Talk:Original research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Consensus on redirect

User:Cyde wishes to change the original research redirect so it no longer redirects to Wikipedia:No original research and instead redirects to an article such as research. The reason User:Cyde wishes to change the article is because Wikipedia should "NEVER allow a cross-namespace redirect to squat on what could be a legitimate encyclopedic page." I personally disagree with this because the redirect has been around for more than two years and is linked to by well over 1000 talk pages. In addition, there is no obvious article that the redirect is squatting on. That said, I am willing to go with whatever the consensus decides to do. In addition, any discussion here should also include no original research, which also links to Wikipedia:No original research. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Keep redirect as is

  • Keep. The redirect has been around for more than two years and is linked to by well over 1000 talk pages. In addition, there is no obvious article that the redirect is squatting on. --Alabamaboy 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I cannot imagine that anything would be appropriate to the article "Original research" that would not be more appropriate in the article "Research". I see no convincing reason that this redirect should be deleted in the name of ridding the encyclopedia of cross-namespace redirects. On examination of the redirect guidelines, it looks like this is explicitly disallowed. My new opinion is below. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change redirect into a redirect to an article (such as research)

  • Strongly agree - Cross-namespaces are bad. Iolakana|T 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote is invalid

  • You can't overrule Wikipedia's policies on a straw poll on a talk page. --Cyde↔Weys 13:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And the notion that you can't make a sensible edit without a straw poll on a talk page is anti-Wiki. -- SCZenz 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is never wrong.--Alabamaboy 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Consensus cannot be divined on one talk page with three editors and tin pail. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Policy is consensus. Bastique▼parler voir 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It equally is not divined by one or two editors bull-headedly forcing things the way they reckon they shuould be, and high-mindedly telling anyone fool enough to disagree with them how stupid they are. You two, in particular, need to climb off your horse and play nicely with other, perfectly reasonable, people who disagree with you. -Splash - tk 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:ASR is not policy. :P --Conti|✉ 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In light of my examination of Wikipedia's redirect policies, it appears that this redirect is right out due to its precedent. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not consensus, this is a waste of time. Original research is a real world concept and so should be discussed in the encyclopedia. No original research is a comcept which only occurs in Wkipedia, and so should be discussed on the pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Physchim62 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The notion that there is a policy on this is entirely wrong, of course. WP:ASR is little more than a handy guideline that shouldn't be interpreted in a way that makes working on the encyclopedia harder. -Splash - tk 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I always pipe WP:OR when I want to link the appropiate wiki-page, but the number of incoming re-directs convinces me that others don't. Phrase is odd enough that the chance of confusing someone is small. Leave it as it is. And slap with a trout anyone whose argument amounts to insults, "common sense", or force. - brenneman {L} 14:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually a google search for "Original research" -wikipedia gets about 14.5 million hits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SCZenz (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Compromise

The proposed compromise created by User:SCZenz works for me. I am still troubled, though, by the unjustified deletions of this article and by the language some admins used in this discussion.--Alabamaboy 14:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a troubled by these things also, and I was also troubled with how my efforts to address a real issue by making an edit were lumped in as equally bad by some users—but all this is a topic for another page now. I hope my compromise here will satisfy everyone; it satisfies my concern that people really might try to look up "original research" in the encyclopedia, at least. -- SCZenz 14:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 :-) Yes, that is a lot better. Does everyone agree? Iolakana|T 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep with that Ian¹³/t 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admit we need the selfref, or get rid of it properly

We have this so-called "article" purely specifically and only for the {selfref} template in it. In that case, it should just become the self that it is and was. It is just silly to have a pointless article here trying to suggest a difference between orignial research and research in anythign other than the Wikipedic sense and to reach around our heads to touch our noses to suggest otherwise. If someone wants a bot to fix the talk page links, then we all know who's got one. In the meantime, I'm going to treat this like an article while it is pretending to be one: if it is in fact a selfref, then would someone please make it back into one. -Splash - tk 21:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And I made this reply on my talk page, copied here for completeness:
The sole and singular purpose for retaining that article standalone was to allow the selfref template to be used. That is not a good enough excuse for what is a silly place to have that article when we have research. If people really want the Wikipedia selfref (and really it's doing no one any harm) then it should become what it was before, a redirect to WP:NOR. If people don't want that, then fine, but it should then be treated properly, not cackhandedly with a self-admitted piece of hacky stuff to sort-of-not-really avoid a selfref. -Splash - tk 21:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm done arguing over this. I agree that there is no need for a stand-alone article on original research b/c orginal research is research. I also agree with you that this should be a self reference to WP:NOR. But to be honest, I have no interest in wasting any other time on this. Keep it as a redirect to research or as a redirect to WP:NOR, whatever people here decide to do. I will state a final time, though, that over a 1000 talk pages link to this redirect.--Alabamaboy 22:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Selfref is unnecessary. We have hundreds of policies and not going to litter article space with references to wikipedia rules. On the other hand, the notion of OR is significant even outside wikipedia rules, and the article is fully warranted. I expanded it a bit, to clarify the notability of the topic in "real world".

"standalone article" issue: Since the Research article is for an extremely general topic ("research", oh, man!) separate articles on particular aspects are absolutely normal in wikipedia and in fact the way it works: splitting articles when they grow large. `'mikka (t) 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFD (Different Page)

Just a warning; I don't know if it is relevant or not. Someone just submitted a RFD for Libertarian perspectives on gay rights, but was apparently unable to figure out the wiki tags. He wants it ditched because of alleged "original research". samwaltz 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. S/he fixed it. I'm leaving the post, simply because there is a chance that something along those lines may happen again.samwaltz 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What makes something original research?

If something is studied independently it doesn't matter? It only matters if some big corporation or some other "official" studies something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.54.131 (talk) 03:09, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if something is true or false. Unless someone "important" agrees with it, Wikipedia won't look at is as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.165.91 (talk) 18:26, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive Misuse

The admin should add a section along the following line:

  • There have been many occasions where users use "original research" as excuse to immediately and silently delete edits that they personally dislike even if the edits are legitimate contributions. While there has been no known announcement for Wikipedia's official stance on this abuse, this behavior frequently lights the fuse for flame wars and trolling behaviors, so it is recommended that users reframe from immediate removal of any edits unless particularly harmful (such as personal attack or other obviously abusive editting). Even then, an administrator and/or at least the original poster of the entry should be notified for advice/discussion on proper treatment to the entry in question. Ssh83 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggestion. The real way to avoid having something deleted as original resource is to provide a reference for the edit to comply with the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. If a reference is provided, the claim of "OR" cannot be made, especially if the reference is accessible through the Internet, although Wikipedia does not require that. If an editor is adding unsourced material, then the claim of "OR" can be easily made, and is not inappropriate. Ground Zero | t 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)