Wikipedia talk:No original research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Citation
This page was cited by 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 article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.
Archive
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
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.
About archives
Shortcuts:
WT:OR
WT:NOR

Contents

[edit] Tie-in books

Shouldn't e.g. works that build on a particular fiction franchise be regarded as primary sources unless they provide substantial discussion above the level of narration? User:Dorftrottel 13:07, January 30, 2008

[edit] Nutshell clause

WT:V suggests two clauses might be near consensus as policy: (1) changing the nutshell clause here slightly to "All factual claims in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to reliable, published sources"; (2) adding in the nutshell, or elsewhere in the article, the important balancer, "in practice not all material is attributed". The nutshell clause originally came from WP:A in Jan and was widely approved in the archive here. Wikidemo recently proposed the first change to it, because that would exclude things like whether template claims need sourcing and whether images must be actually created by reliable sources, as well as matter-of-factly excluding nonmainspace. (The BLP exception does apply to all spaces, but is properly explained elsewhere.) The second clause came from WP:A and has been widely recognized at WT:V as obvious; the question is whether it needs to be stated explicitly to counterweight potential implications of "cite everything". I'd ordinarily WP:BOLD those two here myself, but there is just enough hesitation at WT:V to make me ask for additional consensus here. JJB 15:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Both (1) and (2) are incorrect assumtions.

(1) per the lead: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Thus "All factual claims" is incorrect.
(2) "in practice not all material is attributed" is in reference to citing sources, and should be covered on WP:V, not here.

Brimba (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mm-hmm, but WP does not publish arguments, speculation, or nonfact ideas; it publishes factual claims as to who made the arguments, speculation, or ideas, and those claims must be attributed. "Y says Z.<ref>Y, p. 1.</ref>" As I said, "all material" is also an incorrect statement. I don't mind splitting the difference and working on the first clause here and reintroducing the second clause there. You OK with "All material in Wikipedia articles", addition of only one word? If so, shouldn't it be said later that material here excludes transclusions like templates and images, but includes transclusions like categories? JJB 18:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
WP publishes arguments all of the time; what we do not do is publish the arguments that originate with Wikipedia editors. It also publishes opinions and theories, aka “speculation”, of prominent experts in various fields. “it publishes factual claims as to who made the arguments, speculation, or ideas, and those claims must be attributed.” Yes, but you don’t see Einstein’s name add directly to the prose every time the Theory of Relativity is mentioned, and there is no expectation that it would be.
Images, charts, graphs, so forth and so on are all covered by NOR (in particular think Photoshop). The word article “articles” implies limitations to the policy. As long as we use, to mention only one example, wording such as “Direct quotes may be posted on the article's talk page for evaluation—they need not be added to the article.” Then the statement “all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable” is clearly not correct. There are cases in which NOR is valid outside of article spaces.
Am I ok with "All material in Wikipedia articles"? No simply because NOR sometimes extends beyond strait article space. Brimba (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't think we "publish opinions" et al.; we state facts about opinions, not the opinions themselves, remember? And you're saying the statement is incorrect only because you are inferring from it that "all material in Wikipedia besides articles need not be attributable", which is not a logical implication. But whatever wording we use, the concern I am seeking to address is that "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to reliable sources" is false. Images need not be attributable to reliable sources, only the factual claims they are used to present; images of and by Wikipedians are created fresh all the time with no attributability to RS whatsoever. Templates need not be attributable to reliable sources for factual claims such as "this section is disputed" and "citation needed". Talk need not be attributable, though sometimes it is attributable, just like sometimes templates and images are; and when talk purports to support an article claim, it must be attributable of course as you say. BLP material must be attributable in any space. Categories must be attributable. Programming code need not be attributable. But we can't get all that in the nutshell. What's wrong with the nutshell saying "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable" (which is true and, I think, not misleading), as long as the full article also specifies taht some Wikipedia material besides articles must also be attributable? And if you prefer "material" to "factual claims", just how does one attribute a sentence in a template, or a photo of a Wikipedian, to a reliable source when challenged for their right to appear in mainspace? Thank you for your consideration. JJB 05:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Author A's idea of darkness.
Author A's idea of darkness.
Actually, we publish opinions all the time. If we didn't we wouldn't need NPOV policy. "Author A thinks foo, but author B thinks bar." No biggie.
And drawing a distinction between "in Wikipedia" and "in Wikipedia articles" is called wikilawyering. You might want to sue the foundation over the fact that the date at the bottom of every page article is not attributable to a reliable source.
Btw, the world is not going to end even if your name was really John J. Bulten.
-- Fullstop (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Fullstop, I appreciate your didactic style, and I hope I got your point. Recall that NPOV policy itself says we don't assert opinions; I suppose what we do might be called publishing attributed opinions, but those are facts about opinions, everyone agrees that all facts in articles must be attributable. We also seem to agree that, commonsensically, not all material anywhere in WP needs to be attributable. So perhaps "all factual claims in Wikipedia articles" is too weak. My question is, what exactly is a succinct description of the class of material that needs no attribution? It includes at least images, templates, code, and skin material like dates and usernames. The class that always needs attribution includes at least facts, attributed opinions (speculations, arguments), categories, portals (noted by Philip Baird Shearer at WT:V), and BLP material anywhere. How do we say that? "All material in Wikipedia" is just as inaccurate as the alternatives. JJB 14:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Material serving to advance a position"

