Welcome to uiboss.com on July 5 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia talk:No original research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
If you want to know whether particular material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the No original research notice board. Questions about the policy itself may be posted here.
This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:
Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Wikipedia. University of Illinois U-C.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.
Shortcuts:
WT:OR
WT:NOR

Contents

[edit] Bengali romanization

A discussion involving original research issues has been instigated at Talk:Bengali script. Please weigh in if you care. — AjaxSmack 01:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Should not have an article wording, a potential problem

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it

There's a few potential problems with having this in the NOR policy. While I sympathize with the intent of discouraging new users from creating trivial articles, this isn't the place for it. This is the original research policy, not the general notability guideline, and this belongs at the guideline level not the policy level.

Someone could write an article using only first-party primary sources ( i.e. a corporation's website for an article about one of their products ) without introducing original research. That wouldn't be an acceptable article, but it would be unacceptable for reasons other than OR.

Also this wording is dangerously close to being misread as requiring third-party secondary sources. While the notability guidelines very strongly encourage secondary sources to show notability, there is a longstanding acceptance of a presumed notability for articles about towns and other geographic topics, and these articles often start off relying heavily on third-party primary and tertiary sources such as Census data and maps. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

An article that relied entirely on primary sources would amount to OR. OR is not only unsourced material. It is material that no secondary source has seen fit to mention. An article based only on a company's website, assuming no other sources could be found, would fail both the notability and the OR requirement, as these are closely linked. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that when I say "secondary" in this context, I mean tertiary too. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not a correct assertion; an article based entirely on primary sources could fully pass WP:OR, if no synthetic claims were made. Many of our biographical articles are based primarily or entirely on primary sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think an article based entirely on primary sources would pass OR. Can you give an example? I promise not to interfere with it, but I'd like to see what you're referring to. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This is made more difficult by the tendency of some people to redefine primary sources as secondary, merely so they can say that an article uses secondary sources. But, for example, 2009_Wimbledon_Championships only cites primary sources, although I doubt there is any OR there. Brinkman v. Miami University is another example; it has some citation issues but not OR problems. However, you can see that your claim is wrong a different way. It implies that any completely unsourced article violates the OR policy, which would be absurd. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas' argument is also sound: just because primary sources were used, does not mean secondary sources do not exist, and the existence of appropriate secondary sources is enough to satisfy the OR policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
But, the point here is that secondary and tertiary sources can easily be found supporting our biographical articles, not that primary sources could be used to write them. Editors also perform original research using primary sources when they cherry pick what they personally think is important for an argument. But, what happens when there are no secondary sources that verify the significance of the material they have chosen? The reason we rely on the secondary sources is so that we have an authoritative (depending on the quality of the source) measure of importance independent from the bias of Wikipedia editors. This is why we should rely on the best sources written by experts in their field. Right now, we have the following statement in the policy: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. But this avoids directly addressing the problem of cherry picking. It is not just the interpretation and analysis that is OR; It is also the very act of picking and choosing from the primary sources without secondary sources to support a particular selection of material. Some editors will choose unimportant items from primary sources to make a point. For example, an editor might choose a series of quotes from archival tape transcripts to further an argument, and those quotes might not appear in the secondary sources. A secondary source might support one aspect of the overall line of reasoning, but the rest would be an interpretation of the primary source, usually made to further an argument that the editor feels is important. Where does the OR policy specifically address this problem? Obviously, it is implicit in the act of writing an interpretation, forming analyses, and making synthetic claims, but the act of selecting content from a primary source without a secondary source that supports such a selection needs to be explained in more detail. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the claim "An article that relied entirely on primary sources would amount to OR". That claim is simply false; your explanation is one reason why.
The issue of cherry picking is relevant to the idea of OR, but if editors pick primary sources in a way that gives appropriate weight to them then there is no problem. Picking and choosing from numerous sources in the process of creating an article is ordinarily considered part of the writing process.
The first paragraph of the policy page explains when this goes wrong: when the analysis presented on is out of line with the analysis already present in the literature. As long as the analysis we present agrees with the analysis in the literature, we have achieved our goal. Just as the editors of each page have to judge due weight for NPOV, they have to judge originality for NOR. There is no way to remove editorial judgment from the writing process. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The original research policy simply means that every statement in a Wikipedia article must have been published someplace else before; Wikipedia should not contain anything that's citable only to Wikipedia. I don't understand how an article based entirely on a company's press releases, with every statement cited, could contain original research. It would be a bad article for a variety of reasons, but not original research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
We would need a secondary source to tell us that the company was worth writing about. Viriditas is right about the danger of relying on primary sources, because people do cherry-pick what to mention and what to leave out— either deliberately or because they're not familiar with the material. The difficulty of writing policy to exclude this kind of reliance on primary sources is that we don't want editors to feel they have no leeway whatsoever when it comes to using primary-source material, so getting the wording right would be tricky. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Knowing that the company is worth writing about is an issue for WP:N, not WP:OR. Please avoid bringing other policies into the discussion. People also cherry-pick because they are familiar with the material and are picking only the relevant things to include. There is nothing wrong with that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
There has always been an overlap between notability and OR, so it's not a question of bringing other policies in; indeed, that's why the policy says if no secondary sources exist, we shouldn't have an article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Nevertheless, Squidfrychef is correct that an article which cites only press releases but does so without making any analytic or synthetic claims will not violate the V or OR policies. Brinkman v. Miami University is another example of an article that only cites primary sources but meets the OR policy anyway because it makes only descriptive claims. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, this policy does not say what you just claimed. It says, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." The word "secondary" is not there. WP:N has the word in its nutshell but not the actual GNG text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
