Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:02, 5 March 2009

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Template:NORtalk

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Misplaced Pages. University of Illinois U-C.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64

Rewrite 2004-2005: Draft • Talk "Primary v. secondary sources" subpages "Change needed": Proposal • Talk "Various examples": Examples • Talk "Transclusion example": Example • Talk List all subpages This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:OR
• WT:NOR

Proposed new section: Proofs and calculations

Recently, Father Goose raised some good points regarding two paragraphs that are now respectively in the Reliable sources and Synth sections. There may be a better place for them in their own section. Perhaps the proposed following section would be useful.

==Proofs and calculations==

If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Misplaced Pages is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented in a reliable source, however, it may be referenced. See: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age), or restatements, summaries, or rewordings, provided they are uncontroversial and add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources.

You may have noticed that the last part of the 2nd paragraph might be out of place here. Perhaps it should be incorporated in a sentence and placed in the lede.

The "No original research" rule does not forbid restatements, summaries, or rewordings, provided they are uncontroversial and add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I added the last part before I saw Blueboar's message and after he posted it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let me back off from my whole hearted approval... I like the intent and most of the lanugage. However, saying: "...it may be referenced", is inaccurate and could be seen as a conflict with WP:WEIGHT. Not all sources can or should be referenced. At the extreme end, I could see a Fringe theory fan pointing to the wording "... it may be referenced" to argue that he should be allowed to cite a fringe website that "proves" his favorite theory.

The point Bob is (correctly) trying to make is this: if you (a Misplaced Pages editor) came up with a proof, it is original research... if someone else came up with it (and published it), it isn't original research. So let's say exactly what we mean... May I suggest we change the phrase to "...it does not constitute original research." Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the two paragraphs already exist in the wiki. I did not create them. I am only proposing that they be moved to a new section. I think the issues you are raising are worth considering, but right now I am just proposing to move the paragraphs, and make the change mentioned in the last part of my message. Thanks.--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Grouping these two together is still somewhat arbritrary. "Proofs", as used here, seems to refer to any kind of theory -- mathematical, scientific, or otherwise. I think it fits fine somewhere under "Sources", since it's a very basic type of original research -- "Aha! I have proved it!" -- to which we answer, "Don't prove it, source it."

Basic math is a general exception to original research, not really related to "I proved something". I perceive that the de facto rule on Misplaced Pages about basic math -- not yet reflected in our wording -- is that if a layman can check that it is correct, its use is okay. (This includes not just that the arithmetic is correct, but that how it is used is also correct: one can say that 12 + 3 = 15, but if the 12 is a quantity of cows and the 3 is a quantity of photons, the resulting quantity "15" is likely to be meaningless.)

Although some cases of math used in articles might involve numbers taken from one place and a formula taken from another, I don't see how that's necessarily a form of SYNTH, as argued by Wikidemon in the thread above. If the formula is either well-known or sourceable, and both the arithmetic and the aptness of its use are checkable by a layman, then it use ought to be okay; otherwise it's not. The "acceptable math issue" really deserves independent treatment from the "synth" issue. As I proposed with my earlier edit to NOR, I think it can fit in as the 2nd paragraph of == Sources == without too much trouble, by way of explaining that you don't need a source for basic math (though you might need a source to show that a given formula can be meaningfully applied to a given set of numbers).

The remaining issue, "restatements, summaries, or rewordings", is quite similar to something already in SYNTH: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing." I think we could work "restatements and rewordings" into that paragraph as well.--Father Goose (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your remark, "Grouping these two together is still somewhat arbritrary. "Proofs", as used here, seems to refer to any kind of theory -- mathematical, scientific, or otherwise." -

Actually, it's not arbitrary at all, as evidenced by your own remarks, viz. " 'Proofs', as used here, seems to refer to any kind of theory -- mathematical, scientific, or otherwise." Calculations and the other items, except for the items in the last part that begins with "restatements", are certainly mathematical. So a discussion of the acceptability of routine simple calculations would fit nicely with a discussion of unacceptable proofs, since those types of calculations are exceptions to the restrictions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arithmetic is not the only allowable synthesis tool. Simple statements of geometry (if A is north of B and B is north of C, A is north of C - but this does not necessarily work with east and west), astronomy (if the sun is out, it's daytime), metaphysics (if A and B did not overlap in time, then A followed B or B followed A), mechanical engineering (things may break into pieces but pieces do not break into things), etc., also fit that pattern. On the other hand obvious principles plus clever application, or dubious principles plus obvious application, need citing. The Pythagorean theorem is an example of the former. It is built on very simple premises, yet it would need to be cited because the proof, as brilliantly simple as it is, is not obvious to most people. Another example that frequently comes up is legal reasoning. On Misplaced Pages people often make the mistake of applying simple legal rules to reach an unsupported conclusion - for a current example, in the 1960s people born of a Kenyan parent were automatically British citizens and therefore Obama was a British citizen at birth. Or, doing X is against the law and person Y did X; therefore Y broke the law (a conclusion that could be wrong for dozens of reasons). Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob K: Again, my point is that all mathematical proofs are examples of "I proved something", but not all "proved things" are mathematical proofs. The wording "If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Misplaced Pages is not the place to première such a proof." is by no means restricted to mathematical proofs. "Don't prove stuff on Misplaced Pages" addresses a very basic form of OR, so it shouldn't be equated with "mathematical proofs", which are only a subset of the "don't prove stuff" dictum. Putting "don't prove stuff" under the heading "proofs and calculations" implies formal proofs, when we want to keep people from proving stuff like "OJ was the killer" as well.--Father Goose (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that I understand all of your message. However, I'll try to respond to some of your message that I think I understand.

1) Re proofs - Would you care to suggest a better term?

2) Perhaps I might understand your remarks better if you quoted parts from my last message and addressed those points.

