Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 52

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.

The title was much later significantly renamed from "Sampler that 90% of Wikipedia violates a thorough application of WP:OR+WP:VER". North8000 (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take today's featured article. "David Alexander Johnson" The first sentence is "David Alexander Johnson (December 18, 1949 – May 18, 1980) was an American volcanologist with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) who was killed by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington." WP:OR+WP:VER would define this EXCELLENT opening sentence as containing 6 violations.

This sentence contains the following statements:

• Born 12/18/49
• Died 5/18/80
• Was an American
• was a volcanologist
• worked for USGS
• killed by the volcano

None of these are referenced (and the lead is not exempt). So, per WP:OR+VER there are 6 violations in just the first sentence alone of today's featured article. This is a reflection on the policies, not on the article. If I were a deviant personality, or if it would serve my ulterior motives to do so, I could (while referencing WP policies and claiming moral superiority)delete the first sentence or hang 6 tags on it, and it would be a lot of work for the author to get it back in, and it would be footnoted mess when they did.North8000 (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ledes are except from being sourced - it's an optional style, and sourcing is only required if a direct quote is used there or is a contentious fact (which none of the above are). As long as the salient points are referenced in the body, there's no OR. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:VER and WP:NOR make no exception for the lead, so this violates them. As a sidebar, wp:lead says leads: "should be carefully sourced as appropriate"

There is no exception to the lead in the sense that all material there must be attributable, and challenged material attributed, as in any part of the article. But as a style issue, the location of the citations, esp. those which are less contentious (such as the ones in the example), may also be in the later text. If something is very contentious, or quoted, the citation should be included inline, close the material it supports. Crum375 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:VER & WP:OR make no distinction whatsoever for the lead.

So, let's say that I, right now, challenge the lead sentence as being unsourced and hang 6 tags on it. Per WP:VER & WP:NOR, can the author just tell me to go pound sand and revert me, or do they have provide in-line citations for those 6 facts in order to put it back in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs)

Most likely you would be reverted, and that revert would likely be supported because 1) the material is referenced in the body in line with

WP:LEAD and 2) none of the statements are the type that would be considered extraordinary or contentious. If it was something more like "John Smith was considered the greatest volcanologist ever", then you may have a case. --MASEM (t

) 15:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

When a claim is repeated in an article in order to make the article more readable, it is not necessary to provide a citation for every instance of the claim. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If you feel some material in the lead or elsewhere requires a source, you can ask the editors where the source is cited. If they say it's cited lower down in the text and you would like it moved higher, then it boils down to a style issue, which should be settled by consensus. But there is no question that all material must be attributable, with challenged and quoted material attributed inline. The only question, which is a style issue, is where exactly, and in how many places, to place that citation. Crum375 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, you didn't answer my question. What happens next (per WP:VER & WP:NOR) if I hang those 6 tags on it? And don't forget that WP:VER says that the burden of proof is on the person who wants to retain/restore the material. North8000 (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you are on notice, you would be reported at

WP:ANI. Jc3s5h (talk

) 15:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you said. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Masem is correct... every single one of those statements is not only verifiable, but verified by one of the cited reliable sources. The fact that the citations are not included where the facts first appear (in the lede paragraph) does not mean that the facts are not referenced. All of the facts are referenced and cited later in the article. Thus, there is no WP:V or WP:NOR violation. If you were to tag them, I would politely point this out to you and remove the tags. If you pressed the point, I would eventually report you at ANI. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you have to prove that all 6 are sourced in order to do so, or just make a blanket statement as you did? If you reported me without wasting your time proving that all 6 are sourced, you would be reporting me for enforcing WP policies......the burden of proof is on the person who wants to restore / keep the material. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

North, if I made a blanket statement "all FA's are unsourced!", and added {{

disruptive. Crum375 (talk

) 16:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

North, original research is material for which no reliable source exists; it's not material that doesn't have a footnote next to it. About leads, there is no exception for leads, but a convention has arisen, particularly in featured articles, that non-contentious material is not referenced. I don't agree with that myself, but it's quite standard. It arose, I believe, because of Wikipedians with a background in academia who were used to the idea of article abstracts. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I picked the first sentence of the lead, but I could have done the same with material that is not in the lead. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of material in that article for which you're reasonably sure no source exists? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that we just did a role reversal. What you just described is what I think that the criteria/procedure SHOULD be in order to tag or delete it. Under the current policies (and the interpretation of the regulars here) I don't have to say I think that no source exists, I can tag or delete it for merely being unsourced and then the burden of proof is on the person who wants to keep it to prove otherwise. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

North, you can point to something in an article and challenge it, and editors will have to show you where the source for that material is, and defend it if you claim it doesn't directly support the material. But you need to be very specific: you can't just wave your arms and say "it's all unsourced!" Crum375 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

North, the reason I've been pushing you to go through this exercise is because I have strongly suspected (and now been proven right) that you have completely misunderstood the policies.

As an example: Please show me the sentence in WP:V or WP:NOR that requires inline citations next to every single instance of a non-contentious fact (not including direct quotations).

You couldn't find any such sentence? Well, I let you in on the secret: You couldn't find it because it's not there. None of our sourcing policies have ever required this. The policy is that material must be "verifiable", not "already cited". If a suitable source exists -- anywhere in the world, in any language, in any medium -- then the material complies with WP:V. (The point of BURDEN is to help us identify situations in which a suitable source probably does not exist.)

Also, you might benefit from reading

WP:LEAD#Citations, which addresses this point explicitly. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 17:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to tweak what you said: if a source exists, whether or not it's supplied, the material complies with NOR. If it's a quotation, or is material that's been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and it has an inline citation, then it complies with V. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Answering several folks:

In this discussion section I am making a point. Which is that, the policies as written make 90% of Wikipedia material vulnerable to the abuses that I describe. The common abuses in real life typically aren't to make such points. The two most common are to selectively knock out material to POV an article, or the social misfits who just go around doing such things to articles (and never creating anything) just because they enjoy doing so, being social misfits.

As before, we are debating two different things. Y'all are talking about the principles and intentions of the policies, and how high-minded people would resolve issues regarding them. an area where I am in total agreement with you. I am talking about the unintended consequences of the policies as written, and that they make 90% of Wikipedia content vulnerable to such abuse, and that such abuse is widespread.

And I think I can answer the question that nobody has been willing to answer directly. If I were to sanctimonously hang those 6 tags on that sentence, the editor that created this excellent material is going to have to waste their time proving that all 6 are sourced in order to remove the tags. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

North, if your point is "can an editor intent on disruption create disruption and waste people's time?" The answer is "yes", any free and open project like Wikipedia is "vulnerable" to people intent on mayhem. This means that no matter what the policies said, the disruptive users will find a way to waste our time, so we might as well focus on writing reasonable policies to help reasonable people who want to help, not those bent on disruption. Crum375 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, these things happen: People misapply policies and guidelines all the time. Editors who know better fix the resulting problems whenever they encounter them. Depending on the perceived motivation, this particular mistake is either called a bad-faith challenge or a simple misunderstanding of the policy.

North, you have repeatedly asserted on this page that the actual policies require a silly level of inline citations. You have been repeatedly told that the policies only require that material be verifiable rather than already supported by a specific inline citation. Do you now agree that the policies mean what they say, and thus that the sentence you quote above is fully compliant with Wikipedia's actual content policies? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ver anything challenged requires an in-line citation. Per both policies and per the regulars here, the challenge need be only that it is unscourced. The challenger does not even need to say that the don't believe a source exists, they just need to say that it is unsourced. So, once it is challenged for being unsourced, it is in violation until it gets in-line citations. (not that I agree that it should be so) North8000 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't try to read people's minds; if they challenge material which is not attributed, it needs to be attributed. That's all there is to it. It's simple, and it works. You have yet to demonstrate any problem with it. Crum375 (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are two new topics / discussions and I'm getting writer's cramp for the moment.  :-) Peace. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

North, the six facts you identified in this sentence have not been challenged and are not likely to be challenged. Do we agree that these six facts therefore comply with the policies, as written, in their current form? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

YES, until some misfit challenges them simply for being unsourced at which time they become in violation until they get in-line citations. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So? When they are challenged, they will be attributed (if they are not already). Whether on the same sentence or on another one is a question of style, to be decided by consensus. But there is no "violation", and no problem. Crum375 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just answering WhatamIdoing's question. My "so" was already said.

But my main point is that there is a problem, and that the following change (paraphrased) would go a long way towards fixing it:

• To take action (tagging, deletion etc.) against an unsourced statement, you should also either state disagreement with the statement or that you believe that it is unsourcable.

