Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Supporting or WP:SYN

Over on the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States a particular editor keeps making the following points, I would like to get some outside views here on their merits.

A source is off topic and cannot be used in the article unless the exact term "state terrorism" is present in it.

  • I opposed this view and would like to give an example and then hear feedback. We have a section on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this section an author, Coady, states the bombings were an instance of state terrorism due to the targeting of a civilian group by the Targeting committee. There is a references to the book by Coady as well as the targeting committee documents. Should the link to the targeting committee documents be removed since they do not specifically state "state terrorism" in them?
  • Another example is background information. For instance there is a section on the Philippines, in that section an allegation is made that the financial and military support from President Bush to the Philippine government, to fight the War on Terror, constitutes supporting state terrorism. In this section is information and references that simply discuss the US financial support in the War on Terror to the Philippine government, is this WP:SYN violation?

Any help in sorting out these issues is greatly appreciated. In what way can someone give background information that is not in the "main source." Just go one step further, if the section is discussing the atomic bombings, but does not mention the blast radius, can we use another source to mention it? --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, pretty obviously, concepts can be expressed in a variety of ways, so whether the one term or another are used, is irrelevant. In your next example, you say 'an allegation is made'... by whom? A wikipedia editor? Yes that would be original research. Dlabtot (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Notable authors and historians are making the accusations, sorry for not making that clear. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's a very long debate on the talk page of that article, and I can't hope to parse through it. But here's what I see..
A source is off topic and cannot be used in the article unless the exact term "state terrorism" is present in it
Not necessarily. That's an extreme interpretation of the SYNT rule. Note that there's room for debate on the definition of what an article is "about". For example, if you have a section on Hiroshima, then the article is also "about" Hiroshima, and it is perfectly fine to include background information about Hiroshima. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your interpretation, I tried to summarize the best I could as the talk page is a bit of a mess. Thank you for your feedback. Anyone else able to say yay or nay to this idea. I would like a consensus of third party people if possible so as to remove any doubts on the issue. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Squidfryerchef; that is a truly extreme interpretation of SYN. My view of SYN is that it strictly applies to the practice of melding multiple sources together in a way that distorts what's said in any of them. For the issue of whether a given source is "about" some subject (such as state terrorism), that's a matter for editorial evaluation, nothing more.--Father Goose (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue is far more complex than I Write Stuff alleges, representing one side in the discussion, in his rather biased presentation. Please see [1]. Ultramarine (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked people from the article do not come here and argue. Sadly it seems your summary page is lying. No one for instance in your section is ever arguing that BBC said it was terrorism, a source is provided and the allegation is attributed to him specifically. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well after saying my piece about SYN, I would like to point out that the various "Allegations of ..." articles are POV traps, and that's part of why editors are arguing SYN that way. IMO, it might be better to have a neutral article called "Covert actions by the United States" that has one section for allegations of state terrorism, and this one section would require the word "terrorism" to be used by the source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And I also would like to clarify, that demanding that the exact term "state terrorism" be in any source used is overly restrictive; however, there should still be a sound consensus as to whether a given source is relevant to the article and supportive of the exact claim being made (or implied).--Father Goose (talk)
Squidfryerchef's assessment of how 'Allegations of' articles are POV traps is spot-on here. Such articles are thinly-disguised original research almost from beginning to end, with the thin thread of bias running throughout.
I am going to step outside my usual policy of not discussing in WP a field I am involved in (its always better to edit in those categories where you are less likely to get all Crazy about when folk get it wrong). The basic misconception with this article (aside from the Kiss-O'-Death title) is that one man's definition of terrorism is another man's definition of a wartime decision.
While Jenkins and a few others argue that terrorism should be defined 'by the nature of the act, not by the perpetrators or the nature of their cause' (Jenkins, The Study of Terrorism : Definitional Problems, 1980); however, the need to differentiate between violence perpetrated by state and non-state actors is paramount, as it "plays into the hands of terrorists and their apologists who would argue that a 'low-tech' pipe bomb placed in a rubbish bin at a crowded market...equates with that of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Terrorists deliberately cloak themselves and their acts in military jargon, so as to lend themselves an air of legitimacy afforded state or wartime actions. (Hoffman, Inside Terrorism). Such has been the rationalization from revolutionaries dating back to Ché Guevara
Hoffman denotes that the difference is that states are bound by certain rules of war, whereas non-state actors (ie, terrorist organizations) refuse to be bound by such rules of war and codes of conduct. Such self-sanction (ie, moral justification), says Albert Bandura (in his book, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, as reprinted in Origins of Terrorism, ed. by Walter Reich) is what differentiates the terrorist from a state; the state has internal repercussions for the violation of these rules and codes of conduct, whereas the non-state actor does not.
I could go on (and on) about how the very article title is spurious on its face, and should either be re-titled to something less pov, like "Instances of Terrorism committed by the United States" or even better, "War Crimes Committed by the United States". However, I am thinking that much more in the way of legitimate sources would be able to be found for an article of the second subject title.
Failing that alteration, I would have to opine that the term "state terrorism" must appear in any citation connected to the article discussing specific acts. There are far too many pov sites out there giving the most debatable reasoning, and we should not accept the veracity or fidelity of many of those sources on their face, being without redundant sourcing as almost all of them are. Such sources, interpreted by like-minded individuals reflecting on those sources that compliment their own personal beliefs is far more likely to contain supposition and persuasion-style arguments, all of which are synthesis, and wholly includable. It's a slippery slope, and we shouldn't be engaging in that sort of sledding. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Arcayne. Although 'Allegations of X' articles tend to be POV magnets, we can in principle write a good article, if we're extremely disciplined. In particular, it must be very clear that Wikipedia is not making allegations of state terrorism by the United States, but reporting on such allegations made by others. It is nigh-on impossible to verify that a source is making such an allegation unless the source itself uses the term.
I Write Stuff asks: "if the section is discussing the atomic bombings, but does not mention the blast radius, can we use another source to mention it?" This strikes me as a difficult question. I wonder whether it can be perceived as advancing a position? For example, could one argue that the blast radius - with the associated loss of life - makes it a more severe act of terrorism (state or otherwise) than others? I would personally be inclined to err on the side of caution. Readers can always follow a link to get background information, after all. Jakew (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


The problem with Synthesis in this context is that one extreme minority opinion considers an event to be X. Lot’s of other more mainstream sources consider it to be Y and don’t even address the X consideration because it is such a minority. The synthesis occurs through using “definitions” and “quotations” to try and synthesize a mainstream view of X. After the synthesis, the article implies that X is the mainstream or widely held view even if they never say it.

For example, to make up a scenario,

“ Foobarland dropped large explosives on a target during the war. Noted philospher Joe Blow has condemned the attacks as State Terrorism by Foobarland because it killed civilians in furthering the nations agenda. Human Defenders Organization defines State Terrorism as the indiscriminate killing of civilians to incite fear and to further a political objective. CNN reported that numerous civilians were killed and a large number of “man on the street” interviews showed widespread fear. The United Nations has condemned the war and asks for all sides to stop the violence. ”


