Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:00, 12 April 2006

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.

• Misplaced Pages:No original research (draft rewrite)
• Misplaced Pages talk:No original research (draft rewrite)
• Misplaced Pages talk:No original research (archive 1) - January 16–December 13, 2004
• Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/archive2 - January 4–August 6, 2005
• Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/archive3 - April 17–August 30, 2005
• Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/archive4 - September 6, 2005–March 7, 2006

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

Confounding NOR and NPOV

JA: Re:

JA: That last mutation by SlimVirgin, I imagine soon to be reverted, has the effect of confounding NOR with NPOV. My brief experience in WikioPolis already tells me to be very wary of doing any more of that. Jon Awbrey 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This mutation is the result of this edit.

I personally find the addition "that is designed to advance a position" very useful in the context of no original research. It will help editors in distinguishing the case of a synthesis that respects the position of the sources that it reports, which is not original research, and a synthesis that is really original research. To clarify, I would add "new" in front of position. What I mean is that organising the content of sources requires some kind of synthesis, some kind of research, it is a valuable new contribution to the literature, but yet it is not original research. -Lumière 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

After this other edit, I had a second thought about the value of SlimVirgin's proposed mutation. I think there is still a problem with the proposed version because it says that a novel synthesis of the sources is not allowed, which is nonsense because we have to provide such a novel synthesis to report on these sources in a well organised manner. I really think that the criteria should be that the novel synthesis does not advance any new points. Also, the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" without the "new" in front of position is useless because any synthesis advance a position. It looks ackward. -Lumière 21:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Right: NOR is a protection against rubbish as well as a protection that editors don't need to verify research. But that last phrase seems to turn it into something that it wasn't meant to be; almost an interdiction to assemble information in such a way that we obtain the goal of a great new encyclopedia. Thus it sounds rather counterproductive. Harald88 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, the "In a nutshell" version ends with, "...that is designed to advance a position." This clause is unnecessary and doesn't appear to have a basis in the policy itself: advancing a position is not a requirement for an addition to be considered Original Research. Thus, I have removed it; if someone has a strong reasoning for it to remain, please revert with explanation. —Leflyman 19:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leflyman, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. What is not allowed under NOR is a novel synthesis that is designed to advance a position. SlimVirgin 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That is, "A and B and C" is allowed. "A and B, therefore C" is not (unless already published). SlimVirgin 20:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In your A and B and C example, consider that A, B and C are sourced material and advance the same position in different ways. If I design a synthesis of A, B and C, my objective is to advance this same position. This is not original research, but yet your wording considers that it is original research. It is wrong. -Lumière 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell wording: continuing

I agree with SlimVirgin on the proposed principle, but not on the proposed wording. The proposed wording does not convey the proposed principle. As a proof, three editors failed to understand the proposed principle from the wording, and two of them were already totally in agreement with this principle, but yet failed to see it in the proposed wording. -Lumière 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In your example, A and B and C advances the positions that are advanced in A and B and C. If A and B and C are sourced, this is not original research. So, something can advance a position and yet not be original research. In your example, A and B therefore C is original research if it is a new position that is not contained in the sources. Otherwise, if this logic is contained in the sources (i.e. if it is not new), it is not original research. -Lumière 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that, somewhere in the policy, not in the nutshell statement, I would add an exception to the above rule: if the logic A and B therefore C is very natural, so natural that no one could attribute C to himself given that A and B are known without making a fool of himself for trying to get credit for the obvious, then C should not count as original research as long as A and B are sourced. Otherwise, the rules are too rigid and will prevent reasonable synthesis. It is only if A and B therefore C is significant or controversial that it counts as original research. This is the same logic that makes us accept articles such as apple pie and current events that are a synthesis of primary sources. -Lumière 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lumiere, and must point out there's no need to include "designed to advance a position" in the nutshell version, as it is prone to cause confusion, rather than simplify the explanation. Likewise, the basis for the clause appears to be the final What is excluded item: "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source" -- which I would suggest is likewise a convoluted way of saying "it synthesizes facts without providing a published source for the synthesis."

The "builds a particular case favored by the editor" is unnecessary here, as it is already verbotten under NPOV. Inverse reasoning would allow one to claim that an unverified synthesis is not Original Research if it doesn't 1) build a particular case; or 2) is not favored by the editor. In logic terms as used above: If A AND B therefore C; where A is "builds a particular" case, B is "favored by the editor" and C is "original research." The inverse of which is: If NOT A AND NOT B therefore NOT C. --Leflyman 00:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. "If not-A and not-B, therefore not-C" follows only from "if and only if A and B, therefore C". SlimVirgin 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In re-reading SV's reasoning, I'd suggest that a replacement alternative to "designed to advance a position" in the nutshell would be "without a verifiable source"-- which is what appears to be missing in the summation of NOR.--Leflyman 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• As hinted at in multiple places below, the important issue in the NOR policy is verifiability of sources, not pushing a particular agenda (which is covered under NPOV); hence, I've made the change to refocus the nutshell version towards that end. —Leflyman 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material is not in itself original research

I just realised that my problem with the proposed wording of the policy in a nutshell is that I consider that a synthesis of published material, even if this synthesis is unpublished, is not original research as long as it does not include any unpublished analysis, evaluation or interpretation of this material. Therefore, my proposal would be

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any synthesis of published material that includes an unpublished evaluation or interpretation of this material.

or even simpler:

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses, or ideas, or any unpublished evaluation or interpretation thereof.

There is not even a need to mention "synthesis" because it is not where the problem lies. -Lumière 03:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Original research or novel idea

Someone should point out that the theory of no original research, here displayed, is unpublished or, that is, is synthetic original research or a novel idea. However, what I just wrote was such as well, and thus should be by this law removed. It's just funny; I'm not being a dick.--Tyler Nash 08:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Making a phone call?

This policy is extremely text-oriented. Am I to understand that calling Boston City Hall to get the current population or names of the current city council members, etc., is not allowed as it this would not be a "published" source? It is arguably verifiable, whether or not WP:V thought to include anything besides print. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Keith, that's original research; anything they told you over the phone would not be useable, because readers couldn't check what had been said. SlimVirgin 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I find that illogical. A city government office, as a source, is far more verifiable in the long term than over half the web pages in existence, seeing as how so many seem to disappear over time. Likewise, a TV show (presuming this counts as a published medium) is difficult to verify unless you happen to have it taped or can find someone who does. Why is WP tied to print and TV as material? How is making a phone call to an authoritative source any different from reading a book by an authoritative source? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's hearsay, but it's not original research and this isn't a legal court. A reader wishing to check could call the city and get the same information. This is, presumably, the same kind of information you could get from the research desk at any decent library. For a cite, you wouldn't want to cite the library or city clerk. The research librarian or city clerk looked it up somewhere, ask for THAT information as well, and cite it. Now, if an editor decided to conduct their own census of Boston and use Misplaced Pages to publish the results: that is original research. SchmuckyTheCat 22:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's original research because by making the phone call, you're making yourself a source that only you yourself can be sure of. If you were to get the results of the phone call professionally published, then it could be included as a vetted source. Coyoty 03:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Making a phone call and regurgitating the contents of the discussion doesn't make you a source any more than reading a book and regurgitating the contents of its pages. You're not the source, the book is. Likewise, you're not the source, the person on the other end of the phone is. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And how would anyone wanting to look up this information do so? What would you tell them the source is? If it's not printed anywhere but in your head or what you write, then you are the source, and unless you are professionally published, you cannot be used as a source on Misplaced Pages. We can't just take your word that something is so. It has to be professionally published and cited. Coyoty 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And how would anyone wanting to look up this information do so? Pick up the phone? Start with the phone book? What would you tell them the source is? "City Clerk's Office, Townsville City Hall." This argument is ridiculous. A contact with an official authority is at least as verifiable and reliable as something printed or produced, even from an esteemed origin. No definition of "source" requires that it be written or otherwise packaged. Sources are also live. Why is talking to an official human any different than talking to an official web page or an official book? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In an article or book published by someone, citing to a conversation they had or a letter or e-mail they received is possible (the date and "on file with the author" or "on file with (the publication)" usually appears). It's more problematic for an encyclopedia, particularly I think for Misplaced Pages given the anonymity of the contributors. If Misplaced Pages does have a way to make such citations, it should be identified in policy. If there's a way to do it in a responsible manner (e.g. other encyclopedias do it and Misplaced Pages's constributors' anonymity is not a factor) and it can be written into policy, I've no objection. Esquizombi 02:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am not anonymous, but it's irrelevant. If I say I called Townsville City Hall and got information, anyone else in the world can call Townsville City Hall and verify the information within at most 2-3 days if not right away. This is a damn sight better than the average printed or broadcast media in terms of practical verifiability. I could say I saw the number on a documentary about Townsville, which may not even exist. It'll be hard to prove me wrong unless one can definitively prove that such a documentary does not exist. But the existence of Townsville City Hall can be reliably determined. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