• (handle the more stringent BLP and quotation sourcing requirements separately)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

North, I am sure you are familiar with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." In this case, you have yet to demonstrate that anything is "broke". There is no need to insist on a reason for a challenge: all we need is a challenge. And since all material on Wikipedia must be attributable, it means that the person who added the material should have a source for it, and it should be cited. That's easy, simple, and it works. Crum375 (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on several of those points. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

North, if some "misfit" editor were to challenge your six facts for being "unsourced"... I would do exactly as I am doing with you... I would point out to them that these facts ARE, in fact, sourced... every single one of them. The facts are repeated (with citations) in the "Life and carrer" section of the article (the first section after the lede). I would then point the misfit editor to WP:LEDE to explain why they are cited in this section and not cited in the lede. I would explain that WP:BURDEN has in fact been complied with and that there is no WP:V or WP:NOR violation. If they insisted that the facts be cited in the lede... no problem... it takes but a second to cut and paste these existing citations. In short, what you think is a problem... isn't a problem. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:VER says that once challenged they need in-line citations. But we're going in circles. Though somebody changed the title, this started out as a sampler (example), not an all-inclusive example of the things covered by my assertion. There are many other components. Any high level of summarization is wp:synthesis, most sources do not meet the criteria of wp:ver, etc. I think that yourself and Crum are committed to defending and keeping 100% the status quo regarding this (apologies if I misunderstand) I think we have to agree to disagree. I came here emboldened to pursue this issue because it is the policy most often questioned by experienced editors and most often abused by abusers. Probably I'll get worn down and give up and leave this discussion like all of the others. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely not committed to status quo ... In fact I have several issues with the current language of the policy. However, I also accept that current consensus does not agree with my view point, so I don't belabor the point. Blueboar (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also take Blueboar's basic approach in that instance. That is, I'd first see whether I could convince the concerned editor to withdraw the challenge.

North, one of the reasons that we don't require any bureaucratic overhead when a fact is challenged is that the reason for the challenge has no practical effect. Here's the system:

I challenge because...	Your response is...
I think it's factually wrong	Provide an inline source
I think it's unsourceable	Provide an inline source
I'm disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point	Provide an inline source
I'm wikilawyering against a POV I hate	Provide an inline source
My teacher won't let me cite Wikipedia directly	Provide an inline source
I'm feeling grumpy	Provide an inline source
I don't understand the content policies	Provide an inline source
The moon is full	Provide an inline source
The sky is blue	Provide an inline source
I'm a jerk	Provide an inline source

Given that your response is always the same, it actually doesn't matter what my excuse (nominal or real) is for challenging material. If I challenge it, then you provide an inline source, full stop. Why I (claim to) have challenged it is irrelevant.

If you want to discuss your (erroneous) assertions that most sources used on Wikipedia fail WP:V and that summarizing sources violates

WP:SYNTH, then I suggest starting new sections. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! That should be in the policy. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. You seem to be seeing that sameness of the response means that the cause is irrelevant. That does not follow. But either way, it does not refute my assertion that my proposal would reduce abuses. North8000 (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He is saying that requiring an "explanation" for a challenge is useless, and would only increase discord. It's better to just say "I challenge" and then to provide the source. Crum375 (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What abuse? None of the causes I named above are prohibited. Several are silly and several are stupid, but none are actually prohibited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think North8000 has some point, but it is so subtly complex that I think he should write an extended essay on it for him to be better understood. I suggest that he illustrate this essay with examples of good and bad practice within and outside wikipedia, and suggest solutions. Does he suggest referencing and cross-referencing multiple times per sentence, or does he suggest something else? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. But I'm not sure of the Wikipedia "syntax" on creating an essay. Do you just create an article except with a Wikipedia:xxxxx name and then put an essay template on it?. BTW I think that the article is fine. North8000 (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you just write it and tag it. The official rules are

WP:MFD (usual rules apply; most editors argue from common sense for essays). WhatamIdoing (talk

) 05:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remember these are editorial policies which imply--indeed presume--a very broad extent of discretion at every stage of the writing and editing process. The three core content policies describe methods by which editors are essentially a conduit for summarizing facts and ideas w.r.t. any given topic in the "entire world", so to speak. W.r.t. requiring sourcing, the WP:V policy says content must be cited to reliable sources if it's "contested or likely to be contested", as opposed to e.g., arguing endlessly over what's a fact or what's the truth. This has pretty much from the beginning been a standard WP editorial principle. Which has in turn, for example, lead some to argue on this and other policy talk pages that we don't deal in facts, but only in verification of what others say. But that argument is very incomplete because there are editorial decisions to be made in conveying the material to readers. Which leads me to three interrelated assertions at the moment.
..... First, the core content policies prescribe the basic methods and proscribe the approximate limits beyond which editorial discretion is not to be exercised.
..... Second, the content policies describe a basic editorial method across an extremely wide range of topic areas, many of which are hardly controversial at all, but a very significant number of which are definitely controversial in one respect or another, with all shades of controversiality-grey in between.
..... Third, there is a very big difference between article writing that's more than just citing "Advocate A says x about y and advocate B says z about it" and on the other hand "original research and original synthesis. Here too there is a broad range of discretion, shades of grey and permissible disagreement over both the facts according to reliable sources and how to best express them encyclopedically.

IMO, a broad accusation of multiple "violation[s]" of policy in a featured article as asserted at the top of this talk section, or in "90%" of articles as also alleged by North8000, is very misguided, mistaking editorial policy for some kind of

David Alexander Johnston has "violated" WP:NOR and/or WP:V as alleged at the beginning of this talk section, I have yet to see anyone contesting the notion that Mr. Johnston was, e.g., born on 18 December 1949, or any other basic fact about Johnston. If someone has reason to contest or be likely to contest this or any or any other fact about Johnston, I have yet to see it demonstrated here in a way that implicates fault in WP policy or in the mentioned article about Johnston. .... Kenosis (talk

) 04:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to WhatamIdoing for the info and Kenosis for the overview. I think that SmokeyJoe a few lines above that was right. I tend to think structurally, and how elements can interact including creating unintended consequences. In the outside world I often get called on to write by-laws, policies, constitutions of organizations, articles of incorporation, and occasionally laws. (also in running organizations and a company) My strengths in that area are more as a logician and understanding cause / effect and the related people dynamics rather than writing skills. I see that I have not communicated my central theme in this section. Basically, it's that when there is a large disparity between the "letter of the law" and reality, i.e. where most things that get done get done by bending or breaking the rules, you have a problem, including making the situation ripe for abuse. (And I was using one sentence of one FA as a quick attempt to show that such a disparity exists.) And when one wanders Wikipedia, one can see that there ARE some problems which are big and getting bigger. Wikipedia is a huge success story. The core policies are fundamentally good, and are just what Wikipedia needs. They also have some granularity, structural, organizational and unintended-consequences issues where fixing them would help Wikipedia, including in those areas where there are problems which are getting bigger. I might start that "essay" section....if so I'll mention it here. Who knows.... a long shot....if done a certain way, it could become a collaborate area for analysis and work on things which which are too long term / complex for successful handling a talk page+tweaks-on-a-major-policy format. A big thank you everyone, even to those I disagree with. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• No offense, but why is this thread continuing? At most, this is not an original research question but a verifiability one. That should have been stated and then the thread left alone so we don't continue a long, unproductive discussion and distract from other threads with actual issues. I realize it's ironic for me to be saying that, but I think it needs to be said - and I'm ignoring an oft-used acronym which comes to mind out of civility. Incidentally, North8000, I try to reference leads if there's something that's likely to be questioned. If you really want to see them cited, look through the article and add a cite to an obituary to the lead, which would likely cover all the facts. I also sometimes cite every single fact, which can lead to the same citation being used multiple times in the same paragraph. Some people don't like the style but I think the convenience of verifiability and the prevention of my addition being deleted makes it worth it. North8000, I also see you're saying that you're trying to make a larger point about Wikipedia's
  ignore all rules but I don't see any constructive proposals here. II | (t - c
  ) 08:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was done with this and signing off. My point was summed up in that last paragraph (and goes to the root of lots of actual issues) and quite different than you described. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I note the the 'Terminology' section above [1]. Indeed huge amounts of WP time are constantly wasted by eds misunderstanding the NOR policy and OR. This is because the title is misleading, and focuses on 'research' rather than 'opinion'. Editors do not undertake research when they add their personal opinion to articles. So they don't think they have done anything wrong when they add their opinion, and don't understand that the only opinion WP wants is restricted to what can be found in secondary sources. Over and over again I have seen editors told their edits are OR, and they appear to be baffled, saying 'but I haven't done any research, this is a known fact'. It would be helpful to them, I think, if they aren't told that they have conducted 'Original Research' but that they are 'Opinion Restricted' to what they can find in secondary sources. Consequently I propose NOR should also stand for 'New Opinion Restricted' and OR should also stand for 'Opinion Restricted'. These would simply be additional terms that we add to the lede of this article. Perhaps the description of 'Opinion Restricted' could also state the case that WP is not

In practice "OR" has become the noun for any violation of wp:ver. I think that its use has become much broader than just "Research" or "Opinions". But it might help. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this policy could have been named differently when it was created, but I think we are stuck with it. Unfortunately, there are some things that have become so ingrained in Wikipedia that it is all but impossible to change them. The term "Original research" and the abbreviation "OR" may have evolved into "Wikipedia Jargon"... but that jargon is so much a part of Wikipedia that trying to change it would be impossible.