Here you can see that the relevant terrorism accusation was made by Joe Blow. The rest of the statements are cobbled together to lend credibility to Joe Blow when in reality they are not. They are separate statements that synthesize support for Joe Blow as their context was never meant to support such a statement. In this example, none of the other sources have even taken a position on State Terrorism by Foobarland. But using them to bolster the opinion of an individual or organization is synthesis as it implies that all those statements and definition support Joe Blow. They do not. --DHeyward (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I give up, since no one could possibly allow an independent group of editors to decide without attempting to misstate the position of "state terrorism" quoted exactly being required, it goes to show how little faith those editors felt the argument would stand up. Just to add your analysis is patently wrong, I find it odd that no one could quote from the article itself, perhaps because their "examples" are not actually present. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The position advocated by Ultramarine Arcayne and DHeywood on this page would mean that this source [2] is an invalid source for the featured article Hurricane Isis (1998) because it does not contain the words 'Hurricane Isis'. I cannot see where their position has any validity at all. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The comparison with Hurricane Isis doesn't wash because Bonnie and Isis were both the result of the same tropical depression, but otherwise distinct, and the 'Hurricane Isis (1998)' article in no way suggests otherwise, leave alone that they were identical. Saying Bonnie is the sister of Isis is not comparable with an editor's own interpretation that 'allegations of X' is equivalent to 'allegations of state terrorism'. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Applying the strict interpretation advocated by Ultramarine et al would mean that the NOAA could not be used as a source in the Hurricane Isis article because the NOAA article does not include the words "Hurricane Isis". TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
But, of course, NOAA's report on Hurricane Isis does... Jakew (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
But Ultramarine et al have been arguing in essence that [3] is an inappropriate source and cannot be used in the aritcle because it does not specifically have the words 'Hurricane Isis'. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not what Ultramarine et al have been arguing "in essence." None of them have even mentioned Bonnie or Isis. You choose to take their words out of context (error #1), and then additionally interpret them in a scheme of your own devising (error #2). Were this in an article, both would be examples of OR. Further, I've already explained why the comparison a Bonnie/Isis is a no-go. Since that rack won't take your coat, you need to find something else if you think you have a point. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is exactly the essence of what Ultramarine has been stating: any source that does not contain the words 'state terrorism' is being removed. [4]. I stand by my analogy. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I interpret it the same way. In any article, this would establish a precedent for easy elimination of sources a POV dislikes, simply by arguing that some aspect ofthe title precludes a given source by supposed omission of the pasword du jour. not thanks. ThuranX (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would expect an article titled "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" to review allegations made by other people of state terrorism by the United States. This then is the OR (but not SYN) crux: Is an editor him/herself evaluating someone's statements to claim that that person is making an allegation of state terrorism? ...or... Is that someone directly and unambiguously stating that him/herself? -- Fullstop (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A general standard that has been applied by the "not every source needs to have the words 'state terrorism' group" is:if there is a source (Source A) that makes the complete analysis "The US did (supported people who did) ACTS we define as terrorism" and another source (source B) says of those same ACTS "here is detailed information about those ACTS", source B is perfectly acceptable and not a violation of SYN. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand this... I think we are all agreed that if you have source (A) stating a given act is an act of Terrorism, and source (B) stating the US did that act, we can not reach the conclusion (C) and state the US did an act of terrorism. Doing so would fit exactly the definition of synthesis in our policy (A+B=C). You need a source that ties A and B together. The question being raised is... Once you have established (C) through a source, is it appropriate to include background information about the act discussed in (B), by mentioning facts discussed in sources (D),(E) and (F)? Is that a fair summary? Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar, you are correct. Source A says that SOMETHING is an act of terrorism by the US. Sources B, C and D talk more about the SOMETHING. Is including the information from sources B C and D prohibited under WP:OR?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1. That is not pertinent to the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion here is whether a source declared SOMETHING an act of terrorism by the US, or whether WP editors interpreted that source's discussion of SOMETHING as (an implicit) declaration as an act of terrorism (and hence suitable for inclusion in the article). Thats all.
2. Whether B, C, D are suitable for inclusion (or not) is subject to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, and is to be resolved in article talk. It is not an OR issue, and thus not suitable for discussion here. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
To think about this another way, source A is linking X (the subject of the article) to Y (the "something"), so while sources B, C, and D may be directly related to Y, they are at best indirectly related to X. I think this policy is quite clear when it says (in the very first paragraph) that sources must be directly related to X. I would tend to think that if the relationship between X and Y is strong, there should be plenty of sources giving background info. On the other hand, if there are so few sources linking X to Y that it is difficult or impossible to find background information, that's probably a good indicator that extensive coverage and background aren't needed, and may even give undue weight to the sources suggesting a link. Jakew (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Fullstop, your statement 1) is incorrect - please review the first post in this thread. We all agree that a reliable source states "Act is terrorism by the US" - there has not been anyone with a different position for at least as long as I am familiar with the article. And 2) is what we are discussing. Ultramarine has claimed that including information from sources B C D that do not have the words "state terrorism" is OR / SYN.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I read it again, but it hasn't changed since I read it the first time. And Ultramarine's invocation of OR/SYN does not appear to about what you think it is either. But as long as you are convinced that your assumptions are correct, it would be a meaningless to point you in the right direction (which, as evident by your comments on the article's talk page, you do take when it suits you). I suppose you might catch on eventually... -- Fullstop (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that we are still not addressing the same items. Going back to the initial post we have Source A (Coady linking US targeting committee's actions at Hiroshima to state terrorism) and the question: Should the link to the targeting committee documents (source B) be removed since they do not specifically state "state terrorism" in them? and final question in the initial post In what way can someone give background information that is not in the "main source." (Main Source A - Coady calls bombings terrorism) Just go one step further, if the section is discussing the atomic bombings, but does not mention the blast radius, can we use another source (source B) to mention it? Both questions Source A making analysis of US terrorism, Source B not using words 'terrorism' but describing in more depth the actions Source A has described as terrorism. (the same situation is, I believe, true for 2nd bullet, but less clearly described by the original poster.) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
RedPen, maybe you could save yourself a lot of confusion if you could perhaps avoid interpreting my posts in favor of your position. If you are going to take my statements out of context, it might be easier for you to avoid using them altogether. When I say that unless they are verifiable, objective and reliable sources that call a US action state-sponsored terrorism, we cannot call it such, as it would be synthesis. In two places now, you have been provided with hard sources as to how state and non-state terrorism differ. What part of that is difficult for you to accept? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for including your position with Ultramarines. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgive you for confusing my position to be in support of yours. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. At the very least, a given topic is not valid for inclusion in the article unless some source specifically makes the US -> state terrorism connection. If such a source can be found, then it is valid to include a bit of background material from other sources, but that material should be immediately relevant, and be concise. It should not overwhelm material from sources that actually make the accusation; otherwise we're giving the impression that we're building that sources' case for it. - Merzbow (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Merzbow just hit the nail on the head, I believe. If, for example, a source that accused the United States of state terrorism referenced some official report, or governmental definition of "state terrorism", it would not be out of hand to include a small quote or cited and paraphrased statement to illustrate what is being discussed. In practice however, a small portion of the material is based on sources that make clear allegations, with most of it being drawn from supporting references. It crosses the line from illustrative use to making a case not made by the majority of sources used. It can be described as "coatracking", "original research", or in any number of ways. Regardless, it clear that such an approach is essentially incompatible with the goals and principles of Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Including cited backgound information on an event is not automatically a SYN violation. However, great care is needed to do this properly. It really depends on how we include the background material. We have to be careful not to give readers the impression that the background material supports the contention that the event was an act of state terrorism. Write it poorly, and we could inadvertently create a SYN situation... but that is a problem with how the section was written, not with the sources. A re-write will fix the problem. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It is automatically a SYN violation if there aren't any reliable sources on the topic that consider it to be "background material". Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would make a distinction between background material and supporting material. In a case (such as this one), where the "main" material is drastically overwhelmed by supporting material, it is not a matter of poor writing. Using such a set up, it is nearly impossible to create a coherent on-topic article with anything but the impression that all of those supporting facts support the conclusion presented by the small portion of "main" sources.
Basically, what is happening is that Source X says that Nation Y commits state terrorism because of specific aspects of Action Z. That source supports at most a few relatively short statements. This is followed by extensive material about Action Z, with facts chosen that are most likely to be disagreeable to a reader. The initial very short paragraph of material is inflated into a long section using this technique. The intent and result the coherent advancement of a position not supported by the vast majority of the sources used, which is at the least a very close cousin to SYN. This technique of soapboxing, creating undue weight or forming an improper synthesis (depending on your view) is unfortunately not uncommon in political battleground articles, most noticeably in conspiracy theory articles and Eastern European topics.
I also sincerely doubt that this constructed impression that evidence of state terrorism is overwhelming was inadvertent. Though in some cases I do not doubt the good intentions/faith of the proponents of such editing, it is still problematic. One can wikilawyer that it does not represent the exact definition of soapboxing, undue weight or original synthesis, but it is clearly counter to the principles behind all three, regardless of whether or not it fits exactly into the strict definitions of those rules. We have to remember not to get caught up in the exact wording and presentation of the rules, remembering that they are imperfect presentations of the underlying principles. If something clearly runs against the foundational principles, it shouldn't matter if it does not fit the exact definition provided. Vassyana (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's little difference between "Background material" and "Supporting material". If reliable sources directly referring to the topic haven't seen fit to present the "Background material" or "Supporting material" then we shouldn't either. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems unlikely to me that an opinion piece on "state terrorism" would contain extensive background information. While I don't subscribe to that interpretation of SYN ( I'd rather see SYN stick to facts and deductions and not try to also do relevance ), the article is a POV trap, and its not necessary to go into the details of, say, the Bay of Pigs, when we already have articles on the topic. I'd like to make a bold suggestion that the "accusations" article should not be an article at all, but a category. The articles on the alleged incidents would need a reference with a "terrorism" accusation to be included in the category. And by definition this would solve the background information problem. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
To reiterate (and in support of Squidfryerchef and Jayjg):
  • An article titled "Allegations of..." needs to review the *allegations*, and not the events that those allegations refer to.
  • Further, because this is a 'hot' issue, the article must be NPOV conform and thus must balance each allegation with a refutation of it. If no refutation (in OR parlance: no secondary reference) can be found, then that allegation can't be used. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"must balance each allegation with a refutation of it. If no refutation (in OR parlance: no secondary reference) can be found, then that allegation can't be used." Where do you find this in WP:NPOV? I see where 'all significant views' of a topic need to be included - we are agreed - but nowhere that says that any topic that doesnt have 'refuting viewpoints' is to be excluded from Wikipedia. That would seem to be an absurd policy interpretation if it were applied.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And what, pray tell, constitutes "all significant views" of an *allegation* itself? Note: not of the author of an allegation, nor of the subject of an allegation, but of an allegation itself, which (ostensibly) is what the article is about. Oh wait! I already said that. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A theoretical question to which theoretical answers may be given but I fail to see what such a discussion might accomplish. Further, I don't believe that you have addressed my very real question about your interpretation of NPOV. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course you "fail to see." Given that the context has been reiterated several times now, the turn of the blind eye is already spectacularly obvious. So, to cut things short, I'll simply point back up. Either you have something you need help with or you don't; either cut to the chase, or find someplace else to spin your top. Of course, it would be nice if you would come up with something more substantial than straw man sleight-of-hand. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Accusations of "straw men" arguments seem unsupported when you are the one who brought the unusual interpretation that an article "must balance each allegation with a refutation of it. If no refutation (in OR parlance: no secondary reference) can be found, then that allegation can't be used."[5] to the discussion. Since "Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three" I was hoping that you would either clarify your position or retract it. Or we could move this discussion to NPOV. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When is a lack of sources poor sourcing, and when is it OR?