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon: I know that arithmetic is not the only allowable synthesis tool. My point is that arithmetic isn't necessarily a form of synthesis at all, in the WP:SYNTH sense. Multiplication algorithm contains quite a bit of math, for instance, but while the algorithms in it need to be sourced, the actual numbers and arithmetic passed through those algorithms don't. And such calculations are not "Synthesis of published material which advances a position" either -- so, again, we're back to my original point: calculations are not necessarily a form of synth. I suppose calculations can be involved in synth -- like saying that since Microsoft has sold 20 million XBox 360s, Playstation 20 million PS3s and Nintendo 25 million Wiis, there are 65 million owners of current-gen consoles out there. This would be false because plenty of gamers own more than one type of console. But the error there is still more mathematical in nature than a "synthesis of material to advance a position"; it's an adding of apples and oranges, which could easily be addressed with my photons-and-cows example, but is a stretch to explain via SYNTH. Synth is being pressed into describing all sorts of things that are certainly OR but not synth, and it just makes the SYNTH section more confusing than it already is. This is why I suggested moving the arithmetic-and-proof stuff out of it.--Father Goose (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This Policy is BS

Synthesis is the only way an encyclopaedia can be written. Sometimes facts do not have to be published to be scientific. This policy simply encourages plagiarism. What a load of BS. This policy is what turned[REDACTED] from an amazing place for the collective sum of all human knowledge into just another mainstream encyclopaedic work, but one which is prone to POV and weasle language, by those people "reporting" (plagiarising but escaping that definition by simply re-phrasing) what has been ublished already. No synthesis policy prevents wiki from achieving the goal we are to imagine, "the collective sum of Human knowledge". Rather wiki becomes the collective sum of idiotic rephrasal of already published work by people who don't know any better because their creativity and knowledge is limited to regurgitation. BS, BS, BS, BS, :) I hoppe I found the right place to post my insignificant opinion. Thank you for ignoring me.82.6.30.147 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re "BS, BS, BS, BS, :) I hoppe I found the right place to post my insignificant opinion. Thank you for ignoring me." -

A bit of the Uncyclopedia has invaded. Thanks for the endorphins. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can give you a more serious answer. Regarding your remark, "Synthesis is the only way an encyclopaedia can be written." I made some comments like this previously myself. "Misplaced Pages is full of proper synthesis. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, bring together facts from various sources! Wikispeak seems to have perverted this definition of synthesis. Similar remarks can be made for the terms 'original research' and 'original thought'." An editor does original research every time the editor goes looking through the literature for material and uses original thought in combining and expressing them in the Misplaced Pages. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

82.6.30.147: a policy is what people make out of it. some people have a very narrow view about original research, while some people have a broader view; some people use this policy well, while some abuse it. I understand your objection, but you (I'm sure) can think of any number of wild theories and speculations that have no place in an encyclopedia (regardless of how firmly convinced the people who advance them are). --Ludwigs2 00:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A US Supreme Court justice once made a comment about judging whether laws are valid or are instead too vague to stand, which I think applies here. It is that rules should not be judged based on whether they permit bad results under extreme interpretations, but rather whether in the real world sensible people interpret the rule in a way that is useful and was intended by the drafter. Something like that. Misplaced Pages is full of such rules. I think the key comes from WP:V. Things need to be verify-able, not necessarily verified. OR applies in a similar way. Observations and conclusions subject to reasonable questioning need to be cited to a reliable source. Certain simple things that everybody knows, and have next to zero chance of being wrong, don't.Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Since last feb. 23 I started a sort of campaign to search in community a solution to the natural wave of human thinking watering the pages of Misplaced Pages. I believe, like the majority, precision might be a continual goal in spite its perfect acquisition isn't but an unattainable desire. So, the tendency of thought is to continually produce changes in whatever it makes contact with, a stream we can't oppose with a handful of rules. Aside mainstream thinking, anyone feels oneself able to emit one's original view on any subject. Considering the difficulties involved in exposing one's ideas through mainstream, imposed notably by the 'academy', whose democracy works (if so) just among its members, I ask: why not state in Misplaced Pages a free zone of thought, each of its pages or topics linking to an article it refers, and in which everyone could add comments, make one's original researches and even contribute to the refinement of the main articles? In a certain sense this is already being done when people link pdf papers and html documents to the articles' pages in Misplaced Pages, comment in discussion-related pages (I give some examples above), and even here, in NOR section.

I'm sure 'academicians' would be the most frequent users of this new section, where undoubtedly they will renew their dusty ideas. For caution it would be advisable that the page of each contributor couldn't be edited except by the owner.--WReis (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, WP:NOR doesn't apply to an article's talk page. So those discussions may already be allowed on talk pages. Does anyone know anything more about this? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like wikinfo is what you're looking for. The article talk pages are intended solely for discussions related to the development of the article, and personal opinions of the topic's subject are discouraged, and in highly controversial articles' talk pages such commentary is frequently removed on sight. (See "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues", Talk page guidelines ). Professor marginalia (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As English is not my native language, I certainly didn't make my thoughts clear. Let me try again.

I believe I understood that this talk page for NOR is used to deal with more general aspects of the composition of articles, and that talk pages created for normal articles might contain specific observations on the articles they refer. If my beliefs are correct, these points are out of doubt to me.

To state the problem let's start, for instance, with (1) Talk:Omnipotence paradox. I ask you to take a general look at the entries in this page: not only one of them is commenting the content of the article, say, there are several of them exposing ideas or opinions of their authors about the way philosophers and theologians enrolled in the article used to deal with this paradox. (2) In a related subject, Omnipotence, I could find among the links (at the bottom of the page) one pdf and two html documents (the second one 'not found') with personal researches on omnipotence, not exactly clearing some point of the classic authors cited. I believe I witnessed in these Misplaced Pages pages - and in several other I used to visit years ago - a stream we can't control with some rules, no matter how complex or strict they could be. People want to expose what they are thinking, but have no better places to do it except these corners inside Misplaced Pages.

I don't think this attitude perverts the essence of any true encyclopedia. This is the opposite: it enriches it. So, what about creating a specific place for this practice inside Misplaced Pages? How much in gigabites - or money - would it cost? I see some advantages in implementing the idea, for I believe there is a lot of good thinkers whose participation in mainstream circles of knowledge is not allowed, as we can see in the mentioned pages.

Yes, I admit, it could be as simple as to add a list of links to existing pages, but I imagine this proposal could work with Misplaced Pages users' pages: the OR contribution on specific subjects in each user page would be listed in a links' section in the related articles pages.

I just want to know what would Misplaced Pages community think about the idea. I admit it could make a 180 turn in the conception of encyclopedias, although some sites already collect general information from people otherwise anonymous, like life/family histories, images etc. I fear I'm thinking after Borges' 'Babel's Library', trying to apply the concept to Misplaced Pages. Perhaps it's a dangerous idea.--WReis (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Because what you are proposing is not an encyclopedia, but the creation of a think tank. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, TheRedPenOfDoom, you're quite right. I truly think encyclopedias are - or should be - think tanks, specially when using tools like bits and bytes (on paper this would be effectively impossible), but I understand this is the desire of Misplaced Pages community: to keep the Misplaced Pages as close as possible to mainstream encyclopedias. This is just a matter of choice.