I would propose to reword "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" into "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". The reason is that we need to assume good faith. Also, there is no way to show that a synthesis has been done with the purpose to advance a position. We can however say that it advances a position (or not). This is prompted by a recent discussion on the cold fusion article. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has not been challenged, so I go ahead and make the change. Please discuss your rationale if you do not like it. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I would propose to go further and remove any reference to "which advances a position". Any original synthesis is contrary to the policy, whether it advances a position or not. Actually, any statements advance a position, doesn't it ? Pcarbonn (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I have now checked archive 32 and 33, which have some discussions on this topic. In particular, it says:
  • A<citation> + B<citation> = C ... where C is an editor's conclusion
Is a clearly form of OR and is not acceptable.
While
  • A<citation> + B<citation> = C<citation> ... where the citations are to different sources
Might be a form of OR and might not be... it depends on whether C draws it's conclusion directly from A and B.
Whereas...
  • (A + B = C)<citation>
is clearly not a form of OR and is acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In the first formula, I don't see why we need to say that C is the editor's conclusion. It should suffice to say that it is an unpublished conclusion. As some people have said, this case is already covered by OR in general, anyway. So WP:SYN is really about formula 2, I would think. There again, I see no need to say "to advance a position". Pcarbonn (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I see a need for "serves to advance" when dealing with people who think it's OK to do A + B and just make C really obvious without actually saying it. In nearly all such cases, the need for sources to be directly related to the topic of an article would nix those sorts of statements where they constitute original research, but it's fairly annoying to deal with in any event. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, and I can imagine such situations. In some ways, this is covered by "sources not directly related to the subject of the article" in WP:SYN. On the other hand, I could also imagine someone stating A with appropriate sources that are not related to the subject of the article, with the purpose of advancing a position. In other words, the issue you raise does not apply only to new synthesis, but to any single sources as well. So it may be better to write a separate section on this issue, saying that citing any source that is not related to the topic of an article is OR.Pcarbonn (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The "policy in a nutshell" would then become this:

  • (Not changed:) Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
  • (New:) Articles many not contain statements from sources that are not directly related to the topic of the article.
  • (Modified:) Articles may not contain any original analysis or synthesis of material from any source.

Note that the first bullet point repeats the WP:V policy, and could be dropped, IMHO. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If editors can not synthesis material, i.e., write an accurate summary of what he sources say, then how can we build an encyclopedia? You are left with only material that is directly attributed to the sources used and/or copyvios. Brimba (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that you are confusing summarizing and synthesizing. The distinction is clearly made in the article: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis". Editors are allowed to summarize, i.e. "write an accurate summary of what he sources say", but not to synthesize. So, I don't see the issue you are raising once the meanings of words are made clear, and I maintain my request to change the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In either case the point is that if it properly represents what the sources say, its fine. If it is being used to advance a position (by default the editors position) inconsistent with the sources used, then it violates NOR. Brimba (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If an edit does not properly represent what the source says, then the "policy in a nutshell" above would be enough to revert it. Can you think of a case where they would not be enough ? We should avoid the need to make a judgement call of whether "it advances a position". Again, let's assume good faith. The wording "Advance a position" supposes the possibility to determine the goal behind the edit, which in practice we cannot. We need a more objective criteria.
I have seen many disputes where editors were accusing each other of OR and POV. This is the consequence of a criteria based on a judgement call: it encourages editors to accuse each other. We could avoid silly battles and save a lot of time if we had an objective criteria of OR. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You are using word definitions as opposed to defining how sources are being used. Wikipedia is by and large does not use the best possible English as it is a work developed over time with the input of many people. The wiki format is both a strength and a weakness. You would redefine the policy in terms of words instead of usage. “Articles may not contain any original analysis or synthesis of material from any source.” Is there anything in currently in Wikipedia that I could not remove under this? I think not. Not that I would get very far, I would simply get an edit war going with more fair minded editors.
If I enter a statement into WP, no mater how mundane, I am taking a position as an editor that what I am entering is a statement of fact. If I say “Monday always follows Sunday” have I not taken a position or put forward an opinion? Where is the bad faith? We define things by how the sources are used, not by labels. Thus “Synthesis of published material which advances a position” and not “Synthesis vs. Summary”. The whole point of your edits seems to be to sidestep this. The focus is on how we use sources, not upon what we call the process. Brimba (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I miss your point. You are saying that any statement entered by an editor, now matter how mundane, is advancing an opinion. That's exactly what I said: the policy as you want it stated would apply to all edits. The policy I propose, if we make the distinction between synthesis and summary, does not have this problem. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
@Pcarbonn: The "advancing a position" is indeed superfluous to the spirit of the statement and of the policy.
@Brimba: "advancing a position" wasn't conceived as an escape hatch for mundane edits: "Monday always follows Sunday" won't be sourced anyway, and besides there is no "thus" inherent to such a statement, and thats where SYNTH kicks in.
Think about it this way: Policy wasn't designed to hamper you, its assuming good faith. And policy is only invoked by an editor peering at someone else's edits. Under those circumstances, "advancing a position" is really providing every editor with a back door -- he/she can then simply wikilawyer that SYNTH doesn't apply to him/her because his synthesis (the one OR policy is being invoked for) doesn't advance a position.
So, however you cut it, its wikilawyering. The spirit of the statement doesn't need the "advancing a position" clause. We don't need it if we do assume good faith, and its blowback if the good faith turns out to have been misplaced. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I probably could have worded that better, sorry. Part of what I am saying is, even in the case of very mundane things, items that would for obvious reasons never be challenged and never require a source, we as editors are still using our own inherit judgment when we edit. You can call that advancing an opinion if you wish or the more common term would be exercising editorial judgment. No one edits in a vacuum, they review what the sources say, and then enter a summery of the information into WP. That summery is the position the editor takes. Hopefully it matches the sources, holds true to NPOV, etc. Often times even when the material violates WP:SYN the conclusions are valid, but its not for us to make that determination or to be a publisher of such material. In either case saying that someone has taken a position is in no way a violation of AGF. For better or worse they have acted as an editor, nothing more and nothing less. When the sources used back the editors conclusion/summery that is good, when they fail to do so that is bad, but pointing that out does not violate AGF. You have to have reasoned discussion and editors have to be free to express an opinion. I don’t know if that helps any, I hope so. Brimba (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Your argument says that adding "to advance a position" does not hurt the policy. It does not say why it would have to be there in the first place. So, let's remove it. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"to advance a position" is policy and has been for a long time. If that is in error as you are insisting, please build a clear consensus per WP:CON “In the case of policy and process pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages.” Brimba (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it is in error, because it does not assume good faith, and is subjective. Please provide a reason to keep it, so that we can resolve this issue. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that John J. Bulten supports the change (see diff comment), and Fullstop (see his comments in this thread).
You are concerned that the new phrasing would apply to any edit. Please provide an edit where you think it would erroneously apply, so that we can discuss it. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that a policy statement that does not reflect a consensus should be removed, as you rightly suggest. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to have time tonight to get into details, but I will repost some parts of two past discussions. Please note that there is additional discussion in both cases, and that the issue has been discussed at other times in other places within the achieve, I simply pulled from two where from the title used it was clear that the subject was discussed.

From Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 31# query on "to advance a position":

Are there syntheses, previously unpublished, which do not advance a position and which Wikipedia would therefore publish? In other words, is "to advance a position" a superfluous phrase that could be deleted? Or, is it helpful because any article written is, to some extent, a previously unpublished synthesis, albeit only in the sense that it is a new tertiary source; obviously it must not advance positions or novel ideas. ? --Lquilter (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not superfluous but crucial. All Wikipedia articles are previously unpublished syntheses. What's not allowed is for a position to be advanced via synthesis. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 33#Synthesis vs. synthesis advancing a position:

I take exception to this [1] edit by Slrubenstein because it no longer makes it clear that it is synthesis advancing an unpublished position that is prohibited, and not all synthesis. Synthesis that serves to summarize and organize published material is acceptable. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And this is a case of changing long-standing policy without discussion as well. Dhaluza (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thee is no change of policy. And there was considerable discussion concerning revising the nutshell, ove a period of weeks. As for the specifics: the version I restored makes it clear that syntheses need to be backed up by sources, which is what our policy requires. The prior version makes it sound like no synthesis, even one from a reliable secondary source, is permitted. That violates our policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC) :::Your definition of synthesis is too narrow. Straightforward organizing of published material, without introducing new ideas, can be considered synthesis too. But many would read the changed policy as prohibiting this. The reaction might be either to obey the overly broad policy, or more likely, regard it as absurd and ignore the entire policy. --Gerry Ashton (talk)