As a result of a discussion at Talk:Kender, I'm a little befuddled. This sort of regards cleanup templates, but really it's about when something is OR.

An article (Kender) is full of statements which may well be source-able from various books. There is a disagreement as to whether it is more appropriate to mark the article as needing citations, or to do that and mark it as containing OR. So when is a lack of sources poor sourcing, and when is it OR? SamBC(talk) 15:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OR is the generation of original ideas or synthesis by the person editing the article. If they are merely relating facts from an unspecified third-party source, regardless of the authoritativeness of that source this is simply poor sourcing and the best course of action is to dig up the sources and cite them. Sometimes it can be difficult to tell these cases apart, for example when a user is noncommunicative and refuses to reveal their sources; in these cases, provided no one is able to find an appropriate source after a reasonable period, the information should be removed. Dcoetzee 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, Dcoetzee is correct on all points. "Poor sourcing" isn't an OR matter, its a WP:V issue. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case, the original contributor(s) seem to be long gone. I feel it's more appropriate to assume good faith; indicate that sourcing is needed, but not label the article or sections as OR without more specific indication of such. Does that seem reasonable? Another editor is claiming that the article should be tagged OR and the tag not removed until it is proved that there's no OR in the article. I don't think I'm misrepresenting the position; take a look at the talk page in question to be sure. SamBC(talk) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Under the circumstances (and after seeing the heat on talk), I'd err on the side of caution (and good feelings :-) and take the middle road: i.e. move the problematic stuff to talk with an appropriate comment that its presently unverifiable, but that anyone who can verify it is welcome to put it back. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That would seem reasonable, if only the other editor would actually identify which content is problematic... good compromise though. SamBC(talk) 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not what you stated at Talk:Kender, as you have basically asserted that it was down to me to prove that the article contains OR [6]. I think you are misrepresenting the position. In my view the OR template should remain for two reasons:
  1. to demonstrate that original research is not being presented, an article must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented;
  2. is a reasonable presumption that in universe descriptions of fictional characters are Original Research if they are uncited, because they are not drawn from primary or secondary sources.
I feel there is a lot of confusion about this the nature of the content of this article, and I would be grateful for the intervention of an editor independent of the subject matter with strong view to make their opinion known about the article Kender, even if those opinions are contrary to mine.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You will get your outside opinion at [[7]]. Ursasapien (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with your second claim above. Regarding the Kender article in particular, I think you're underestimating the sheer volume of official descriptive material (sourcebooks etc.) written about everything connected with Dungeons & Dragons. I find it quite plausible that every single in-universe claim in that article may be directly based on official D&D publications — indeed, I'd be more worried about the possibility that some of them may be copied verbatim and therefore copyright violations. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed! However, I don't think we should be as worried about that as Gavin seems to be about OR… SamBC(talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

Following some tortuous discussion Talk:Circumcision, I have realized there is a major problem with the delineation between primary and secondary sources in the policy, which says: "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims."

Now the minimum accepted structure for a standard peer-reviewed medical journal article is: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion. Methods and Results clearly fit with the ambit of primary source, but Introduction and Discussion are invariably exactly what we describe as a secondary source. So how do we characterise such articles, which are the mainstay of verifiable citation? The problem is not restricted to medical articles, of course, but they provide the clearest example.

It seems to me a radical redraft of this section of the policy may be required, unless someone has some elegant solution … Johncoz (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been raised before... part of the problem stems from the fact that this policy is based more upon the definitions used in the humanities and library sciences, than those used in the hard sciences such as medicine. About the only thing that was agreed the last time we debated this was that it is very difficult to write a definition of the terms "Primary source" and "Secondary source"... since each accademic disipline in subtle different ways (and some not so subtle). Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
To my mind, a typical scientific paper can't be regarded as either as a whole; each section of it would need to be considered separately. "Background" sections are secondary, descriptions of an experiment/study are primary, results are primary, interpretations of those results are generally harder to categorise. However, that's only speaking for myself. I've always had a problem with requiring a single categorisation for a whole source, as that often fails to make sense. SamBC(talk) 20:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Original calculations

In the article Tsar Bomba has an edit been deleted as "original calculation". Howerer, since the calculation was of an elementary kind, there is no doubt that the result is correct. Does the NOR policy really prohibit any kind of own calculations even if everyone can easily verify that they are correct? Does it further mean that no one may derive e.g. the formula for some geometrical relationship (e.g. the ellipse parameters, volume of geometric bodies, interpolation/regression formula (with reference to the method) of graph of published data etc.) by him/herself without citing a reference? If so, than it would be strange, really strange...:-/--SiriusB (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, those things you've mentioned aren't really "elementary"; they're not the kind of thing that anyone with a basic education can check. Simple addition/subtraction/multiplication/division people can do themselves. However, the example in question is really a numerical analysis requiring nontrivial background knowledge and not readily checkable by the typical editor. There may be other problems as well... SamBC(talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not fully agree. Take the very first example (Tsar Bomba), where some "complex calculations" have been deleted with reference to this very discussion. These "complex calculations" consist of some elementary operations (in at least one case just multiplications!) that everyone who owns a calculator can reproduce within a few seconds (and students are usually expected to do this just by brain). And if the input values like the solar constant, TNT equivalent or the duration of the energy release are just linked with related Wikipedia articles then the "original research" would be reduced to these basic calculations. I cannot see why it should be illegal just to assume that, analogously, 1+1=2 without proving by citing the literature. And do you really believe that the equations in Articles like Volume or Kepler's laws of planetary motion are entirely taken from the literature, without any transformation or substitution done by WP authors? As long as these are checkable by applying standard mathmatics, I do not see any problem.
Furthermore, scientific literature has IMHO the same problem as the more complicated examples above since many peer-reviewed journal articles cannot be completely understood by readers with only basic education but require advanced specific knowledge. Even worse, most peoble (especially those who do not work in a university or scientific institute) do not have easy access to those sources since they require a subscription. The main difference between "original research" and curve fitting is IMHO that the former is probably connected with personal interpretation of the author while the latter is a more or less straightforward application of well-proven methods (however, I agree that the author must state which methods he actually used).
The main reason for my question is that I have, in my early Wikipedia days, contributed some content like this which is created e.g. by numerical integration while the underlying source data are taken from the literature. You may now argue that these contributions now have to be speedy-deleted, but is that really what the nro-policy aims at (in the case given above I do not know any free content that might be used as a replacement)?--SiriusB (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are correct in the distinction you make between "original research" and "curve fitting". I also believe you correct that the assumptions need to be specified/cited, rather than a pure simple formula run. Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Original images

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Radical_Gun_Nuttery.21_website. While this policy is about original research, unreliable sourcing in images is a problem. This policy is the only source of information about restrictions or permissibility of original images. The text, [emphasis in original] "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy", was added to policy to clarify the permissibility due to nonsense like this. I would suggest that a single sentence follow that statement:

“ This "exception" does not cover images and diagrams based on data and statistics from unreliable sources. ”