SV, any chance we can discuss the overlap between notability and NOR in the policy? Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, go for it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking, a nice graphic showing the interrelationship between all the policies and guidelines would be more effective than just talking about. Does such a thing exist? Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but it would be a great thing to have. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson is another high-profile article written entirely from primary sources: newspaper stories about the event published contemporaneously with it. I don't view this as a bad thing; it's just part of Wikipedia that we do in fact permit many articles to be written from primary sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Those newspaper reports aren't primary sources for us. They will be in 100 years' time, but for us, now, they're secondary sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the problem I was referring to earlier. Redefining newspaper stories as secondary sources does not actually improve the sourcing of the article. It appears to me that the only reason anyone pursues this redefinition is to avoid admitting that the articles are, in reality, based upon primary sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The designation changes depending on its temporal context. Newspaper articles become primary sources when they are historical in nature. Current newspaper articles are considered secondary sources for reporting about contemporary information derived from primary sources. It's very confusing. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That is the viewpoint SlimVirgin is proposing. Others consider the newspaper stories to be primary sources permanently from the moment of publication. None of the "references" in the PSTS section says anything about newspaper articles changing from secondary to primary over time. All but one of them simply categorize newspaper articles as primary sources, the last categorizes them as secondary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not so much her viewpoint. If you look into the matter, you'll find a lot of style guides supporting this statement. If you remember, Wikipedia:Evaluating sources was supposed to explain this in detail, but editors continued to remove it. When I last edited it, it said, "...the meaning of primary sources might change based on the historical context. Thus, secondary sources will often discuss the historical context of the primary source, and such information is often invaluable, and frequently there is a consensus as to the context within the academic field. Such views as to the context are almost always relevant to the discussion...If a secondary source was written by a historical contemporary of the primary source, that source may have significance beyond its role as a secondary source, and may also be primary, and often represents an important point of view as to the original meaning of the author and the relevant historical context." There was also a footnote which said, "Since a source is only a source in a specific historical context, the same source object can be both a primary or secondary source according to what it is used for."[1] This was removed by several editors, and I protested its deletion. And here we are again. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That language was meant to explain that, for example, a history textbook that is a secondary source now might be considered a primary source in 1000 years. It did not explain why contemporary newspaper articles would ever be considered secondary sources, when they have none of the aspects used to define secondary sources. I followed the earlier discussion closely and have read many guides about primary/secondary sources in the course of that. Very few of them seem to accommodate the blanket reassignment of all contemporary newspaper articles as secondary sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If you could point me to one of those guides, I'll take a look. Many textbooks are considered tertiary sources since they are composed of secondary sources. Most newspaper articles report about topics using primary sources, so they are considered secondary sources. For example, look at the news citations used to report on Obama's speech, "A New Beginning". Most are secondary sources reporting about the speech, the reaction to the speech, highlighting key parts of the speech from transcripts, audio, and video recordings, etc. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Some examples are [2], [3], [4], [5]. The sources used in the Obama article can just as well be classified as primary sources: newspaper articles written contemporaneously with the event they discuss. Now if someone writes about the speech in a book next year about presidential speeches, that will be an unambiguously secondary source for us to use. In the meantime, claiming that our article is based on secondary sources is misleading. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Those links confirm what I have said above. Take a closer look at them and you will notice that newspaper articles are classified both as primary and secondary sources. The newspaper cites in the Obama article are (for the most part, obviously there will be exceptions) considered secondary sources. If you read the links you provided closely, you will see that they confirm this. I admit it is confusing because there is a lot of ambiguity. For example, the Yale link you provide lists newspaper articles as primary sources that are "from the original time period (contemporary to events) and have not been interpreted or evaluated by others". But they are not talking about contemporary newspaper articles, but rather historical newspaper articles. This becomes clear further down when you see that "newspaper accounts" are listed as a primary source under the discipline of history. The BMCC library link lists "newspaper articles that interpret" as a secondary source under the discipline of humanities. Most of the newspaper sources in the Obama article are analyzing and interpreting the importance of the speech. For our purposes now, newspaper articles about the speech and the reaction to the speech, and the interpretation of the speech, and the significance of the speech, are considered secondary sources. On Wikipedia, the primary source is considered the speech itself. If a robot decides to write about Obama's speech in 2109, and chooses to use newspaper articles about the event from 2009, those newspaper articles are now considered primary. Viriditas (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of the interpretation you are giving but I completely disagree with it. The broad area of study in which one writes about the speech is history, so the standards within the field of history are what we should be employing. The newspaper articles cited in the Obama article are simply reporting on the speech; they are not academic historians interpreting its importance. It would be impossible, in fact, to evaluate the importance of the speech without the benefit of hindsight. I have seen no guide that has a statement such as, "newspaper articles written at the same time as an event are primary sources, unless the event was very recent, in which case they are secondary". In fact I have only encountered that argument on WT:NPOV. However, I do see "A primary source is a source that was created during or immediately after the event or period it documents",[6] and "...a letter written by a soldier during the Vietnam War is primary material, as is an article written in the newspaper at the time of the Vietnam War." [7]. These are the sorts of examples you asked for, and they are not as vague as your latest post implies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
But Obama's speech is considered contemporary, not historical. The newspaper articles only become primary sources when they are connected to the event by future historians studying the past. For our purposes now, they are considered secondary sources and the speech itself is considered primary. On the other hand, historians writing about the Gettysburg Address will use newspaper articles about the speech from 1863. Those articles, which were considered secondary at the time of Abraham Lincoln's speech, are, in 2009, classified as primary. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the articles on the Gettysburg address articles were primary sources when written as well. None of the links I provided (at your request) explicitly treats contemporary newspaper articles differently than historical ones (which is not to say that contemporary events are not also in the scope of history). The links and quotes I showed you suggest that what matters is the close connection in time between the source and the event it is describing, not the distance in time between us and the event. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