Thanks to my foolishness I didn't try the link to Wikinfo, wich Professor marginalia so gently posted above, before spending so much time (yours and mine) writing the last post: the site is exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you.--WReis (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess that I will just disagree with your premise. What you are proposing sounds a lot like UseNet forums and no one ever accused UseNet forums of turning out buckets of encyclopedic material. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom expresses the principle well. I'd go one step farther. WP:NOR as a basic principle is not unique to Misplaced Pages. No product called an encyclopedia should properly be doing original research nor original synthesis. Perhaps the anon-IP contributor who posed the question is failing to understand the distinction between doing original synthesis of concepts on the one hand, differentiated from writing unique encyclopedia articles on the other hand. It's an important difference, and this policy serves, in part, to help WP users identify the difference between the two. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

excert from another page:

The original research policy tends to break the system. For example, it says to an archeologist; "Yes, you did discover the lost kingdom of Atlantis, but you may not post that on Misplaced Pages. Only if the New York Times makes writes an article on the subject can the information be written to Misplaced Pages."

Completely unfair and unproductive.

Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't do original reserach because there's no way to verify your claims. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So the question is, what, in the real world, makes something true?Spitfire19 (Talk) 00:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if an archeologist did discover the lost kingdom of Atlantis, the first thing he would probably do is notify the news media... if he were at all a professional, the second thing he would do would be to write an article about his discovery for a peer reviewed journal. Then he might write a book about his discovery, or sign a TV contract with National Geographic or the Discovery Channel so he could make some money off of it. Posting his discovery on Misplaced Pages would probably come fairly low down on his list of priorities. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the real world, people don't agree. Regardless, Misplaced Pages has principles that have much more in common with information science and knowledge management, than with the pursuit of truth or epistomological inquiry. The latter matters are for an entirely different project model and scope. Vassyana (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Spitfire19's question, "So the question is, what, in the real world, makes something true?" - Consensus ? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We adopted the NOR policy, an adjunct of our verifiability policy, because we don't know whether a person claiming to be an archeologist is actually one. Further, even if we can confirm that someone posting to Misplaced Pages is an archeologist, we still can't confirm if their claim of having found Atlantis is true. Nor can we rely on individual Wikipedians to research the claim (in the manner of a journalist), because we don't know how methodical those individuals are.

However, we can have a reasonable degree of confidence that publications with editorial oversight -- newspapers, (non-self-published) books, peer-reviewed journals -- are not written by crackpots or vandals. Sometimes such publications contradict one another: our publication can still remain factual by not embracing one view or another, but by noting the existence of such contradictory views. Limiting ourselves to describing only what can be found in reliable sources is key to maintaining Misplaced Pages's reliability.--Father Goose (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If we just listed people's claims as truth then the Bigfoot article would state that it was proven real by those hunters who "found" it last year. --Bill  20:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis: provided they add no new information

"This policy does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers) provided they add no new information."

One of the standard tenants of information science is that analysis of data is used to extract information (it is what data analysts get paid to do). So for example I may have a data set consisting of a series of dates of birth and a dates of death for a group of people. If I take that series and extract any additional information from it, I have new information. For example, I could calculate the age of the people in the data set. That is new information which I could then use as data to calculate the mean, median, mode, averages and other more sophisticated statistical analysis this would also be new information. Indeed once I have the age of the individuals, I could disregard the original data set as I now have a new data set to extract new information.

I understand what the sentence is trying to say but either "provided they add no new information" should be removed or it should be rephrased, because otherwise things like calculating age from birth and death dates is not valid according to the last phrase in the sentence. --PBS (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the above statement. That statement was the result of a recent change here which has been reverted. Here is the actual statement that was, and is again in the wiki and notice that it doesn't have the problem that you were properly concerned with. It was very helpful that you noticed that.

The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age), or restatements, summaries, or rewordings, provided they are uncontroversial and add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob, you reverted my attempt to tighten the writing. Can you say what the problem is? SlimVirgin 22:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Small point here, but which sounds better "The best practice is", "Best practice is", or "It is best to"? I see all are in common use. Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Best practice is "best practice." :-) Seriously, either that or "it is best to" would do. "The best practice" would be an odd construction, I think. SlimVirgin 23:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, You removed a significant amount of material without discussion. May I suggest in the future, if you want to do what you think is tightening, do it in smaller pieces, one at a time, and it will be much less likely to cause problems.

The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age), or restatements, summaries, or rewordings, provided they are uncontroversial and add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources.

You removed the part in bold. This sentence was currently being discussed here. I think you and I had some similar thoughts about the material, but some differences too. So look at that section and see where we agree before you respond.

We differ on the part in parentheses in the above sentence. It is useful and shouldn't be deleted since it gives examples of other types of calculations that wouldn't be apparent from just the example of adding and subtracting.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you say what was significant to the policy and was removed? The sentence in bold is overwritten e.g. restatements, rewordings, and summaries — what's the differece? Likewise, "routine calculations" covers all the examples you've given.

As you reverted the whole edit, not just this sentence, can you say what else you objected to and why? SlimVirgin 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the other section that I gave a link for and respond to what I just wrote. Then I would like to discuss the other issues that you are concerned with. I think that the above issue is the most important one. Also, I noted that you reverted my revert. I haven't reverted it back, even though I feel it would be justified. I'm trying to have a productive discussion with you, and minimize what appears to be conflict, which may be more in your mind than mine. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I do notice that there is a part of your last message that we can discuss productively without your reading the other section first. Re "Likewise, 'routine calculations' covers all the examples you've given." - For tightening a regular article, you might have a point. But I think it would hurt this article on WP policy to remove those parts of the parentheses. As I mentioned, it gives examples of other types of calculations that wouldn't be apparent from just the example of adding and subtracting. If those other parts weren't there, I can envision a situation where, for example, someone puts numbers from a source or sources on a graph and someone would object that it violates WP:NOR. I don't think someone can point to a comment that just says "routine calculations" and "adding and subtacting" and expect anyone to believe that it means putting numbers on a graph. That's an example of why those other parts in the parentheses shouldn't be deleted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting numbers on a graph might very well violate NOR. Depends how it's done. That's why leaving it at "routine calculations" is for the best. SlimVirgin 06:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest we get more explicit about "what basic math is okay" and what isn't:

This policy does not forbid routine calculations (adding or rounding numbers, putting them on a graph, converting units, calculating percentages or a person's age) provided editors agree that both the arithmetic and how it is used applied is correct. For instance, one can accurately say that 12 + 3 = 15, but if the "12" is a quantity of cows and the "3" is a quantity of photons, the resulting quantity "15" is likely to be meaningless.