I believe this would suffice to prevent the abuse of WP:OI to promote images based on unreliable sources, while clearly distinguishing the OR exception (the nature of this policy) from editorial decisions about the reliability of source material. Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To me the issue with images comes down to this: Images should illustrate something stated in the text of the article. If the text that the image is illustrating is not OR, then the image based upon that text is not OR either (even if the image is an original creation). Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with that. However, editors are using WP:OI as a defense stating that it's OK to use unreliable sources and that OI encourages that. The link above is not at all an isolated incident of using the section in such a way. Considering the common misuse of the section, I felt we should clarify the point I raised above. Vassyana (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I was not clear... I agree completely on your proposed addition. I am actually thinking that we need to re-think the wording on the entire section. Make it clear that images and the text they illustrate are directly related. While user created images are allowed, they must illustrate something stated in the text... and that text must not be OR or based upon unreliable sources. An image that illustrates text that is deemed Original Research is considered Original Research by association... and an image illustrating text that is based upon unreliable sources is considered unreliable by association. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I should have known we were on the same wavelength. :) How would you express that relation for things like user-taken photos of celebrities and landmarks? Vassyana (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Although I too am on this wavelength, a word of caution about cyclic proofs: The completely unencyclopedic "she has brown hair" was "substantiated" by a -- also wonderfully photoshopped -- accompanying image. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)ps: since this example is from an article on a porn-star, I should add that it was the hair on her head that was being being referred to :-)
I agree, but I think this should not be phrased as an "exception to an exception", which is too confusing. None of this, either "images themselves are usually good", or "images based on unreliable information are bad", is an exception anyway; this is all based on fundamental principles of verifiability. We can state this in a positive way, such as:
"An editor-produced photograph or drawing is not original research if (1) it has been was published in a reliable source, or (2) the information depicted in the image is verifiable and could be appropriately included in the article in text form. Any modifications to the contents of an image that have been introduced by the editor, such as "Photoshopping", should be disclosed either in the caption or on the Image page."
COGDEN 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Images (including photographs) are primary sources, and as such should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, except for a statement about that particular image itself. Ideally, an image should be used as a source at all ... but instead should be used as an illustration of statements that are cited to reliable sources. ... you know, I think I will bounce that thought off of the folks at WP:V and WP:RS and see if a statement like that should be included on those pages. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, images should not be used as sources. Own interpretation == OR. This is what I think the most image OR comes from, i.e. the editors are not using images to demonstrate what text already says, but basing text on images. The issue of using images to further a point-of-view is not an OR matter; in the Radical Gun Nuttery! affair, the image is using "published" data that is (however whacky or unreliable) being faithfully reproduced, and hence not OR. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What should happen when WP:SYN contradicts WP:NPOV?

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

A claim arises that the Cuban govenment is directly involved in smuggling cocaine into the United States. Pulitzer award-winning journalist Jow Blow (a notable source) investigates, and publishes a story apparently confirming the claim and suppying specific details: the drugs are carried on Cuban submarines and transferred to small boats just off the Florida coast. Wikipedians are in general agreement that this story is notable enough to deserve its own article, "Allegations of Cuban involvement in Cocaine Smuggling".

However, there is a problem: Cuba has no submarines. At least, that's what Admiral Popeye (USN) is saying: and he's a notable and (normally) reliable source. But, even though he said this in response to a claim that Cuba does have submarines, he was NOT specifically referring to Blow's claim that Cuban submarines were used for drug smuggling.

This contradiction is all over the Internet: however, if there are any reliable sources pointing this out, nobody can find them among the 98,172 forum and blog postings regarding this issue. And fans of Blow (or enemies of Cuba) won't allow anyone to point out the lack-of-submarines problem without a valid reference that directly ties in to the article's subject, the alleged drug-smuggling (if this situation strains credibility, imagine a less high-profile variant: John Smith is accused of smuggling marijuana in his truck, but Smith has no truck...).

So, does Wikipedia only present one side of this controversy, thereby violating NPOV? --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is defined by Wikipedia as "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Hence, if there is a viewpoint that hasn't been published by a reliable source, then it should not be represented. Hence there is no WP:NPOV problem - in fact, WP:NOR is helping to prevent an WP:NPOV problem.
But realistically, if the story is indeed notable enough to deserve its own article, then there will be reliable secondary sources that comment on Blow's allegation. If the lack-of-submarines issue is truly significant, you can pretty much guarantee that at least one source will mention it. So if such a situation were to arise, it would probably indicate that either a) the story fails notability, or b) there isn't a verifiable controversy (expressed in reliable sources) about the issue that needs to be represented. Jakew (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, OK, but in this case I'm assuming that Popeye's claim has been published in a reliable source. So, it could be argued that his claim regarding the existence of Cuban submarines qualifies as "a significant view that has been published by reliable sources". The problem arises with the interpretaion of the phrase "significant view" (significant to what, and who decides?). Would I be correct in assuming that if there was a second Wikipedia article entitled "Controversy regarding the Existence of Cuban Submarines", a "See also" link to that page would be admissible? This seems to be a common pattern, and I haven't yet seen anyone comment that the linked page doesn't mention the subject of the previous one (though I suppose someone could raise that objection...). --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What many wikipedians who edit the non-scientific wiki articles get wrong is that so-called "reliable sources" can write nonsense (e.g. the Wall Street Journal editorials on Global Warming are mostly garbage and not acceptable for the wiki global warming page). The best thing to do is to demand peer reviewed sources to back up information. This is not always posible, so the next best thing is to see if the claims in the source are verifiable. Does the published story cite references, does it cite witnesses, does it say that the author him/herself witnessed it him/herself? Count Iblis (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose another related issue is this: supposing a Blow-supporter (blowhard?) admits on the article talkpage that he fully accepts both the notability AND the factual accuracy of Popeye's account (i.e. he fully accepts that Cuba does indeed have no submarines): so there's really little room for doubt that his refusal to admit Popeye's testimony is POV-pushing (after all, we do have WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE, and even WP:TE might be applicable). In this case, the "nonsense" would appear to be Blow's report itself, which is probably the main reference for the article! --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, Robert. The standard for Wikipedia, after all, is verifiability, not truth. As such, it makes little difference whether the editor in question thinks that Popeye's account is correct. Inclusion of Popeye would constitute synthesis of sources to advance a position about the subject that hasn't been made in reliable sources, and that needs to be avoided. We shouldn't even try to determine whether OR is correct; we should just report on what reliable sources say.
Consider the following (slightly silly) hypothetical scenario. Suppose we did include Popeye's quote in order to contest Blow's claim. Another journalist, Moe, reads Wikipedia's coverage, and decides to interview Popeye. Popeye says "oh no, my words were taken way out of context. What I actually said was that our intelligence services determined that Cuba had no submarines as of the late 1980s. Wikipedia got it wrong." Now we're in a tricky situation, because instead of being a neutral observer, Wikipedia has actually entered the debate. We have no option but to include self-referential material. Jakew (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
To include Admiral Popeye's comment that Cuba does not have any submarines, we need to cite a reliable source that reports that Popeye says this. However, if there is such a source, I see no problem with including the fact that Popeye said it in the article on Cuban drug smuggling. More to the point, there are likely to be numerous other reliable sources that would back up the fact that Cuba has no submarines (such as Janes "Fighting Ships" which lists all ships in every Navy). Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If the subject of the article were "Cuban naval forces", I would entirely agree with you. However, unless the Popeye source (or Janes) makes these comments in the same context, I think it would constitute synthesis of sources to advance a position (namely, that Blow is incorrect). Consider what WP:SYN says:
  • This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.
Bearing this in mind, I think that we would need a source that specifically comments on the non-existence of Cuban submarines in the context of drug smuggling. Jakew (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's toss in another curveball (this is rather fun, isn't it?): Jow Blow mentioned a specific class of submarine that was based in Cuba during the Cold War (on loan from the then Soviet Union). Editor Blowhard (the pro-Blow editor) has fleshed this out with various technical details of these subs (which, unsurprisingly, imply that they could have been used for drug-smuggling). In doing so, he has used naval sources which make no mention of drug-smuggling (or even, in some cases, the loan of these subs to Cuba). He considers this to be "background information": but the pro-Popeye editor (OliveOyl?) objects, accusing Blowhard of a WP:SYN violation. Is she correct? Should Blowhard and OliveOyl then haggle over whether discussion of these submarines is sufficiently "on-topic", and does OliveOyl have the right to demand removal of the info about these subs if Blowhard does not agree to relax his restrictive interpretation of what is "on-topic"? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
From your description, I'd say that OliveOyl is indeed correct. The article should simply reflect what reliable sources have said about the subject, not try to build the case for either viewpoint using unrelated material. Jakew (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a statement along the lines of "The allegation that Cuba is using submarines to smuggle drugs is false, because Cuba has no submarines." would need a source that states this. ... but I disagree with the contention that you can not include the simple blunt statement: "Cuba has no submarines." The policy states: Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. In this case there is no conclusion or position being advanced. All that is being stated is a blunt fact. I think you are being overly strict in your application of the policy. One has to look at the intent of the Policy as well as its exact wording. And if you wish to use an overly strict interpretation of the policy, then I would say that we are dealing with a situation where IAR is eminently applicable. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall seeing something like that on one of these policy pages: "Let the facts speak for themselves" (i.e. if the editor doesn't embellish them, that's OK). However, I can't find it now. A change of policy, or have I just not looked in the right place? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you were looking for WP:PEACOCKTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's another policy that could cause difficulties here: WP:UNDUE. It's quite possible that Blow's claims are considered to be so unlikely (perhaps because of the lack-of-submarines problem) that they represent a rather fringe viewpoint: but it's also quite likely that this fringe status is actually the reason why notable and reliable sources haven't bothered to address it specifically. I can think of many scenarios which are so far-out that no specific refutation is likely to be available. How should these be placed in perspective (i.e. given due weight) if WP:SYN is preventing a tailored response? --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point. Looking at this from another point of view, if Blow's claims are so fringe that few secondary sources have even discussed them in any detail, then maybe Wikipedia shouldn't do so either. Maybe we haven't got sufficient secondary sources to justify having an article in the first place? Jakew (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of IAR, I'd say create a source. If it's this obvious, drop an email to a couple more accessible journalists pointing out the contradiction. It's probably not something you'd want to admit on-wiki, but realistically I think it's the best alternative. But I really don't see anything wrong with tipping off a journalist. Some people might see it as an attempt to skirt the rules, but quite frankly, the person you tip off is still the one making a call on the facts of the matter.