In other words, I am simply pointing out that if there has not been enough time elapsed after an event for secondary sources to be written, this does not mean we must treat the primary sources created along with the event as if they are secondary. It is true that we do not have as many sources for Obama's speech as for the Vietnam war, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that the sources we do have for Obama's speech are something they are not. In articles about contemporary event we will necessarily be forced to use primary sources to write our articles. We can add secondary sources later. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A newspaper article from 1863 about a speech in 1863 is used as a primary source by historians because it is a now an artifact from 1863. This old article is no longer considered a secondary source because it gives us a first-hand account of a past era, not just the event of Lincoln's speech. And as you rightly observed above, these newspaper articles from 1863 have become important primary sources. But, a newspaper article about a speech in 2009 is considered a secondary source because we use it only to evaluate the primary source, the speech itself. We are not interested in the historical importance of a newspaper article written in 2009. We do not consider the reporters to be active participants in the speech or representative of a larger historical era, nor are we interested in their tone or perspective. Rather, these journalists and writers are simply reporting on the event and that's all we care about. We aren't interested in analyzing a BBC News article as a historical artifact, although one could do that, in which case it would be considered a primary source. But obviously, for our purposes, it isn't, so it's secondary. We don't consider the BBC News or The New York Times as historically important in this context. They are merely reporting about the speech, and offering us interpretations. And, we aren't using the 2009 news articles as original documents related to the event. For our purposes, now, the original documents are transcripts of the speech. Viriditas (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
← Our articles about events in the recent past are indeed history articles, not somehow completely different than articles about the ancient past. The events they describe do take place in a larger historical context (2009), and we must keep in mind that no contemporary source can possibly have sufficient separation to give an objective analysis or interpretation. This is the fundamental reason for classifying sources as primary in the first place: they are the sources close enough to the event to capture its zeitgeist and be unaffected by later analysis or by changes in societal and academic opinion.
Independent of that, the argument you just gave also implies that I can use a newspaper article on the Gettysburg address as a "secondary source" as long as I don't focus on the newspaper article itself as an historical artifact (which is essentially never done on WP). I continue to point out that none of the links above says anything about contemporary newspaper articles being treated differently than older ones. I know that one can interpret things that way, but I have never seen it in print. I think it is a wikipediaism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting that you think that. I've seen it in many books, particularly on Google Books, and was aware of it before I came to Wikipedia in 2004. I can provide links to the material, but I thought you already knew about it, which is why I didn't. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do, I would be interested to see what they say about it. One thing that is clear to everyone is that there are many different variation on "primary" and "secondary" sources. The thing that I am pointing out here is that many readers (and sources) will simply treat newspaper stories as primary. The sort of source that you would want to find for me would say that an old descriptive newspaper story on a old event counts as a primary source but a new descriptive news story on a new event counts as a secondary source. Everyone agrees that new stories on events from long ago will be secondary sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This problem arises in one other way. In order to read this policy the way that some do, it is necessary to redefine both newspaper stories and academic journal articles as "secondary sources". This is unfortunate, opaque to newcomers, and confusing in general. It would be clearer if we avoided this redefinition, but there is some fetish towards calling things "secondary" that leads to wording in the policy that requires it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should avoid it; I think we should explain it. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
We could say that wikipedia articles should primarily be sourced to reliable books, magazines, journals, newspapers, and websites, although some references may be to other reliable published sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Carl, do you have a source that says contemporary newspaper articles are primary sources, even if written by a journalist not involved in the event? I haven't seen anyone describe them that way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I provided several higher up, such as: "A primary source is a source that was created during or immediately after the event or period it documents",[8] and "...a letter written by a soldier during the Vietnam War is primary material, as is an article written in the newspaper at the time of the Vietnam War." [9]. It is not uncommon to see all newspaper articles classified as primary sources, with no exception for contemporary ones.
Moreover, as a thought experiment, consider two hypothetical articles:
  • An article on the death of Abraham Lincoln, cited exclusively to newspaper articles from the month after his death
  • An article on the death of Michael Jackson, cited exclusively to newspaper articles from the month after his death
Imagine these are both written in the normal WP way that does not analyze the sources themselves, but only cites them for information about the death. It is quite hard to see how the sources in these articles, which are used in exactly the same way, could be classified differently. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The sources aren't used in the same way, which is the point. Newspaper articles about Lincoln's death are now considered historically significant and are used as a primary source by historians. Historians use these articles to form opinions about Lincoln's death. On the other hand, newspaper articles about Michael Jackson's death are now considered secondary sources. We would not treat these articles as primary sources since we are only using them for their opinions about Jackson's death. Primary sources in this case, would be Jackson's autopsy report, death certificate, interviews and speeches, music lyrics, etc. The definitions of what is a primary, secondary, and tertiary source depend not just on the field of research but on how we use them. Some of the articles about Jackson's death might actually be tertiary sources. We are not studying the words or arguments in the newspaper articles about Jackson's death; we are only interested in the opinion of the journalist reporting on the event, including the interpretation and analysis of the event. So, we are using the Jackson sources as secondary sources. The Lincoln sources, on the other hand, are used precisely for their content, and for the type of coverage provided by each source, and for comparing the different versions and reports of Lincoln's death. In this way, we are using the newspaper articles about Lincoln's death as primary sources. None of the articles about Jackson are being used in this way, but we could if that was our focus. So, if we were to write about the different news coverage of Jackson's death, and analyze the reports and compare the coverage, then in that case, those articles would be used as primary sources. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
In my thought experiment, the sources are used in the same way, to create wikipedia articles. In other words, if the sources in the article on the death of Michael Jackson qualify as "secondary", then an article about Abraham Lincoln's death written in exactly the same way from newspaper stories would also be written "from secondary sources". I am thinking of wikipedia articles and nothing else. As you say, we would not be studying the words or arguments in the newspaper articles about Lincoln's death; we would only be interested in the opinion of the journalist reporting on the event. If doing this for Jackson counts as using a secondary source then doing it for Linconln would as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The crucial difference and missing piece of the puzzle is this: In the example above, historians are writing (and publishing) opinions about the death of Lincoln using 19th century newspaper articles (once removed from the subject) as primary sources. We can't do that on Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors cite opinions about the death of Michael Jackson, in this case, journalists, reporters, writers, and authors writing about the event. Since we are citing the opinions and interpretations of writers twice removed from the subject, these sources are, for our purposes, classified as secondary. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There are no historians in my example, just two wikipedia articles written by wikipedia editors. So I think you are arguing that newspaper articles about Lincoln's death published just after it are secondary sources for us as long as we only use them to cite things about Lincoln's death? I am not talking about historians here, just wikipedia editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is describing the results of a googlesearch original research?

