many words. Scott has posted 124 times in four days and Wikid 26 times in six days, mostly long posts, so it's impossible to follow the key points. Can one of you say very succinctly (two sentences) what the concern is? Less really is more when it comes to policies and their talk pages. :) SlimVirgin 21:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• The major concerns are:

• WP:SYN should not attempt thought control - unstated conclusions are not 100% obvious, but in "the eye of the beholder".
• Let consensus remove dangerous text - we don't need a magic bullet which cites "WP:SYN" & deletes text. Make them debate removal on article talk-pages.
• UN-failure opinion is well sourced: UN examples will confuse our more worldly readers: many sources conclude UN-failure, by wars among member nations.

I will elaborate more above the proposal. -Wikid77 Wikid77 (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't elaborate any more, Wikid; the above is clear enough. Regarding your points: (1) yes, true, we can only try to limit the more obvious examples; (2) we have policies in place so that people don't have to debate everything from scratch each time on talk pages; (3) you may be right, but many editors disagree with you, and that anyway misses the point of the example, which is about the structure of the sentence, not about the UN. SlimVirgin 22:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

About 90% of statements in Misplaced Pages violate a thorough application WP:ver and and wp:NOR (which structurally is a subset of it and the most common way of using it.) The defacto interpretation of these is that POV pushers or deletionists etc. can just delete or tag any of the 90% that they choose, without even challenging the statement itself. This has made these policies be widely abusable and abused by POV pushers, deletionists etc. He/she said: "Let consensus remove dangerous text - we don't need a magic bullet which cites "WP:SYN" & deletes text. Make them debate removal on article talk-pages." While the "consensus to remove" may take it a 1/4 step too far, the biggest crisis with this pair of policies would be solved by simply saying that a condition for deleting or long-term tagging a statement must include challenging the statement, not just whacking it with a magic bullet procedural claim. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with SYN

Both the quoted examples do not go to the heart of the matter:

Simple examples

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

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

These are simply POV wording problems; removing the POV wording gives:

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

And a balancing fact would be useful

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world, in the 70 years prior there were 159 wars.

This is now free from the attention grabbing POV flaws, but it is still potentially SYN. (People on either side of the argument might say that the implied statement was different of course.) However it is not a sentence I would have a problem with. Clearly it is very granular and would be followed with extensive articles relating to the various successes and failures of the UN and the positions of various commentators on the reasons for those. But it is not, per se a bad sentence.

Complex example

(I have remarked before that using an example about citation in a policy about citation is not helpful, especially as the ideas in the policy and the example are not straightforward.)

Smith claimed 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. 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.

This suffers mainly from "non-brilliant prose" to be polite. Secondly there is no SYN going on. Assuming that the Harvard manual is relevant we could write:

Smith claimed 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. (Harvard defines plagiarism as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.)

This removes an irrelevant sentence, and provides a definition, which, if relevant to the case (I.E. Smith has not said something like "plagiarism in the Oxford sense of the word" for example) does not answer or purport to answer the question "Did Jones commit plagiarism", but does add to the readers understanding of what would constitute plagiarism according to an accepted authority in the field of writing. It is therefore not in violation of WP:SYN.

Moreover if the following were all backed up with citations

Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying material from another author's book. Jones responded that he had copied Robinson's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them. (Harvard defines plagiarism as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.)

-somewhat unlikely, I will grant - then there is an implied conclusion "Jones committed plagiarism." - or at least "Jones admitted to actions which would constitute plagiarism." which is in violation of SYN, and yet in the latter example the definition is more relevant than in the former, and again (as in the final version of the simple example) the exposition is wholly unobjectionable.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Actually I am wrong to say that my final version, and the commentary on the complex example is wrong to say that that version violates WP:SYN, since SYN only disallows "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Since the source "Jones" explicitly stated that plagiarism was committed , and the source "Smith" in the policy page example explicitly (or virtually explicitly) denies it, SYN technically allows us to adduce either conclusion, which is plainly a Bad Thing™. Rich Farmbrough, 16:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

SYN rightly forbids editors from making conclusions that are not already made in sources. However, it should not prevent pertinent matter from being included from a NPOV. If the inclusion of that matter could be read to imply a conclusion, that is not relevant. It may well imply it, because (as in the above example perhaps) it is true, but that is entirely up to the reader to judge: that is a fundamental of NPOV editing.

In the situation outlined in the examples above, it is perfectly reasonable, when plagiarism is an issue, to define plagiarism. The argument is that the sources on Jones and Smith do not define it and therefore neither should we in relation to them. However, this argument is undermined by the policy example given, because it assumes that the definition of plagiarism is relevant by linking to the article plagiarism. The reader then has to dodge between articles to make sense of the article he or she is trying to read, which is not the most helpful presentation for a reader. It is obviously much more convenient to give a summary of plagiarism, where it is most convenient for the reader.