You might have more of a problem with a more obscure topic. Guettarda (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blueboar, if this hypothetical article were to include the statement that "Cuba has no submarines" immediately after discussing Blow's claim, then the net effect would be to very strongly imply that Blow is incorrect. To my mind, that's advancing the editor's position, and I don't think that the intent of the policy is to say that OR is permitted as long as it isn't explicit. I can't see that it matters whether the argument is made explicitly or not; the point is that we should report on viewpoints expressed in reliable sources, rather than try to prove or disprove them ourselves.
Consider the "Chicago Manual of Style" example given in the policy. What we're discussing here is like saying: "Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references. The Chicago Manual of Style requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them." Sure, it doesn't explicitly make a link between Jones and the CMoS, but there is a strong implication there, and I think that the intent (as the policy basically states) is that editors should instead cite a reliable source making that specific analysis. Jakew (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda's right. If an editor thinks unpublished "evidence" like this needs to be aired, the editor needs to take it to a reporter or find a publisher, but not to bring heretofore unpublished original research to wikipedia. It's worth asking if there is undue weight, for example could the story about the Cuban drug running be considered a WP:FRINGE issue? But editors can't "balance" the scale of a fringe topic with original research, there are much better ways to handle it. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Indeed. Irrespective of how authoritative a source is, the topic is fringe until acknowledged (either positively or negatively) by multiple other reliable sources. As such -- and coinciding with the net result of Guettarda's suggestion -- there would need to be sources that discuss Blow's journalism in light of Popeye's remarks. Until that happens, WP editors shouldn't be adding two and two together.
  2. OR (to include SYN) never contradicts NPOV. NPOV is established by providing both 'A' and a refutation of 'A'. The two must naturally be speaking of the same subject. When they are not speaking of the same thing, then the two sources are not comparable, and can't be used to balance each other. In this context, OR (to include SYN) occurs when an editor takes an only orthogonally-related source to refute 'A'. For example, taking Popeye's statement (which only notes Cuba's lack of submarines, but does not mention Blow or Cuban cocaine smuggling) as a refutation of Blow.
    To understand the distinction, imagine that the subject was Cuba's submarine fleet: Blow asserts it exists (and secondarily, that it is used it to smuggle cocaine). Popeye says it doesn't exist. Now the two are on the same wavelength, and can be used to establish NPOV. Get it?
-- Fullstop (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't actually that simple. From time to time I've come across things that I know are wrong, but that fairly reflect the sources provided. Back in the old days it was easy - we weren't too particular about sources. But as the quality improved, and as articles became more contentious, sourcing became a bigger issue.
Faced with the scenario that Robert outlined, it's entirely likely that I would have added the Popeye ref without giving much thought to the issue of SYNTH...after all, if you know the statement is wrong, and you can source it, common sense would dictate that you document the problem. Chances are, no one would ever notice until a Blow supporter (who was policy-savvy enough) came along and complained.
The issue here is that this isn't really what SYNTH and NOR were meant to protect against. The issue here is one of deriving novel conclusions. We should not do our own analysis, we should not draw new conclusions. Drawing a line between Blow's book and Popeye's prior statement falls somewhere in the middle continuum of drawing connections. If it were common knowledge that the Cuban navy lacked submarines, then pointing out the obvious error, while technically problematic, is balanced by common sense. One reliable source saying so...a little more problematic. A reliable source which lists all the vessels in the Cuban navy (from which one could conclude that the Cuban navy lacks submarines) - now we're getting into the type of stuff that these policies are meant to combat. The best way to avoid making the wrong call is to create a source. Guettarda (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Another factor to consider is that what seemed to be an obvious error may later turn out to be correct, but we didn't have enough information at the time to realise. Similarly, what seemed to be obviously correct may later turn out to be incorrect. True, reliable sources can and do make mistakes, but we're not infallible either. Jakew (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I recognize the dilemma, but the solution is simple even if the issue isn't:
As long as no one else has critically responded to Blow's book (at which point Popeye's comment would presumably have been noted), then Blow's book remains non-notable per Wikipedia:NOTABLE#General notability guidelines.
Inversely, once Blow's book has become notable there will no longer be a dilemma because someone else will have said something about Popeye.
But that regulation aside, when the dimwits "inclusionists" insist that Blow's hypothesis deserves an article on WP, and your perfectly-justified AfD has failed (i.e. IAR is in effect), you have no choice but to apply IAR as well. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(Because lack of recognition equals 'fringe', I would have instinctively said 'fringe' instead of 'non-notable'. Unfortunately, wp:fringe is now worthless)
I agree that in this example, the claim's notability is the key to judging the dispute. But SYNTH should never be sacrificed to provide balance which is otherwise missing. I love wikipedia, but we all know that some of our fellow editors tend to get a bit full of themselves sometimes. In this case given to us, we have a Pulitzer prize winning journalist--and even he couldn't get his conclusions published without editorial review. Has a self-published reporter ever been awarded a Pulitzer for his report? I highly doubt it. There's a reason we don't allow unpublished or self-published claims in wikipedia, from anybody practically speaking, and it's not to leave more room for some wikipedian's claims instead.
Returning again to this example. We have a ref written by a pulitzer prize winner making Claim A, and several refs quoting Adm. Popeye making Claim B. Claim B perhaps contradicts Claim A, or so thinks a wikipedian and some bloggers. Everybody else is asleep on this big story but bloggers. Not even the pulitzer prize winning investigative reporter has the smarts to figure out the Adm's Claim B out there undermines his entire report. But we do have a wikipedian who's thinking, "If any human being alive has the stuff it takes to straighten this out and expose such a fantastic hoax, it's gonna be me!" Well, I think they need to also be thinking hard on this too: "but the encyclopedia is not the place for me to be do it in".
New conspiracy theories are literally born every day from ambiguous or seemingly contradictory juxtapositions just like what's given in this example. What needs to happen next is a reporter's task, not an encyclopedian's task. It's a reporters job to look further, because many conclusions are possible other than the one hypothetical wikipedian has synthesized. The only rationale proposed for including Popeye in the article about Cuban drug running is an assumption that Popeye's claim should jive with the Pulitzer prize winning reporter's, but that's not necessarily true at all. And if nobody knowledgeable who is watching the story thinks the two claims should jive, then it's no surprise at all they're not addressing the "controversy". If, for example, Admiral Popeye is giving a report on Cuban military subs does that mean he is also providing assurance Cuba has no drug trafficking subs? Conversely, would Popeye's report on the US naval fleet inventory also include the inventory of air and marine craft used in US drug enforcement? If not, would that mean there is a "controversy" over the discrepancy? Spend 5 minutes at 911 truth and know most of it is built from SYNTH drawn from disparate facts not all that much different than those posed in the hypothetical posed here.Professor marginalia (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, its precisely because we are not authorities (or -- if the ego says otherwise -- pretend that we are not) that we should abstain from leaping to conclusions. Either way you slice it, publishing novel conclusions on WP would make WP a source of never-before-published information. And that is what OR policy is really there to protect against. We can't undermine it. Ever. Or all the work honest people have put in will be worthless. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis issue at Doctor Fate

In Talk: Doctor Fate, I am encountering some difficulty with a user who seems to be synthesizing information regarding a comparison between Doctor Fate and Doctor Strange, and pointing to a citation that doesn't make the specific comparison.
The edit in question[8] states:

"For this purpose, Fate formed his own little sub-group within the League. It is a disguised version of the Marvel Comics group The Defenders, with Fate, Aquaman, and Grundy counterparts to its founders, Doctor Strange, the Sub-Mariner and the Hulk.[1] Only after this episode does it seem that Fate maintains any continual relationship with fellow superheroes (miscommunication being the reason for the struggles between him and the League in "Terror"), including joining the expanded League in Unlimited."