Can someone state that a particular image of something is the most popular representation of that object and use as a reference the results of a search on google images that shows more hits for that partiuclar representation than for any others? Or state that a partiuclar spelling for a city is most popular and use as a reference the results of google search showing that this is the way the city is most often spelled? Would this constitute original research or would it be merely a descriptive statement that dos not involve research on the part of the editor? Is there a way to word a summary of the results without venturing into original research territory? Thanks...Faustian (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Google can certainly be used as a source for talk page arguments. It is also patently unsuitable as a source in articles. But there is really no reason to use google as a source in an article; for example, one can write "a common spelling" instead of "the most common spelling" to avoid the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In which case, how would one source "a common spelling" (or would it be unsourced?) For example, with respect to the spelling of Ukraine's capital Kiev/Kyiv [10], could the article include a statement about the fact that the former spelling is more common than the latter, based on the results of google?Faustian (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The article on Kiev is a good example. There's really no need to say "Kiev" is the most commonly used; simply saying it is the traditional name conveys essentially the same information to the reader. On the other hand, it may be that we can agree to say "Kiev" is the most commonly used spelling without a specific source.
Instead of doing these things, the article has an attempt to source the "most common" claim. But the footnote there, "As of 2008, the Oxford English Dictionary includes 19 quotations with 'Kiev' and none with any other spelling. This spelling is also given by Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia.", is a little desperate. Because the OED and Britannica have a reputation for correctness, I would say this is OK as a compromise, as long as everyone realizes it for what it is. But a google search (the original topic) would be even worse. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Is describing the results of a googlesearch original research?" Yes, and bound to change at a whim as Google results are extremely fluid. If you want to go this route you'd need a reliable source describing the results, but then I don't know tht it'd be notable anyway. Things can be wrong for multiple reasons because multipl policies are always at work. DreamGuy (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Faustin, a google search should never be referred to in an article, if that's what you mean. It's one research tool among many, sometimes helpful sometimes not, but it's useful only for editors' research purposes, never as a source in an article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!Faustian (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Citing number of occurences in a Google search may not fail original research, but it does fail WP:V. Search engine results, unless some third party logged them and published them someplace, are ephemeral and somebody else searching even a few minutes later may get a different result. While search engine results are sometimes useful on talk page discussions as a rough idea on how to phrase things in an article, they shouldnt be cited from mainspace. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SYN addition