It is not then a question of whether plagiarism is or is not defined in relation to the dispute between Smith and Jones, but simply a question of where it is defined—in the same article or a click away in a different article. The fact that it needs to be defined is embodied in the policy example.

There is an argument that a short definition of plagiarism in the Smith/Jones article will be selected in order to push towards a particular conclusion. This is a NPOV concern, not a NOR one. It seems fairly obvious that if the plagiarism issue concerns the use of references, then the aspect of plagiarism that needs to be defined should be relevant to that.

Ty 03:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nutshell

I completely agree with Jimbo's take on this policy... but I don't think we should use it as our nutshell (see Scott's most recent edit). The nutshell we have had for a while sums up the policy well. We should certainly discuss before we change it. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably right, but the second sentence of the nutshell "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the source." is full of problems.

1. it forbids any article which does not fall into the POV of a source. For example an article on a new, mainstream but opposed, scientific theory might include material from both the establishment and the new school of thought. This would tend to "advance the position" that there is evidence to support theory, but significant hurdles to overcome before it can be considered accepted wisdom. This may not be, indeed will likely not be "clearly advanced by the source".
2. it forbids articles which may serendipitously reveal facts. Suppose a list of road traffic deaths by mile driven had shown that all left-hand drive countries had much higher death rates than right-hand drive countries. This would "advance a position" that LHD is more dangerous than RHD, likely not advanced by the sources.
3. it creates sourcing or disclaimer difficulties. For example we have a slew of articles on the sex scandals in the Catholic Church. These would tend, by their very existence, to "advance a position" that Catholic priests are more likely to be involved in these scandals. The articles would then either need to support that position with a source, or explicitly deny it with a source, or express neutrality/ignorance with a disclaimer. (Maybe they do I haven't read them - but the problem exists regardless.)

Rich Farmbrough, 16:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Hi Richard, I don't quite follow your points. For example, you wrote: "it forbids any article which does not fall into the POV of a source. For example an article on a new, mainstream but opposed, scientific theory might include material from both the establishment and the new school of thought. This would tend to "advance the position" that there is evidence to support theory, but significant hurdles to overcome before it can be considered accepted wisdom. This may not be, indeed will likely not be "clearly advanced by the source"."

If the sources advance a position, it's fine for us to repeat it. Any article would have to be based firmly on the sources. SlimVirgin 07:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think he is saying that sources with different points of view will advance different positions. If we write an article with a neutral point of view it could lead the reader to conclude that none of the positions advanced by the sources is correct. Ideally, you would find some fairly neutral source and the POV sources would just be used to show what positions those sources hold... but this is often not possible. Yaris678 (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We're only talking here about positions not advanced by sources, but advanced by Wikipedians misusing sources—combining them (SYN) to make them appear to be saying things they don't say. SlimVirgin 11:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable ≠ Original research

The recent changes leave us with a claim that all unverifiable claims are always original research. I don't think this is true, either according to how Misplaced Pages editors apply these policies (WP:V and WP:NOR are generally taken to be different policies), or according to common-sense understandings of original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought they were the same thing, or at least, "original research" is a particular case of unverifiable information. What might the difference be?--Kotniski (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All material for which a reliable published source doesn't exist is by definition OR, as we use the term. SlimVirgin 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So in fact we can merge this page with WP:V?--Kotniski (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That was the point of Misplaced Pages:Attribution, which didn't work. I have a mind to rewrite and re-propose it, with the current policies as summary-style sections of it, because it makes no sense to have them as separate pages. SlimVirgin 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at User:Kotniski/Neu? Is it a possible starting point?--Kotniski (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely is, and thank you for writing it. I was going to have a go tomorrow writing the kind of thing I had in mind, and hoped we could compare notes. We had lots of support for WP:ATT. I was getting emails from people saying they'd understood the policies for the first time, and that was with a version of ATT that was much wordier than it needed to be, to satisfy people who wanted minimal change. I've never given up entirely on seeing them combined. If we retain V, NOR, and NPOV summary-style, but have a freshly written (and very tight) ATT as an overall summary, that might satisfy everyone. But it would have to be written on user subpages to start with. SlimVirgin 20:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that wp:or 's topic is a subset of wp:ver's topic. Both need work to reduce the current widespread abuse of them by deletionists and POV pushers. But WP:Ver;s topic includes things that wp:or's doesn't. For example, For example, statements (right or wrong, sourced or un-sourced) which by their nature are of 100% objective facts.North8000 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"advances a position"

In the phrase "advances a position" that is used in WP:NOR, what does "position" mean? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It means a point of view (explicit or implicit) which is novel, or otherwise not directly supported by the provided sources. Crum375 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

1. "toledoblade.com -- ] -- Toledo area clergy: Militia twists scripture". 2010. Retrieved 2010-04-13. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help) Group uses holy doctrine to control, they say.
2. x
3. <y