04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your use of synthesis is wrong. From the Wiktionary: Synthesis, Noun: the formation of something complex or coherent by combining simpler things. That is all synthesis means for the purposes of this policy. That is all it will ever mean. The word has a clearly established definition which should not and will not be changed just for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have it's own newspeak. What your edit did in effect was suggest that the combination of any two sources anywhere within an article, even in separate sections, was prohibited. That is why the qualifier "that serves to advance a position" is added to the end of any mention of synthesis, because every article on Wikipedia is a synthesis. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Brimba (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brimba for this detailed answer. It looks to me that the word "synthesis" is the source of the problem, because of its different meaning. One of the meaning given by Merriam Webster is "deductive reasoning". So one option would be to say : "articles may not contain any new deductive reasoning". Would this create a better consensus than any of the current proposals ? Or are there other forms of synthesis than deductive reasoning that we want to prevent ? Please give an example if it is so. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, please clarify: does "to advance a position" apply to any edit, or only to some edits. You seem to be ambivalent on this one. If it applies only to some edits, how does it assume good faith ? If it applies to all, why should we include it in the policy ? Pcarbonn (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pcarbonn, just wanted to leave a quick note so you did not think I had abandoned the discussion. My short wikibreak may run through tomorrow, with luck though I will have time tonight to add to the discussion. In a very short answer, "to advance a position" would be the editor’s position, not the sources. 99 times out of 100 or more is done in good faith, and much of the time the editor is correct in his/her assumptions. Only if someone was intentionally trying to use WP for propaganda purposes or vandalize etc would it be bad faith. “why should we include it in the policy ?” because is a correct description of what is occurring, and describing it as such makes it easy to identify. I don’t see the conflict with AGF, I see it in the same class as a statement such as “Mark walked through the door”, I do not see it as a statement implying motive to why they are advancing the position, simply that they are doing it. I guess that is what I am missing; I don’t see how it implies motive and therefore I don’t see how it conflicts with AGF. Well, now I have written more then two sentences Anyway I will try to be back in the conversation soon. Brimba (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Brimba. I'll be happy to read you later. I can't believe that synthesis of published material "that serves to advance a position" is not describing the intent of such synthesis, but I'll wait for your explanation of what it really is. (I agree that it does not describe why they want to advance such a position, but every motive has itself another motive, in an (in)finite recursion, hasn't it ?)
Here is what AGF says: "countermeasures (like reverting or blocking) are performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent". Because "that serve to advance a position" describes an intent, IMHO, one cannot use it as a criteria to apply countermeasures, and thus, it can't be part of this policy. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally made it back. I have been trying to think of a concise way of putting this, and have decided to fall back on a sports analogy. Sorry. In sports you often have lines drawn on a fielded that define the size and shape of the area where players can legitimately compete. When players cross those lines they are “out of bounds”. Such lines are clear because they exist in a real three-dimensional world. Existing in the real world means that they can be precisely drawn and colored so that anyone can readily see exactly where they are.
We unfortunately do not have the benefit of being able to draw lines on solid ground. We have to define what is allowed and what is not, without being as precise as we would like to be. This is because we use words and words have slightly different meanings from one person to the next. Sometime the words are interrupted in completely different ways from one editor to the next which is partially why we have discussion pages. Our rules will never be bullet-proof. The wording "that serve to advance a position "is used as such a line to establish when an “editor is engaged in original research.” It was not reached on a whim, and there was a large amount of discussion on the subject. I am not going to say that it is perfect, but was best that anyone one came up with at the time.
One of the problems that we have in this discussion is you see motive or intent being described while I do not. Imagine that Wikipedia exist on two separate but identical planes or dimensions. In one an editor combines two sources together to reach a logical conclusion and then enters that conclusion into Wikipedia. In doing so he has not done anything morally or ethically wrong, in fact his conclusion was correct. However, he still combined sources together to advance a position, even though he was correct in his conclusion. He in essence went “out of bounds”. If you enter material into Wikipedia, you as an editor are responsible for making sure that material is directly backed by a source, even if you are correct and have the best of possible intentions or no intentions at all. Now imagine that on the other plane, an editor enters in the exact same conclusion using the exact same wording, only this time he has a source that directly supports his conclusion, meaning in this context it is not the editors own conclusion, but it is instead a conclusion reached by a reliable published source. Therefore it was not used to advance the editors position, because it was a conclusion or position that existed independent of the editor. Neither editor was acting in bad faith, nor was there ever any reason to assume such. One crossed the line as we define it; however, the line that was crossed was not a moral or ethical line, it was simply a technical line that was established to show as best as we could what is or is not acceptable sourcing. Both editors in this example where attempting to improve Wikipedia. That’s probably enough for tonight. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Brimba. If I follow your example properly, you say that original research was done in the first case, but not in the second. I would agree. The main reason you give is that no source existed to support the conclusion in the first case, while there was one in the second case. So why not give this as the criteria for OR ! NOR would then mean that you cannot insert original deductive reasoning, i.e. deductive reasoning that has not been published a source related to the topic of the article. Wouldn't this wording exactly represent your view ? Why do you see a need to add "that serves to advance a position", which grammatically is a clear description of intent, and can certainly be interpreted as such ? Let's avoid the confusion if we can.
You say: the current wording is a result of many debates. Was the "Assume good faith" argument presented before? I don't think so, but let me know otherwise. While I agree that policies should be as stable as possible, it is wikipedia's philosophy that any page can always be improved. I see a clear case for doing it here. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this page as it stands, but the proposals don't sound very good either. Frankly OR requires some discretion; it's hard to describe exactly. We should certainly be able to put together a fundamentally disparate yet connected set of facts -- this is exactly what building an article is about. Yet some people will try to claim that is OR. Sometimes these sets of facts will incline themselves to a position -- and I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of in that. Let us not pretend that we edit articles out of pure randomness; we are all connected to the articles that we are writing -- we all have something that we want known about them. Anyway, as far as changing this page: if you want to make a major change, you ought to do a formal Request for Comment. Otherwise, I don't think you can make a case for actually having a consensus. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move the WP:PSTS section to the WP:V page ?

I find it strange that half of the page is devoted to "reliable sources" : shouldn't this be documented in WP:V ? Any thoughts ? What's the point of defining primary, secondary and tertiary sources if these words are not used at all in the policies (I checked !) ?? Maybe this should be moved elsewhere... The WP:OR page would gain a lot in clarity. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Another option would be to place it on a page of its own. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have looked at past archives, and I see the point of describing PSTS here. However, the section intro is misleading, as it says that it is followed by a definition. In fact, the definition also includes the policy, which should be better separated. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Pandora's box. Do not open. Eeevil. No touchee. No touchee. Its safer to let your eyes glaze over when you see the term 'PSTS'. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, this would make more sense to be in WP:V. I'm not sure if it should go onto its own page, though, since it's part of official policy. --Explodicle (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This was argued extensively about a year ago... and was a very controvercial suggestion. If you wish to raise the issue again, you will probably find both strong support and strong opposition. The last time it was suggested, there was a solid block of editors who felt stongly that the section is vital to Wikipedia, and to this policy in particular. There was also a solid block of editors thought the section should be moved. The end result was no consensus either way... and defaulted to keeping things as they are. You are welcome to try again if you wish, but don't expect to reach a consensus quickly.
To inform the discussion: some background on the section ... the term "Primary source" entered this policy through the statement that "Wikipedia should not be the primary source for information"... in other words, information should not originate on Wikipedia (which was firmly in line with the intent of the policy). That led to the need to define what we mean by "primary source". THAT lead to defining "secondary" and "teritary" ... somewhere along the line the original intent (don't make Wikipedia the primary source for information) got lost in the shuffle. Over time, the focus shifted to the fact that primary sources can be misused to form OR, and how we prefer Secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see where the obstacle towards consensus would lay. In my opinion, primary sources are best left tied in to policy on original research rather than verifiability. Although primary sources can occasionally be used to verify statements (ie, population census figures), they often need to be interpreted. What we're trying to avoid, then, is the risk of misinterpretation though original research. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
After further review, I'm now fine with keeping this section here. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess I would have been in the "move" camp, but where exactly we keep it doesn't really matter so long as it means the same thing. --Explodicle (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute regarding PSTS