Laurent1979 recently added a new example of synthesis to a different section. [11] As several people have suggested adding a simpler example to the synthesis section, I've taken Laurent's and added it here, as it's a very easy example to follow. Thanks for fixing it, Dreadstar. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure..:) It's a great addition...! Dreadstar † 05:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Laurent's contribution is a type of synthesis not yet discussed in WP:SYN. It involves an implicit conclusion, rather than synthesis with an explicit conclusion that is described in WP:SYNTH by A+B=C. The C is not stated in Laurent's idea. It is implied by juxtaposition. Perhaps this should have been considered for inclusion in WP:SYNTH as an idea in addition to what was there already, rather than a "simple example" of what was in WP:SYNTH, which it wasn't. Thus I reverted the edits that are trying to use it as a "simple example". It's an idea that wasn't expressed in WP:SYNTH before, rather than an example of the ideas that were already there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion of implicit conclusion here. I think the present idea of Laurent1979, with the juxtaposed aspect clarified by Crum375, is better. As Crum375 mentioned in the edit summary, juxtaposition is key. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're saying, Bob. We can't have two sections that say essentially the same thing. Is it implicit v explicit you're think of as the distinguishing factor? If so, it makes no difference. A SYN violation is when an implicit or explicit conclusion is reached by synthesizing sourced material that wasn't explicitly reached by the source(s). (And a juxtaposition is just one form of synthesis.) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
By reverting another editor's revert of your new change, without getting consensus, it appears that you are edit warring. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any disagreement. All I did was move it to the right section. Dreadstar agreed. The editor who added it obviously wanted it there in some form. The editors who worked on his example must have wanted it too, or they'd have removed it. But there's clearly no need for two sections about SYN. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but why wasn't this talked about in discussion before being placed in a core policy article? I am not even looking at the content of Laurent's addition, but think its extraordinarily stupid to do something like that. It's akin to altering the design of the main space to 'make more sense' or whatever. Being bold is all fine and dandy, but NOR potentially affects thousands if not millions of articles. Changes in these polices should be glacially and exhaustively discussed before being altered. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
And no, we don't need two sections that say the same thing. Let's discuss the specific parts that Laurent is seeking to add to the SYN policy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Normally Laurent's addition would have been removed as too bold without discussion. But in this case, several people had recommended adding a simple example to SYN, and Laurent's was a good example, so it was kept. That is, the discussion had already taken place, in effect. We were just waiting for that good, simple example to be found. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it doesn't matter whether the new example is in a new or synthesis section. However, the example and accompanying wording should be made as simple as possible. In current version the emphasis is put on an argument that synthesis is bad because it violates NPOV. I don't think that is a point we should strive to make here. It should be clear that synthesis is bad in it self, whether it violates NPOV or not. -- Vision Thing -- 08:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where we say it's bad because it violates NPOV. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
From two examples that push an opposing POV (UN's work has been (un)helpful) someone can draw a conclusion that implicit synthesis is not a problem if a sentence is written in a neutral way. That can be avoided with different wording. -- Vision Thing -- 10:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
One example is written as if anti-UN and the other as if pro-UN, making the point that, with unsourced synthesis, we can easily produce whatever our own POV is. Therefore, we need to stick to sources. It is true that unsourced synthesis is only a problem when serving to advance a position. Without that, we just have regular synthesis, which is what all articles are. As soon as you put two sentences together, it's unsourced synthesis if you're not plagiarizing. So, yes, you're right that there's an inherent NPOV connection, for sure, but for the purposes of this policy, it's OR we're more concerned about: that any synthesis that serves to advance a position that isn't the source's position must be the editor's, and therefore OR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
But wouldn't previous example ("The UN was created in 1945 with stated objective "to maintain international peace and security". Since 1945, there have been 160 wars throughout the world.") also be violation of NOR? If the source for second sentence doesn't talk about UN at all, wouldn't this also be an example of OR even though presentation is neutral? -- Vision Thing -- 18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Slim Virgin, You wrote, "All I did was move it to the right section." - That's not true. You modified it considerably when you moved it.[12]