Something like that. The "restatements, rewordings, etc." part belongs elsewhere, probably within the sentence "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis".--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the cows/photons point. SlimVirgin 06:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, It appears that you now believe that, regarding the rest of the part in the parenthesis that was deleted, it is not a matter of just being superfluous, but you believe that at least one part of it may be allowing something that is not consistent with NOR. Is that your position now? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, the cows/photons thing is probably superfluous. A more realistic example of "misapplied arithmetic" would be trying to add together percentages of things not belonging to the same set. But it's probably best to leave "how it is applied" undefined rather than back ourselves into a corner, as I believe you have been arguing. But I think the first sentence by itself might be worth considering (I tweaked "how it is used" to "how it is applied").--Father Goose (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed sentence from the lead

I've removed this from the lead, as it has nothing to do with this policy, and the writing should ideally stay tight. Does anyone disagree? SlimVirgin 22:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we don't need it here. I somehow doubt people will read it and say, "Oh! I'll stop bugging Misplaced Pages then."--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite. :-) SlimVirgin 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring/streamlining SYNTH

As I prototyped here, I am proposing a general restructuring and streamlining of WP:SYNTH. I've always found this section muddled and unclear, but there's no reason it should be. I'll step through each of the changes I made and why; I'd appreciate people weighing in with agreements and disagreements.

Here's the current version of the first paragraph:

First sentence

"Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources."

• Ugh. We're in bad shape if we're opening this thing with the passive voice. (See Elements of Style.) What we want to say is "You, editor: do not do this", then explain in greater detail what "this" is and why it's bad. Here's what that sentence could look like in the active voice:

Do not put together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources.

Second sentence

We can drop the second sentence altogether and lose nothing:

• "Even if published by reliable sources," - We don't need to mention "reliable sources" here if synthesizing facts from any kind of source is a no-no. Dragging RS into this is a distraction, maybe even WP:BEANS.
• "material must not be connected together" - We said that in the first sentence.
• "in such a way that it constitutes original research." - We don't need to point out that SYNTH is OR; that's amply explained by the fact that SYNTH is a section in NOR.

Third sentence

• "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion," - ...the same conclusion as each other? There's an ambiguity in the language here.
• " or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject," - direct relation is an important concept here, but I think we can better address it using different language. I'll get to that in the next section.
• "then the editor is engaged in original research." - Again, we don't need to point out that SYNTH is OR. It's like we're pleading to ourselves that this is true.

And, rewritten

So. Let's simplify our explanation of SYNTH by just saying "Hey! Don't do this; here is why."

Rewritten as I propose:

Do not invoke a source to back up an assertion not originally made in the source. This includes connecting multiple sources together to express a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of the original sources.

This outlines the general principle of how to use (and not use) sources, then mentions how SYNTH is a violation of that general principle: if the sources didn't reach an exact conclusion, ("Jones committed plagiarism") you shouldn't invoke them to reach that conclusion either.

In the rewritten version, I didn't include the words "not directly related to the article subject", as I think this idea can be covered more broadly by the words " express a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of the original sources". If the sources don't make the exact same assertion that you do ("Jones committed plagiarism"), they are "not related to the subject" at hand. Further, I think we're better off not using the words "the article subject" anyhow; a source can be completely germane to a small but important point in an article without having any relation to the article's general subject.

From here, we should jump right into the example, Smith v. Jones, to immediately drill in what we're talking about, and why it's bad. The second part of the current paragraph, "Summarizing source material... is not synthesis" is better saved as a clarification that comes after the example.

That's the first set of changes I'd like to discuss. Comments?--Father Goose (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, except that the new first sentence is confusing. Written abstractly as it is one has to think a while to figure out what kind of edits it is implicating. I think the problem is that "back up" is not specific enough. Perhaps a source could be validly used to clarify, expand on, give an example of, or do something else that you could call "backing up". How about "reach a conclusion", "support a conclusion", "verify a statement", or something more to the point if that's what is meant? Wikidemon (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Support's good. With that first sentence, I'm not trying to "implicate" any specific edits, but to restate the general principle of "stick to the sources", namely, "don't say something other than what the sources say". In the second sentence, I outline how synthesis is a specific form of this error: "don't string sources together to reach a conclusion other than what the sources conclude". Given that, I guess I should also change "express a conclusion" in the second sentence to "support a conclusion":

Do not invoke a source to support an assertion not originally made in the source. This includes connecting multiple sources together to support a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of the original sources.

--Father Goose (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I cut and pasted together the three sentences of Father Goose's (FG) suggested revision.

Do not put together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Do not invoke a source to back up an assertion not originally made in the source. This includes connecting multiple sources together to express a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of the original sources.

And here's what's in the wiki now for comparison.

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or are not directly related to the article subject, the editor is engaged in original research.

I have a problem with the first sentence of the wiki too, because I believe it is false. Synthesis is entirely proper and is the way wikis are properly put together. Reaching an unsourced conclusion by synthesis is the activity that is improper. So we shouldn't use the term synthesis to characterize an improper activity and I note that FG's version correctly doesn't do that. The second sentence of FG's suggestion doesn't seem to be about combining information from multiple sources so it seems out of place. The third sentence seems redundant with the first.

So, I agree with some of Father Goose's suggestion but I would make the following modifications which are indicated below with strikeouts and bold.

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly in any one of the sources. Do not invoke a source to back up an assertion not originally made in the source. This includes connecting multiple sources together to express a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of the original sources.

Here it is without changes noted.

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly in any one of the sources.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So that would be in place of the two sentences I suggested, or the three that are currently in the policy? If so, I give a thumbs up to your single sentence -- though I'd tweak it to:

Do not put together information from multiple sources to support a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in any of the sources.

--Father Goose (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tweak OK. For now, how about just replacing the first sentence, and then we can all look at the rest of the paragraph with the first sentence in place. Also, I think that making changes in smaller steps, when possible, is more considerate of other editors and leads to better editing. I think this is a case where we can make just this first step for now. It's OK with me if you replace just the first sentence with the above sentence that we agreed on. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what it's getting at, but does 'explicit' mean exactly what we're using it for here? Per Wiktionary 'explicit' refers to a degree or threshold of specificity, detail, or clarity. I think we're looking for a level of definiteness, i.e. there for sure, for real, not there by implication.Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the first definition of explicit from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

1 a: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent

According to this, "explicit" looks like the right word. The Wictionary is not made by professional experts, like the Merriam-Webster is, as far as I know. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the word quite captures what we're trying to say. It seems to be there for emphasis more than for clarity. If I had the right word I would propose it. The problem is that 'expicit' comes with some baggage having to do with the level of detail and demonstrative assertiveness. Consider "I described each and every step in explicit detail" or "I explicitly told her not to put that in the fridge". Per our policy we are allowed to rephrase, summarize, restate in our own words, etc. Therefore, an allowable conclusion may be in the source in a way that is not particularly explicit. We can cite a source saying "it snowed that day" to stand for the proposition that "there was precipitation" that day, even though the source does not explicitly say there was precipitation. Or "X was older than Y and Z" can support "Z was younger than X" even though it does not explicitly say so. A better word, if it even needs a word for emphasis, might convey that the conclusion is in the source without any doubt, incontrovertibly so, without any further assumptions, leaps of logic, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

...I'll add that this is not a strenuous objection, more like a word choice thing. I don't think it's deadly, and if no better word is found it's probably better to use "explicitly" for emphasis than to not emphasize the point. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Wikidemon, After reading your message, and giving it more thought, it doesn't appear that "explicitly" is needed. Here's what it would look like without "explicitly".