I'm involved in a dispute with other editors regarding the use of primary sources in our article on beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The article relies almost entirely on The Watchtower and Awake! for sources, and we have a fundamental disagreement as to whether or not this is acceptable. The dispute resolution procedure suggested that I ask here for a few outside perspectives. --Explodicle (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to further explain the situation, the most recent debate is whether The Watchtower and Awake! are primary or secondary sources. There have also been debates over the suitability of the two sources based on WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB (point #7) but those have been/will be addressed separately from the issue of possible original research. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If the argument is that the article can not cite The Watchtower and Awake! because they are primary sources, this is a misreading of the policy... PSTS states clearly that primary sources can be used (they just have to be used with care). Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would say it depends on the issue being discussed. I think these publications are clearly primary sources, and in general, primary sources are acceptable for non-controversial information. They should not be used to promote or disparage the person or organisation under discussion, nor to make exceptional claims which are unsupported or contradicted by reputable secondary sources. If there is any doubt, interpretation of primary sources by reputable secondary sources is needed. Rumiton (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course. I'm not saying we shouldn't use primary sources at all; I just don't think we should rely on them as the primary basis for the article. --Explodicle (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My argument was that the Watchtower and Awake! are not primary sources, rather that they are secondary sources. In my opinion, the primary source for Christian doctrine of all denominations would be the Bible - different interpretations of the Bible are what lead to different religious doctrines accross different denominations. According to my understanding of WP:PSTS, I believe that The Watchtower and Awake! are secondary sources because they make analytic or synthetic claims of the information in the Bible which is the primary source because it is a religious scripture. I think the Watchtower and Awake! are one step removed from the primary source and, therefore, the use of those two publications would not constitute original research because the synthesis was already presented and published outside of the primary source (Bible). SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the topic. The magazines would be secondary sources for a discussion of the Bible, but they would be primary sources for a discussion of the JWs. Rumiton (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Merging the two topics then, could the two magazines be considered as secondary sources for a discussion of the JWs' view of the Bible? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that it matters... since the article is about the JWs beliefs, and the two magazines are published by the JWs, they are appropriate sources for statements as to those beliefs.... no matter whether they are considered Primary or Secondary. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I completely agree about the suitability of the two publications for the purpose of discussing their belief system. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That said... remember to stick to what the sources say and not to go beyond that. Don't use either magazine for an interpretation as to what the JWs believe about the Bible, unless the magazine explicitly contains that interpretation. This can be tricky. Just take care. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Since they are promotional in nature, these sources are questionable, and should not be the primary basis for any article. I believe "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so". By relying on primary sources, this article has become a bloated statement of faith without mention of what the rest of the world thinks. If everything in there is noteworthy, then I want to see some proof. --Explodicle (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Re the claim that "this article has become a bloated statement of faith without mention of what the rest of the world thinks": To be honest, I'd not noticed the link to the article on controversies from the main "Beliefs" page and I think Explodicle makes a good point. The "beliefs" page should at the very least refer to the controversies in in an expanded intro, or more appropriately, include the controversies, along with references, in the main article. It makes no sense for these two articles to be running in parallel when they are covering some common ground; indeed choosing not to merge content pretty well precludes the use of any sources other than the Watchtower Society publications. LTSally (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a point of note: Don't invoke PSTS when what you really want is WP:RS. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed... It seems as if the article might have issues with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and perhaps even WP:V ... but it does not seem as if the article has issues with WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The impression I've gotten is that PSTS touches on a number of policies, and for the sake of organization (and lack of consensus to move it elsewhere) it is just kept here. --Explodicle (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake images in aviation accident articles