The citation being utilized to defend the comparison between Fate and Strange is here. No mention whatsoever is made comparing the two specifically. Furthermore, this user is stating:

"The three original Defenders were Dr. Strange (a sorcerer, as is Fate), Namor the Sub-Mariner (a fish-man from Atlantis, as is Aquaman) and the Hulk. Just because Timm did not expressly state which Marvel characters Aquaman and Fate were analogous to (or did not have that part of his statement quoted) does not mean that the point is not right there, period. I am not reading something into Timm's statement that might not be there, that might not be his intent. To deny that fact from representation in the encyclopedia because Timm did not spell out every last detail is incredibly dense (or evidence of a hidden agenda). If you still don't see it, then for God's sake be reasonable: just take my word for it that the citation does support the passage" [9]
and
Their is no "intuitive leap" here. The fact that Bruce Timm did not say (or get quoted as saying) every single detail out loud does not mean that it is not there, as I explained. To not fill in the gap (only one, which is nothing but a technicality) for the comics-uninitiated is to fail in our mandate to be informative to the users."[10]

I am not really interested in fighting with this pretty abrasive person over this, and am about an inch away from simply reporting him to AN/I, but I wanted to make sure that I am interpreting our synthesis guideline of our NOR policy correctly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... the source clearly indicates that the DC grouping (does it have a name?) is a deliberate homage to Marvel's "Defenders", and I agree that the analogy between characters is obvious if you know both sets of comic book heros... but you are correct that the source does not actually state a direct comparison between the individual characters in each group. I would call this "borderline", but falling on the OR side of the line. I would be very surprised if there wasn't another source out there that makes the comparison more explicitly. I think this is a case where the statement is probably factual, but simply needs to be better sourced. You might find the editor more willing to cooperate if you approach it from that angle. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have suggested such on two prior occasions, but the editor appears to be of the opinion that we are allowed to make that connection, and that other sourcing isn't necessary. I am not opposed to the inclusion of the info, but think it needs better sourcing. I haven't found an sources that connect Doctor Strange to Doctor Fate (outside of Amalgam comics meldings, which were pretty much removed from most comics late last year as being non-notable). Outside of this interview with the later Steve Gerber (tasked with re-creating/re-envisioning Doctor Fate for DC's Crisis series):
"My original conception was simply to treat the character as DC’s Doctor Strange, the occult superhero, engaged in bizarre battles, against esoteric villains, in weird settings that other comics didn’t explore.
That might have been okay in 1979, but given the character’s contorted history -- to say nothing of the evolution of comics themselves since then -- it was nowhere near drastic enough a change. The time had come for a major break with the past.
So I’m adapting some elements from what I originally wanted to do, but I’m coming at it from an entirely new angle. The new Doctor Fate will be an occult superhero, uh, probably. Eventually. But he’s not yet. He’s no longer a sorcerous adept; he’s someone who’s encountering sorcery for the first time, and who frankly doesn’t believe in it. Nor is he interested in it; it’s a complication in his life, and his life is complicated enough as it is.
We’ll actually get to see a character become a sorcerer, rather than simply appearing full-blown as a master of the mystic arts."
Not really on point, and the only thing that comes as close to discussing the relationship/comparison of the two is a meditation site, found here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the line between synthesis and pointing out the obvious?

That is, if someone reads several things that are already in Wikipedia and are not controversial, and notices a connection between them that is obvious when pointed out, is it "synthesis" to point it out?

I noticed such a connection and added a sentence or two to each to the articles Sir Harold and the Gnome King and L. Ron Hubbard. (The preceding links are to the old versions that include my additions.) Gwernol, who's an admin, undid my additions as OR. I see his point in terms of the policy as I understand it, but as far as I can see (and I freely admit that I'm no Wikipediologist), this kind of borderline case has not been addressed. I originally wrote up my question in Talk:Sir Harold and the Gnome King, but this seems the appropriate place to ask, so I'm moving the question here:

Reading about the Harold Shea series, I was struck by a connection that I have not seen remarked on anywhere [emphasis added]:
  1. Harold_Shea#The_original_series: ... L. Ron Hubbard's misuse of their hero in his novella The Case of the Friendly Corpse (1941). (De Camp would finally address the latter issue in "Sir Harold and the Gnome King".)
  2. Harold_Shea#The_second_series: The impulse for the continuation [i.e., creating a second series] appears to have been de Camp's desire to tie up the main loose end from the original series, in which Walter Bayard had been left stranded in the world of Irish myth, and to resolve the unaddressed complication introduced by Hubbard. Both of these goals were accomplished in "Sir Harold and the Gnome King" (1990).
  3. Sir_Harold_and_the_Gnome_King (introduction): [One of the issues that de Camp addressed in the story] was a long-standing plot complication introduced by L. Ron Hubbard's "borrowing" of Shea for use in his novella The Case of the Friendly Corpse (1941), previously ignored by de Camp and Pratt.
  4. Sir_Harold_and_the_Gnome_King#Plot_summary: The Oz he [Shea] encounters is greatly changed from the land of which Baum had written, the enchantment that had kept its inhabitants ageless having been broken through a misuse of magic by a dabbler in spells named Dranol Drabbo some years prior.

I think the character of Dranol Drabbo is intended as a Tuckerization of L. Ron Hubbard. (Although I read the story, it was years ago, and all of my information is based on the Wikipedia articles cited.) My reasons:

  1. The names are similar: "Dranol" is an anagram of "Ronald", Hubbard's middle name, and "Drabbo" spelled backwards is "Obbard", very close to "Hubbard" (but maybe -- this is a guess -- different enough to avoid a libel suit).
  2. The actions are parallel:
    • In the real world, Hubbard used the Shea character improperly. In "Sir Harold and the Gnome King", Dranol Drabbo used magic improperly.
    • Hubbard's story created complications in the Harold Shea universe. Drabbo's dabbling destroyed the immortality spell in the Oz universe.
When I added this idea to the article, User:Gwernol removed it as original research. I can see his point, but this seems to me to be a pretty open-and-shut case.

Thnidu (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwern was being polite in that she didn't call it "obvious OR." :-) The difference between "obvious" and "OR" lies in the ability to count: 1+1 is obviously 2, and thats where "obvious" ends (as far as WP is concerned).
The only thing that would be "apparent" and "obvious" about the name 'L. Ron Hubbard' would be if the name were written 'L. Ron Hubbard'.
It is also not "obvious" to draw connections between disparate subjects. You will need to find a source to do that for you. In this case, the OR is even reinforced by the use analytical verbiage, e.g. "L. Ron Hubbard's misuse of their hero..."a. Do you have a reliable source to substantiate reuse, leave alone misuse? Do you have a reliable source that says "Dranol Drabbo" is none other than L. Ron Hubbard?b If not, it doesn't belong in the 'pedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
-- Fullstop (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"Misuse" was not my word. I was quoting the existing plot summary, as I said in #4 above.
But you have made the difference clear: any resemblance beyond exact identity (in the mathematical sense) or equality is not considered to be "obvious" under WP rules, and treating is as such is barred as original research.
And on rereading the policy article I see the relevant sentence: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, ... then the editor is engaged in original research." Thank you. But it seems to me that the policy would be clearer if it included something like your The difference between "obvious" and "OR" lies in the ability to count: 1+1 is obviously 2, and thats where "obvious" ends (as far as WP is concerned) (although not in just those words).
-- Thnidu (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You could hypothetically argue that anything other than a direct quote from a reliable source is original synthesis, so a little bit of common sense will always apply. Looking at the specific case, I agree that the statement is beyond the patently obvious. If it's different enough to avoid libel, it's not obvious enough not to be original research.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Inuit

Could someone who knows more than I do, settle a dispute on the Inuit page. There is a comparison to abandoning the elderly and burning a town library. The user seems to have a history of Original research and policy violation. Cheers.--THobern 05:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This isn't the appropriate venue for posting such a request. You should post your concern at WP:NORN. 23skidoo (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this OR?