Besides... NOR isn't just about new opinions (ie conclusions). It is also about not adding original interpretation and analysis and (most importantly) original synthesis of sources. Far more common than people who say "but I didn't do any research" are people who say "but this isn't my opinion... it's fact. I did exhaustive research on this, and my research proves what I say" (to which the appropriate response is: "you may well be right... but the NOR policy says that Wikipedia isn't the place to debut your proof. Go publish it somewhere else first, and then we can consider adding it to Wikipedia.) Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A better name for the policy would be no tenuous attribution. If someone adds something to Wikipedia based on analysis, interpretation or synthesis of sources and then cites those sources, it should be labbelled tenuous attribution. If someone adds something and cites no sources at all then that is an issue for

WP:V. Yaris678 (talk

) 13:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A snappy alternative would be WP:STS... which could stand for both "Summarize The Sources" and "Stick to The Sources"... which are both what this policy is really all about. But, as we learned with WP:ATT... people like what they are used to, and dislike changing the names of established policies. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I should emphasise I'm not suggesting we change the meaning or NOR nor am I trying to limit it. My point is that keep WP:NOR as it is, but add another definition, in order to deal with editors who add their opinion in good faith, and don't understand what 'original research' has to do with their edits, no matter how many times people try to explain it to them. Most time-wasting conflicts seem to start because editors wrongly assume they are entitled to include their personal opinions in articles. My proposed lede would be something like this: Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources. A second, and equally important meaning of this policy is "new opinion restricted": Wikipedians may not add their personal opinion to articles. Opinion is restricted to what can be found in reliable secondary sources, and does not extend to what is in Wikipedians' hearts and minds. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If people add their own opinions and don't cite sources that happen to say the same thing then the policy they need to refer to is

WP:V. Some people will say "I am removing your original research" but such statements are misleading. As with the earlier discussion, this confusion could be avoided if WP:NOR and WP:V were merged. Yaris678 (talk

) 15:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree... but how do we convince all the people who prefer to have two separate policies? Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. It looks like a really good idea from where I am standing and no one has really come out against the idea while it has been discussed recently. On the other hand, I was quite taken aback by the opposition to the seemingly obvious

WP:PSTSPROP

so I guess we can't just assume that common sense will prevail. Is it worth bringing up at the village pump? Perhaps we should wait till Slim comes up with a draft... or would that make people think it had been stitched up in advance?

What were the complaints last time? That the resultant policy was too long? That they liked the old terminology?

Yaris678 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You can read both the positive and the negative comments at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To really understand that poll, you have to remember the shock that ran throught the community when a prominent and powerful policy editor made this edit

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=111798785

(This is superseded by WP:ATT, as discussed on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:Attribution.)

appear on watchlists. Note the bold red cross. Think what "superceded" means. Note that few were watchlisting WP:ATT and few keep up with editing at WP:VPP. Note the uniformative preceding history of edits to WP:NOR and WT:NOR. Out of the blue, a core policy was, fait accompli, overturned per an established concensus that the community didn't know about. In hindsight, no one should be surprised at the kneejerk reaction. It doesn't mean that what was done at WP:ATT was wrong, but it proved that can't move the community without keeping them abreast. Many of the comments at that poll were in kneejerk reaction, and as such, the meaning of the poll should be nullified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is another thread which appears to conflate original research and verifiability. Whether something is an opinion, or whether the person who adds the content has an opinion on the content, is irrelevant; if something is unsourced it violates
  WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Chumchum7, can we mark this resolved and collapse? II | (t - c
  ) 02:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, thanks for pointing me towards Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. It made interesting reading. One thing that stood out to me was that quite a lot of people liked the idea of merging WP:NOR with WP:V, but they didn't like the idea of also merging in WP:RS. I completely agree with that position and note that we are not advocating merging in WP:RS/WP:IRS this time. My thoughts on the three pages are summarised by Rusty Cashman in point 97 of Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll #Neutral/qualified/compromise/other.

II, I agree with how you distinguish between WP:NOR and WP:V. However, most people seem not to be able to get that distinction into their head, which leads to people labelling everything OR. A merged policy would be simpler because people wouldn’t have to make the distinction. If we don’t go for a merge, an alternative suggestion would be to rephrase everything in WP:NOR that makes it look like WP:V. For example, it currently says “If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research.” It should say “If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call unverifiable.”

Yaris678 (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think the distinction can be made even easier...

• If no source exists for a fact that you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call Unverifiable (cite WP:V).
• If no source exists for an interpretation, analysis or conclusion that you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research (cite WP:NOR)

In both cases, the problem is lack of sources... the difference is what type of statement is not sourced. Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Having a large overlap between subjects and some duplicated content is not good. Something should be done. My advice would be to move the WP:VER type content that's in WP:NOR out of WP:NOR and into WP:VER, and leave WP:NOR smaller, focusing on the (the outside world meaning of) it's title. This would be much easier to do than to get a strong consensus on a merge and accomplish a merge. But a merge would also take care of the issue. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

North, I like the idea but I don't think it is any more likely to gain consensus. If you remove the prohibition of X from WP:NOR, people will say "We can't allow people to do X! This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia!" They will ignore the fact that X is also prohibited by WP:V. I think my idea of just rephrasing some sections of WP:V is more likely to gain acceptance... but even that could be problematic. The second sentence of WP:NOR is currently

The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources.'

We could change it to either

The term "unverifiable" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources.

or, since we are supposed to be writing about original research,

The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—only tenuously supported by reliable sources.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"original research refers to material...only tenuously supported by reliable sources": That's incorrect. On Wikipedia OR refers to any material not supported by reliable sources, period. Crum375 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum, you are certainly right, but by what you just said, wp:NOR is 100% the same as / a duplication of wp:ver and shouldn't exist. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of moving 80% of WP:NOR to WP:VER, the remaining 20% would basically just "explain" / expand upon one aspect of / set of scenarios within wp:ver, that wp is not the place for putting forth new ideas, new research, new theories etc. In reality, that is sort of a merger, but an easier / more pragmatic way to get there. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just some advice at this point... don't do anything so significant to this policy (and WP:V) without giving a LOT of warning... in as many venues as possible... especially at the Village Pump. If there is one thing that I have learned in more than five years of editing policy pages ... you ensure a knee-jerk rejection of any change if those who do not actively follow this talk page are taken by surprise. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear. I didn't mean to sound like I was thinking of ME starting to make those changes. I was just suggesting that overall. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Over recent posts there seems to have been many different ideas about what original research actually is and how it is distinct from unverifiable material. I can see some merit in each but it would be nice if we actually decided which to go for so that we don’t keep talking at cross purposes. The distinctions I can see are:

1. Unverifiable means not supported by the sources whereas OR means only supported through interpretation, analysis or synthesis of the sources.
2. Unverifiable means a fact not supported by sources whereas OR means an interpretation, analysis, synthesis or conclusion not supported by the sources.
3. Unverifiable means not supported by the sources and OR means not supported by the sources.

Part of the difference between 1 and 2 is that in 2 the OR writer is making the analysis etc. explicit in the text whereas in 1 the OR writer is just relying on the reader to make the jump from the source to the conclusion. 2 also has the issue that someone interpreting the policy must be able to distinguish between a fact and a conclusion.

Those of opinion 3 tend to think the two policies should be merged. Some of those of the other opinions think they should be merged to avoid confusion whereas others hold the distinction dear. Yaris678 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues here, the meaning of OR on Wikipedia, and the need to keep the OR policy separate from V. As for the first issue, OR has had the same definition on WP over the last 5 years, which is "OR means material not attributable to a reliable source." Here are some sample definitions from OR policy over the last few years:

• 2005: "What is original research? Original research refers to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source."[2]
• 2006: "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source."[3]
• 2007: "Original research is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research."[4]
• 2008: "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."[5]
• 2009: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."[6]
• 2010: "The term original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources."[7]

Clearly the definition has not strayed much from the basic meaning of "OR = 'not attributable to a reliable source'." Crum375 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Unlike Crum375, I don't care what the talk page regulars think the terms mean, or how that group have used the terms in the past. Unverifiable, in the context of source-based research, means the information cannot be found in a reliable publication. Original research, from the point of view of a publisher, means unpublished. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My message above had nothing to do with "talk page regulars". I was referring to and quoted what the WP:OR policy actually says, and has said, over the last five years, as its own definition of what it is. That reflects what the entire Wikipedia community means by "OR", not some limited subset. And just like "verifiability", WP has always had its own definition of OR, which may be different than that of other groups. Crum375 (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The WP def of OR isn't just contrary to the definition of it in one or another group, it's in conflict with the universal connotation of that term in the English language. As long as that conflict exists, we can expect to have to keep repeating over and over and over that once you enter Wikipedia, the real world meaning of the term no longer apples. If you write down a famous 1,000 year old quote and it is unsourced, in WP that is "Original Research" North8000 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no such concept as "universal definition" of anything. Every group has its own definition of things. Some are more common than others, but none are identical everywhere. In the WP case, as I noted above in the #Terminology section, both "verifiability" and "OR" have a somewhat peculiar definition, which can cause confusion. But the actual wiki definitions of both terms have not changed much over the years. Crum375 (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment was that the WP definition of the term is very different than the general meaning of the term outside of WP. Ask a bunch of non-wikipedia-familiar people what "original research" means, and I think that the answers will be similar and nowhere near the WP definition. Implying that I was saying there was a universal definition (definition being more specific/precise) is sort changing what I said to a straw man version of it. But no biggee. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, the 04:34, 10 June 2006 version of the original research page says in the lead: "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say". This is what original research is about, and it is not the same as verifiability per se. Content can be plenty verifiable - it can be attributed to a reliable source which directly says what the content says, but if it is in the wrong article, it can still be original research (VERY COMMON). Some of the quotes you provide reflect this understanding (2008, 2009), but others don't. Something can be verifiable, but if the verification requires too much particular expertise and analysis (which may nevertheless be completely valid), it is original research. In other words, it can be "attributed" to reliable sources such as original scientific papers, but it can still be original research. It seems as if you're trying to pull out random sentences from versions of the article to try to make the point that verifiability and original research are broadly synonymous and mean that there aren't reliable sources. Since there are 3-4 threads which have this misunderstanding here, it's no surprise that certain versions of the policy have had an unsophisticated and basically incorrect understanding of the actual policy. It's also worth point out that if something is uncited, it can either be original research (no source around) or unverifiable (person forgot to add a source). II | (t - c) 21:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