I have a problem with an editor who creates fake images using computer rendering software, and then adds them into aviation accident articles, where the specifics and details of what exactly happened are in heated dispute, and often in litigation. The editor feels that, since he bases his imaginary computerized creations on existing bits of evidence as he understands them, he is not taking sides or creating anything new and that this practice is even "encouraged". I feel that when we create computerized images in disputed cases out of our imagination, even when "based on" our understanding of the various sources, it is an original interpretation nonetheless, making a definitive statement about many of the disputed issues (e.g. was there icing visible on the airframe? were the engines experiencing a visible compressor stall? was there a visible fire or explosion prior to impact? was the attitude or angle of attack abnormal?). I believe our goal on Wikipedia is to present reliably published material neutrally. For a Wikipedian to create a fake image which effectively takes a position on disputed issues and to aggressively force it into the article (in the latest case by violating WP:3RR) violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Uninvolved opinions are welcome on this issue. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link or two so we can see what you are referring to? Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Here and here are the current talk page threads, but the issue is generic, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
NOR in images is something that has been discussed recently here. There's a bit of a conundrum for the project in that pictures are good, but very few pictures are in the public domain. I believe that pictures should be evaluated in the same way as any other content. WP:UNDUE may really be the objection in this particular case rather than WP:NOR, as the contested item (on a brief glance-through) is supported by at least one plausible theory supported by a reliable source. The caption to the picture should clearly identify it as a reconstruction based on those sources rather than "the truth", though. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
One problem with "reconstructed" images is that, unlike photographs, they always reflect a specific interpretation of the facts. So in the case of an aviation accident, especially for a trained eye, they tend to introduce manufactured evidence. This would be a source of endless debate, because unlike words in a text, which can be tweaked by anyone, an image is much harder to modify by the average editor, so the wiki concept is mostly gone. I agree that photos are virtually always welcome, as well as images, maps or illustrations in non-controversial cases. It is when we produce a fictitious image in a hotly disputed event that we end up taking sides on specific issues, and that violates the letter and spirit of our NPOV and NOR policies. I think we must emphasize in both NPOV and NOR that fictitious or doctored images may only be used in non-disputed cases. Crum375 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The same problem exists with a picture or diagram that wasn't created by a Wikipedia user. I don't see a problem with "possibly POV" pictures or diagrams as long as they:
  • Clearly state that they are a reconstruction.
  • Clearly state the source that they are based on per WP:NOR.
  • Are consistent with a reasonable point of view per WP:UNDUE.
I don't see a problem with well-sourced and reasonable diagrams so long as any bias is obvious from the caption. For balance it might be best to include equivalent diagrams for all major theories.
The Arrow Air case mentioned, however, has nothing to do with this issue. The edit war is about a user generated CGI image that doesn't make any claims whatsoever about the incident as opposed to a real picture of a different plane. It's a matter of style and not of substance. The caption's "orange glow" should either be removed or have a reference, but the caption is easily edited by any user when the page isn't locked.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a significant difference between material created by a Wikipedian vs. that reliably published. We can only create our own material in limited cases, and then only as long as it carefully conforms to NPOV and NOR. In the case of hotly disputed aviation accidents, every imaginary image creates "evidence", although that may be obvious to a lay person. For example, in the Arrow Air case, the current image (it keeps changing unfortunately) shows the aircraft presumably before the crash. If so, it does not show icing on the leading edges, which would strengthen one side in the debate. It also does not show any orange glow, which would contradict some witnesses. If it did show it, its exact location would be crucial, as it could be due to explosion, fire or engine stall, all of which would appear differently. The exact angle of attack or attitude is also important, as it could be the difference between an explosion or fire vs. aerodynamic stall. In short, an image speaks volumes to investigators or knowledgeable readers, and in this case there was no real image available. If we create a fictitious one, we are advancing one position or another regarding each disputed issue, and that would violate NPOV and NOR. Crum375 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposed "other DC-8" image doesn't show any of these things either. The CGI image doesn't purport to show the aircraft in flight, crashing, exploding or being whacked by a WP:TROUT. It's just a picture with the correct livery based on a reference photo (a non-free image linked in older versions of the page). Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposed fake image keeps changing, because the wiki process allows it to be replaced by totally different versions, even when the article is protected. So it is a moving target — the original version was very different. But even now, it depends on how we use the image. If we just want to show the color scheme, we can use it as such in principle, but in my opinion what is more important is to show a real aircraft of the type, since that would be identical except for colors, and we do have a freely available real photo of a real aircraft of the the same type. Crum375 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

<silly>Maybe this is the image we should be using?</silly> Seriously, I'd have to say Crum375's objections here are mistaken. Wikipedia, like pretty much any other comparable publication, frequently uses "artists' conceptions" to illustrate topics for which an actual photograph is either not available or would not, for one reason or another, properly illustrate the relevant issues. Such illustrations do not "serve to advance a position"; they serve to illustrate one. Problems only arise if such images are captioned or otherwise presented as being more authoritative than they are. In this particular instance, captioning the image "Arrow Air Flight 1285 taking off" would be inappropriate; captioning it "an artist's conception of Arrow Air Flight 1285 taking off, based on the CASB majority report of the events, with some artistic license" would not.