I emailed the host of a podcast (for which article I am the creator and primary author) as a fan of the podcast, and the host emailed back that the podcast had been cancelled. There has been no official announcement from the sponsoring network. Can I include the information in the article? I'm thinking no but I wanted additional opinions. Otto4711 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you call it OR or unverifiable material, it shouldn't be included in the article, because there's no way for the reader to verify your private communication. Jakew (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Otto: why don't you simply ask the host to post a notification of the cancellation on the website? -- Fullstop (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Because, per the email, there are legal issues involved in the cancellation. Otto4711 (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"Whether you call it OR or unverifiable material, it shouldn't be included in the article, because there's no way for the reader to verify your private communication."
It strikes me that this is, while a seemingly accurate statement of policy, slightly dubious as an explanation. If I add a footnote to an appallingly hard-to-find book (say, a 16th Century text found only in the private collection of a book-collector friend), then it would, to all extents and purposes be unverifiable to the general reader.
However, it would presumably NOT be OR, because it is theoretically verifiable, if someone else were to uncover a copy; visit the same collection. (Assuming I'm right on that front!)
Likewise, comments made by somebody in personal communication are theoretically verifiable, since anyone else can also e-mail/talk to them.
It would appear that asking somebody a question and then using their answer here is OR. Asking the same question, publishing it on one's website and then using it here generally is fine, as it is then "out there" and verifiable. Doesn't make it any less accurate when it is said privately; doesn't make it any more accurate to be published as a "proper" interview.
Just some (probably flawed!) observations. :o) ntnon (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a longstanding rule that you cannot go out and interview someone and cite that as a source. It has to be published somewhere, and not on your personal website. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Personal websites are excluded..? I didn't know that, thanks. :o) Seems like that would create a number of situations where important information would go unrecorded or noted, simply because a discussion/interview hasn't been written down somewhere semi-official. I assume this is to keep people "safe" from misquotation, although arguably many officially published interviews are riddled with misquotes - but would be cite-able. I realise it's to protect the interviewee, but it seems to work counter to potential biases if, for example, a subject cannot ask (except perhaps personally, on a talk page) that something be corrected rather than removed.
For future reference, therefore, roughly how many degrees of separation (or degrees of officialdom) must there be between an interviewer and the publication/website in which an interview appears? And does this preclude the citation of interviews with genre authors in self-published periodicals, even by someone other than the self-publisher..? ntnon (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll address these points one by one. There's two issues with personal websites. One of them is they usually are not considered acceptable sources. The only exceptions are if it's a website written by an expert on the topic _and_ it's not used to source anything contentious, or if the article is about the person who's website it is _and_ you're reasonably sure it's not an impostor's website, or if you're only using it as an external link not to back up facts.
The other issue is that you don't cite your own work. Even if you had the interview published, you would ask on the talk page for another editor to do the cite. As far as not doing your own interviews, that's a pretty undisputable part of the "no original research" policy. We work with previously published material; we don't originate our own interviews, science experiments, literary criticism, etc. It's not just to protect the interviewee, original reporting is not the job of an encyclopedia.
The final point is there's no set number of degrees of separation required. There is a pecking order of sources however, where "secondary sources" ( those published by an institution with an editorial board ) take preference over official "primary sources" ( corporate websites, government documents ), which are preferred over self-published primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I was clear on all that already, but my major difficulty is what I see as a discrepancy and semi-contradiction between two positions: un-sourced FACTS, and then attempting to source them, through conversations with whomever they refer. i.e. If I were to talk with Notable Person A (about whom there is a page), and they were to tell me what their first published work was, where they studied and with which notable individuals they attended school, those would seem fairly incontrovertible, and worth of encyclopedic addition. That they may not have been asked these questions by interviewers in the past should surely not imply that the information is not notable. And, if the Person in question were then to pass on without telling anybody else... I'm just trying to find an acceptable median between OR, self-citing and "needs a footnote." Previously (about a year ago), I've noticed an individual asking on their talk page that something be added, and then somebody else deciding that the talk page is not a good enough source/unfootnotable, and thus the information is removed.
There are two individuals of noteworthiness and importance, who have nonetheless not given interviews to forums other than incredibly niche fannish publications. Therefore, the questions they were asked revolve around one, tiny aspect of their professional lives, and are not particularly helpful to writing anything about them on Wikipedia. I was hoping to be able to interview them... but now I don't see what the best way forward would be.
(Also, I thought it was broadly acceptable to cite your own work, just so long as it's not controversial research or biased - and aside from leading questions, I don't see how an interview could be dubious in such a way. Other than misquotation, which is not solely a hazard of self-citation.) ntnon (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

original research link?

I was wondering if there was some acceptable way to put a link in this page that refers to a way to publish original content. Perhaps a person wandered to this page because they wanted to publish original research on wikipedia, and with no alternate outlet, they decide to vandalize a wikipedia page anyways.
People in the IRC were opposed to the idea of directly linking to a site that publishes original content, so perhaps a link to a wikipedia page that gives options. AKA breadcrumbs
I wonder if it could link to the Publishing page?
-kwifler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.176.33 (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly Question

I assume that as long as original research is, in fact, published in a journal then it is okay to reference it, correct? I'm writing a case study for publication in a scientific journal and it's possible that some of the information it contains may be useful in a relevant Wiki section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.194.127.112 (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NOR prohibits research that's original to WP. Discussion of original research published in reliable sources is, in general, encouraged. Please see WP:COS. Jakew (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The words "original research" are used in a different sense in Wikipedia and the rest of the world (most research is expected to be novel). This is a confusing point. Please read Wikipedia:No original research to learn about the specific definition used in our policies. Dcoetzee 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually our definition is not so unusual. Lots of academic journals, on their masthead, say they publish original research. On the other hand, we're an encyclopedia, and most encyclopedias do not publish original research. The sources we cite publish original research; we don't generate any of it on our own. Once something's published, yes you may use it in a Wikipedia article as long as it's relevant. But there is also a conflict-of-interest rule about citing yourself. If you wrote the journal article and you want to cite it, you should leave a request on the article's talk page and let the other editors decide if and how to cite it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There are journals of various quality. In general we accept as potentially reliable only peer-reviewed journals or journals with an equivalent degree of editorial control, but even so, they cover the complete range of quality and reliability. The ultimate reliability and acceptance of a particular article in a journal is determined by the scientific community and measured roughly by the extent to which it is cited favorably. A preliminary indication is of course the reputation of the journal as a whole. The world of sources is not divided into Reliable and non-reliable, but is a continuum for almost all sorts of material. Material in low quality journal articles is frequently successfully challenged when it is contradicted by better material.DGG (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

an informal request for comment

Gospel Harmony seems to me to violate NOR - it proposes to harmonize the chronology of Jesus' life from the four Gospels. Most historians and I think many theologians make a distinction between the three so-called syncretic Gospels and John; hence, the view that all four express a unified chronology is a point of view. The question is, whose? I cannot tell from the article Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Some of the specific ordering of events here involve some guesswork." comment kinda gives it away as OR. I was expecting an article about Gospel music with that title anyway. The article may also be a WP:POVFORK of Chronology of Jesus, a much better constructed article. I would recommend merging or deletion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

would you mind putting you rcomment on the talk page of the article in question? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The article frankly says "Gospel Harmony describes attempts to merge or harmonize the Christian canonical gospels into a single gospel account" and there are indeed such attempts--the article in fact refers to the standard classical account from the 2nd century. . But some explanation is needed that modern harmonizations are usually done from the three synoptic (that's the right word, not syncretic) gospels. DGG (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

reword in order to assume good faith

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)

Action figures

I just want to be clear: action figures are a primary source because they're an artistic work. So you can't say that an action figure about lord of the rings is a secondary source about lord of the rings. I know this may seem like something stupid to say, but lately I've been encountering a lot of people who are either prone to mistakes or prone to just making things up.

I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify this point, because I'd like to add this to the policy for clarity's sake. Randomran (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is probably the policy you're looking for, not WP:NOR. Works of art are rarely good sources for facts (unless the article is about the work of art itself), though scholarly interpretation of art is sometimes a useful source when there are no other records (q.v. Beowulf). In that case, the interpretation must be citable and verifiable, not original research or original synthesis.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Although WP:PSTS logically belongs in WP:V, it is part of this policy (as an aside, could/should we move it to a separate page and transclude it from both NOR and V?), so I can understand why Randomran raises this point here. Having said that, "artistic and fictional works" are already included as examples of primary sources, so I'm not sure that we really need to explicitly list action figures. Jakew (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputes between different parties

If a living person person is the subject of a controversy, e.g. several people in a notable position (e.g. employees) accusing the subject of the article (e.g. their employer) of something, and these accusations are made in an interview, would those interviews be suitable as sources for a section discussing the controversy, or would a "secondary source" discussing the dispute be required? I'm asking because NOR has been used as a rationale for entirely removing a section about the controversies revolving around the person of Pat Lee, even though those controversies have been addressed in interviews with several of his former employees. So generally, my question is: If an article were to include a dispute between several parties, and all statements are only available in the form of interviews (e.g. "party A claimed X", "party B claimed Y" etc.), and the section was to be entirely descriptive, without trying to draw any conclusions, would that be a violation of NOR as the editor claims?--132.252.185.42 (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In part it would depend on who conducted the interviews. If the interviewer was a Wikipedia editor, then the information would indeed be Original Research, and not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the interviews were conducted by an independant source (ie not a Wikipedia Editor) then the information would not be OR (as it does not originate with Wikipedia). That said, the information would have to be published - as that would impact on their verifiability and reliability. Finally, when dealing with BLPs, it is always better to err on the side of caution. Blueboar (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There are various levels of interviews. A published source in which a sympathetic interviewer lets the subject simply give his account is sometimes just as suspect as if the subject had written it himself. COmmon sense has to be sued for the source and nature of the statement. The reputation ofthe interviewer and of the place it is published in are relevant considerations.DGG (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But OR may be all we have!