what? there is no "research" involved in asking something from a reference desk. and, as I said, whoever you ask probably has something they are looking up in something that IS ALREADY PUBLISHED, and you can ask them what that was. Even without that information, if you cite and say "the city clerk of Podunk, MA says the population is 523" then that isn't original research, you're reporting what someone else said. a government official should be reliable, and anyone else can call the same number and ask the same question. It's preposterous to call this original research. unless you went and personally compiled this information yourself, it can not be original research. SchmuckyTheCat 05:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Schmucky, it clearly fits within our definition of OR. If you ask the clerk something and he refers you to a published source, and you use that published source, your edit isn't OR. But if he simply tells you something over the phone (that there are X number of residents in a certain area) and you use the contents of that conversation as your sole source, it's OR, by definition. Your sources have to be in the public domain so that anyone can check them. The content of your telephone conversation is not in the public domain. SlimVirgin 06:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You can keep saying that but if that's the case then what people now consider OR is so far off-base from the way this policy was intended that it's meaningless. By making the call does teh editor create new information? No. Is it a novel interpretation of the existing information? No. So then it rests on verifiability. We can agree to disagree about a verifiability problem, but it's not "research". In the meantime, I continue to do this exact thing. SchmuckyTheCat 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If you took the initiative to make a phone call to get information that is not set down in a publication that you can point to and say, "I got it there," and not "This guy told me so," then it's original research. Coyoty 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I can point to a person, and say "I got it there". And I can point to a book and say "This book told me so". You chose different wordings, but that doesn't make the concepts as different as you'd like to impress upon me. I'm still unconvinced, and am surprised this wasn't a major point of controversy when this policy was formed. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Coyoty, you miss the point. In principle, one could give the coordinate of the governmental office, address, phone number, etc. as the source. The question is only whether or not a governemental office can be a source. If yes, then the coordinate (address, phone number, etc.) ofthis office can be cited. In principle, the policy could accept that, but it doesn't. -Lumière 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The terminology "original research" can be misleading. I do not propose to change it, but it is useful to realize that it can be misleading. The point of possible confusion is that some material might not require any research at all and yet be "original research" in accordance with the policy. Yes, it is true that the original intention of the policy was to exclude original research (with its usual meaning), but it has evolved into something more general. For example, if without any research at all I come up with a strange idea and try to include it in an article without having any source to provide, even though no research at all was involved, it is "original reseach". So, the informatiom obtained through a phone call might not be a research, but yet if I include this information in a WP article, it is original research if no published source is provided. It maybe that it is very different from the original intention, but I do not think it is so wrong. Certainly, it is the policy. I do agree with SlimVirgin here.

I think we must distinguish between what the policy says and what we think it should say. I do understand the point of view of others who feel that a city government office is a reputable source. However, this is not what the policy says. The policy does not accept organisations per se as sources. Governmental organizations, even though we feel they are reliable, are simply not considered sources. A governmental organisation can be a publisher, but not a source. The source is what is published by the governmental organisation, not the organisation itself. This is my understanding of the policy, and I think it is not so ambiguous on that regard. I am not against that we change the policy, but I would be very careful before we do that. -Lumière 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't all this (or shouldn't it be?) a matter of "verifiability" and not "original research"? Thincat 09:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What if someone e-mailed the government office, rather than calling? E-mail is acceptable for requesting permission to use images, Misplaced Pages:Successful_requests_for_permission, and there is a procedure for archiving these e-mails, Misplaced Pages:Boilerplate request for permission. Could we archive e-mail responses to queries in a similar manner, and allow them to be used as sources? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think some are missing the point: it doesn't matter how you find out the particular information, what matters is that it can be cited. A telephone call can not be cited, but if that telephone call to a research library yields a page in a book/journal/magazine (i.e. "published") then that can be used as a source. Likewise email, which is principally for communication, not documentation: unless the message is sourceable to a reliable Web site (such as, for example, a list group archive) or printed in some sort of a publication, then no, a personal email you received can not be used. If a government office has a document it can point you to, then that is what would be used for citation. It just doesn't work to say, "Department of Obfuscation bureaucrat X emailed me that the sky is actually green."
  
  The idea of "No Original Research" really isn't that complicated to get one's head around: if you "originate" the "research"— rather than finding it from some other resource— then it isn't appropriate to Misplaced Pages. WP should not be the first place some bit of information shows up, particularly if that info falls into the realm of theory/speculation/imaginative flight of fancy. Get it peer reviewed/published first, and then it would qualify as something that might be referenced. —Leflyman 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • A telephone call can not be cited... Fallacious. A telephone call can be cited. Both MLA and CMOS for example have citation styles for it, as well as for presentations, interviews and public speeches. Citing such sources is not only possible, but accepted and common.

• This is highly inaccurate; citing a personal conversation in an article would create a primary source which is the core of what is inadmissable on Misplaced Pages. The NOR policy states it clearly: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed." (see also, "Reliable sources".) Please try to understand, If one is a primary or secondary source generator, such as a publisher/journalist, then a conversation can be the basis of one's research or article; but that is exactly what is anathema to Misplaced Pages: creating your own data. A telephone call is not a verifiable source-- it can only be a method by which you get to a source. Misplaced Pages editors do not hold interviews. If you wish to do so, use Wikinews instead. —Leflyman 21:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Department of Obfuscation bureaucrat X emailed me that the sky is actually green. If the Dept of Obfuscation would tell you that over the phone, there's no reason they wouldn't tell you that in a document, either. Likewise, if you can presume the validity of a book from a source, there's no reason not to presume the validity of a phone call from a source. This new straw man is a fallacy as well, failing to prove that a phone call to an authority is somehow less reliable or verifiable than a book from an authority.
  • if you "originate" the "research"— rather than finding it from some other resource Where does this come from? I don't originate the research. I ask someone else for it. Originating the research would be to drive to the place in question and start doing measurements and then write them down. I certainly couldn't cite that research outside myself. But when I ask someone else for the information, I haven't done any more research then I do when I take a handful of books and web pages and take information from them. There's no demonstrable difference. I get information from somewhere else, whether I search Google, a card catalog, or an information office. I originate nothing except for a search for information from outside sources. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• You are apparently confusing my explanation of No Original Research with your insistence on being able to use telephone conversations as a source. —Leflyman 21:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the policy interpreted that way is unfounded and supported by complete fallacies. I'm pointing these fallacies out, and they are conveniently being ignored, because WP policy has become a religion, not a matter for consensual and sensible discussion.

What is really unfortunate about the insistence that seeking out alternative sources is invalid for WP is that branching away from "blessed" sources can make the encyclopedia much richer, and more than just a mashup of what is already available (mostly) on the Internet. I fear it leads WP into being just a reference source for those who are poor at Googling.

I'm sure that before this became policy, or well-known policy, that plenty of people have gone above and beyond to make direct contacts to uncover facts and answers that are simply not available in blessed sources. (I know I did.) All of this material is invalidated. Arguably they improved the encyclopedia, but they are now subject to removal.

This increases the steepness of slope for honest fact-finding. If I make a direct contact, I can no longer simply ask the contact, even if the contact is official and reasonably sound. Instead, I have to ask the contact for a published source, instead of just taking it from them, who are arguably just as reliable as a publication put out by them. This is asking more of the source (and also probably discouraging and insulting).

Eventually there will just be far too many barriers to contribution in this project. I start to see what people mean by m:Instruction creep. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I had a problem with someone deleting a note that I made in an article that a particular scientist was a member of Sigma Xi --an honorary scientific society. There is no published record of who belongs to the society. The only way you can verify it is by calling them up and asking them if the person is a member --which I did. According to Misplaced Pages policy, that's not good enough and the information should be censored. (And I won't be surprised if I'm banned for that now for just admitting that I conducted "original research.")RJII 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Paper vs web

It's not just a matter of phone calls vs text, but of paper vs electonics. Many things have been around for years on the Internet, and are well-known within certain communities of experts, but have no paper version. There are theorems in mathematics called "folk theorems" since they are known but not actually written down anywhere.

Jimbo said this: The phrase orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web.

It seems to me that the Instruction Creep has gone way beyond this. Experts in a field, by no means self-selected cranks, are not allowed to discuss what they know. Gene Ward Smith 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute about the policy in a nutshell

The original version of the policy in a nutshell before the dispute was:

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.