Do not put together information from multiple sources to support a conclusion that is not stated in any of the sources.

It looks like the word "stated" is sufficient by itself. With "explicitly" removed, would you agree to just the replacement of the first sentence in the section for now, with the option of altering the rest of the first paragraph later? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, just a minor change:

Do not put together information from multiple sources to arrive at a conclusion that is not stated in any of the sources.

Strictly speaking, it is the sources that serve to "support" the conclusion, not the process of putting together information. Cheers, --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The first version of the change used "reach". The second version used "support". And now a third suggestion is to use "arrive at", which I think is a synonym for "reach". I have no objections to any of these. Since this seems to be a fine point that wouldn't significantly affect the sentence one way or the other, and since the version with "support" is just about ready to go into the article, how about deferring your suggestion until after the sentence is in the article. In fact, if the sentence was put in the article, and you immediately changed "support" to "arrived at", no one may even object. I sure wouldn't. So just to move things along, I'm going to put the sentence in the article now. I hope no one's offended. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reach, support, arrive at -- I think they'll all work, it's just a question of word choice at this point.

I've also gone ahead and removed the two sentences that follow it, as they are now thoroughly redundant with our new first sentence and the paragraph that follows it. If anybody thinks those sentences should be retained, I suppose we will soon hear from you.--Father Goose (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Supplemental essay proposal

I would like to propose WP:NORDR as a supplemental essay which would be linked in the "see also" section of the policy. I think the essay provides some useful details about the policy with specific examples to illustrate the principles outlined. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty with linking to essays is that they might contradict the policy, or someone might add a contradiction, so they would have to be watched closely. SlimVirgin 06:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with "officially" linking essays in all but the most necessary cases. For example, WP:SILENCE as part of WP:CONSENSUS. Not to mention that WP:NORDR is a bit in contradiction what in generally has been understood is the spirit of NOR and certainly a bit WP:CREEPy (ie it is a very long essay).--Cerejota (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Translations of non-english sources

Yesterday a section on translations was added that was based on a previous discussion on this talk page. The subject of translations is already discussed elsewhere in the Misplaced Pages at WP:NONENG which is part of the policy WP:V. I agree that it is useful to mention translations at WP:NOR, but in an abridged form, since it is already discussed at WP:NONENG. I would suggest changing the recent addition to the following.

==Exceptions==

• Using non-english sources - Misplaced Pages editors may supply a translation of material from a non-english source, or use material from a non-english source, only if it is done in a way that is consistent with the policy described at WP:NONENG.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I kind of liked the longer language. WP:NONENG really focusses on the source (and says to provide a translation to make verifiability easier) while the passage that was recently added here focuses more on the translation (and how to avoid OR when doing so). The two policy statements are definitely related(and should be linked to each other), but I think they are talking about different parts of the process. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For comparison, here's WP:NONENG.

=== Non-English sources ===

• WP:RSUE
• WP:VUE
• WP:NONENG

Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Misplaced Pages editors.

And here's what was recently put into WP:NOR.

===Translations===

Where English translations of non-English material are unavailable, Misplaced Pages editors proficient in the foreign language involved may supply a translation citing Misplaced Pages editors as the source of the translation. Such translations may be challenged on the discussion page of articles involved. If such translations are challenged, editors should cooperate in producing a consensus-supported translation. Copyright restrictions permitting, translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations provided by Misplaced Pages editors.

And before the new section was added to WP:NOR it was discussed here .

Blueboar, I don't understand your comment, " WP:NONENG really focusses on the source (and says to provide a translation to make verifiability easier) while the passage that was recently added here focuses more on the translation (and how to avoid OR when doing so)."

It looks like what the new section has that WP:NONENG doesn't have is comments about challenging a translation, working towards a consensus, and a copyright issue. This seems like just the general process of challenging any edit and modifying it to form a consensus, whether it involves a translation or anything else. Similarly it seems that the issue about copyright is covered by Misplaced Pages policies about copyright in general. Anyhow, if either the challenging aspect or the copyright aspect, are worth discussing in a policy on translations, there doesn't seem to be any reason why they can't be discussed in the established policy at WP:NONENG, if they are worthwhile.

WP:NONENG states,

"Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article."

And here's the corresponding part of the new addition to WP:NOR,

"...Misplaced Pages editors proficient in the foreign language involved may supply a translation citing Misplaced Pages editors as the source of the translation."

The policy regarding translating quotes seems to be explained at least as well at WP:NONENG. Furthermore, the policy at WP:NONENG goes beyond translations of quotes since it mentions any use of non-english sources when it states,

"Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."

So I would suggest that the version at the top of this Talk section, or something like it, should be used instead of the recent addition regarding translations. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Graphs, percentages

I've removed these from the routine calculations section, as both can be problematic in terms of OR and POV. We should stick to the rule that reliable sources should have included these before we use them — emphasizing a percentage over a number can paint quite a different picture, as can introducing a graph.

In general, I think we need to be careful not to state the obvious in this policy. It has traditionally been quite tightly written so that it's easy for editors to scan quickly. SlimVirgin 23:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you removed parts, or similar parts, regarding graphs and percentages that were restored twice before by two different editors. You need to get consensus on this before removing them again. Your remarks above are unclear and you didn't even wait to get a response before you removed those items again, over the restorations by two editors.

Regarding the rest of your edit, which had to do with the Translations section, there is currently a discussion going on regarding that section here. It appears that your edit has the same problems that were brought up regarding that Translations section and there is a proposed improvement given in that section with explanation. The basic purpose of the improvement is to use WP:NONENG as the Misplaced Pages source of the info, rather than to explain it here, where it is incomplete and possibly inconsistent with WP:NONENG, either now or in the future after edits are made on both policy pages that may change their respective info re non-english sources.