North8000: you're right that the terms here don't match the terms in other areas. I agree with Crum that the definition of "original research" is essentially the same as "unverifiable". The only possible change over the years has been an increased focus on synthesis. The basic meaning has been pretty stable. — Carl (

I 100% agree that you are both right on that. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The term "original research" in the academic world doesn't mean "not based on reliable sources". Students writing research papers and academics writing papers use reliable sources all the time in their original research--indeed they're expected to use reliable sources. What we do in WP is more comparable to, well, writing an encyclopedia, or writing a report on a topic, without synthesizing those sources in support of an original thesis, POV or other conclusion which puts forward an argument based on the cited reliable sources. This practice is well tolerated--even encouraged, in an original research paper. But it's not what we do in WP. And therein lies the important difference between WP:V and WP:NOR. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re Crum375's remark "both 'verifiability' and 'OR' have a somewhat peculiar definition, which can cause confusion." - We have the opportunity to make the "OR" definition less peculiar with the change proposed in the RFC above. As it is now, the definition of "OR" includes the case where editors' don't try to put their original thoughts into Wikipedia, but try to include material by citing unreliable sources. This prohibition belongs in

What I pointed out in #Terminology is that the historical names we chose for the policies are misnomers and therefore cause confusion among newer editors. But the actual concepts behind those names are just fine, and don't require any modification. What I did suggest is to combine the two policies, which are essentially saying the same thing in different words, into a single combined version called WP:ATT (not that it's my idea in any way, but I support it). What you are suggesting in this RfC, however, would create even further confusion, because it would leave the confusing names in place, and introduce new concepts and new definitions, which at the moment have no consensus. And any conceptual changes in these core policies would require a fairly broad consensus, project wide, because they would affect everything. Crum375 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You could clarify your remarks for me by answering the following questions:

1) Do you think that the present definition of "original research" is a good definition and is not misunderstood by editors?

2) If the two policies NOR and VER are combined, would you want to eliminate the term "original research"?

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

1) I think the definition of OR is fine, it's simply the complement of "attributable" — material is either attributable to a reliable source, and thus eligible for inclusion, or not attributable to a reliable source (aka "OR"), and thus ineligible for inclusion. As far as being misunderstood, I think most long time editors with some good articles and perhaps FAs under their belts understand the core policies clearly, but unfortunately many newer or less experienced editors find the concepts behind both WP:V and WP:NOR hard to grasp, regardless of the specific names. Having names that are counter-intuitive is not helpful, as I noted in #Terminology.

2) If V and NOR are combined, I'd like to eliminate both confusing names by calling the combination "attributablity" (WP:ATT). We can keep V and OR for historical reasons, but encourage people to focus on attributability instead. Under WP:ATT, life would be almost too simple: material is either attributable to a reliable source, or it isn't. If the editor adding it says it is, and the material is challenged, likely to be challenged, or quoted, he'd need to supply the reliable source. The more subtle concept of WP:SYN will be integrated into WP:ATT, by clarifying that any synthesis of sources which advances a position must be directly attributable to a reliable source, just like any other material. In other words, we define "material" as not just words, but implications arising from their presentation or juxtaposition. Crum375 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, are you proposing to put

WP:ATT up for policy status again? ... Kenosis (talk

) 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to take some parts from the current version, including the WP:ATT name and the key attributability/attribution concepts. I think all counterpoints and objections raised in the past, as well as the issues recently mentioned on this talk page, need to be addressed. I would try to get a good sounding for it, and inputs from the wider community, before putting it up for vote. Crum375 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that the process would be served by bringing

WP:VPP and see where it leads?
....... So many users have come to rely on WP:V and WP:NOR in their basic long-standing form that I expect a move towards a combined policy page would at minimum take a long transitional period so as to allow those who rely on the existing tripartite core-content policy structure to continue to use it for a reasonable length of time, perhaps up to several years? IOW, it's not just about historical preservation, but also about how countless experienced users—most of whom don't necessarily frequent the policy pages or WP:VPP by instead just apply and cite as may be necessary the three interactive core content policies—approach their description of policy in explaining it to others. ... Kenosis (talk

) 03:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. Crum375 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

One possible way of managing such a transition might be to make sure the most important shortcuts continue to link to their respective current pages, e.g.

WP:V. Perhaps more importantly, I suspect that among the biggest issues in managing this kind of proposed major transition in policy structure would be deciding which sections involving section-specific shortcuts will be transcluded onto which page. For example, will WP:PSTS link to the relevant section in WP:ATT or WP:NOR? Will WP:PSTS in WP:NOR be transcluded onto WP:PSTS in WP:ATT? Or the reverse? And if neither, who would be responsible for keeping up with making sure both versions are consistent while the proposed transition is underway? Same with WP:SYN and any other shortcuts that might be chosen to link at some as-yet-undetermined outset to WP:ATT instead of WP:V or WP:NOR. These issues perhaps not insurmountable, but they appear to me to be substantial. I feel sure it would be important for participants at WP:VPP and elsewhere to be familiar with these issues, and perhaps others that I don't presently foresee off the top of my head. ... Kenosis (talk

) 03:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the shortcuts should not be a problem. Consider that even today, when they point to the current versions, the words they point to change over time. Which means that if you want to point to a fixed target, you need to link to a snapshot, not a dynamically changing page, and virtually nobody does that with a policy page. Now let's assume the transition is made, and take WP:SYN as example. I would think that, assuming the ATT#SYN section starts out essentially the same as NOR#SYN, most people would want to point to ATT#SYN, because it would be guaranteed to remain current, following the latest community consensus, while NOR#SYN would gradually become stagnant. In any case, I see shortcuts as less problematic than nailing the language down, and making sure all factions are pleased, which is easier said than done. Crum375 (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK then. You certainly don't need to convince me or even the current regular participants at this talk page (though it might be a potential start—as we know that has very commonly failed before when thinking about proposed community-wide issues, which is why

WT:ATT, while most of the rest of the community was simply going about its business, relying on established policy. Again, as I indicated just now, I'm just trying to point out some things to which I think careful attention should be paid in a quest of this kind.) ... Kenosis (talk

) 04:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What is expected by the proponents of the merge, to be the positive impact of this merging, on the vast majority of editors? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You can read my own rationale here. Briefly, what I expect is to replace two poorly-named policies which essentially say the same thing, by one. The single "Attribution" policy will help everyone, because its name and meaning will be clear and simple, eliminating (or reducing) the endless threads which stem from confusion. Crum375 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I started a draft here. Crum375 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You will have my full support in this. I'd like to make a few comments on the draft. Would you prefer those here or on the talk page of the draft? --Mike Cline (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the draft's talk page would be best. Thanks for the encouragement. Crum375 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits that I made to

(I have also asked this in Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Noticeboard

 Bruno  20:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What you did is the very definition of Original research. You are adding information that has not been published in a reliable source. Your information may be correct... but because it has not been published it constitutes OR (it also violates WP:Verifiability).

Even if published (say on a web-site), we would still question the material. However we would do so for a different reason... family members do not constitute a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

For anyone interested, based on recent discussions here, I have started a draft version of a new proposed ATT policy under my user page, which includes the current versions of WP:V, WP:NOR and some material from WP:ATT. It is very much a works-in-progress, but comments would be appreciated on its talk page. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I erased the references to early seals of kommerkiarioi of the Armeniac Theme because I know that no such seals for the given years have been published so far. This has been judged by Cplakidas "personal research" and the old text maintained on the authority of an entry of an online "Hellenic Encyclopedia." The author of this entry mentions the seals without citing the editions. She is simply wrong. In principle, it seems ridiculous that I should have to prove that something does not exist! However, I write back to Cplakidas:

Dear Constantine, your idea of what a "credible source" would be is frankly surprising. Once more, the entry in the Hellenic Encyclopedia, whoever the author is, DOES NOT give any references to editions or auction catalogues where the seals in question should be found! Where lies then credibility? Aren't sources rather than accepted authority that make a statement credible and 'authoritative?' Isn't that found in the Hellenic Encyclopedia "personal," and in the case "very poor," research too? At any rate, I understand that the average reader like you may hold such a source to be credible. What I am telling you is that I checked the information and it revealed to be false. Is that to be banned as evil "personal research?" Moreover, since there are NO SEALS, I have NOTHING to prove. Yet you are stubborn and pretentious like many narrow minded "administrators" of your kind. Now, to be honest, it annoys me a bit having to give one like you the proof that I SHOULD NOT provide. However, I find it a pity that other people should have to read bul**hit on Wikipedia because of a Cplakidas. Therefore: the latest scholarly publication on Byzantine seals of kommerkiarioi from Anatolia, available on line at http://www.byzsym.org/index.php/bz/article/viewPDFInterstitial/931/882, gives a complete list of the published specimens in which you won't find the alleged seals of the Armeniac Theme for 650 or whatever. Regards.

I wrote to the administrators of the "Hellenic Encyclopedia" to complain about the mistake, an especially serious one given the 'authority' that many people may naturally attribute to this source. I think that this story teaches us a lot of things. Can serious reference checking be excluded from Wikipedia as "personal research?" I insist that selection criteria, when in the hands of mediocre people, put knowledge in chains and make us all waste a lot of time. Cheers, fm Fredmont (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Original research only restricts what content can be displayed in an article. It does not restrict (and it would be kind of

dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk

) 08:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(I copied the following discussion to here from another talk page, following up on a comment/suggestion by another editor at a discussion re WP:ATT at that other talk page. The horizontal line indicates the end of the material that was quoted using <blockquote>.)