Incidentally, I think the ideal illustration for this article would be a diagram showing the sequence of events, to the extend it can be reliably determined. For something vaguely like what I have in mind, see e.g. Image:Tenerife 747 Crash.png (the closest example I could find with some quick browsing on Commons). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For an incident that is disputed, and for which no original images exist, it would be OR for a Wikipedian to create an image based on his understanding of what some of the reliable sources believe happened. Imagine an article about someone accused of a bank robbery. The police say he did it; he denies it. Based on the police's description as published by reliable sources, a Wikipedian creates an image of the man robbing the bank, and we publish it as the lead image in that man's bio. That would violate BLP (for obvious reasons), NOR (because we'd be promoting an imaginary scene created by a Wikipedian), and it could be argued that it violates UNDUE (because we'd be prioritizing one POV over all the others). The aircraft accident image has a similar NOR problem, and perhaps UNDUE too. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Your hypothetical article on the suspected bank robber would seem to be a violation of WP:BLP1E anyway. However, if we did have an article on the robbery, and if the police had released a detailed enough description of the events to allow someone to draw a reconstruction of the scene, I see no reason why we shouldn't use it if it helps the reader to understand the article. Obviously such an image, like any summarization of a source, must be subject to verification by other editors to ensure that it accurately depicts what the source actually says. Also obviously, the image should not depict a specific recognizable person as the robber unless they've actually been convicted: that would be neither appropriate use of the person's likeness, nor in any way necessary to illustrate the subject.
The point being that every sentence in every Wikipedia article (except for direct quotes, which can only be used sparingly due to copyright) is "based on [some Wikipedian's] understanding of what some of the reliable sources believe". The summarization may be wrong, humans often being fallible, which is why we require that others should be able to verify it; but we can't forbid such summarization, since otherwise we wouldn't have an encyclopedia but a mere collection of quotes. That being the case, it seems absurd to hold graphical contributions to a higher standard here than textual ones.
As for the Arrow Air Flight 1285 article, I'm not sure it needs an image at all; certainly none of the ones suggested so far seem particularly illustrative. The generic picture of a DC-8 championed by Crum375 belongs on the DC-8 page if anywhere; on the Flight 1285 page it's hardly more relevant than the "Xenu space plane" image I mentioned above. (That's a DC-8 too!) As for the latest version of the rendered image by Anynobody, all it shows is the aircraft's paint job, which is frankly of absolutely no relevance to the accident. About the only image proposed so far that actually illustrated any aspect of the accident itself was the previous version of Anynobody's image, which at least showed the "orange glow" mentioned in some of the eyewitness reports — and apparently it's been questioned whether that was really depicted accurately. So, setting aside the general issue of how NOR should apply to images, in this specific instance I'd say the best and simplest solution might well be to have no image at all, at least until and unless someone comes up with an illustration that actually provides the reader with some useful information about the accident. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ilmari, regarding your point about police releasing details of a robbery — if those details are disputed, we can't slap a reconstruction at the top of the page created by a Wikipedian and based only on his understanding of what the police have said, as though it is the truth. In the case of an aircraft accident, where what happened is disputed, it's even more important not to do that, because the tiniest details out of place will give a very misleading impression to anyone who knows about aircraft accidents. The reconstruction of an aircraft's behavior leading up to and during an incident is a highly complex issue requiring particular skills. If we want to use such a reconstruction, we need to get one that reliable sources, preferably air accident investigators, have created. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I am going to toss out a radical idea here... what if we include several user generated images? ... an image to illustrate each of the varoious theories as to what happened and what people saw. Don't put these images at the top of the page... tie them to the appropriate sections of the article. That way there is no NPOV issue. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar, I think you are missing a critical point here. In disputed aviation accidents such as this one, every tiny detail counts. It's not as it you have black vs. white — there are myriads of nuances and pieces of evidence, the totality of which contributes to the accident's investigation and determining what really happened and why. When there is a heated dispute, it's not as if we can create two images to represent "the sides" — we'd need to create many images, with many combinations of possible parameters (was the "orange glow" coming from the engines? the fuselage? not there at all, just a reflection of some other light? was the icing visible on the leading edges? the top of the wings? was the attitude near-stall or normal? and so on and so on). Once a wikipedian creates an image, or multiple images, he is taking a stand on "historical" issues that are in doubt and in dispute. If this were a reliable source doing it, we could include the image, and say: "this is Aviation Safety's artist's rendition of the accident" (assuming it were freely licensed, which is unlikely). In this case, we can't really say "this is an anonymous Wikipedian's rendition of the accident", because the entire concept of Wikipedia is that we follow reliable sources, and we try to avoid our own interpretations of historical events and disputes like the plague. Using our self-made fake images in a hotly disputed accident would fly in the face of our WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies and the spirit of this project, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No one is going to use a CGI picture off a wikipedia page for an authoritative investigation of the incident. If it helps the "lay" reader, is based on reasonable interpretation of reliable and cited sources, and does not claim to be more authoritative than it is, I see no reason to exclude it. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
SDY, how is taking one specific slant of a hotly disputed case, by a random Wikipedian rendering an image which is supporting or refuting some of the theories, "helping" anyone? The entire concept of Wikipedia is that we don't take sides, and don't invent things, and here we are taking sides and manufacturing evidence in a dispute. This is exactly what the core policies of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV were designed to prevent. Crum375 (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Some sort of image is helpful, actually, since it gives people an idea of what kind of plane crashed. DC-8's aren't exactly a common airplane these days. I think either image that's been used recently is fine for that purpose. Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We all agree with that point, SDY. And in this specific case, we have a nice freely licensed image showing an identical aircraft of the same type, so it's exactly the same as the accident aircraft except for the paint scheme. We also have a photo of the specific accident aircraft, actual paint scheme and all, before the accident, but that image requires a single click, since it's non-free. So the issue is that some people feel that showing the reader the actual paint scheme embedded in the article (as opposed to a click away for the paint scheme in this case, plus an identical type embedded) is so important that we should create a fake image of the aircraft ourselves and include it in the lead. Prior to this, they were trying to include a fake image of the aircraft just seconds before crashing, showing (or not showing) various disputed aspects. I feel that we need to stick to reliable sources as much as we can, even for images, especially in contentious cases, and if there is a freely licensed published photo of the same aircraft type (i.e. identical shape-wise) we should use that in lieu of our creative imagination, especially when the actual accident aircraft is one click away. Crum375 (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

I've seen a bit of what I consider to be a problem around some articles in wikipedia. Many users are quick to call many horrendous acts "terrorism" but not provide reliable sources that call these acts terrorism.

My question is: if no reliable sources have called an act as "terrorism" (or a synonym of the word), can we call it "terrorism" because one or more wikipedians believe it fits the definition?