For the above reasons, I undid your edit. Please clarify your above remarks by explaining them in more detail, make your case at the discussion section on Translations, and get a consensus before attempting to reintroduce any of your edit into the article again. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And now two different editors have removed it. Putting things into a graph is definitely not a "routine calculation". And I've seen areas where people have attempted to replace percentages with numbers precisely for the purpose of promoting a specific POV. Please get a wider consensus for this modification of policy. Jayjg 03:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, user created images, including graphs, are not subject not the OR policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"In general"? Can you show where that is outlined in policy? Aside from the recent attempt to insert it here, I mean. Jayjg 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Original images created by a Misplaced Pages editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. ". This is the general practice on many articles. Editors are free to create illustrations of any sort, subject to general editing consensus. There is no need to show that a diagram, graph, or chart has been previously published before it can be used in an article. We encourage editors to create new illustrations and release them under a free content license. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think graphs are included under "images"? Jayjg 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Because they are in the Image namespace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a technicality, as Misplaced Pages has no graphing capabilities. I could put anything I wanted into an image, but that wouldn't mean all items in the Image namespace were exempt from the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg 04:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the entire image namespace is in a certain way exempt from NOR, which is mainly focused on the textual content. Original graphs, diagrams, charts, photographs, etc. are encouraged, as we are not permitted to use non-free copyrighted images in most cases. Of course the data used to create the graph needs to be verifiable, but the graph itself need not be previously published before we can use it. Indeed, if it were previously published and non-free we would be unable to use it or any derivative work of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that "the entire image namespace is in a certain way exempt from NOR"? If I include a new theory in an image, is it suddenly no longer NOR? Jayjg 04:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Original images created by a Misplaced Pages editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR poliy." Images means... images. WP:V and WP:NPOV apply to all content, but WP:NOR permits original images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The source you quote says nothing about "the entire image namespace", and your argument is circular. Whether or not graphs are considered part of the "class", and whether or not they "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments", is the issue being debated here. Jayjg 04:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Images are, by definition, things in the image namespace. Provided that a graph is based on verifiable data, the mere fact that the graph itself was not previously published (which seems to be the issue at hand) is specifically not a concern of the NOR policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, edit warring over the content of the policy is hardly best practice. . — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Please review WP:BRD. Jayjg 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

BRD is often mistaken as a license to edit war. It is not. The material was reverted once; reverting it repeatedly, in this sort of context, is edit warring.

Also, the second revert here is inappropriate. . Let's all try to follow best practices when we tell other people about them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have the entire process backwards. Two editors tried to re-write longstanding and fundamental Misplaced Pages policies. One of them was an editor of less than a year, and under 1000 article edits; the other had under 1800 article edits. The change was reverted, and that should have been the end of it, until a much wider consensus was reached. Please reserve your admonitions for those to whom they are more appropriately directed. Jayjg 04:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Admonitions are most appropriately directed at editors with the most experience, and administrators, as they are expected to reflect the core principles of the site. Newer editors may be less familiar with these principles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

CBM, you can't have it both ways. Either they're new editors, in which case they shouldn't be modifying fundamental policies, or they're experienced editors, in which case they should abide by WP:BRD. Which is it? Jayjg 04:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, in this case I was referring to experienced editors who should abide by WP:EW. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Well, Carl, one single revert of changes to fundamental policy by inexperienced editors does not constitute an "Edit War". Jayjg 04:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my original comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue, IMO, though it might not need to be all that complicated from a policy standpoint. Take, for just one of countless instances, United States public debt which features File:USDebt.png. Click on the file page to see the prior forms of this file on the file page. Even despite its careful sourcing to a "reliable source" (the White House Office of Management and Budget), it has taken on different forms through its history. And yet, in each case it appears to faithfully graph the data from which it is derived. It appears to me that the most relevant issues with a graph are NPOV and V., and that if a local article consensus is that a graph meets NPOV and V, then it's likely not original research or original synthesis. SlimVirgin's point about not having been explicitly needed before is fair enough, except that we've recently had some vociferous complaints about the implication that NOR forbids routine calculations. To the extent that a graph is a set of routine representations of existing numerical data points, not even calculations per se, it seems fair enough to me to explicitly allow them so long as they're verified to one or more RS's and are consensused not to be synthesis advancing a POV. Or have I missed some other important aspect of this issue? ... Kenosis (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If people want to add to this policy that the creation of a graph isn't OR, it will need widespread consensus. It really shouldn't be added (and reverted over objections) just because a couple of editors on the page feel it's okay. Better to say nothing at all about graphs, and treat each case on its individual merits, than to say explicitly that graphs constitute exceptions to the OR policy. SlimVirgin 05:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the policy already says that images are not subject to the OR policy provided they are based on verifiable data. There is no need to change the policy to achieve this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out, your argument is circular. Putting something in the image space doesn't immediately immunize it against being Original Research. I could create an image of text, and upload that too, but that wouldn't mean the text wasn't original research. And I have, indeed, in the past, argued that images (and I mean real images, not complicated calculations like graphs) were exempt from the WP:NOR strictures, but was quite forcefully told the opposite. Jayjg 05:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, Please note that the item at issue was put in last Christmas here by an editor other than the two that tried to restore it over SlimVirgin's recent two deletions of it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you mean the change is all of 2 months old? Did that editor get any consensus for the change before doing so? Jayjg 05:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Where have you been in the last two months? There should be some stability to the editing process. You and SlimVirgin could just as well have had a discussion before deleting it. Who knows, maybe people would agree with you if you explained it calmly. This is not calm, nor orderly, nor considerate of the other editors who have been working here during the last two months since the item was added. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy has existed for what, over 6 years now? And it's had the addition of "graphs" for 2 months? I suggest that the insertion of that term, based on the input of 3 editors, two of them fairly inexperienced, was inappropriate for one of Misplaced Pages's fundamental content policies. Jayjg 05:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the question here is about verifiable data (for example, a table of numerical data) that is converted into graphical form. My point is that this sort of conversion is not subject to the OR policy simply because the form of the graph is new. We encourage editors to create new illustrations, figures, and graphs for articles, without the requirement that these have appeared in sources before. Indeed, because of the scarcity of pre-existing free images, we have to rely on Misplaced Pages editors making new free content if we hope to illustrate our articles.

There may be NPOV concerns with a graph, and these should be taken seriously. However, if the graph is based on verifiable numerical data, there is no concern with the NOR policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put. Axlrosen (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Plagiarism is defined"

There's a problem with the example as currently listed. It includes the statement:

Plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

However, this insertion is itself a version of Original research. Why do we insert a specific definition of plagiarism from a specific source at this point? Is it not to weight in some way the argument listed immediately prior? And if you say, "this is merely a definition", then why not simply link the word plagiarism? Why instead choose that definition from that source? Jayjg 02:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're getting at. Choosing one version of sourced content and one particular source, over another version and source, is a matter for many other policies and guidelines, and editorial discretion. Here the issue presupposes that the editor has made the choice and the sourcing is adequate. We use a specific, arbitrary, example to illustrate the problem with synthesis and why it constitutes original research. We recently streamlined the example so as to be clearer and not include red herrings. In the example, the definition of plagiarism is cited to hypothetical source #28, so that by premise it is not original research. The definition of plagiarism here is arbitrary, as is everything else in the example. It is an example. A wikilink in the example would be distracting, and beside the point. Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be hitting on a subtle (IMO) distinction we talked about a couple weeks ago between synthesis being a matter of mashing cited fact + cited definition / principle to form uncited conclusion (which I called "analysis"), and synthesis being a matter of mashing cited fact + cited fact (via uncited / obvious rules of deduction) to form uncited conclusion (which I see as a more garden variety of synthesis). The former is what we have in the example: #1 A did X ; #2 X is defined as Y ; #3 therefore, A did Y . However you look at it, the example does illustrate a common problem that this policy is trying to prevent.Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue I'm raising is that there is no reason to include a specific definition of "plagiarism" in the article about the original controversy - Misplaced Pages already has an article on the topic, so all that needs be done is provide a link to plagiarism. Including that specific definition and citation is itself a form of original research. Leave the definitions to other Misplaced Pages articles, or, to an article that defines "plagiarism" specifically in the context of the dispute being discussed in the article. Jayjg 03:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to state in an article what plagiarism is they need a cite in that article to a source that supports the statement, not just a link to the Misplaced Pages article on the subject. That would be a sourcing problem in itself. By contrast, it is not OR to state in any article what plagiarism is, cited to a source. Which source/definition to use is a decision by an editor to be sure, but I don't see how it is OR. OR is a claim that comes without a source. Here there is a source. Do you think it would be clearer if instead of calling it a "definition" we posed it as something else? For example, instead of Plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them we could say When an author copies a source's information without citing the source, that is one form of plagiarism. Wikidemon (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that that particular definition of plagiarism is relevant to the issue being raised in the article - i.e., the controversy being described? Jayjg 04:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, Like Wikidemon wrote, "I don't know what you're getting at." I can say for myself, I don't know what you're getting at either!

You wrote, "How do you know that that particular definition of plagiarism is relevant to the issue being raised in the article - i.e., the controversy being described?"

You seem to be working on some article about a dispute, not the WP:NOR policy page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

...so to answer Jayjg's question literally, we don't know that this particular definition of plagiarism is relevant to the issue at hand. It's just an example. We're assuming that the editor who wrote it chose a good definition. But the fact that this particular definition is not really germane to the issue, and that the piece of prose contains original research, is precisely the point of the example. We're showing by counter-example that when you choose one fact to describe, and one definition to provide, it is original research to apply one to the other. Wikidemon (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but the editor shouldn't be choosing any definitions at all. As stated, the editor can rely on the link to described what plagiarism is (for those who are unsure). And if a definition must be provided, then, as with all other Original Research, we should be relying on what Reliable Secondary sources say is a relevant definition of plagiarism. That is, if the first sentence on the subject is:

Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is not plagiarism, but acceptable scholarly practice to copy references from other people's books.

then a permissible second sentence would be:

According to a New York Times article on the controversy, plagiarism in this case is defined as "xyz".

Without a secondary source giving a relevant definition in this specific case, insertion of any particular definition is Original Research. Jayjg 05:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, that is why the original formulation of the example was more accurate. It stated:

The second paragraph was original research because it expressed the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Misplaced Pages by a contributor.

And that is exactly right; it isn't just the fact that the conclusion was not reached by the source, but also the fact that the Harvard manual was brought as relevant to the specific case at hand. There's no indication that the Harvard manual is indeed relevant to the case at hand, unless a reliable secondary source says it is. Jayjg 05:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) Jayjg is quite right here; "plagiarism is defined as x, y, z" is a problematic statement unto itself, as "what is plagiarism" will differ depending on whom you ask. (Jones, for instance, defines it differently from Harvard -- and maybe Jones is as much of an authority on plagiarism as the Harvard authors are.)

We would be making the same error if we wrote the "Smith claims Jones plagiarized" sentence as "Jones committed plagiarism." In order to point out what the actual synthesis was, the A and B statements have to be presented in a completely unbiased way -- then twisted together in a way that advances a position.--Father Goose (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we're saying the same thing or not. Choosing a particular piece of article content to include, or a particular source for it, is not original research. That's garden variety sourcing. It may be problematic in other ways, i.e. that it is arbitrary or irrelevant to the topic at hand. If the second sentence, though sourced, is not sourced as applying to the first sentence, it is simply a non-sequitur but not original research in its own right. The actual OR is the synthesis of the two sourced statements to reach a conclusion not made in any source. I think I see the point that in our example as written there are two sins committed - the first by adding an impertinent definition of plagiarism and the second by using it to make a judgment about the Jones quote. We could reduce it to a single act of synthesis by adding a permissible second paragraph sourced as applying to the situation at hand: According to a New York Times article on the controversy, plagiarism in this case is defined as "xyz". That sentence, standing alone, is fine. But it would still be synthesis to add a further sentence concluding that Jones committed plagiarism by the NYT definition, unless the NYT reached that conclusion. I hope that's clear. Wikidemon (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like everyone understands each other now.--Father Goose (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey - proposed replacement of example and its discussion in WP:SYNTH

The following survey pertains to a section of WP:NOR that is titled Synthesis of published material that advances a position and is also known as WP:SYNTH.

The following example and discussion is currently in WP:SYNTH, today Mar 3, 2009:

The following example is based on an actual Misplaced Pages article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones.

Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

Now comes the original synthesis:

If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

The first paragraph was properly sourced. The second paragraph was original research because it expressed the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Misplaced Pages by a contributor.

The following example and discussion is proposed to replace the above:

The following example is based on an actual Misplaced Pages article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones.

Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is not plagiarism, but acceptable scholarly practice to copy references from other people's books.

Plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them. Since Jones did not cite the book from which he obtained his references, but only listed the references themselves, he committed plagiarism.