Offhand I think it would be necessary to include a section on "No original research" in order for this to have any chance at passing muster in front of the community. Perhaps somewhat similarly to what's already at WP:ATT? Given its rich history as one of the three core content policies, I don't think it can realistically be made to just vanish into thin air. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not vanished at all. It is simply renamed to "no unattributable material", or "no unattributable content". The WP:NOR shortcut remains the same, and the definitions are the same, with much of the text copied verbatim. The reason for the renaming of NOR to NUC (NUM is taken a the moment) is that the term "original research" creates vast confusion on WP, and is in many ways a misnomer, because by NOR we don't really mean "original", nor do we really mean "research". So the renaming (with no change in the underlying concept) is a key piece of this proposal. If you can find some part of WP:NOR that is missing here, it would be very helpful. Crum375 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "the term 'original research' creates vast confusion on WP, and is in many ways a misnomer, because by NOR we don't really mean 'original' " - But over at WT:NOR you opposed the effort to simply fix that at the RFC here. So if you want to fix that with your proposed policy WP:ATT, why did you oppose fixing it at WP:NOR? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The confusion that we currently have with NOR is that it has a misleading name, not that the underlying concept is flawed. In fact, the underlying concepts of both V and NOR are just fine, and need no modification. The RfC in question proposed to change the underlying concepts, in a way that, in my opinion, would add even more confusion and would not solve anything that I can see. This proposed draft policy does not intend to change any underlying concept, and instead focuses on presenting the existing concepts, which have served us well, in a way that is better organized and with names that are less confusing, hopefully easier to understand and use. Obviously only the community as a whole can decide whether this combined version is better than the existing pair of V and NOR. Crum375 (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "The RfC in question proposed to change the underlying concepts" - That's false. The underlying concept of excluding material from unreliable sources was still present in WP:VER. The only thing the RFC would have done was fixed the definition of Original Research. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing the definition of a core policy which has been constant for years, and is linked to in countless discussions around the site, will introduce a major change in a core concept and render all those threads meaningless. I don't think that's a step forward, when the only issue is a bad name. But in any case, the RfC and specific NOR discussion belong on the WT:NOR page. Crum375 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "Changing the definition of a core policy which has been constant for years" - And it is a part that you have not moved to correct for years. The only part of the definition that would change is the part that can be interpreted as meaning that material that an editor cites from an unreliable source is defined as original research. This is a very counter-intuitive part of the definition of original research, which the vast majority of editors do not even know exists, and are likely to be disbelieving and confused by it when another editor invokes it, IMO. The exclusion of material by the reason of citing an unreliable source should be done using the existing WP:VER, not WP:NOR, and that is what the RFC would correct. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is related to the issue I raised earlier at Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 52#Distinction between original research and unverifiable material. I have concluded that we will never get people to agree on what the distinction between original research and unverifiable material is. Everyone does agree that they are related in one way or another and so it makes sense to merge the two policies. If we start using new terms such as "no original material" then hopefully we can agree on what those new terms mean and stop arguing about what "no original research" means.

Warming to my theme... Perhaps we could invent new terms which relate to the different things different people see in "no original research". Off the top of my head, I can think of two terms that I think would be useful:

• "No original material" / "no original content" - you can't just add you own opinions, analysis, interpretation, experimental results etc. to an article. It has to be attributable to a reliable source.
• "No tenuous attribution" - attributing a statement to a source is not valid if the statement can only be derived from the source by analysis, interpretation etc. Summarising and paraphrasing of sources is allowed/encouraged.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The Three Main Meanings of OR in WP

1. I'm guessing that the original meaning in WP was close to the outside-world meaning.....what most outside people world recognize as truly new work....new research, new theories, etc., and that the policy was pointing out that Wikipedia is not the place for such.

1. The more you analyze the meaning with respect to defining it for enforcement purposes, the more you end up with the simple operative definition for those purposes OR simply = unsourcable or unsourced. And such was inevitable in the WP:OR article, because the operative definition is mostly what happens there. And that evolves towards a duplication of WP:NOR

1. OR has become the handiest "negative" label / noun to apply to a writing (for whatever purpose) where it appears a wp:ver or wp:nor violation may exist.North8000 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember when this policy had clear statements in the lead paragraph such as:

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you 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".

Now it has crap in the leading paragraph: something about Paris being the capital of France. Lets call a spade a spade; unsourced content is original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content is not necessarily OR. Unsourceable (unattributable) content is. That's the definition of OR. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We had a long discussion when I said that the first sentence of a FA had 6 violations of WP:NOR&WP:VER, (just archived into #52) and this is a reflection on the policy rather than the article. I think I found a real world situation that mirrors this at two levels. [[8]]. At the general level it appears that a visitor has been battering the article with wiki-tools and wiki-rules without engaging in any specific debate on the content. More specifically, the main editor said that "citation needed" tags should not be hung where the statement has already been made and referenced elsewhere in the article. (the intent of wp:NOR, and what most of you have said in our debate.) The visitor essentially said the same thing that I said, that the policy says that the mere act of hanging the tag means that it is "challenged" and that the policy categorically says that it would then need in-line citations. E.G. that the policy wording categorically says that if I hung 500 tags, those 500 are "challenged" and, categorically, 500 in-line cites are then needed. (the spirit and intent of the policy not withstanding)

This would have been avoided, and more substantive discussion ensued if my proposed change were in place. That the "challenge" must include at least a brief perfunctory challenge/complaint on some basis (e.g. simply adding: "I think that the statement is questionable" would do) in addition to just implicitly or explicitly on the grounds of being uncited. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I fully agree. In particular I believe citations should be avoided in the leader of an article except perhaps to show notability. The points should be covered later in the article anyway. Otherwise you get people either putting just one citation in the leader giving it undue prominence or a whole list of duplicate ones from the article making the leader look ugly and hard to edit.

Dmcq (talk

) 14:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact I'd like a tag for the leader to say something isn't covered in the article. In a big article the summary in the leader should be expanded further and should not really be giving things which aren't covered properly later - that makes the leader disjoint from the body.

Dmcq (talk

) 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. One aspect is avoiding mandating duplication of references for already-referenced statements. This and others stem from the policy wording that says that anything receiving any challenge must get an in line citation. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article under discussion has problems ... I disagree with your conclusion that your proposed change would have avoided or resolved them. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was talking more about the happenings on the article rather than the article. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But the happenings are directly related to the problematic condition of the article. A better written article that made it clearer as to who says what would not have had someone dropping fact tags all over it. And looking at the article, many of the tags are justified. This looks like a case where our current rules are being applied appropriately, and I don't see how your proposal would make things better. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that is fine. The person who wrote that article needs a real wp:NOR/VER-wording-enabled beating so that they won't go writing no more articles. North8000 (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Or they may actually read

featured Wikipedia articles. Crum375 (talk

) 03:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Crum, you keep moving off of the more specific topic that I was addressing, and that aspect of this example. Such is presumably to parry my argument for that proposed change. That's fine, such debate is part of what this talk section is for, although I think that a more direct discussion on the narrower issue presented would also be useful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

North, how do you think your proposal would have improved things at the Separated brethren article? Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would have forced the visitor into one of the following choices:

• If they have an interest in improving the article, to enter into to a real discussion regarding the real content of the article, vs. just hanging lots of templates and tags with no real discussion on the content.
• If they don't have such an interest, they would just leave it alone. While, under my proposed change, the visitor could theoretically just add " I think that the tagged statement is questionable" and still do the same thing, I don't think that they would have done so without their challenge seeming at least a little credible.

And make it less likely that Wikipedia would lose a good editor in frustration that certain Wikipedia policy wording enables "battering" without any discussion or debate on the real content in the article and how to really improve it. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I see... do you think it fair to say that your proposal is focused primarily on correcting the behavior of the challenger (which you see as being flawed), and only secondarily on resolving the underlying reasons for the challenge (the flaws with the article)? Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

First one thing that I forgot to add. If the statement is made and suitably tagged elsewhere in the article, once that is clarified, the visitor would not make the claim that my proposed revision would require.

Second, to address an implied premise in your question, the visitor did not even state any specific underlying reasons for the challenge, so it's not possible to discern whether or not there are article flaws which are the cause of this challenge.

That said, the answer to your question is yes. Thanks for asking Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As I am, I presume, the "visitor" on the

My debate is with some wording in wp policy and a proposed change rather than anything or anybody in the article. And the most specific core of it is that the wording of the sentence quoted by Novaseminary in the talk section supports (and can be used by someone to support) requiring duplicate in-line references for something that is already stated and referenced elsewhere in the article. All of these other things (including above ad hominem on the other editor) aside, the exchange on that particular aspect in the talk section of the article was brief and very clear. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I now can see clearly why I have a problem with your proposal, North... WP:NOR is a content policy, not a behavioral policy, and I don't think language that is focused on correcting behavior belongs in a content policy.

Furthermore, I don't think the behavior in question (tagging articles without an edit summary) is a behavior that requires correction. This may be because I don't view tagging as necessarily being a "challenge". I see tags more as being as constructive criticism, pointing out where an article I am working on needs improvement (the type of tag tells me what kind of improvement is needed). Sure, it is helpful to have detailed edit summaries, or messages left on the talk page to further explain why the tag was put there, but the tag itself tells me enough that I can start the process.