The fun is going out of wikipedia. It's getting silly. We are coming to the stage where there is no point in contributing to it. In the past few months no less than half-a-dozen so-called editors have taken out my contributions on the grounds of OR (Original Reasearch). Apparently you cannot put forward your own interpretation on things unless it is backed-up by a third-party — which in many cases can be non-existent.

The point is that an encyclopedia is supposed to inform people of facts and, I believe, make conclusions based on those facts. For me, what makes a subject interesting is not just how it happened, but the motives and reasons behind it all. A friend and I once saw a film which included a lot of action and drama, but afterwards our main conversation was not what the characters did but why they did it and how it affected their relationship with one another. To say that this happened and that happened is not enough: it should also be about why it happened and how it affected events.

There have been times when I have been unable to find a third party review, either in books or the Internet to back up my analysis, but I went ahead and put it on wikipedia anyway. I included references to the source material and examples to back up my claims and these have been accepted. If they are done in good faith and on good grounds then I do not see why they cannot be kept.

If analysis made by a wiki contributor is backed up by examples from the source material then I do not see why they cannot be included. It would make the subject more interesting and help those who did not understand it themselves.

Of course there are limits. To describe Hitler as a decent man because he was a vegetarian would be the high point of absurdity, but articles would be rather dull if they relied simply on "what happened" and forgoe the "why it happened".

One wiki editor took out my analysis on the grounds that "we aren't allowed to connect the dots". But if a third-party has not connected the dots either then should the puzzle be left undone and leave people wondering forever what it was?--Marktreut (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. If OR is all we have on a subject, then we shouldn't have an article on it. If a third-party has not connected the dots, then people can be puzzled. --Onorem♠Dil 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
As well, what might be even less fun is the possibility of being sued over information that we added, because Original Research was all that we had. Imean, i understand your point, Mark - really I do - but the point is, we are supposed to be a neutral source of information. If we cannot be that, then we have no business holding ourselves up to to comparisons with the likes of Britannica and others. There is no room in the wiki articles for personal opinions or interpretations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case perhaps we should not be a source for information period. Just saying that somebody did something might be enough to be sued. Whatever happened to Freedom of Information?--Marktreut (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That's more than a little OTT Mark.
And looking at what appears to have kicked this off [11], the others are right: the articles are supposed to be as neutral as possible. That means we try not to spin or slant, and we try not to guess or present our pet theories. If all that is keeping a paragraph, a section, or even an entire article together is original research by the editor, or editors, writing it, it doesn't belong here, period.
If there's a source that the information drawn from, without needing to be interpreted, add the source. That's no longer OR. In the example, that means either point to an interview or statement from Frank Miller laying out character motivations and/or backgrounds, or point to a reliable secondary source that puts those theories forward as its conclusions.
- J Greb (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree... it is fun to connect the dots, but an encyclopedia is not the place to do so. Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
(carried over from my user talk page):
Are you seriously suggesting that DC comics or Frank Miller might take wikipedia to court for speculating on the parentage of a minor, one-off, hardly-seen-before-or-since character? Get real!--Marktreut (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not what I am saying, though Miller could have a case, if such were to occur and remain. Wikipedia is a collection of articles on every subject. The policies that guide the Wiki are consistent throughout the Project so as to preserve neutrality and be more encyclopedic in their coverage. We don't make exceptions to those policies for one article , because the exceptions could easily set precedents for other articles wherein the subject matter would open the Project to significant liability and challenge our neutral stance. As evidenced by the conversation in the NOR discussion page, this opinion seems rather consistent. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
But my point is: what if the source was the material itself? "Lana", "Harper" and "Lane" are not names that DC has used that often so the connection between that one-off character and three major figures is not that hard to make. Besides which I specified that the connection was a POSSIBILITY, not a FACT ! There's the difference and I think that it would be of interest to those not familiar with the DC world.--Marktreut (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is that we should not add our own specualtion to articles. If a reliable source has stated that there is a possible connection, then we can mention it. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
And who defines a "reliable source"? I've read history books in which what was actually sepculation was taken by the author to be fact and later proved to be inconclusive. In other words, nothing is realiable short of a statement in writing overseen by a Supreme Court judge, and then again maybe even that could be suspect. It make you wonder why bother to edit wikipedia at all. It would be far safer to take the whole thing off the Net and forget it.--Marktreut (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
What is more I have submitted facts WITH sources, but that was still not enough for some editors. They simply took away my contributions as if I was some blott on "their" perfect article.--Marktreut (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Marktreut, you're missing the point. Do the sources you cited reach the same conclusions that you did? Or did you use the facts that are stated in those sources to form your own conclusions? From what I can tell, the latter is the case. In other words, it looks as if you went beyond the sources and into the realm of OR. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And what is wrong with OR if it is based on careful interpretation of the source material? The point is that provided we highlight the points of the source material that back our argument (such as quotations from the text) I think that that should be good enough. I sometimes get the feeling that those who edit out what they perceive as OR have not actually read or seen the source material for themselves.--Marktreut (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is wrong with OR... but Wikipeida is not the place to publish it. Read the policy... it is one of core policies and has solid consensus. I am sorry you don't like it, but if you want to contribute to Wikipedia you are going to have to abide by it. It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's simply ridiculous is what it is.--Marktreut (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Mark, I wasn't going to comment, but I'm surprised this debate went on this long. There is a very simple non-OR approach: just state fact 1, then fact 2, and let the user speculate whether there are dots to connect. On the diff cited, you simply say this: "Hawkboy makes it clear that he will go all the way to get revenge. Batman does not try to talk him out of it: 'You're going to get what I never got! Retribution.' Batman's parents were murdered in his youth." (No participial clause.) "Lana Harper-Lane: a reporter for a TV news station who appears when Catgirl leads the attack to free Flash. She shares last names with major characters Jim Harper (The Guardian) and Lois Lane, and a first name with Lana Lang." That totally clears you of the synthesis charge (there is neither a "conclusion C" nor a "therefore"). Occasionally a real nitpicker might argue that fact 2 does not belong in the paragraph where fact 1 does, but I really don't see that supportable as either WP:UNDUE weight or WP:COATRACK. These phrasings state facts neutrally, and thereby perform a perfect ambiguity function: either Harper-Lane's parentage is being subtly indicated by DC, or it's an interesting coincidence; either Batman recalls his youth, or something else; and in both cases WP finds it suitable to report and does not decide among the options. On WP, we hold that if you want to speculate, you get your own website (and you don't quote it here either). I'm occasionally disappointed by that, but I can most certainly abide by it in this universe. JJB 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Original images" section

Per WP:A, IMO this section must be expanded with the requirement of citing the sources which confirm the validity of the content of the self-made diagrams or other pictures, if they are not merely graphical representation of the actual article content.

What do you think?Mukadderat (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly Agree that this is a sane extension of the policy, though it may simply be redundant (images are just another kind of content). I know I had an issue with a proposed picture of the Sukhoi PAK FA. This was also a WP:CRYSTAL issue, and there were other problems, but it may be that the artist was simply putting together what "looked right" based on similar aircraft and previous Sukhoi designs, but WP:OR was raised during the discussion. To put a different spin on the question, there are some articles which have a sound file showing pronunciation. Citing a sound is almost impossible, though it can still be wrong (i.e. they pronounce Willamette incorrectly like the The West Wing does).Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
"though it may simply be redundant" - unfortunately many people may disagree with you: (or agree with premises but not with the conclusion) - it is another kind of content indeed, but they may argue that the policies look like crafted for textual content in mind and their extension to images must be explicitly mentioned. Mukadderat (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A whole lotta synthesis goin' on

I was surfing articles and came across one of the Doctor Who episode articles, and met some editorial resistance when I encountered a substantial infestation of synthesis. Perhaps some eyes to examine the page would be helpful. I've pointed to WP:SYN a number of times, but I am not getting the impression (from the usertalk pages or article discussion responses I am getting) that anyone is interpreting our synthesis/NOR policy accurately there. I don't want it to turn into a whole 'thing', so some assistance would be mighty welcome. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)