Two parts of the above example are properly supported by sources, indicated by and respectively. The part highlighted in bold uses information from each of the previous two parts, to form a conclusion that is in neither of the sources. Furthermore, there is no other source indicated for the conclusion. It appears that the conclusion was conceived by the editor, and is thus original research prohibited by this policy.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose the proposed version and you may comment on your reason(s). Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - the proposed change is clearer, in my opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• This is a strange matter for a consensus vote, and an odd issue all the way around. The newer version, agreed to in a painstaking step by step, transparent process here on the talk page, is clearly better than the original (which is an intermediate version of the old example). It fixes a number of problems. However, there is an objection that the example posed of a synthesis contains more than one piece of OR. Thus, it could be improved. I agree - and welcome any suggestions regarding a more clear, straightforward, illustrative example of synthesis that could follow the first half of the example. If so, great. Let's do it. If not, objection to an improved version should hardly be taken as endorsement of the older one. Wikidemon (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. It would be helpful if you stated whether you Support or Oppose the proposed change. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support... but... to be honest, I think we would do even better by replacing the Smith/Jones plagarism example with a completely different example. Something that is more obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:02, 3 March 2009 UTC
• Comment. This example, first added a two or three years ago by SlimVirgin, has served fairly well on the whole. But it has suffered from lack of maintenance and the "quote" using Smith and Jones in place of Finkelstein and Dershowitz has been altered substantially for extended periods of time. Then somebody comes along and says essentially "this makes no sense", and the original debate needs to be found again (as I've done twice in the last year) with the original quotes and the original sequence of events that gave rise to the example. So it needs to be better maintained and the links to the orignal scenario better preserved so they can be more conveniently accessed for reference. My only complaint about it is that it has a bit too much information, involving as it does the extra issue of plagiarism in the actual presented scenario, in a way that I think does not particularly help WP users to get an appropriate sense of the middle ground between original research on the one extreme and plagiarism/copyvio on the other extreme. IMO, it would be helpful if someone found an example that didn't have the extra potentially confusing issue of plagiarism such as was involved in the original scenario of Finkelstein and Dershowitz.
  ..... For the links to the actual original scenario involving the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair, from which SlimVirgin derived this example, perhaps Bob31416 or Wikidemon can link to the appropriate spots in the archives--I've lost track of them at the moment. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. It would be helpful if you stated whether you Support or Oppose the proposed change. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• You can see the editing process (and links to the original discussion, etc) in the most recent archive Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/Archive 43#Problem with example of OR in WP:SYN. My conclusion after reviewing the record is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the original version of the example or a faithful telling of the underlying events - it is neither a watershed in Misplaced Pages policy history, nor a terribly elucidating example of Synthesis (as opposed to any other), nor a particularly well-written passage (the example or the text explaining it). If an example is useful for instructing readers new to the topic, convincing them to avoid synthesis, and serving as an analogy for policy debates elsewhere, then we should construct the example to best do that, and write it as well as we can. If the "true story" aspect to it helps the example be more convincing, fine. But we cannot be completely faithful to the original events without making the example murky, and picking up the underlying baggage of mud wrestling among partisan academics, questionable accounts, and Israel/Palestine Wiki-wars. Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think I understand your reluctance. When you state Support or Oppose you can add a comment that states that you don't waive your right to redress in other ways. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't make policy using page surveys.

I can't even understand what the new version is saying. Whose "voice" is it? Did the article give the def of plagiarism, or is it the policy that's giving it? SlimVirgin 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, Thank you for your comment. It would be helpful if you stated whether you Support or Oppose the proposed change. When you state Support or Oppose you can add a comment that qualifies your contribution to this survey, along the lines that you mentioned in your message. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be clear from the indentation, format, and statement that the entire "example" is a hypothetical Misplaced Pages article, and thus in the voice of whichever hypothetical editors added the content. If some don't get that from the structure of the example, it may be better to improve the formatting or go to a yet simpler example. One thing that causes confusion is the case-within-a-case aspect, that example of poor sourcing we are putting forward is itself on the subject of sourcing. Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a good example to use because it's a mistake that editors often make. In what way do you see the proposed version as an improvement? SlimVirgin 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We could come up with an exact analogy on a topic other than sourcing. There are perhaps 12-15 ways in which the intermediate version in the current revert is convoluted, and the commentary is unduly informal and incorrect. I can list them all, but that would duplicate musch of the discussion from February 13-24 of the last archive.Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a couple of examples of the commentary being unduly informal and incorrect? SlimVirgin 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay (and with all due respect, because it appears you wrote most of this back in 2006): "Now comes the original synthesis:" -- "now comes" is informal and gives the article a narrative voice. In fact we are not telling this in chronological order so nothing is coming, and it did not happen "now". "Original synthesis" is not a real term. The word 'original' is awkward there. "The first paragraph was properly sourced" - that is not clear from the example; also we should be consistent about present versus past tense. "The second paragraph...expressed the editor's opinion that...Jones did not commit ." -- actually, it does not express that opinion, except by implication. "...a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism." - actually, that is not sufficient. The source would have to apply its point about the Harvard Manual to the Smith case and reach the same conclusion. Those are some of the things that could be tightened. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here, just try to keep things as clear as possible so that any reader who reads it should have an "a-ha" moment and understand very clearly what synthesis is and why it is wrong. Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First, this is not my writing; as Kenosis said, it has been edited a lot. Your other points: (1) there is no need to be formal; this isn't the UN Security Council :-); (b) "now comes the ..." is a perfectly valid way to introduce the problem - it's not informal, and "now" doesn't refer to time; (c) original synthesis is as real a term as original research (and it wasn't me who added that); your point about what the source would need to say is, indeed, exactly what the version you're objecting to does say.

We can try to tighten it if you like, or revert to a clearer version, but the proposed version confuses the issue. SlimVirgin 01:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm loathe to go through point by point all of the problems - my comments were correct - with the prior version. We improved it in many ways. Each change was an improvement. Better tone is better. Injecting a chronological account that didn't fit, and the inconsistencies with the verbe tense, were a problem. Original synthesis is not a defined term on Misplaced Pages. Original research is. The old version various editors complained about never claims in its example that Jones did not commit plagiarism yet the attached commentary incorrectly says it does. That's one of the various problems with it. Why hold out for a more poorly written, less precise version with tone problems? If there's a specific problem with the newer version let's figure out what that is and fix it.Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the example is the the WP article did claim that Jones hadn't committed plagiarism, according to definition X — a definition that was never mentioned by the sources but was merely the opinion of the editors. Your proposed version doesn't make clear who said what, and what was wrong with it. SlimVirgin 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, This discussion is not about the article that you mentioned, but it is about an example for WP:NOR. The example is not trying to be faithful to the article that it is based on and does not name that article, but is trying to give an example of a violation of WP:NOR. Any differences between the example and the article are for the purposes of clarifying WP:NOR, and it is not the purpose of the example to describe any specific article. I hope this has helped clarify the situation for you. Sorry for the interruption, please continue your discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would change the final sentance "It appears that the conclusion was conceived by the editor, and is thus original research prohibited by this policy." to read something like: "Without providing a source that makes the conclusion, the final sentance is considered Original Research and not allowed in Misplaced Pages". But I believe overall the proposed wording is more clear and support the change.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any remaining objections to replacing the example and discussion with the proposed version? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are objections. SlimVirgin 03:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please state what objections of yours remain so it's clear what they are. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The ones I was discussing above with Wikidemon. They remain unresolved, and I believe the discussion continues. :-) SlimVirgin 03:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We need an example of non-syn original research

It would be nice to have an example in the policy where some published material would be relevant to the topic, but not directly related to it, and where no obvious conclusion would be stated (non-syn). For instance, here is a nice real-life example from WP:NORN. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)