I get the idea that you think tagging an article is some sort of accusation, and want to make it more difficult for people to leave tags ... I see them as being a much more positive thing. Yes, sometimes a tag can be misplaced (such as when a tag is added in the lede paragraph and the information is fully cited later)... but even then, an inappropriate tag can indicate an area of the article that needs improvement (a tag in the lede, for example, could indicate that I need to re-write the lede, to make it clearer that it is a summary of the entire article).

My final reason for objecting to your proposal is that is simply is not enforceable. Are you suggesting we block editors who don't leave edit summaries? Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bluboar. Even though their goal is content, WP:NOR and WP:VER already have substantial material related to actions and behavior, and so that would be nothing new.

I think that tags and templates can be used to cause or help in improvement of an article, as weapons in a war (such as to POV an article, or where the article has become a mere boxing ring venue for a battle occurring in the outside world,) or to act out antisocial tendencies and behaviors. All of these occur widely in Wikipedia. To figure out which it is one must look at the other particulars of the situation.

In the noted case, the visitor invoked the "....if challenged...an in line citation must be provided" rule to say that the tagging (categorically) makes in-line citations mandatory. This invoking inherently defines tagging as a challenge.

Responding to your final note, the "enforcement" of my change would be incredibly simple. Any tagging or removal of material without at least a brief perfunctory statement (like just these 7 words: "I think that that statement is questionable") would inherently be OK to revert because it violated the (revised) policy.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actions are discussed, yes... because adding and removing content is an action. Behavior, no.

So you would allow unsourced and potentially harmful material to remain in an article (not necessarily talking about any specific article here), simply because someone did not bother to write an edit summary? no... I can not and will not agree to that... ever. Sorry. I guess we are done here, because it does not look like either of us will convince the other. We have fundamentally different views on the usefulness and appropriateness of tagging. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As to North800's most recent comments, I note that I only cited in an edit history

WP:V after the "main editor" repeatedly removed tags without explanation. I also note that I did leave edits summaries for the tags I added other than some immediately obvious like template:By whom (examples: "add fact tags indicating specific sentences that need sources"; "OR tag; one ed's take on clearly non-RS source; would need TP source for this"; "rpl tag; unclear where else this is stated"). I would think that this would be enough to meet North8000's proposal anyway. So what does that proposal get us? I think Blueboar

hit the nail on the head. Tags are not necessarily meant as a personal attack; or even a challenge to the factual accuracy. I might ultimately agree with ever fact in a given article. That doesn’t mean I should not insist that the article cite its sources properly. I think North8000 might take personally what is not meant that way, and it is irrelevant how they are meant anyway.

As an example, another editor tagged a for speedy deletion an article I started the other day (the article is Mark S. Scarberry). That is far more significant than inline tags, of course. I took minor issue with that designation being placed on the article 9 minutes after creation despite the article having multiple sources. Nonetheless, I figured the stub needed work. So I went to the talk page to highlight notability and then added more sources. No big deal (and tagging would have been a better route there anyway). Novaseminary (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I am confused... let me see if I have this right... Novaseminary did in fact give an edit summary explaining the tags when they were added (exactly what North proposes making policy)... And yet North uses this as an example of a situation that would have occurred differently (and presumably better) had his proposal been accepted. There seems to be a disconnect here. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar's confusion is understandable and shared by me. North's initial problem with my actions was related to the "main editor"'s assertion that certain facts that I tagged were cited elsewhere. Per North: "More specifically, the main editor said that "citation needed" tags should not be hung where the statement has already been made and referenced elsewhere in the article." I simply disagreed with the other editor's assertion that one (of several uncited, significant facts) was just a repeat of an earlier statement and source. Since I disagreed, I replaced the tag with the following edit summary: "rpl tag; unclear where else this is stated." The "main editor" then put the following on my talk page (and later pasted both of our comments from my talk page to the article talk page):

the fact that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider everyone who professes Christianity as "brothers in Christ" or "brethren" is stated basically RIGHT BEFORE, with the whole Mormon thing, and reference. Stop second-guessing everything I do and say and write, and go crazy with the wiki tags for every little thing that you have trouble piecing together, bro. It's getting annoying. For some reason you miss the obvious. And WP policy does NOT require a reference for EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE especially if the point was ALREADY STATED AND REFERENCED IN A PREVIOUS PART OF THE ARTICLE. The Mormon thing states the point. Case closed. If you have a big problem with this, then take it to the Talk page....

Besides the editor's source for this major theological proposition being of questionable reliability, the two statements were not the same. If they were, the repetition would be its own problem. If the statements were different and appearing in different paragraphs, even if supported by the same source, the source should be cited again (named refs make this easy). I'm ok with lead's that are entirely and only summaries of cited facts appearing below not having citations. But unique facts appearing in the body need a source.

Novaseminary (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The core of my topic not the conduct of either editor, it was that an exchange on the talk page proved out a couple of my assertions in our debate about a month ago. My link was to the talk page, not the article. The exchange at the core was:

And WP policy does NOT require a reference for EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE especially if the point was ALREADY STATED AND REFERENCED IN A PREVIOUS PART OF THE ARTICLE. The Mormon thing states the point. Case closed. If you have a big problem with this, then take it to the Talk page..... Sweetpoet (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:V ("Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."). Novaseminary (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That was THE END of the response, and considered a full response. Although he/she would not agree with the "structurally flawed" wording, this shows that Novaseminary and I are in agreement that the (structurally flawed) wording of that sentence says that tagging the statement causes a requirement for an in-line citation, irrespective of any other considerations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The exchange you reference actually occurred on my talk page. The "main editor" pasted this exchange from my talk page onto the article talk page. That was the end of my response on my talk page. As noted, the substance of my response to this one tag was in the edit histories. I did not agree that the tagged fact was already stated and referenced in a previous part of the article, so I added it back and noted why in the edit history. I didn't feel compelled to go into it further on my talk page or to fully explain all of the nuance of

WP:V, especially in light of the behavior "main editor" exhibited on the Separated brethren and Catholic Church and ecumenism

, for which he was blocked. I had already noted my reason in the edit history, and this was in response to just one fact tag.

Of course, "main editor" removed the tag again after citing to the same marginal source he cited for the other proposition (which, if the source were good, is exactly what should happen). As Blueboar noted toward the beginning of this section, the article was and remains less than clear. And as I already noted, if the statement was indeed just a repeated fact (though I do not think it was), such repetition in such a short article would itself be a problem. So, either the fact needed a citation or it should have been deleted as duplicative.

Other than in the lead and, perhaps, paragraph topic sentences or the like, I agree that citations are generally appropriate (whether tagged or not). If a summary sentence or sentence from the lead is tagged even though it is a summary of facts already cited in the main text of the article, noting in the edit history removing the tag why the editor is removing the tag seems a way to avoid problems. If there is not reason not to, just naming the reference if not already, and adding it in would be the best course of action.

Novaseminary (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This keeps broadening out into a review of the overall situation on the article. That's fine if y'all like, but not what I was talking about. If you would like to address the core of my point, I would like to ask if you agree or disagree with the following statement:

As written, "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" says/means that any statement challenged (even if the only challenge is for being uncited, and even if only by tagging) must get an in-line citation, irrespective of any other considerations.

So the question is about what it says, (and thus how it may be used or misused) not about good practices on that general topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, in light of what actually happened at

WP:V#Tagging_a_sentence.2C_section.2C_or_article, tagging is not an attack or personal affront or statement that the article is wrong, it is merely a request for a source. This policy is to avoid the sort of personal experience and general "I got the info from a book" sort of citation exhibited by you at Talk:Dorothy Molter. I think this is much ado about nothing. Novaseminary (talk

) 13:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be a matter for the talk section of that article, except that this might be chance to get proven right on yet another debated statement which I made: "Nearly all summarization violates a strict reading of wp:ver+wp:nor as currently worded" A pervasive theme throughout the references was that the evolution of the area she lived into the BWCA was a pervasive influence in her life, notability, media interest and the situation that placed in the public eye, and I think that nobody that knows anything about her or her life would dispute that fact. But none of the references stated it in such summary form. And so those summary statements are not literally sourcable. I would say that such a summary violates a strict interpretation of wp:ver+wp:nor, taken literally as written. (as does 90% of what's in Wikipedia).

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

North, it is clear that you simply do not understand the policy... even after several people (including myself) have attempted to explain it to you. There comes a point when further explanation is pointless. I think you will simply have to accept that your proposal will not gain consensus and move on. Further badgering on this point will end up being seen as disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. Novaseminary (talk

) 19:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, just when we get to the core and specifics of it you jump to vague generalizations. Novaseminary, I did switch topics, and thought that was clear. But your last note confuses me I thought I was critiquing (through a literal wp:ver/nor lens) ) MY summarization, and don't see where you did one in that article. No biggee either way.

But either way, for anyone who cares to read it above, I finished saying what I meant to say. North8000 ::::: (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

North, the specifics that you cite to demonstrate your point simply demonstrate how deeply you don't understand the policy. I have tried to assume good faith, but the fact that you seem to be involved in disputes at each of the articles you cite as "examples" makes me question your objectivity. It is never a good idea to suggest policy changes based on disputes you are involved with... it presents the appearance of trying to game the system post facto. I am not accusing you of anything, just noting how it appears to others. I am glad that you are finished... so am I. Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I have absolute ZERO involvement in the main example article that I started with and the discussion was about, and there are ZERO disputes on the (Dorothy Molter) one that we segued to. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

From Novaseminary's comments it seemed like you did have involvement... if I have misunderstood, I apologize. As I said, I was talking appearances... which do not always equate to reality. Blueboar (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the highest respect for people who are principle/mission driven and do the work to further those, even if I happen to be an "opponent" at the moment. And that's you. May the wind be at your back. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There was discussion a while back about attribution, and merging NOR + V. It came to nothing but it did make me think. "Original research" isn't a clear term to many (though well known to editors) and the term in everyday use doesn't cover matters such as "editors' opinions" that the policy aims to cover. So we can improve it.