My inclination is to say no, because the term is very contentious (see Allegations of state terrorism by the United States), and only reliable sources can make the call which acts constitute as terrorism and which don't.Bless sins (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your inclination is correct. See this. Crum375 (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article ?

I wish that this policy page be better structured and written, so that the policy is more clearly stated. Am I the only one to think that ? Would the page get a "good article" status if such an assessment was possible for policy page ? Isn't it of lower quality than the WP:V and WP:NPOV pages ? I find the NPOV page a very good example to follow.

Here are some improvements I suggest (there may be many others):

Any thoughts ? Pcarbonn (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

It appears that after a long but failed effort to adopt Wikipedia:Attribution the proponents have devised a new and confusing custom tag to legitimize the instructions as a "summary" of other processes. This lacks the consensus to be anything other than Essay status and should be so tagged. While I don't specifically oppose or support ATT, I don't think that we need to confuse the issue with a new process category which is not described at WP:Policy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the WP:ATT effort results from dissatisfaction with the quality of the WP:OR page. I share this dissatisfaction. See my comment in the previous thread. If WP:ATT is rejected, I would propose to improve the WP:OR article, eg. by reusing some material from WP:ATT. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that the summary tag has been on that page since at least last June (although not without some opposition)... I think it is hardly a "new" tag, and does have some degree of consensus. It developed out of discusions that several editors had with Jimbo, all the way back during the debate over merging NOR and V. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
OK... it is time this on-going debate was settled... please opine at WT:Attribution#RfC - Status?, thanks. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Various OR questions.

  1. Some en.WP (possibly other) editors object to untranslated citations and references. When dealing with areas where English scholarship is very limited, this represents major gaps in what may be cited, if we are limited solely to published works in English. I am sure this issue has been raised before, but couldn't see anything on the main page. The question is - should I cite the original text (which would not be OR) or should I translate it - without publication or peer review?
  2. And does the latter really not consist of OR?
  3. On a separate issue, especially in Africa and Asia there are oral traditions for which there are no published works. Are these traditions barred from disclosure on Wikipedia, on the basis that they don't meet the OR / WP:V ruleset?
  4. What about direct personal experience? If I know of an incident in a great amount of detail, and also know that the primary published works have made a mistake regarding that incident, is my mouth sealed?
  5. Arguing with those on WP who won't rely upon anything other than what is published is now futile. Moreover, published works are far from fact, though the modern focus on 'cite' means that there are many articles that do not refer to those texts as offering views, but as offering facts about the subject. Take the article of the day ( Durian ) for a (random) example. Citations from ISBN 92-9043-318-3 are embedded into the article as declarations of fact. Now, in this case, it may well be that the book is a well-known, peer reviewed reliable source - but there's no evidence for that on WP. Here is a specific example that caused me a headache a while ago - mandala#Tibetan_Vajrayana has many cites and references - but for anyone who has 20+ years of experience with the traditions of the Tibetan Vajrayana (notoriously unpublished and primarily oral lineages) about half the text is pure speculation, based upon a collection of texts which include art books, 'tibetologists' who depend upon their own theories more than anything else, random web pages of pure speculative OR - and even dead links. Yet it LOOKs like it is well referenced.

Therefore, cites are relying upon the authority of published works which themselves are not subject to any check for reliability on WP.
It was in light of these issues that I ceased being an editor for two years. (20040302 (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Okay, I know see that some of these questions are at least half-answered on WP:V (20040302 (talk))
Okay, glad you saw them. To confirm what you have already learned, #1 and #2 are questions I myself have run into, in the Fitna film article. There were citations in Dutch which proved rather helpful in resolving a heated debate. Wikipedia is graced with having some fairly smart people in it. Many of them speak more than one language. We are allowed to interpret for the basic reason that any misinterpretations are going to get called out as such pretty darn quick. Granted, if you speak Tuvan or some such esoteric language, a misinterpretation might go unnoticed for a while, but with as many people reading Wikipedia as there are, smeone's eventually going to notice. Translations sort themselves out much like plot summaries to films and such, through an agreed-upon consensus that it is accurate.
You probably also know that - even if you are famous - you cannot really cite yourself (actually, that is not precisely true, but there are special rules in place for that sort of thing). Sources are Wikipedia's way of staying above the fray and remaining true to one of the Five Pillars - neutrality.
In the case of the oral history unpublished in written works, I think you've got yourself a fine idea for a book. Now go find a publisher and make a lot of money by writing such a book. Don't forget your new friend Arcayne when it comes time to cash that first advance check. Seriously, though, I understand the lamentable situation this represents, but until someone creates references (be they books or documentary films or television programs - such as has been done about the likely extinction of the aforementioned Tuvan language), Wikipedia's hands are relatively tied.
Lastly, welcome back to the Project. I urge you to use that great big head of experience you have to help remove all of those dead links you find in articles that interest you (as well as any OR that happens to have been tied to them). Cite the statements which you think require citation, and recognize that your knowledge cannot be added to that article as a counterweight to incorrect info. If its wrong, some expert in the field, somewhere, has likely said so. Lies are very hard things to preserve in the internet age.
Again, welcome back, 2040302! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about serious editors with legitimate OR.

I suggest an interwiki link to Wikiversity:Research or Wikiversity:Original research; the policy there is still a work in progress. Bwrs (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, are you suggesting to add interwikilinks into the policy? While this may be a good idea to channel the energy of OR from wikipedia to somewhere else, is it OK for wikipedia policy to promote other websites? If it was not your meaning, please explain. Mukadderat (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)