If you had simply moved it to the SYN section, there wouldn't be this disagreement. I would have supported that move. I suggest that you fix that now, i.e. make a subsection of WP:SYN titled Juxtaposing facts in a way that advances a position, that contains the previous version that was indicated in the first show/hide above, and then we can work from there. This seems to be the situation that would have the most agreement, since that is the version that Laurent1979, Crum375, Tool789789 and Vision Thing worked on and I expressed support for. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with adding the term "juxtaposition" to the NOR policy, never mind as a section title. While Bob's example is one that clearly advances an original thesis which may or may not be true according to the cited sources, I guarantee WP will have problems with editors only reading as far as "juxtaposed" and using it to remove content. We had similar problems with people ignoring the subtleties of the original Smith/Jones example. For the next couple of years after the example was added, every time a deletionist didn't like something, even something as basic as how an article was organized, they would trot out "original research" as the excuse to block it. We've had debates over "OR by juxtaposition" before but it thankfully never reached consensus. Making it explicit in the policy would only reignite those problems. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I found what you are referring to: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_39#Insidious_OR. Was this it? If so, I wasn't able to find where they discussed the problem of using the word "juxtapose" or variations thereof, as you mentioned above, although they used those words in their discussion. Maybe what they were discussing was the idea of implicit conclusion, which BTW is in both versions here.
Perhaps one of your points is that neither version should be in WP:NOR, since they both involve the idea of implicit conclusion which may be misused? The "misuse" aspect is something important to consider. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Re "While Bob's example..." I can't take credit for it since I didn't contribute a single word. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Apparently both of these versions require discussion and a version should only be put into the policy page after consensus is reached. Thus I reverted to the state before either was added. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm reverting to the version where it belonged in one section. We can discuss the contents, and remove the example if that's what people want, but there's no reason at all to have two sections on the same subject.
What do you see as the difference, in this context, between a synthesis of sentences and a juxtaposition? Note: I mean only in this context. I know what the words mean, so no need to explain the difference. But how is the difference functioning here? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a dispute about whether it was added "in process" or "out of process" rather than "Is it a good idea?" Is there anyone who thinks it's not a good idea, and if so, why? Reverting because "It wasn't discussed first!!!" seems a bit pedantic. ⟳ausa کui × 23:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be an attempt to introduce into a policy page an addition that is supported by only a minority. If you think otherwise, take a survey and get the opinions and positions of editors so that we can see if there is a consensus for SlimVirgin's version. In my opinion, SlimVirgin's version is a misrepresentation of a "simple" example of the basic principle of a violation of WP:NOR, which is A+B=C, where C is an explicit conclusion that is not sourced. Laurent's version recognizes that the idea of C as an implicit conclusion is a more subtle aspect.
From Sqidfryerchef's remarks, whether or not that editor intended, it appears that there may be problems with the implicit conclusion idea that is in both versions. I think I found the discussion that he was referring to, but we'll see which ones he meant if he cares to respond. In addition to Squidfryerchef's recollections, I seem to recall similar discussions where the implicit conclusion idea wasn't accepted when it was proposed previously, possibly by Phenylalanine. This would require some digging to find. Anyhow, there appears to be sufficient reason to discuss and reach consensus on this talk page before putting either version into the policy page. Seems fair and consistent with normal Wikipedia practice, rather than trying to edit war a change into policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Bob, could you answer the question, please? Repeating it: "What do you see as the difference, in this context, between a synthesis of sentences and a juxtaposition? Note: I mean only in this context. I know what the words mean, so no need to explain the difference. But how is the difference functioning here?"
As for the example, there's been a clear consensus for months that we needed to add a simpler example to the complex one. You yourself said so. To revert it now that Laurent has added it is very odd. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur with the change as posted by SlimVirgin, it's a good, simple example and there's clear consensus for adding one. It doesn't need a separate section, and limiting it to "juxtaposition" is incorrect. Dreadstar † 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You shouldn't have edit warred to get it in with your recent revert, but wait for a consensus on this talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
AFAICT, there is consensus for the addition, you seem to be the only one really disputing it. As for for edit warring, please see WP:KETTLE: [13][14]. Dreadstar † 01:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Re "What do you see as the difference, in this context, between a synthesis of sentences and a juxtaposition?" - I think we are in agreement on this, so I'm not sure of the purpose of your question. Anyhow, synthesis of sentences is a more general concept that can occur wherever the sentences are, juxtaposed or not, and is usually followed by a conclusion, or the sentences may carry with them an implication. Juxtaposition is an effective way of making an implication without giving a conclusion. Is that what you were asking?
Re "there's been a clear consensus for months that we needed to add a simpler example to the complex one" - OK but like I said in my previous message, the one you're proposing doesn't fit the bill for the reasons I mentioned. Take a survey and see what others think so that we can see if your proposed addition has a consensus. Good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't see what your objection is, in that case. You said that the word "juxtaposition" was important to this example. But it is just a subclass of synthesis, and I'm not sure the example added by Laurent is an example of juxtaposition. I don't see it as that, anyway. So could you explain your objection? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I referred to my objection in a previous message, which so far you haven't addressed. Also, I fixed the bisecting you did of my last message. Are you sure you want to behave in these disruptive ways? Please note that I don't carry on discussions with disruptive editors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just fuzzy headed today, but I also can't really tell what your objections are Bob, can you please outline them for us? And please stop commenting on the other editors, no one is being disruptive here. Dreadstar † 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I feel that "original synthesis" should be limited to explicit conclusions, and that implied conclusions are really a subclass of original essay, not of logical synthesis. Basically there's three kinds of original research: There's simply publishing original information; there's original synthesis, which is publishing facts deduced from cited sources; and there's original essay, which is arguing an original position from cited sources. I think the implied o.r. by juxtaposition in the U.N. example is more akin to writing a POV essay than it is to a logical synthesis.
The reason I feel so strongly about keeping "soft" o.r. out of the synthesis section is because there needs to be a strong concept about what is and is not synthesis so that synthesis actually means something in a debate. To me an original synthesis is either an interpretation that adds some unique art or judgement beyond what is contained in the sources ( for instance a graph of stock prices which could be interpreted more than one way), or a deduced fact which may not be true under the same conditions as the cited facts ( just because X is considered to be a Y, and Y's generally have a Z, doesn't mean we should say X has a Z ). We run into trouble here because most real life examples are not "Socrates is a man", but "a tomato is a fruit" where we're dealing with fuzzy and not Boolean boundaries.
By the same token, simple arithmetic, translations, conversion between anglo and metric units, and some very simple deductions are not o.r. because there's only one way to add two numbers or convert feet to meters; no original facts are created. By limiting the syntheis section to explicit logical synthesis, synthesis questions can be settled by simple logical debate and explaining how the conclusion C might be incorrect even if the supporting facts A and B are rock-solid. The more subjective questions about implied facts belong in the more subjective "original essay" section.
To get back to Bob about juxtaposition, no, it wasn't that particular debate, which was a doozy, where I was actually taking the deletionist side and arguing that in an article on raw foodism there was something very strongly implied, and unlikely, about human evolution that wasn't in the cited sources. But I wasn't making an o.r. argument, I just said there was a problem with the wording.
What I was thinking of was a series of discussions with Jayjg ( I wasn't involved in all of them, and some were on article talk pages ), where he would argue that if an article is titled 'X', every source cited in the article must specifically mention 'X'. Which sounds fine, unless you're dealing with merged articles or articles that need simple background information. For example, an article about an experimental aircraft that uses some unique fuel which we don't have an article about, might spend a paragraph talking about the properties of the fuel and which sources might not mention the aircraft.
While suggesting that each source must mention the subject title is a useful "Occam's Razor" type rule of thumb for keeping the articles in focus, especially in articles about Israel and Zionism that are extremely prone to POV-forking, that's handled by the WP:RELEVANCE essay and shouldn't be added to the policy level as a fourth type of OR, by juxtaposition of citations.
For instance, I once had trouble citing an article about licorice candy flavoring in an article on jellybeans (the reason was that most non-gourmet "licorice" candies in the U.S. aren't flavored with licorice or any facsimile thereof, but are actually natural or artificial anise flavorings); it was considered "original research" because the article didn't specifically mention bean-shaped sweets(!) Something like that might be a tangent, but please don't call it original research if it doesn't actually introduce new facts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you oppose Slim Virgin's recent addition to WP:SYN that was put in again by Dreadstar? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Squidfryerchef wrote in his/her last posting to this section. "Socrates was a man". "A tomato is a fruit." is a juxtaposition one might conclude that Socrates is not a tomato, but I do not think that it is SYN unless someone adds to an article: "Socrates was not a tomato", unless they have a source that says so, (and even if no source is presented, if it is a conclusion that everyone would draw I think it should come under a simple logic provision similar to that of "Routine calculations", as it would stop people using this section to avoid introducing a NPOV to a subject for which the majority of sources are skewed in one direction. For example the there are probably enough sources claiming that the last Israeli invasion of Gaza was a genocide,[15], and if the subject heading is drawn up narrowly enough there may not be any direct refutation of that potion for there to be a balanced article. In Wikipedia we assume silence means consent, but in scientific disciplines silence does not mean acceptance (it is the number of times an article is positively cited by a scientific discipline which indicates acceptance) and there is a danger that the Wikipedia OR policy can be used to present scientific fringe views as majority views (hence breaching NPOV), either because the general public (most of us) do not have access to and do not know about specific expert publications, or because the view was not thought worth a reply by the majority of scholars in a particular field.