I came up with the following and thought it could be useful, summing up and respecting both policies in plain and simple English. Posted more to see if it's a good explanation and what others think, than because of any proposed change:

Material from inadequate sources Wikipedia articles are based upon material already reported in reputable (or 'reliable') sources - publications that have built a reputation for checking their facts and discrimination and care in their content. Certain content, sources and ideas are therefore not suitable for use in Wikipedia articles, even though they may be widely read or quoted. Common examples: Content sourced from non-reputable publishers - a publication that does not have a reputation of this kind cannot be relied upon to have checked its facts or thought about its content carefully enough to be relied upon in Wikipedia. Content sourced from non-reputable parts of otherwise reputable publications - many publications that are generally reputable have sections and entries that cannot be assumed to have checked their content in the manner needed. Non-verifiable content - if editors cannot verify that the material existed in a reputable publication, then there can be no consensus it is reputably sourced, nor can readers confirm it for themselves. Note that reputable sources with limited or pay-only access, or that are hard to locate (such as out of print material), are still considered verifiable. Editors' opinion - views of editors are inherently non-verifiable and not considered to be reputably published. Synthesis - a kind of creation of novel suggestion, by inappropriately combining or juxtaposing reputable sourced material. Even though the original sources may be valid, the way they are combined and grammatical structure can lead to implications that are not covered by any reputable source. The traditional terms used for these in Wikipedia are: Verifiability - that we can verify a statement to a reputable source, Original research - material that is not published in a reputable source, including editorial opinion and synthesis. Exceptions: Material so non-controversial as to not be an issue - for obvious well known statements (grass is green) it is sufficient that editors accept it is non-contentious and verifiable. Self published material from other sources (within limits) - if verifiably written by the stated author and attributed to that author as their view alone. This covers (for example) a person or organization's own website, which is usually considered a reputable publisher for their own statements and claims (but cannot usually be cited as verification that the claims are neutral or accurate). Sources for material on living people - the policy for content on living people requires high quality sources only, compared to material for other kinds of content. Gossip columns and tabloids especially, though at times valid, are often not suitable sources for such articles, especially if the claim is negative, contentious or may be unbalanced in some way.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea of merging NOR and V has not been abandoned... just moved to a different venue for development. You may want to get involved in the drafting of an initial proposed text. see: User:Crum375/att. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I like this summary. Fences&Windows 17:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a disagreement at 2001 anthrax attacks over the use of FBI reports on the investigation. One editor added a section to the article based on the FBI's Amerithrax Investigative Summary Report, and another editor reverted it on the basis that it was derived entirely from a primary source.

For a crime-related article, does the official police or FBI report on the investigation constitute a primary source? It's not clear to me from

The report linked above appears to me to better fit the definition in

WP:PRIMARY of a secondary source than it fits the definition of a primary source. As I read it, it is a second-hand account, at least one step removed from the events, which relies on primary sources and makes analytic or evaluative claims about them. Wtmitchell (talk)

(earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I would concur with Wtmitchell. An investigative summary (not an individual's witness statement) is indeed a secondary source, that compiles the essence of many primary sources--witness statements, suspect statements, evidence analysis etc. The conclusions made in an investigative summary are indeed worthy of encyclopedic inclusion.--Mike Cline (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

An investigative report produced by a government agency is almost always a primary source, since the agency producing the report is also involved in the investigation. But this does not mean that the source can't be used on Wikipedia, for the following reasons:

• Being a primary source does not mean "unreliable", and in fact an official government report such as this is typically highly reliable;
• A reliable primary source can (and should) always be included as a source, even if it is not relied upon directly, but via secondary sources which interpret it;
• The main problem with a primary source is that it's easy to misinterpret, or selectively highlight or downplay parts, but an investigative report typically includes a brief executive summary or conclusions section, and if those are short enough, they can be quoted as a valid summary of the document with no risk of distortion.

Ideally, the best way to present a government investigative report is to use reliable secondary sources to interpret it and put it in perspective, but also include the primary document itself, with a quotation of its conclusions if they are short enough. Crum375 (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Crum – Your statement: An investigative report produced by a government agency is almost always a primary source, since the agency producing the report is also involved in the investigation. paints this with much too wide a brush and is misleading. If you removed the adjective investigative from the sentence, would you still contend that all reports published by a government agency are primary sources. Probably not as a great many WP sources would then be primary, not secondary. Indeed many investigative reports—witness statements, incident reports, lab reports, etc. are primary sources, but an investigative summary as mentioned above has far more characteristics of a secondary source. The language in

WP:RS In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. doesn’t explicitly include government agencies, but they function no differently than any respected publishing house. They just have different motives and incentives. Comparing this summary to a history book we would find the same basic components—authors and researchers (agents and lab technicians), editors (analysts) and a publisher (FBI). This summary is a well researched, well written compilation of probably 100s of primary sources. As I worked as a Federal Law Enforcement officer for 21 years I can assure you that the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing is far more prevalent in large government organizations than in private publishing. The second part of your statement: since the agency producing the report is also involved in the investigation. is very misleading and implies some bias against law enforcement. If it read since the agency producing the report is also involved in the research would you still say it? Of course they were involved. The FBI was involved in the case just like authors, researchers and editors (all in the employ of a publisher) are involved in the writing of a history book. The case was not about the FBI, the FBI just did the research (investigation) and published the book (the Investigative Summary). A government report (regardless of subject and regardless of agency) needs to be evaluated as a primary or secondary source on the merits of its content and nature, not who published it.--Mike Cline (talk

) 12:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I think you are making the common mistake of conflating source primacy with reliability. You quote from RS about reliability, and in fact a government report is typically highly reliable, so reliability is not an issue. A primary source investigative report is where the agency producing the report is involved in the investigation. The reason we prefer a secondary source to review it, is that we as Wikipedians are not equipped, or allowed, to put investigations into perspective. We need an independent overserver, such as a mainstream newspaper, or a respected magazine or journal, to write about the investigation, establish its notability, compare it to previous ones, and pick out the most relevant parts from it. Then, armed with this top view, we can add some details from the report itself, and perhaps quote the brief bottom-line conclusions. The primary source investigative report is not being disparaged at all — in fact it is a highly reliable and desirable source. But it is that independent observer secondary source, not involved in the investigation, which gives us the proper foundation for the Wikipedia article and allows us to frame the report appropriately. Crum375 (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone should look at this specific example instead of debating the issue in general terms. When the FBI closed the Amerithrax investigation a few months ago, on February 19, 2010, the media basically responded in two ways: (1) They reported that the FBI had closed the case and they referred the reader to the FBI/DOJ's web site and the Summary Report for further details. (2) They printed the opinions of people who have other theories and who do not believe the FBI. So, we have the "primary source" and we have opinions from "secondary sources" with other theories. Also, the investigation of Dr. Ivins was done properly, i.e., he was considered innocent until proven guilty, so his name was not mentioned in public until after his suicide in July of 2008, even though FBI documents indicate he was THE prime suspect for AT LEAST THREE YEARS before his suicide. That means that there are seven years of "secondary reports" by people who have theories and beliefs but absolutely NO knowledge of any aspect of the investigation of Dr. Ivins. The entire entry about the anthrax attacks of 2001 is mostly a collection of theories and beliefs with just a few facts. Books will probably be written by investigators on the case (who may also be considered "prime sources,") but at the moment the only KNOWLEDGEABLE source for facts about the case is the FBI/DOJ's documents. So, it's a matter of relying on old, misinformed opinions and beliefs OR looking at the facts as recently released by the FBI and DOJ. EdLake (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Crum - Reliability is not the issue here, it is whether a specific document (report, book, etc.) is primary or secondary. By your logic this: Yellowstone Science is a primary source as it is published by a government agency (NPS) and written (researched and investigated) by employees (agents) of the National Park Service. The NPS is involved in the very essence of the contents of this journal. It is the nature of the contents of a document not who publishes it that makes it primary or secondary. A comprehensive investigative summary is not a primary source. IMHO--Mike Cline (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"A comprehensive investigative summary is not a primary document." And, even if it were considered to be a "primary document," the rules do not FORBID the use of "primary sources." The rules just say "primary sources" should be used CAREFULLY. EdLake (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A summary of another unrelated agency's investigative report would be secondary, but if it's the same agency reporting on its own investigation, it would be primary. And a primary report may be highly reliable, esp. if it's a government report. But because it is primary, it has to be used carefully, as you say, and the article may not be based primarily on it, since establishing notability requires the perspective of a secondary source. Crum375 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Crum - What if there are no published "secondary sources" of any use? The only "secondary sources" I've been able to find are either wrong, biased or too brief. The Washington Post's article is WRONG, absurdly claiming the hidden message was on labels on the envelopes. Even their illustrations are WRONG, claiming only the first letters of certain sentences comprise the "hidden message." (They didn't do their own analysis, they merely MISREAD what was in the FBI's Summary.) Here are the links:

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902369.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/02/20/GR2010022000200.html

The Frederick News-Post only has the biased opinion of a friend of Dr. Ivins' who doesn't BELIEVE the FBI. The link:

• http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyID=101651

And the British newspaper The Register is too vague in their analysis to provide anything useful. The link:

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/02/anthrax_feds_report/

Until investigators write their books, only the FBI's Summary contains usable information about this critical piece of evidence.

And "establishing notability" pertains to the Amerithrax investigation, probably the largest criminal investigation in America's history. It shouldn't pertain to information about a specific item of evidence. EdLake (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Bias" is not an issue for WP:V or WP:NOR, only for WP:NPOV. And the way you judge neutrality is by examining all the secondary sources and deciding how they they should be weighted, based on the relative prevalence of their views. Your own opinion as Wikipedian of what is "biased" or not is not relevant. And yes, it is very common for a government report to be highly reliable and factual, and often the news media will try to twist it in different ways. But that's life, and we are supposed to merely summarize what other, primarily secondary, reliable sources are saying, not push our own views as editors. And if we decide to emphasize a primary source over other sources, that would violate

WP:NPOV. The point is that only the secondary sources, "biased" or not, are allowed to give us perspective and context, not the primary sources, and not Wikipedia editors. Crum375 (talk

) 15:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the way you judge neutrality is by examining the FACTS and deciding how they should be weighted, based upon the relevance of the facts to the issue and how well the facts are supported by other facts. Facts are neutral. Personal viewpoints are NEVER neutral. EdLake (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no such things as "facts" on Wikipedia, only reliable sources, and our job is to neutrally summarize what they say. The way we judge neutrality is by the prevalence of a view among the reliable secondary sources. Therefore, we may not say "this source is wrong" and exclude it, if it's a reliable source. We don't judge "factuality", we judge reliability of sources and the prevalence of their views. Then we summarize what they say, with appropriate weighting. Crum375 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but EdLake, you did not notice that you have gone down the rabbit hole, left behind the world of the Wikipedia mission statement, have have entered the granular level-of policies world, where facts, accuracy and truth don't directly matter, only sourcing does. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am a researcher and an analyst. Primary sources ARE most important to me. They provide the facts. Secondary sources are generally opinions, and I can usually find opinions arguing almost any point of view imaginable. But, obviously, Wikipedia doesn't have the same view as I do regarding primary sources. EdLake (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the source is a good one (whether it be primary or secondary) and wp does not prohibit primary sources, the question may be a moot point in that either way it should not be excluded from the article.

But trying to classify the source based on the group that the hundreds of investigators, observers, analysts and report authors belong to (e.g. the FBI, the government, the human race) is, to put it mildly, an oversimplification. For example, if group A observes and records, and group B analyzes their work and authors a document from it, is group B's work a primary source because they are in the same larger group (e.g. the FBI, the human race) as group A? North8000 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Crum - You write, "we judge reliability of sources and the prevalence of their views." But that is being interpreted as the FBI/DOJ being ONE view and anyone who disagrees with the FBI being another view. Thus, if two people disagree with the FBI, those two people are the "prevalent" point of view even if those two don't agree with each other and only agree that the FBI is wrong. Isn't the FBI/DOJ's point of view really the point of view of THOUSANDS of people? EdLake (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The FBI investigative report is primary since they were involved in the investigation, so it shouldn't be used as a "view". We need secondary sources, like newspapers, magazines and books, to interpret that report, and tell us what the FBI's point of view is, assuming there is such a thing. Normally, since the FBI works for the people, it doesn't really have a "view" — it simply presents information as it sees it, and it's the job of the various news media and other organizations to interpret the FBI's results and put them in perspective. It's the summary of those secondary sources which should form the basis for the article, with the primary FBI report itself adding details. Crum375 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Crum - What if all the newspapers and magazines do is state that the FBI closed the case, concluding that Dr. Ivins was the culprit, and if anyone wants more details they should go to the DOJ/FBI's web site to read the summary report and the 2,720 pages of supplementary data? Aren't these "secondary sources" implying that they have read and agree (or do not disagree) with the FBI's findings? But they provide nothing to use on Wikipedia if we cannot go to the FBI/DOJ's files for details. EdLake (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If all the seoncdary sources say is that the case is closed, and there are no other secondary sources with more information, it means the case is not notable and should not have a Wikipedia article. We use secondary sources, among other reasons, to help us gauge notability. If the case is so unimportant that the media don't bother summarizing it, then it's not notable, and we shouldn't delve into it either. This is exactly why we may not use primary sources as the foundation of the article or to establish notability, as they lack perspective. Crum375 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Crum - You wrote, "it means the case is not notable and should not have a Wikipedia article." But it was the most investigated case in American history, AND there are countless articles about it in the media. Therefore, it IS "notable" by any measure. It is just the CLOSING of the case which received little analysis by the media. Are we to leave the Wikipedia article with just the speculation from the early years of the case and IGNORE the recently released information that the FBI had accumulated over eight years? EdLake (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, we as Wikipedia editors don't count. The media and other communities who observe the FBI do. If the media don't think this is important, and write nothing about it, we shouldn't either. If they do, biased or not, we should describe their various views. It is not for us to delve into primary sources and dig up stuff: that's called

WP:NPOV. Conversely, if the media do think the case is important, then they'll report it and we can describe what they write. Crum375 (talk

) 16:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see that arguing further is pointless. There is no possibility of agreement between Crum and I. Therefore, since I have to leave the office for several hours anyway, I'm just going to leave it to the Wikipedia editors to determine if the main and most reliable source of information about the anthrax attacks of 2001 can or cannot be used as a source for information in Wikipedia's article about the attacks. EdLake (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, if you read what I said, I did not say you can't use the FBI report as a reliable source. In fact, I would consider it a highly reliable and valuable source. But the article has to be written, and its notability established, based on secondary sources, and the FBI primary source should be used to add additional details. If the article is a building, consider the secondary sources as your foundation and main structure, while the primary sources would be the inner walls and other internal components. You can use the FBI source a lot, and often, to fill in the gaps left by the secondary sources, but it cannot advance new theories or directions, not covered by the secondaries. Crum375 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is primary or secondary can be a guide in avoiding original research and undue weight, but if you can't work out or agree which it is then don't worry. Just think about what

undue weight are in Wikipedia and work out if the source is being used in that way. Yaris678 (talk

) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

EdLake, unless I missed something, it appears that no discussion or debate regarding this matter has yet occurred in the article's talk page. That is always a good place to start. It also appears that an editor deleted a large amount of material without discussion on this "FBI is primary" basis. IMHO you have a strong case, but it appears that a discussion has not yet occurred? North8000 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion began on my talk page when I asked for HELP on getting the deleted information restored. N419BH responded and told me that the discussion would take place here. Now your saying it has to take place on the article's talk page? Okay. If that's what I need to do. I looked at the discussion page, but the first thing I saw was "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." But now I see it also says, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2001 anthrax attacks article." I guess the debate is more about "improvements" than "a general discussion." I'll start a discussion there to see what happens. Thanks. EdLake (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restarted the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2001_anthrax_attacks#Is_the_FBI.2FDOJ_Summary_report_a_.22primary.22_source.3F EdLake (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I was the one who started the discussion here. I opened the conversation here rather than on

It's probably good in both places. What I noted is that the overall issue was insertion vs. removal of some material from the article, and there had been no discussion regarding that on the article's talk page, and so really nowhere to start on the overall issue. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For those who are not aware of it, I have created a draft for a new ATT proposal in my user space. It includes a rationale page which describes what it is, and the motivation for it, in a Q&A format. Please read the rationale page before commenting on the draft's talk page. I prefer that the draft remain in user space until and unless there appears to be wide-spread support for it, and all major concerns have been addressed. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

At

Either editors are being confused because of OI's placement here or are attempting to

Some editors are using the "no synth" policy to make what I consider to be questionable deletions. Here is one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokyo_Two&diff=368089559&oldid=368087727 Here is what they seem to consider SYNTH. Remember, each line is reliably sourced:

Paraphrased: Sato and Suzuki are suspects in Japan. They claim they were harshly interrogated by the Japanese authorities. Amnesty International has urged Japan to stop using harsh techniques to interrogate suspects. (SYNTH because AI didn't mention Sato and Suzuki by name.)

Another supposedly unacceptable example:

Lucky Strikes are an American brand of cigarette. According to the Surgeon General, smoking cigarettes has been found to be hazardous to your health and to cause cancer. (SYNTH because the Surgeon General did not mention Lucky Strikes by name.)

Here's another that would be unacceptable because Leader X was not mentioned by name at the Nuremberg Tribunals or in the Geneva Conventions:

Leader X has been accused of genocide. According to the Nuremberg Tribunals and the Geneva Conventions, genocide is a war crime.

I think these interpretations are ridiculous, so I think you need to clarify this policy. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who argues that wp:NOR needs changes to prevent it from being mis-used. That may also be the case here (e.g. this could be a neutrality topic), but, IMHO, in each of these cases, the juxtaposition of the second statement with the first is itself making a statement (including casting a dispersion on the subject of the first sentence.) which should be subject to rules about statements. Or, looking at it from another (non-wp:nor) angle, in each case, one would need to ask, what is that paragraph about, and, does the second sentence serve that topic? North8000 (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(

WP:NOR

.

Similarly with the Leader X example.

Re Lucky Strikes, I would have to see the rest of the article to decide whether or not

WP:IAR

, if no one objects to the edit or if consensus is against enforcement.

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)