One problem with this original version is that it implies that every WP article is original research because a WP article is a new synthesis of the material that is contained in its sources. This modification, which is mainly the work of SlimVirgin, was an attempt to simplify the sentence, but it also had to deal with this problem. The solution proposed by SlimVirgin to solve this problem was to add the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" after "synthesis (of published material)". The reaction of other editors was not favorable (see #Confounding_NOR_and_NPOV), but SlimVirging explained his point in the following way:

Hi Leflyman, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. What is not allowed under NOR is a novel synthesis that is designed to advance a position. SlimVirgin 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

However, the addition of the phrase "that is designed to advance a position" did not really solve the problem because all WP articles are syntheses, and these syntheses or articles are, of course, all designed to advance a position. I checked carefully the policy and asked myself what kind of syntheses are not allowed. The first phrase in the policy that answers this question is:

synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

My interpretation of this phrase is that a synthesis should not advance anything new. Note that, as pointed out by SlimVirgin, all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized. Therefore, it is fine to have a novel synthesis. The requirement is that this (novel) synthesis should not contain any new narrative or historical interpretation. More simply, it should not advance any new position. Therefore, I proposed this small modification, which just added "new" in front of "position". It was rejected by SlimVirgin in this revert. I also tried this other edit. It was not as good as my previous solution, which only added "new" in front of "position". It was rejected by SlimVirgin in this other revert.

However, I maintain that my first proposal (expressed in this small modification) is perfectly in accord with the policy, as described in the words of Jimbo Wales. Can someone explain to me why SlimVirgin insists to revert a wording that is in accord with the view of Jimbo Wells? The "new" (meaning "non verifiable") that I proposed to add in front of "postion" is important. For example, there is no problem if the synthesis advances an historical interpretation, as long as this interpretation is verifiable (not new). -Lumière 06:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that, IMO, when we say that a synthesis advances a new (unpublished) position, we mean that it includes new unpublished material. Here "material" includes theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments or ideas, or any evaluation or interpretation thereof. Therefore, the part "novel synthesis (of published material) that advances a new position" is redundant (but perhaps useful for clarity) because it is already taken care of in "unpublished material". -Lumière 07:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks OK to me. Harald88 19:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This edit reverted SlimVirgin. The result after this edit is:

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas; nor may they promote any novel synthesis of published material, without a verifiable source.

However, it does not solve the problem. What needs to be considered is the fact that every WP article promotes a novel (unsourced) synthesis of published material. Is it so hard to understand that it makes no sense to require a source for the synthesis as a whole? It is not the synthesis (the WP article) as a whole that must be sourced because, of course, unless it is a copy of another encyclopedia article, such a source does not exist. We need to specify what exactly must be sourced in the synthesis. The answer is simple: whether it is part of a synthesis or not, we must always provide a source for any theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas, or any interpretations or evaluations thereof. -Lumière 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "nutshell" does not deal with specifications as to what must be sourced; it attempts to be a short description of what should not be included in articles. For sourcing, we refer people to Verifiability policy.—Leflyman 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of consensus on policy editing privilege

NOTE: As this appears to have become a nongermane referendum on (in effect) whether Lumiere should be allowed to edit here, I suggest that the following discussion, as well as the pertinent parts of the archived "Authority is not a concept in..." be moved to a sub-page, rather than cluttering a policy page.—Leflyman 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to that so long as we leave a link to it at the top of the page, and also so long as Lumiere is aware of it. SlimVirgin 00:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

On further consideration, perhaps the more appropriate/formal place to handle this would be Request for Comment on "User Conduct." —Leflyman 01:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Lumiere to consider his position here, so it may be possible to reach a compromise without having to go through dispute resolution. See his talk page for more details. SlimVirgin 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, as quite a few editors have already stated, unless we specifically agree with something you have said, you must assume that we disagree with it. It would really make more sense for you to stop trying to re-write policy to your own unique vision of what it should be, or your own unique understandings of how the English language works. Jayjg 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that's the one clear consensus that has been established in the last months. Everyone's tired of his rambling and nothing is getting done. No one even bothers to keep objecting to his proposals because he'll just keep bringing more. His edit history contains virtually no useful article contributions. Consider this my standing objection to any of his proposals. Lumiere, if you don't start contributing to articles and stop the useless jabbering about policies you don't understand you're eventually not going to be able to contribute here at all. - Taxman 14:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, stating my agreement with Jay and Taxman. · Katefan0/poll 14:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Aye! Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too. SlimVirgin 23:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Now hold on; such a "default position" is contrary to the notion of Assume Good Faith and smacks of "guilty until proven innocent"; I fail to see in Lumiere's postings here an indication that he is trying to subvert Misplaced Pages by questioning the policies— even if his questions are confused/confusing. Some people may be more interested in discussing theoretical approaches to organising content than actually creating that content. Perhaps due to his admirably fluent, but apparently non-native understanding of the language, he has difficulty getting his head around some of the policy verbiage, and doesn't always make his own points clear; however, it's blatantly uncivil to tell someone, "if no one agrees with you, then everyone disagrees"— no matter how annoying that someone might be. If we are to support pluralistic, consensus-based decision making, then we have to accept that some people are going to stake out positions contrary to the given majority and are going to say things we don't agree with. They might even say things that we really wish they'd stop saying altogether, and just go away... but until Misplaced Pages has a requirement that (e.g.) only those editors who make X number of edits in content-space are allowed to discuss policy, then every newbie is allowed input. Lumiere may be demonstrating one of the weaknesses in the system. Perhaps if you believe he should not be editing policy, then the matter should be brought up on his talk page (as I see SlimVirgin has done) and escalated to ArbCom if he doesn't comply. —Leflyman 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"his admirably fluent, but apparently non-native understanding of the language" - Well said. I considered pointing this out when I last stepped into this article, but I couldn't think of a way to do it that didn't sound insulting. It appeared to me that Lumiere appeared to read the meaning of things differently than I did, and that misunderstanding made it quite difficult to have a meaningful discourse. - O^O

Be that as it may, it's been necessary to take such a stand. In the past, Lumiere has essentially talked endlessly about some point of rhetoric, and when nobody says anything (because everybody is tired of following his text dumps), he says "Well, since there's no opposition I'll just make this change.") This has been going on for months, Leflyman, and we're all pretty tired of reading through the reams of rhetorical text he's inserted here. So it seemed sensible, given his past actions, to state outright that I'm not likely to agree with his rhetoric, even though I don't respond to all (or most) of it. · Katefan0/poll 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• As I say above, I'm not opposed to having the matter brought up in ArbCom, if there are editors who feel that a single individual is being disruptive, or appears insulated from consensual decision-making. I'm likewise (as unfortunately shown below) not immune to coming off as hostile towards those who appear to be—intentionally or not— trolling for reactions (and yes, I believe there can be unintentional trolls). However, to those outside of the limited regular Misplaced Pages participants, a statement that "we disagree with everything" a particular individual says is a most pernicious form of incivility. It sounds like cliquish form of junior high peer pressure: "we are ignoring what you say because we don't like you and hope you'll just go away, but assume we disagree with you, anyway". SV's already taken the appropriate measured response which is to ask Lumiere to refrain from posting on policy pages. I'd say that's the place to start, and show that there's a consensus who believe the discussion here in not helpful. Thereafter, if no "understanding" is reached, Mediation or Arbitration would be an appropriate next step.
  
  As an FYI, for reference: the initial "thread" of this, has been archived under "Authority is not a concept in..."—Leflyman 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I strenuously disagree. It's far more uncivil to announce that because noone is listening to you talk to yourself anymore that that means there's tacit consensus for making changes to Misplaced Pages's bedrock policy. · Katefan0/poll 06:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Read this. I am always open to join a discussion! Even though my english is not perfect, I do not think that it is an obstacle here. You simply confuse the real challenge, which is a difference in opinions, with a small problem of communication due to the language. -Lumière 19:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. My disagreements don't stem from a language barrier, they stem from your actions and quirky opinions. · Katefan0/poll 20:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman, if you don't see the problem here, you haven't looked into what's been going on enough. It's been here and on other policy pages under different user names for quite some time. It's not that we've assumed bad faith, we've all assumed good faith and Lumiere has actively removed the reasons to continue to do so. The problem is people have been too patient, not the other way. We've tried ignoring him, and that does not work. - Taxman 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, may be you haven't looked into what's been going on with a sufficiently good pair of glasses. What we see depends on what kind of glasses we use. -Lumière 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I do see the problem: there's one very active (and to many, annoyingly so) person who takes a frequently contrary position to those of the "establishment" on policy pages. It's an unavoidable outcome of having policy/discussion be just another editable page. There are some who make a habit of being contrarian, just as there are others who always ditto what the majority says. I don't necessarily see this is a Bad Thing, except where it paralyses an organisation from making any decisions. In this case, I also believe that there is a slight linguistic disconnection— from both sides. Perhaps our policies aren't as clear as they could be; and likewise his issues with them aren't as understandable to us as he'd like them to be. —Leflyman 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Lumiere doesn't have much editing experience, and so his understanding of how policy works in practice is flawed, added to which he simply posts too often. The language barrier is only a small part of the issue. SlimVirgin 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Overstretched definition of “original research”?

Longest Streets in London was a list of named roads, sorted by length by Wikipedians into a ranked list. It had no references. It survived Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Longest streets in London and was then reduced to its present form: only two roads with length references. Clearly the sorting (and more particularly the implied claim of longest, second longest) constituted “original research” if anyone wanted to be picky (and some people were picky!). I tried to set a good example by adding a long road with a length reference.

* 11 - 12 miles: Western Avenue (part of the A40 trunk road). Multimap travel directions from Old Oak Common Lane Acton W3 to Denham Roundabout Denham UB9

This was twice deleted in good faith and with discussion Talk:Longest_streets_in_London#WP:NOR

Now, I’d be delighted to discuss over a pint of beer whether my reference was satisfactorily verifiable: I think it was. However, I find the “NOR” argument very difficult. I looked at a street atlas to see where the road went; I looked in a reference book to see it was constructed as a whole; I looked it up on Multimap (which confirmed the starting and finishing points); and I used Multimap to work out its length. Certainly this was a synthesis of published information but it was Multimap doing the length synthesis (at my request and in a way verifiable by Wikipedians).

1. Was what I did “original research” by the (non-Wikipedian) standards of a reasonable, thoughtful and informed person?
2. Was it a breach of WP:NOR?
3. Should it be a breach of NOR?
4. Could I have improved the reference to make it acceptable?
5. Should NOR be changed?
6. If my edit was indeed unacceptable in Misplaced Pages, should it have been caught by Verifiability rather than NOR?

As a footnote: I failed to find the length of Western Avenue either by using Google for a non-dynamic text reference or by using reference books. Could this be the “undisputed fact for which no reliable source could be found” which SlimVirgin has been seeking all this time :-) Thincat 13:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well this one has been hashed out over and over and reasonable people have come down on both sides of the issue. I strongly feel that without some difficult to obtain information there are too many elements of decision involved for this to not violate WP:NOR and/or WP:V (keep in mind it has to meet both). What constitutes the same road? What are it's endpoints? You'd need a source that clearly answers both of those first. I think you're getting closer by using a mapping system and just reporting their numbers, but you need to answer the other questions too. Additionally what has been pointed out as another major problem is reporting a list of the 100 longest. Unless a source specifically lists "here are the 100 longest streets in London", then ranking them involves original research. How do you know you haven't missed some? But if you're just listing some long streets in London and you have a source for the end points and you report a number from a mapping system, then that seems to meet the OR and V requirements. - Taxman 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thincat, if you can't find a source for the length, it doesn't have the status of an "undisputed fact," and therefore can't be one "for which no reliable source could be found," so no, you haven't found the Holy Grail. Nice try, though. ;-) SlimVirgin 20:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is utter insanity. Print publication does not imbue data with truthfulness or absolve it from dispute. To suggest that it does is nonsense. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is why you need to focus on higher quality sources and cite the source. Higher quality sources are reviewed more heavily by more talented people. So while they don't guarantee truth, they are more likely to be closer to it. So even though it's not guaranteed to be correct, as a rule it is one of the most important we can apply as a gatekeeper of what information we include. Truth is impossible, so the fact that this method doesn't guarantee truth is irrelevant. We apply it anyway. - Taxman 22:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A practical approach (but making the point mute) would be to simply change the title into "Long Streets in London"... Harald88 21:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For Leflyman

Hi Leflyman, your edit slightly changed the meaning of the policy. You wrote: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, analyses or ideas; nor may they promote any novel synthesis of published material, without a verifiable source."

If it had a source, it wouldn't be novel. Also, articles may not contain any novel synthesis, whether or not it's promoted. SlimVirgin 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that this may be a semantic distinction: "novel" does not necessarily mean "never seen before" but generally means "new" (from which the word is etymologically derived). It also has the nuanced meaning of "unusual or different" (as per the American Heritage Dictionary). A novel synthesis can certainly have a verifiable source; and likewise, articles may contain new syntheses so long as they can be verified. However, the reason for my including "promote" is in reference to your previous addition "that is designed to advance a position." Promoting is by definition advancing a position. I would be fine with replacing "promote" with simply "include" or "contain", as I am of the opinion (stated well above) that the NOR nutshell doesn't need to be mixed with NPOV.—Leflyman 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

But it's not the article promoting the synthesis that's the problem as such; it's if the synthesis itself advances a position. The wording that was there was accurate. This seems to be playing around with words with no discernible benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs)

• Not to embarrass you, but earlier on this page, you wrote: "all WP articles are novel syntheses unless plagiarized". :) The point I'm making is that "designed to advance a position" has no place in the nutshell about No Original Research. NOR is not about advancing any position; its about not including unverifiable or self-originated information. Whether a synthesis advances a position and is inappropriate is an issue for NPOV, not here. —Leflyman 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Parasite

Doesn't this rule of no original research make wikipedia a parasite on published material? And doesn't it also mean that wikipedia can only cantian knowledge worthy of commodification, that is, capable of 'making money'? And doesn't wikipedia claim to trust its editors, in a manner similar to Rabelais' retreat, where the only rule is do what you will ("Good Faith") assuming that the participants will naturally make the right choice? What if an argument can be supported in and of itself, that is, an argument that is not factual but theoretical? Do concepts not stand on their own logical power and not on the name of their author, or, rather, can they not be verified by being read?--Tyler Nash 07:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that encyclopedias are in principle parasites on published material; but they are benign parasites.

If you want to publish original material, there are other outlets for that. And it's not necessarily so that all published material is "capable of making money", IMO that's a misleading suggestion. Note also that obvious, undisputed but sourceless facts can be mentioned with little risk that someone jumps at you and shouts "NOR", as exampled with the information in apple pie which may well contain some information that is not found in the references (e.g. where is the primary source for "This affects the final texture"?). Harald88 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Are these actual questions, or just meaningless rhetoric? If you wish to create an encyclopedia based on your own theories of life, the universe and everything, please feel free to do so, but not here. —Leflyman 17:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Why do you speculate about Tyler Nash's motives? He seems just to be a sincere contributor to Misplaced Pages that came here to question the policy. If you don't want to reply, just don't reply. Why do we have to suppress any challenging question about the policy? He does not seem to disrupt anything. You can proceed ahead with the discussions that you believe are important. He does not seem to intend to interfer. What exactly is your problem? -Lumière 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Kinda ironic, since I just argued that you should be allowed to discuss policy above. There's no speculation: it's clear that Tyler's "questions" are not questions at all, but rhetoric diametrically opposed to the core of the NOR principal. Now, if that's something you support, I may just have to re-evaluate my thinking on your own "contributions" here. —Leflyman 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but it is perfectly fine that he challenges the policy. Especially since he is a newcomer who might have met some difficulties. Hello! What is the difference between a totalitarian organisation and an organisation where free thinking and free speech is valued? We have not even tried to discuss with him. Where is the problem? Maybe you are right, but we will only know that if we try to join a discussion with him. If he is not really interested, but only complains, then you are right. If instead it was a way to start a real discussion, I have no problem with that. Being afraid of editors that challenge the policy is very bad. -Lumière 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• You may be correct, that I reacted hastily in responding to someone who posted what appears to be a purely moot paragraph made up of non-questions. I'm not a fan of editorialising hidden in the form of a rhetorical question. —Leflyman 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct too. Certainly, the questions were a way to challenge the policy. This was obvious. In my situation, it is natural that I do not like any repression of opinions. -Lumière 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How to deal with Misplaced Pages entries about theories

This section uses the popular vague meaning of "theory" which commonly leads to misunderstandings about the status and meaning of scientific theories. I propose that the first paragraph should be expanded along these lines:

In plain English, the word theory can mean "speculation", "opinion" or untested hypothesis, as well as the rigourous definition of an established scientific theory which has been tested in accordance with scientific method and published for peer review, It is common for proponents of pseudoscience to claim that theirs is a scientific theory without meeting these standards standards which proponents of pseudoscience commonly fail to meet.

For theories:

1. state the key concepts;
2. state the known and popular ideas and identify general "consensus", making clear which is which, and bearing in mind that extreme-minority theories or views need not be included.
3. Make clear the status of the "theory", citing supporting publication.
4. If it is presented as a scientific theory, look for confirmation in recognised publications. Where such confirmation is not available, state that it is "claimed to be a scientific theory". While it should be shown if a concept is represented as a scientific theory, the evaluation of the scientific community should also be indicated.

The second paragraph seems fine. ...dave souza, talk 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Revised by dave souza, talk 13:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with "claimed to be a scientific theory". In particular, the term "claimed" is not neutral, and might be innapropriate. The general principle should be stated instead. How to respect this principle may depend on the specific situation. In general, I don't think the policy should propose a specific wording. So, what is the principle here? I think the following excerpt of the original formulation of the policy says it well:

Unbiased writing says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, unbiased writing also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful, here, not to word the statement so as to imply that popularity implies correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

Maybe the proponent (the p-ists, say) of the theory will be happy to clarify who they are and from where they come from and why they differ from the current paradigm in science. It is much better this way. -Lumière 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks better than the present vague guidance, but lacks the clarification of the different meanings of theory. At the absolute minimum there should be a link to that article. I've modified the above proposal in response to your concerns. ..dave souza, talk 13:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning the proposed Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories here... though it would need work too. Esquizombi 13:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that paragraph can be improved; especially "fail the test of confirmability" I find weird, as I know of no such description in or out of Misplaced Pages. To me it appears to mean that a theory that can't be tested (which generally implies not "confirmability" but disprovability) should not be included; but then that's a pseudo-theory and not really "original research"... In the above proposal that phrase seems to be understood differently; but if a claimed scientific theory can't be found in scientific literature, should we really suggest that it deserves being mentioned? Harald88 23:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good points. The problem is firstly that the guidance at present uses the term "theory" very loosely, implying concept, and secondly that there are purported scientific theories such as intelligent design which merit an article, but their claims have to be considered against scientific assessments. ...dave souza, talk 13:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert: please reach consensus before making changes

I notice that an edit war is taking place on an official policy page. Instead: before making changes, consensus should be reached! Thus I revert the body of the article to the last version by KillerChihuahua (3 March). If this continues, the article will need to be protected. Please make sure to reach consensus about improvements before editing. Harald88 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A turning point in national history

I wrote an article on this book, and included a synopsis. Then someone wrote comments on that, so I told him that was original research. Upon which he said that my writing a synopsis also constitutes original research. But as I understand it that is called 'source-based research'. Not sure though. Could an 'expert' (whatever constitutes that :) ) comment on this?

And while you have a look, could you give your input on whether in a synopsis (in a section with a header that identifies it as such) one should include in almost every sentence that that is 'according to the book' (or something similar)? DirkvdM 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Synopsizing is not OR, AFAIK: see a previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive4#My_interpretation. Per Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources "where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Misplaced Pages article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." it can be done. Esquizombi 15:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems to solve the synopsis bit. But what about the criticism-section by StuRat? Without references that is OR, right? He claims to give criticisms of the book, but at best they're more general criticisms that might be applicable to the book. StuRat has read neither any specific criticisms, nor the book itself. A clear case of OR, I'd say. DirkvdM 09:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it fails the test of being "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge", because the book, and all sources provided by DirkvdM, are in Dutch, with apparently no English translations available. Thus, a working knowledge of the Dutch language is required to review the book. DirkvdM has used the fact that he knows Dutch to provide a rather one-sided article (no criticisms included) which can't be either verified or altered, according to him, by the majority of English Misplaced Pages editors, since they don't speak Dutch. I have therefore placed a "no sources" tag on the article (meaning no sources verifiable by the majority of English Misplaced Pages editors). StuRat 15:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The question is simple: are the criticisms StuRat's, or are they criticisms made by others in published sources, that StuRat is reporting or summarizing? If the former, yhen it is definitely a violation of NOR; if the latter, then StuRat will be able to provide verifiable sources and it is NOT a violation of NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Tag the section with {{sources}} or move it to the talk page and ask for sources there, I think are acceptable options. Esquizombi 03:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Source Definitions?

1. Is this a primary or secondary source?

Oral History Interview with E. Allan Lightner, Jr. Assistant Chief, 1945-47, and Associate Chief, 1947-48, of the Central European Affairs Division, Department of State

May one use reference to his conclusions or quote what he says?

2. Is this a primary or secondary source?

The President's Economic Mission to Germany and Austria, Report 3, March, 1947

May one use the text just as if it were an ordinary book?

3. Is this a primary or secondary source? Obviously primary I would assume? http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box32/t301h06.html

May one use reference to possible conclusions or quote what is said from such a letter? May one collect a bunch of such letters and present them with a conclusion?

4. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_3_transcript.pdf

I assume whatever applies to no.3 also applies to this (no.4)?

All four examples come from "reputable" sources, and are published so everyone has access to them.Stor stark7 23:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

They appear to be primary sources. Since they are verifiable they can be used in articles, but you cannot add your own interpretation or analysis of them. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but does that imply that on can interpret or analyse secondary sources? And, supose I have used text from a secondary book that states an opinion, can I then also add a quote from one of these primary sources to corroborate that opinion? Stor stark7 22:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, allowed analysis comes from verifiable secondary (and tertiary) sources. Adding any interpretation that is novel ourselves violates Misplaced Pages:No original research, a peer policy to this one. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

When is a theory?

I couldn't help but notice the comment in the project page on theories. Given that Misplaced Pages has a good deal of scientific content, it is worth keeping in mind that scientists mean something very different by 'theory' than common use of the word. Hence 'its only a theory' would to most folks mean that an idea lacks veracity. But scientists speak still of the theory of gravity, and we should think twice about jumping from windows if we doubt the veracity of that theory. In short: 'theory' in science implies consensus. Cheers!Dmccabe 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

See #How to deal with Misplaced Pages entries about theories above. ..dave souza, talk 13:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Limited Access Publications

In the age of pay per use or restricted access internet a source may be available to many but not all. For example lots of 16th Century books are available to students and scholars at most major universities via Early English Books Online ('EEBO). However, the price of this service and its limited interest means that it is not open to everyone. If I cite a 16th century book available from EEBO is this original research. 1) The book quoted has been published (if only in the 1500s) and 2) the source is available to anyone with a University pass. They are therefore verifiable but not by everyone.

• Hell no it's not original research. Nor is it a verifiability problem, nobody says verification has to be easy. SchmuckyTheCat 18:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

End run

Let's say, I make a call to an authority, record the conversation, and then upload the .ogg (maybe to WP, maybe to Wikisource). Does that satisfy the need for verifiability? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not. You are creating the information, not getting it from impartial third party sources. You want it in Misplaced Pages so badly, get it published first. Why do you want it so badly, anyway? You'd get more prestige by getting published than by just editing Misplaced Pages. Don't make Misplaced Pages an obsession. Coyoty 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The question has nothing to do with prestige! It has to do with providing as much information as possible to increase the wealth of knowledge in WP. If a factoid isn't published, it's verboten, despite its easy availability.

I am not talking about real original research here. I am talking about simple legwork. No one's going to get much prestige from a phone call to get a simple fact. Neither is it likely to be published by anyone. (Maybe Harper's' back page, but that's about it.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of what this policy is saying not to do ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the policy says that if it is your research, it is OK to add if it was published, because published sources are verifiable. I'm arguing that a recording is just as verifiable, or even more so, as much of what is published (newspapers, etc.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Keith, you couldn't even be sure of who you were talking to in some instances. We rely on book publishers, newspapers, and peer-reviewed journals to do this kind of work for us. SlimVirgin 01:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The reporter at a newspaper isn't likely in most cases to have any more certainty of who they are talking to than you or I would by looking up the same number and calling it.

What's interesting here is that we end up with walls like those that exist with the GFDL (not that I'm criticizing those). Can we then say that, under NOR, we can cite Wikinews? Wikinews allows (in fact proudly displays) original research. Can we consider Wikinews, as an open collaborative project equivalent in editorial process to Misplaced Pages, a reviewed publication? It seems to me that I can do OR, (this sort of "third-party OR" of making an information request), squeeze it into a Wikinews story, and then presumably cite that WN story in WP. Either that, or we can't use WN as sources for WP, which seems awkward considering the relationship of the projects. Or, even worse, we have to vet any WN source for OR before using it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The reporter at a newspaper isn't likely in most cases to have any more certainty of who they are talking to than you or I would by looking up the same number and calling it. Sorry, but as a working reporter, I have to tell you this is patently ludicrous. · Katefan0/poll 14:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, of course we can't cite any wikis. Misplaced Pages never cites itself, for example. Jayjg 05:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the original discussion for the policy in a nutshell?

Apparently, the policy in a nutshell was added on february 10, 2006. (See this edit.) Only four editors, SlimVirgin, Leflyman, Jossi and myself, edited this important addition on the main policy page. I cannot find any discussion in the talk page, except the recent one, which resulted in no consensus at all. I imagine that it has been intensively discussed somewhere and a consensus was obtained before it was added, but I don't know where. -Lumière 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Seen the long silence, apparently there was none; and the added word "synthesis"is obviously wrong, as Misplaced Pages itself is a new synthesis of information, by the fact that it has its own information selection policies such as NPOV. Thus I'll remove that word; and in case of disagreement, I'll move that whole passage to the Talk page (note that in the body of the text the word synthesis is used but in combination with the qualifier "new narrative"). Harald88 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Harald, don't remove vital material from policy pages, please. The word synthesis is far from "obviously wrong"; on the contrary, it's an extremely important part of the policy. SlimVirgin 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, the word "synthesis" without qualifyer is both obviously wrong and non-consensual. Moreover, a new summary can't be essential; if it is, that means that there is disagreement between that and the body of the text - indeed that is the case!

Here is the disputed passage:

This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.

Harald88 19:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The article now qualifies that that applies insofar as "that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". But I remember that that has been subject of recent debate as well; I'll now check if this hasn't been meddled with, as "advance a position" doesn't appear to originate with Jimbo. Harald88 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Advance a position" isn't a quote from Jimbo, but it's what the policy means. What do you mean by "meddled with"? The policy-in-a-nutshell lacks qualification because that's what "in a nutshell" means. If you can think of a succinct and accurate description, by all means propose it here, but don't remove "synthesis" from the summary. SlimVirgin 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

until now I had overlooked it but Lumiere put my attention to it: the word "synthesis" without qualifier is at best misleading, in any case it's not conform the contents of the article. With "meddling" I mean subtle changes to policy to advance one's own position (opinion) about Misplaced Pages. Harald88 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you might argue that "synthesis" doesn't belong in the nutshell; it's referred to multiple times in the body of the policy. See:

• What is original research?: "...any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments...";
• Primary_and_secondary_sources: "...it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication...";
• What is excluded?: "...it introduces an analysis or synthesis... without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source..."

If the problem is with an understanding of the word "synthesis", then that's a different issue. My previous discussion centered on what I viewed as the unnecessary conbination of NOR with NPOV by including references to "advances a position" or "builds a particular case" in this policy.—Leflyman 20:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is indeed that in this context the word "synthesis" on its own is erroneous; I now focussed on it under a new header below, to make it clearer. Thus some kind of qualifyer is required, if we want to keep that word. About your point, probably a better qualifyer in this context would be "new synthesis accompanied by a new conclusion". Harald88 20:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You've given a rather narrow definition of synthesis; removing the term would introduce huge loopholes which would be exploited. As it is, even using this wording people often insist on creating novel arguments, insisting that what they are doing is not "original research", but rather "stating simple facts". The policy in a nutshell is clear as it is, given its brevity, and the subsequent article explains exactly what it meant by synthesis. Jayjg 20:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

:

Hi, I saw that you undid my removal of an erroneous addition on a policy page without commenting. Likely you didn't understand what happened. Anyway, please use the Talk page instead of edit-warring, thanks! Harald88 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I saw exactly what happened. I chose to undo it because I disagree with what you're trying to do. Will you tut-tut yourself on your own talk page if you edit war to undo it? Just curious. · Katefan0/poll 19:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your undoing of removal of errors; now please have a look at the last change where Slimvirgin himself removed another erroneous comment (I tend to agree with such removals!), and see if you don't want to revert that too. Anyway, I'll move this discussion to the corresponding Talk page, where it belongs (as I pointed out to you). Harald88 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

But it isn't an error; it's an essential part of the policy. And I'm a she. SlimVirgin 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Synopses of film/video/etc

There are many articles on Misplaced Pages which consist primarily of a synopsis of a work of fiction, or contain as a major component a synopsis of such a work. These articles then proceed to use that work as a primary source to state a variety of conclusions about the work in question. This raises questions such as:

1. When does a plot synopsis become a (prohibited) "synthesis"?
2. What level of detail can be plucked from a fictional primary source without becoming synthesis?
3. When (if at all) can direct observation of a film/novel/videogame/etc be a valid source for a synthetic opinion or "fact" statement about the work in question?

I would argue that almost any plot synopsis that goes on for more than a paragraph or two falls into the category of synthesis, and that direct observation of a fictional work should not be sufficient sourcing for Misplaced Pages, as it is not source-based research, but (in the case of a fictional work), original research. -- Gnetwerker 23:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I'd say that if other published synopses are available, Wikipedians shouldn't write their own, except in a very perfunctory sense to give a general overview. Any level of detail that is contentious or analytical would be original research. We had this situation when some of the hostages in Iraq were killed. The murders were taped and Wikipedians were watching the videos and describing what they saw. On the pages I edited, I requested that only published descriptions be used, and even though some editors felt they were inadequate (newspaper accounts didn't give much detail for obvious reasons of taste), the NOR policy did hold up in the end. SlimVirgin 14:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I allowed to ask a question? Your example seems so good. Were the videos published primary sources? By "published", I mean were are copies available to anyone that requested them? -Lumière 17:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were posted on the Web by the group that killed the men. SlimVirgin 17:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased my question because I think that to count as a publication it must be relatively stable. -Lumière 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

They're probably still available, sadly. SlimVirgin 18:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between describing what can be seen and descibing what can be read? IMO there is for this subject no fundamental difference between paraphrasing and description. Harald88 18:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there is still quite a problem here. If a small, unreviewed film comes out, we can say: "the film appears to take place in New York", or "the film depicts the life and times of a journalist", but in the absence of a WP:V source, can we say "the film is a condemnation of pickle-eating"? I would think that the last statement (chosen in example for its absurdity) would be a clear violation, even if the film quotes a character as saying "I hate pickle-eaters!". To place this in a less-absurd context, this comes up in Misplaced Pages pages about fiction, where someone will write "Bingo's sword was crafted in elventimes by the Goofoffindor, and has the properties ...", and in WP pages on non-fiction opinion pieces, where someone will write "Maynard's film exposes the dark conspiracy linking pickles and elven swords". I would think that all classes of such statements deducing facts or opinions from a larger fictional or opinion-based context would be impermissible. -- Gnetwerker 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to bypass WP:V and WP:NOR

A discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Archival materials is attempting to make an exception to WP:V and WP:NOR for material held in an institutional archive. -- Donald Albury 01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I was in fact doing nothing of the sort. First off, RFC has absolutely no power currently to change anything, I was merely trying to get some community thoughts, so the suggestion that it is an attempt to bypass these pages is insulting to me (please see WP:CIVIL). Second, I already did note the discussion on the policy talk page, I simply did it on WP:RS because that was the policy discussed in the RFA that spawned the discussion in the first place. Please do not assume something sinister from a simple discussion in the future. I would also ask that any and all readers of this talk page contribute however they see fit to the public discussion as it is just that. Staxringold 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous use of "synthesis" in summary

This is a detailed follow-up of the discussion a little higher on this page.

Synthesis, Dictionary.com: 1a. The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole.

The recently added "nutshell" states that "Articles may not contain any new synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas."

Obviously this is what any Misplaced Pages article does and should do; and I now see that already Lumiere had pointed this out.

Despite that both of us pointed this out, Slimvirgin (with unmotivied support from Katefan0) insists on keeping it in the policy... What now? Harald88 20:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's not really an erroneous usage: what's needed is to add (as per the body of the policy), "...without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." The point that should be clarified is that the policy prohibits unverified synthesis.—Leflyman 20:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• As I said above, you've given a rather narrow definition of synthesis; removing the term would introduce huge loopholes which would be exploited. As it is, even using this wording people often insist on creating novel arguments, insisting that what they are doing is not "original research", but rather "stating simple facts". The policy in a nutshell is clear as it is, given its brevity, and the subsequent article explains exactly what it meant by synthesis. Jayjg 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Synthesis can also mean deductive reasoning: from Webster's New World Dictionary: 4. in philosophy, deductive reasoning, from the simple elements of thought into the complex whole, from cause to effect, from a principle to its application, etc. I assumed that this was the sense in which the word was used. I would think that the policy would prohibit all forms of deductive reasoning. Lumiere is using a much too narrow definition, and probably not the one intended by the policy author. -- Gnetwerker 20:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure - and does Webster's meaning (1) or (2) differ from the more general meaning (1a) that I cited above ? Point is that that word in general is misleading as it's against the purpose of both an encyclopdia as well as NPOV policy (which demands that different POV's are synthesized into one article) - NPOV is non-negotiable,, but could be undermined by this subtle change. Any new conclusions and obvious suggestions are OR and not for Misplaced Pages - that's what Jimbo tried to explain, but it's slowly becoming less and less visible. Harald88 21:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A few months ago this was the lead, and it's much better:

Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say.

Happily it's still there... Harald88 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective (outlined above and elsewhere), the problem comes when people create theories about fictional and opinion-based matters, use citations to the fictional works or opinions in question, and then claim it is not WP:NOR because they are citing primary sources. The problem is not the lack of citations (that can be covered in WP:V), it is the creation of an analytical framework from a fictional source. -- Gnetwerker 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that as pointed out above. And I now undid the deletion of a few weeks ago by Leflyman, also for reasons now exhaustively explained. This doesn't mean that I disagree with him that "to advance a position" is a bit awkward; but a qualifyer is definitely needed. And I already gave some suggestions for alternatives. Harald88 21:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Harald, rather than tinkering with the nutshell version, why not propose language here and get a consensus first? Otherwise, it makes it appear you are unilaterally trying to make changes, based on your own "reasons" rather than discussing them first. Thanks. --Leflyman 01:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"to advance a position"

Although recently introduced with some reason, the expression "to advance a position" seems to overlap with NPOV, and is IMO a bit awkward; see also earlier discussions. I think to have found an improved phrasing, more to-the-point and easier to understand: Replace it by "to advance a new idea". Harald88 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The phrase "to advance a position" is similar to the phrase "to push a viewpoint", and this is the subject of NPOV. It is true that NPOV says that we should describe all point of views without ascerting their truth, etc., which perhaps could be interpreted to mean that we should not "advance a position", but this is the NOR policy in a nutshell, not the NPOV policy in a nutshell. The right qualifier here is to advance a new idea, a new interpretation, etc. -Lumière 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Designed to advance a position

It's almost correct, but any unpublished analysis is OR, whether or not it advances a position. It's only the synthesis the phrase is meant to refer back to. Also, it shouldn't be "designed to" because it's not the intention that matters. SlimVirgin 04:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Still, we need to qualify synthesis. How do you suggest we do that? I still think that we should focus on NOR issues such as "advance a new idea", not on NPOV issues such as "advance a position". -Lumière 05:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I have sprotected this article (not the talk page) because of edits by an AOL anon. I have no idea exactly what the edit conflict consists of here, but the anon is simply doing a blanket revert of everything, including various minor formatting and the Greek interwiki link. It's not acceptable to revert all users' prior contributions in order to, in effect, assert unilateral ownership of an article, see Misplaced Pages:Ownership. Leaving a message on this user's talk page is not possible because AOL anon IPs specifically don't have one. -- Curps 07:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The AOL anon refers to and seems familiar with talk page discussion, but there are no talk page contributions from that IP range. Is this a case of registered user dropping down to an anon IP in order to circumvent 3RR? -- Curps 07:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Example of new synthesis of published material

Because this part of the policy confuses some editors, I've put up an example that hopefully clarifies it. SlimVirgin 07:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."

Not necessarily true. If point A and point B agree, then combining them would not make point C, but rather serve to reinforce both points A and B. On the other hand if point A indicates a different topic than point B and they are fused to form point C, then that would be original research if no other published source indicates the fused point C as well. Hence it is entirely logical and good editing for an editor to provide point A and B if they are about the same topic and agree. This is source-based research, not original research. - Therefore the sentence above is wrong and faulty which may lead to edit wars over nonsense and for political or revenge purposes to make a point - leading to endless disputes over points A and B being a new point C when all they do is agree and therefore can not be a new point but rather reinforcement of A to B or B to A because of common agreement. This would be sourced-based research. Only when one uses sources that are diverse in nature such as in a dialectic (thesis combines with antithesis to form new truth) can one be considered to form a new synthesis; that if not so combined by other published sources that are credible in nature would constitute original research. --Northmeister 17:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but even if A and B are opposed, reporting on both is not original research. On the contrary, this is what we should do in accordance with NPOV. -Lumière 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Using point A and B even when opposed in a manner that relates to the topic of the article (which indicates a need to cover opposing views) to show contrast so long as this is done in NPOV with sources is appropriate as long as it is not an attempt to arrive at some form of new truth or definition by its author. That is why the above sentence and the whole new synthesis material added should be redone to indicate our points. Otherwise the user who is adding them is just creating a whole new mess that will cause endless disputes across Misplaced Pages because it is a faulty definition. --Northmeister 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following paragraph change to reflect the statements made above and to bring clearity to the issue of synthesis:

• "However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes POV expression of editors': personal views, political opinions, and personal analysis or interpretation of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold against the consensus of editors working on that given article. Further, original research includes any unpublished synthesis of published material that does not directly relate to the topic at hand and is meant to support an argument that consensus of editors working on any given article does not support. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, synthesis of related sources, or arguments published by Misplaced Pages must hold to a consensus of editors and be verifiable through published sources both online and in print. See this example for more details."

--Northmeister 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the clear formulation that SlimVirgin suggested, which is much more cogent. "POV expression of editors' personal views, etc, where a synthesis... against...the consensus of editors working on that given article" would seem to make the relatively objective "no original research" into "no assertions that don't agree with the consensus." In effect, it would substantially weaken NOR and make its implementation much muddier. -Will Beback 00:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Two editors above pointed out the problem with it; which is why discussion and consensus is so important to ferret out what is best for Misplaced Pages. The original paragraph is faulty and would lead to endless editing wars over the definition of A and B as related to C and would nullify thousands of articles and edits within those articles. My improvement above would trys to address these issues with better clearity. - Consensus plus reliable sources related to a topic is the best approach to determining 'original research' and as pointed out above, synthesis alone is not original research, it is synthesis of unrelated concepts into a new truth that is the problem...I believe my definition leaves room for preserving Misplaced Pages from needless editing wars on synthesis issues (which in and of itself is the whole idea of an Encyclopedia - as the sources must relate to one another or be contrasted as such for the reader), while at the same time preventing editors from engaging in 'original research'. --Northmeister 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, synthesis is the problem, when it is not a synthesis that agrees with conventional wisdom. -Will Beback 01:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point; which is why 'conventional wisdom' must be determined by consensus of editors working on a project - which my rewording brings clarity to. Synthesis of related material is what an article on an Encyclopedia is about to get all the facts to a given issue from reliable published sources. Synthesis of two contrary views that is not related to the article is the whole problem that should be addressed as my Paragraph above does. Otherwise you might as well nullify the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, and Misplaced Pages while your at it. Since Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort, consensus would determine when controversy arises over what is 'conventional wisdom' together with the sources to back this up. The way the Paragraph is now, would allow any editor to simply engage in endless dispute over 'Conventional Wisdom' even against consensus by the community backed by the sources that that editor is wrong. --Northmeister 01:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The new section "Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" doesn't seem to have much support. So is there any reason it shouldn't be reverted? I'm jumping in here because this example is drawn directly from a discussion of OR that we're having on Norman Finkelstein. The interpretation of OR expressed by this example doesn't have much support there either. Ragout 03:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus as yet, so you are correct. In fact the majority would seem to lean against the wording. That is why proposed changes above, to address concerns of several editors. I have asked those editors for commentary on my changes above. I also think the following section you allude to is not done correctly either or entirely logical in its conclusion - also expressed above. Hence, your justified to revert it, until a consensus on which version or another is to be accepted. --Northmeister 04:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You count "majority" in an awfully strange way. Jayjg 04:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you count it? If you wish to hold a straw poll on this, then lets let the community decide on whether to keep the original version before changed unilaterally or to go with Slimvirgins edit or my improvement to it to clarify points (as I approve but with clarity what she did)...There is no consensus right now and policy states one should not change this page without a consensus from the community...What do you propose? --Northmeister 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There has been no change in the policy; re-wording for clarity is perfectly acceptable. Jayjg 04:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy change and if you actually read through the policy, you'll see that, NM. All I did was add an example of it. Please don't turn up at policy pages you're not familiar with (like Ragout) in order to revert. SlimVirgin 04:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ragout, who triggered the recent series of reverts because, he says, I don't understand OR, has made 71 edits to seven articles. At some point, we may have to consider limiting who can edit policy pages, because new editors turning up to cause disruption (and I'm including -Lumiere and some others) is getting beyond a joke. SlimVirgin 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you always resort to personal attacks on other users like Ragout to prove your case? Just rely on the facts and let the community decide whether your edit is worthy or not; this is not a political campaign for mud-slinging against other editors. Changing words as you did changed the meaning and therefore changed policy without community consensus - to wit:

• "However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Misplaced Pages must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details." (Changes made by Slimvirgin April 10th without consensus supporting her changes in policy by changing and adding words that according to other editors and myself is faulty - My proposal well above is to clarify her edits and then keep them as I support the general change in that light but only with community consensus)

The original policy was worded:

• "The original motivation for the no original research policy was to combat people with personal theories that very few people take seriously, such as cranks and trolls, would attempt to use Misplaced Pages to draw attention to these theories and to themselves. It is clear that this material does not belong at Misplaced Pages, but it's difficult to exclude it under other policies: often the cranks will cite their own irreputable publications, providing verifiability, and choose theories that are difficult to prove false. But precisely because the expert community does not take their work seriously, they are almost never published in a reputable peer-reviewed publication, allowing us to apply this rule."'

You added synthesis and a particular definition of it that is unacceptable in its present form not only by myself but other editors. You did not ask for a consensus on this change as I have done to change your paragraph but unilaterally changed the words to change policy. That is why I reverted your edits just now to gain a consensus one way or another on your change in words, mine, or the original version. That is how it is done. DO NOT LECTURE ME on this, I am perfectly capable of reading policy and discussion and therefore grasping this all quite well. The policy states not to make an edit before consensus emerges to this article...therefore you violated this here. Let us discuss this, or do a straw poll to monitor consensus and then emerge with the right wording - Yours, Mine, anothers, or the original. Changing words changes policy! --Northmeister 05:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister has made 276 edits to articles. The policy already contained the no-synthesis point. All I added was an example, and there is only a lack of consensus between editors who, with respect, are not familiar with the policy. You've violated 3RR, by the way, so you may wish to take the opportunity to revert yourself while you still can. SlimVirgin 05:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your "example" includes numerous statements on policy. The following paragraph is certainly not an "example." It's a statement of policy (and it makes drastic changes to the current NOR policy):

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." Ragout 05:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

SLimvirgin says she only clarified policy. But she added the policy in a nutshell to begin with seen here: . She then edits based on her original addition of material through the nutshell of 'synthesis'. She does this without community consensus...so her claims of 'innocently' clarify policy are false. She then presumes to lecture me because I made only 276 edits? She also does this with Ragout? I am not interested in personal attacks; but on just getting this stuff right. The original version I posted above was fine; she changed this version in two stages in the 'nutshell' stage and then later by changing the wording as seen above. The page officially states that changes should not be made without consensus; she violated this and according to Ragout to prove some sort of point. All we need is civil discourse or a straw poll to indicate community support for her changes; my changes to clarify her changes; or the original version. I think that will let us know some sort of consensus on this. Let us have a straw poll on this proposition - what do you say Slimvirgin? Plus, out of decency you should revert back to the original until this matter is resolved. --Northmeister 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The clarifications of the longstanding policy were obviously needed, since editors with almost no experience keep editing without any understanding of the policy, and when shown what the policy actually says, persisting in misinterpreting it. Anyway, this is a Wiki, what "original" do you insist on reverting back to, the first version of this page? Jayjg 05:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I too am frustrated by SlimVirgin's rudeness. She has told me at least five times to "read WP:NOR." If this is calculated to irritate me, it is succeeding. Ragout 05:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can understand her frustration; it's hard to imagine you would continue to make the same claims had you actually read the policy. This just makes it even more imperative that the policy be clarified, so that even almost completely new editors like yourself can understand it upon first reading it. Jayjg 05:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of all this is to arrive at a proper definiton for the two sections in dispute...by holding some sort of poll to determine consensus for the changes...that is perfectly legitimate...without consensus Slimvirgins changes in both parts are not adding clarity as can be seen here by all the questions arising from this; but are causing disputes I said would happen not only here but across Misplaced Pages because her definition without my qualifiers to it is not accepted by the community and is NOT POLICY until it is; it extends the original meaning quite far and as I argued above would lead to endless disputes over definition. I out of respect for wikipedia and the community have self reverted myself, although my reverts were to uphold policy (not a violation of 3RR), I did so at Slimvirgins request on my talk page; I ask the same from her to revert to the original version before changes were made; until this can be reasoned out. If this does not occur, consensus seems to be emerging to keep the OLD VERSION...and that is perfectly justifiable to revert to keep it in tact until a consensus emerges. We are all suppose to act in good faith, all that is occuring here is personal attacks on a person or the fact they may this many edits or whatnot; instead of good discussion on the merits of the changes and on which version is best. Where is the collaboration and discussion that needs to occur from Slimvirgin to defend her changes? We have every right to insist that consensus support her changes or else they do not remain. --Northmeister 05:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I have seemed rude, which was not my intention. It is frustrating to have new editors get into revert wars over the synthesis/argument point that has been in the policy for a very long time (at least since we wrote the new draft about 18 months ago). The reason I added the example was precisely because editors like Northmeister, Ragout, and some others don't understand the synthesis point. The example illustrates the point, but doesn't change it in any way. It would be very much appreciated if editors could wait a few months until they're more familar with how editing the encyclopedia works in practice before trying to edit the theory pages, but of course, this is a wiki, so all I can do is make that request. SlimVirgin 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, without consensus you cannot change policy by changing the definitions, adding words to change the definitions to any section. Again, you skirt the issue here, you did not only add an example you added material to the section above it, and the nutshell section that has been disputed by others. Consensus does not hold for any of these changes, and I have been made quite familar with wikipedia policy by the way some editors have acted here since I arrived. Your point is moot, without consensus you cannot change the sections you did because your changes did NOT clarify but added definition to the original. My changes clarify the definition to avoid abuse. The original is perfectly fine however. The original is the only policy accepted right now and official. --Northmeister 05:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition hasn't been changed. Which version are you calling "the original"? SlimVirgin 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVES

Following a discussion in a FAC then an RFC the following proposal has been organized. Obviously if you have an alternative proposal, please voice it, and vote no matter what if you have an opinion. Basically the proposal includes 3 slight alterations to allow archives to be used as source on Misplaced Pages provided that additional information is included in the citation to prove the archives existence, public accessibility, and reliability. Staxringold 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection time?

As it appears, with no clear reason, that the NOR page has been undergoing some unusually high activity in the last couple of days, might I suggest it be put under semi-protection by an admin, to let the parties work out what their disagreements with wording might be? It seems that the flood-gates to word-tinkering got opened-- if one can make such a wacky metaphor-- and everybody's wading in with their own changes. Mea culpa: I got drawn into the policy tweaking game with my own silly alterations, but would rather see a stable policy page than the edit-fest we've got going now. So what d'ya say, gang: why not first try to figure out and come to agreement on "the big problem" (if there is such a thing here) before making lots of new mini-problems? My feeling is NOR's not really broke, so it doesn't need all that much fixing.--Leflyman 05:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection wouldn't affect the people who are reverting, Leflyman. SlimVirgin 05:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• That's true-- the edit-warring is going on among those whose accounts are older than the four-day period. P'haps if it continues, a proper temporary protection might be added, as per Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy--Leflyman 05:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Look I ask that a third party uphold policy and revert to the original version until a consensus is reached...that is why I reverted in the first place as the policy suggests when one does not consult the community on policy changes that were made by the edits of the above user. When consensus emerges then we shall know what to do; otherwise keep the old accepted wording. --Northmeister 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the reason for the recent activity here is that SlimVirgin reverted edits on the Norman Finkelstein page, claiming they were OR. In response, what had previously been a very fractious group of editors united around the position that SlimVirgin's interpretation of OR is mistaken. Several of us were shocked to see that SlimVirgin is now unilaterally making drastic changes. Ragout 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ragout, you inserted OR into that page because you don't understand the NOR policy, and your belief that I made a drastic change to it is also based on your misunderstanding. My edit added an example of a point that was already in there, and mentioned several times in the text. Please read the intro very carefully and you'll see it (emphasis added): "Original research is a term used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material added to articles by Misplaced Pages editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." SlimVirgin 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you also made severe edits to the definiton of "Why we" and added the original 'nutshell' that are not accepted by the community. You cannot change definition of synthesis without a consensus from the community as I stated above. Where is the consensus? What about a straw poll? --Northmeister 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. What is "why we?" And people are fine with the nutshell edits, which others have edited since. And please explain how the example changes the definition of synthesis. SlimVirgin 06:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has a history of attempting to re-write Misplaced Pages policies as they bear upon specific edit wars she is engaged in. For example, in this edit, she attempted to water down some provisions in NOR that would constrain the tactics of her POV ally, User:Cberlet, who in real life is the putative expert, Chip Berlet. She also edited Misplaced Pages:Protection policy to attempt to protect herself retroactively, after she had violated that policy. These cannot be considered good faith edits, and the community should watch carefully for similar ploys. --HK 07:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's "Synthesis" point

SlimVirgin proposes: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."

As I read it, this rules out the structure: <topic-sentence, supporting-fact-1, supporting-fact-2>, since the topic sentence would be a new point C, a "synthesis". To be concrete, here's an adaption of paragraph from a recent Featured Article. "Slowly, rose to the top. In 1938, she ran her first world record. At the European Championships in Vienna, she won the bronze. Many observers, expected her to do well at the upcoming Olympics." So we have some facts about races won, collected together to make a new point: she "rose to the top." There is no citation given for the claim "rose to the top." I think this is perfect acceptable, but I understand SlimVirgin's proposal to rule out this paragraph structure, which is very common in Misplaced Pages.Ragout 05:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, it's hard to tell, since your example, as confusing at it is, doesn't seem to follow the example given by SlimVirgin. Jayjg 05:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ragout, your example has nothing to do with the synthesis point and the example I put on the page. And what I wrote isn't a proposal. The synthesis point has been in this draft since it was written, which was around November/December 2004, as I recall. SlimVirgin 05:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)