A couple of my lectures used to use "Time flies like an arrow, [but] Fruit flies like bananas" are we going to start to have a policy on syntactic ambiguity? If so we need to discuss it fully and not add it as an extension to this section. If we are going to go that way then we need to include WP:WTA which has started to stray into areas of rhetoric. I think that it may well be time for an essay on how rhetoric, grammatical tricks, and other types of presentation, (whoops a tricolon) can be misused to get over a point, (Eg it could be argued that the example given in this section is a breach of WP:WTA because using "claim" is to as strong as "stated" and introduces a POV. Equally putting smith first introduces a POV because it makes a statement that is then refuted, when the senteces could be constructed to put Jone's POV first.

Most people do not read the polices every day to see what has or has not changed since yesterday. version at the start of the year, version about a month ago. So in an argument over whether to use "Juxtaposing facts in a way that advances a position", or not, as the wording has only been there for the blink of an eye, as people have been reverting it out, I think it is up to Bob K31416, to show that is is the consensus view. I also think that the examples with the UN are not helpful, as they the word "only" is covered by NPOV.

One of the points about Wikipedia policies is that not only must they reflect the opinions of most Wikipedians but they need to reflect it in a way that is clear and easy to interpret so that time is not wasted in long debates over angels on pinheads. For example what precisely does "Juxtaposing" mean? If "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security.[1] Since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.[2] is "Juxtaposing", what about "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security.[1] The UN is now over 50 years old.[2] Since the UN's creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.[3]" is that "Juxtaposing". Further the statement "Although no conclusion is drawn, and although both statements are individually verifiable, their juxtaposition implies that the UN has failed at maintaining world peace." is making an assumption, that just because one editor infers something all readers will infer the same thing (if they do then it probably comes under routine logic as with "routine calculations"). As no comparison is made for other periods in history, no inference can be drawn, and personally I do not infer the conclusion forced upon me by the passage in "Juxtaposing", because I am reading this above ground and not as a troglodyte in a nuclear fall out shelter.

I think the more complicated example is a much better example because it is not the juxtaposition, which is syn but the specific extrapolation in the sentences that start "If Jones did not consult the original sources ..." because those specific sentences are OR. So I think we should go back to the section as it was at the start of last month and drop both extensions to the section. --PBS (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue of "juxtaposition" is a red herring here, because Laurent's examples aren't examples of juxtaposition. The key to SYN, and they are clearly examples of SYN, is that they constitute sourced material combined in such a way as to advance a position not advanced by the sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
In my previous long ramble, I never said it was just "juxtaposition". I don't think the examples help with explaining what SYN is, and it is straying into areas to do with summary style. If we go to far in this direction we push editors into creating articles that are nothing but a string of quotes and disjointed sentences, with problems over plagiarism. --PBS (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That's true, but it's a question of knowing how to write, how to summarize. We used to be taught this in school; they called it "composition," I think. I don't know whether it's taught nowadays. But the point of SYN is that it only excludes material that advances a position not advanced by the sources. Regular summarizing is what we do all the time. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, It's clear that both versions are disputed. Only your version is in the article. Perhaps you will now agree that your version should be removed so that neither of these new additions are in WP:NOR until consensus is reached? Thus, I've changed WP:NOR to the state without either of these new additions. Please note that the burden of proof should lie with the editor that is proposing new additions to WP:NOR and consensus is needed. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If the problem is the implicit conclusion, why don't we make it explicit? For example:
"The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. Thus, it has failed at maintaining world peace."
Statement A and B are sourced, statement C is original research. Additionally, perhaps we could mention that it doesn't matter whether the conclusion is explicit or implicit (as it was in the original edit), as in both cases it is considered original research. I also think that we need a simpler example in WP:SYNTH and, in my opinion, the UN one is much easier to understand that the current example. Laurent (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
We're in danger of getting our knickers in a twist with talk of implicit, explicit, conclusions, implications, juxtapositions, syllogisms, consequences, inferences, entailments, deductions, interpretations, and what have you. Let's keep it simple. The point is that SYN is not allowed if it advances a position not advanced by the sources. We need an easy example, which everyone gets, and a more complex one of the kind people stumble over. Thanks to Laurent, we now have both. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, You seem to be persisting with the notion that your version is the same as Laurent's, which isn't true as I indicated previously. One of the significant problems with your version is that you are representing it as a simple version of synthesis, which from this discussion it should be evident to you that it isn't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict]P.S. We should consider Laurent's most recent suggestion, in the message previous to SlimVirgin's. Without the additional comment regarding "implicit", it would be a simple example of synthesis. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
But it is a simple example of SYN. What is complex about it? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Because the C in A+B=C is not obvious without the reader being told it is there. In Laurent's most recent example, it is obvious. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
His first example wasn't obvious? It couldn't be more obvious. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>SlimVirgin, Perhaps this excerpt from PBS's message, which you may have overlooked previously, might help you understand.

Although no conclusion is drawn, and although both statements are individually verifiable, their juxtaposition implies that the UN has failed at maintaining world peace." is making an assumption, that just because one editor infers something all readers will infer the same thing (if they do then it probably comes under routine logic as with "routine calculations"). As no comparison is made for other periods in history, no inference can be drawn, and personally I do not infer the conclusion forced upon me by the passage...

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no juxtaposition, so I don't understand that comment, and PBS said he didn't mention juxtaposition, so I'm further confused. I also don't know what "I do not infer the conclusion forced upon me" means. I think people here are perhaps talking about different issues. Bob, could you say, in your own words, how the example isn't an obvious example of SYN? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary break

It isn't a simple example of syn because the conclusion isn't stated. Here's your example.
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
This can be compared with Laurent's recent suggestion which is a simple example because it states the conclusion.
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. Thus, it has failed at maintaining world peace.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So Laurent isn't objecting to the addition; he would just like to tweak the writing. I think it's better before with the hidden conclusion, which is really very obvious. If someone can't see the conclusion in that, they'd probably have difficulty doing any kind of editing. I suppose we could add in brackets what the hidden conclusion is and spell it out, but my preference would be to leave it as it is to avoid unnecessary wordiness. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note that with your version there is more than one possible conclusion, for example:
  1. the UN made the situation worse
  2. the UN was ineffective and neither helped nor hurt the situation
  3. the UN helped the situation but not much
  4. the UN helped the situation but couldn't remove all the little wars
  5. the UN failed at maintaining world peace
  6. it's impossible for wars to be eliminated
  7. no conclusion
Thus adding a conclusion in brackets won't work because you don't know what would be in the reader's mind. Also, just having to use brackets makes the example more complex. Laurent's example is simple because the conclusion is stated. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on the previous discussion, I've incorporated a simple example into WP:SYN. It is based on the most recent example of Laurent and it seems to be acceptable. But if it isn't, I'm sure I'll find that out. If someone does revert it, please discuss it here. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted because I couldn't see how your edit improved it, and also because you seem to have done more than just tweak the example. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a response to your removal of my recent addition and the simultaneous installation of your addition again, for the 3rd time, which you didn't mention either here or in your edit summary. You did not respond to my previous message regarding the problems with your suggestion, but instead you installed your previous version again. I haven't reverted it, even though I've identified the problems with it in a number of my previous messages and I don't think your behavior was proper. You shouldn't edit war to get your addition into WP:SYN.
I recently put in a simple example (based on Laurent's suggested example), and you removed it. In your edit summary you wrote, "the writing isn't as good in places, and there seems to have been more changed that one example being added".
What improvement would you suggest? Here's what I put in.
Here is a simple example:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security,[23] but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.[24] Thus, it has failed at maintaining world peace.

Both of the facts in the first sentence are from reliable sources. These facts were combined to form the conclusion in the second sentence. If this conclusion does not appear in a reliable source, it is a synthesis that is original research and can not be included in the Wikipedia.
And for reference, here is the example that Laurent suggested.
The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. Thus, it has failed at maintaining world peace.
BTW, you really should remove your addition that you've put in for the 3rd time. It's been disputed above and it certainly doesn't have consensus.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see who is disputing it. People seem to be talking about different things. Will look at the rest of your post later and respond. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Your addition certainly isn’t juxtaposition Bob, it is first and foremost a blatant violation of WP:V – which only serves to add confusion about the purpose of this Policy; beyond that it is purely OR synthesis, of which we already have a good example. We’re trying to find a new example, specifically a simple one that shows a synthesis of sentences….your addition is not that. And if you think there’s any objection to SlimVirgin’s addition besides your own singular objection, then I suggest you prove it. Dreadstar † 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Informal survey

Please express whether you support or oppose SlimVirgin's addition.

The new example:

A simple example:

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

Although no conclusion is drawn and both facts are true, the sentence implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it constitutes original research. It would be easy to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how, when no source is provided, facts can easily be manipulated:

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

[edit] Poll responses

  • oppose - It misrepresents the example as one that is simple. It involves the notion of implication which is controversial and not simple, as described in previous discussions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support SlimVirgin's addition, disagree with Bob's proposals. Dreadstar † 04:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note that this is a survey on SlimVirgin's addition, which has just recently been put into the wiki. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC) )
Yeah, I got that, Bob, but we're certainly free to express our opinions on your counter-proposal, and I'm thinking it's a good idea to include both. Dreadstar † 05:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The language If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it constitutes original research is very problematic. Besides codifying the controversial idea of "orignal research by juxtaposition" in policy, editors most definitely will use it to disallow any combination of citations they don't like, whether it promotes a particular thesis or not. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Squidfryerchef, one of the concerns that Slim's version addresses is exactly that: it does not codify OR by juxtaposition; instead, it is an example of OR by a synthesis of sentences, something that already violates WP:NOR policy, you cannot utilize a sentence from a source that is presented in such a way that in combination with another sentence is clearly meant to advance a position by combining two differently sourced statements. It's purely an example of what is already a violation of WP:NOR policy, it doesn't create anything new, nor does it narrow the focus down to juxtaposition nor does it allow editors to disallow any combination of citations they don't like, they can only do that if a combination of sentences advances a position as does Slim's example. Dreadstar † 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Video Media Proof

Is visual proof, such as an in-game or in-movie action or scene that be viewed clearly by anyone considered original research? What I'm asking is that if I were to say, "The sky is blue", would I need a source, even though anyone can go outside and see for themselves that the sky is blue? I ask this because of an OR claim on one of my edits. --70.184.239.162 (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is "maybe", which is why providing an actual link to the edit in question is going to help more than asking a general question. there is truth in the statement that 'common sense is not all that common.' What seems obvious to you may not seem that clear to someone else. For example, one person's blue sky is someone's else's gray sky. Some people see Christian overtones in the death and resurrection of Superman, whilst others see a marketing ploy to boost sales. Almost all of life is relative, which is why Wikipedia is composed of community effort; an agreed-upon reality is far more manageable than an absolutist one. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
If someone challenges an edit, it's always better to provide a source, even when it's something trivially true. If the same person continues to request sources for edits that really don't need them, you could ask an admin for help. As for watching movies, that can be problematic, unless the scene is described in such a way that no one could disagree that it was purely descriptive, but even then you face the problem of, "Why pick out this scene?" For anything at all contentious, it's best to stick to secondary sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life

see Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 44#The nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life

I left this section alone in the hope that it would generate more comment, and now (of course)it has been archived (Sigh!). Of the four who commented three thought the older wording better than the current wording. So do we go back or do we modify the current wording to make it reflect what the old wording said? --PBS (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you say what changes you'd like to make? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Laurent only

I am getting very confused about who is posting about what, so I'd like to ask this of Laurent, and could he alone please respond?

Laurent, do you object to the addition of your example here, and if so, can you say how (succinctly, please, if possible, because volume often confuses). It says:

"A simple example:

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

"Although no conclusion is drawn and both facts are true, the sentence implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it constitutes original research. It would be easy to imply the opposite using the same material, illustrating how, when no source is provided, facts can easily be manipulated:

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

If you object, can you say what you would like to see it changed to, and why? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the addition of the example. I've initially put it in a different section but I know realize that it's indeed an example of WP:SYNTH. I think the way you've reworded it makes it very clear. Laurent (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OR examples

Is there any reason we don't have Wikipedia:Original research examples, in the same way that we have Wikipedia:Reliable source examples? Surely, there is room for more than one example on such a page? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Another good idea. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs