Wikipedia talk:No original research/Noticeboard

Untitled

This noticeboard was created after N2e and Professor marginalia mentioned on WT:NOR that it would be good to have a place where NOR-interested Wikipedians hang out, and where people could ask questions. [1] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! Dreadstar † 03:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is where the norns hang out, the malevolent ones and the protective goddesses. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, Slim. Lawrence § t/e 07:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we just need someone to ask a question. :) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a malevolent Norn image. Is this something like Pan or Loki? Or like a neutral wood Elf ?Wjhonson (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I like this one because there's often a lot of unraveling involved.Professor marginalia (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's perfect, LOL!! SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) They look sort of like the weird sisters.Wjhonson (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Syntax repair

Including an image within the template:shortcut violated the template's syntax and caused this page to appear in CAT:SHORTFIX. I did my best to retain the spirit of the editor's intention. I hope this is not a problem. --DRoll (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity transwikis

I'll try to come up with an attractive div or something for the project page, but folks should bear in mind that a lot of "OR" stuff would be just fine on Wikiversity. As a rule we (as in we the WV Custodians who will have to do the importing) would be a lot happier about it if the author(s) of the article would agree ahead of time that they'd be interested in developing the resource there (Wikibooks used to have a problem with being the unofficial dev/null of Wikipedia, and we'd rather not go that way). We have Special:Import enabled for sysops... ping me on my talk or any custodian on #wikiversity-en if something looks appropriate. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so we know what to send your way... are their any criteria that an article needs to meet to be accepted? I realize that OR is fine at Wikiversity, but I assume you do not accept just any article tossed at you. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the most important criteria is that the person (i.e., the writer) is interested in sharing their knowledge (or even to some extent finding debate partners for their theories). WV is there for people to learn what they want to learn about, and sharing the things they've learned. OTOH, tossing things at us isn't a big deal... like WP, WV is "not paper", and there's certainly no harm in giving someone a space to put their thoughts down. Projects on WV only fail when people fail to find people to collaborate -- it takes a bit more effort to attract others (on WP you at least get people arguing with you about what's encyclopedic) -- those who are truly motivated thrive, the others give up. I guess the important thing is to not make people feel their efforts are unwelcome... if you get the feeling that someone really wants to share about something they think is really important (but the thing they want to share isn't really good for Wikipedia), send them our way. Help can always be found via v:Wikiversity:Colloquium, v:Wikiversity:Think tank, or on #wikiversity-en). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohar Shahi is an example of unwelcome content that a user tried to move to wv after deletion at wp (among other projects.) Not that I would expect anyone here to suggest transwiki of something like that, but we do want to be carefull about wv not becoming a dumping ground for people pushing WP:FRINGE theories with the attitude that they WP:OWN the page. The kind of content that we really want to encourage at wv is something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skygazing which is now being developed at v:Skygazing. This is an example of how material that fails WP:NOTHOWTO would be within the scope of wv. I also try to keep an eye out for WP:SUP material that would be better at wv due to the nature of the assignment that the students have been given, which sometimes leans towards OR. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page here if you have any questions. --mikeu ^talk 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are saying that as long as something is a serious attempt to write a neutral article about a subject, you accept it; but you don't accept POV rants or Fringe nonsense. Are there any other types of articles you would be likely to delete if it were imported? Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, yes. But, note that we do have a broader view on POV material. See for instance the proposed v:Wikiversity:Disclosures guideline. We encourage importing material where there will be an open learning discussion of the various perspectives on a topic. We would welcome material that fails WP:NOTFORUM here, but would be a bit wary if it looks like the editors are forum shopping for a WP:SOAPbox. --mikeu ^talk 16:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrological geoengineering is an example of something I think would be interesting to import to wikiversity. --mikeu ^talk 15:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And if you could say something about your rules on copyright, that would be helpful too. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing the point of the question, but if you mean how to attribute, we use the Import tool (technical solutions often are better than policies). I realize most Wikipedians aren't familiar with what Special:Import actually does, but see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires&action=history vs. http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires&action=history for an example. GFDL/CC-BY-SA-3.1 compliant! :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually Special:Import is turned off at Wikipedia, so I suspect few if any Wikipedians know about it. :) MBisanz ^talk 15:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please tag candidate articles with {{Copy to Wikiversity}}, which adds page to Category:Copy to Wikiversity. --mikeu ^talk 15:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Page editing error

This is the only page on Wikipedia that I have encountered that the "Enable section editing by right-clicking on section titles (requires JavaScript)" feature does not work. Why? It seems to work fine on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It works for me. I think there are 3 standard reasons why it may not work: 1) you were logged out when your browser loaded the page, 2) you are looking at an archived version, 3) the page is protected. Hans Adler 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. And I'm referring to WP:NORN, not this particular page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to that page as well. It simply works for me, both with Firefox and with Internet Explorer. When testing the latter I just realised that I have the section editing links even when logged out, so I am striking that. I hope you didn't feel offended – my experience from debugging software is that it's usually worth to state the obvious. Hans Adler 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't seem to use the right click feature on anything but the first thread on the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my confusion. Actually I wasn't familiar with the feature, and once I realised what you meant I tried it and had the same problem. To make up for my mistake I fixed it for you. The problem was that in the first section the following text wasn't enclosed in a nowiki-tag:

<cite to film>, while RS says X did not occur <cite to reliable source>.

This opened two pseudo-HTML tags that were never closed. Therefore all the following section headers were logically not on the top level. Hans Adler 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearing the backlog: can people with new issues comment on old issues?

There's a pretty heavy backlog right now. When I introduced a new issue on efficient markets hypothesis about 20 days ago, I commented on 3 outstanding issues. Nobody has commented on my issue, and none of the other 3 have any other comments. Meanwhile, people are adding new issues. These things need attention to be addressed, and once they are addressed they need to be closed... could we start promoting the idea of commenting on old issues if you're asking for a new issue to be looked at? II | (t - c) 06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about original research

Recent edits that I made to Tai chi chuan and Chen Wangting were good-faith-reverted by an editor indicating that original research cannot be accepted. He also directed me here.

The edit in question has to do with the birth year of Chen Wangting, a martial arts grandmaster who lived in the 1600s. I have found inconsistencies about his birth year between all articles about him in Wikipedia (English, German, French and Portuguese versions); they all have different birth years. So to resolve this issue, I asked Grandmaster Chen Zhenglei, a Chen family member who is also a world-recognized authority in Tai Chi Chuan and a direct descendant of Chen Wangting. He wrote me back indicating that the birth year of Chen Wangting is not well known, and what year the family uses. I can produce the email that he sent me in support of this.

I then proceeded to edit the articles with the official year of birth that the family uses, and indicated Chen Zhenglei as the source. I believe that grandmaster Chen Zhenglei must be recognized as a reliable source, as he is one of the few spokesmen for the family, so any direct communication from such an authority must be legit and reliable. Consequently, I find that the reversion of my edits was improper.

So if there are any doubts about propriety of my edits, can somebody indicate to me what is the proper way of documenting the reliability of responses of this kind? What recourse does one have to prove the validity of these types of edits?

Thanks for any help.

(I have also asked this in Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research)

 Bruno  20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Bǎidù Bǎikē (百度百科) or Baidu encyclopedia, modelled on wiki and set up by the Chinese Google-imitation search machine Baidu, Chen Wangting/陳王廷’s dates are 1600-1680. I thought I saw this request on the WP:NOR page but can'tr find it now. Hope this helps.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that a person may be a reliable partial source for a statement about an opinion, a statement which itself must also be supported independently by a reliable source. How can the reader know that the cited person is indeed a genuine holder of the opinion?

Loosely speaking, a person is usually a primary source, and therefore, by that fact alone, does not usually qualify as reliable source, except as backup to a statement in a secondary source about that primary source. Secondary sources if well substantiated can be reliable sources. A secondary source must have some status as a reliable judge and reporter of things found in primary sources.

But no one person can be a reliable source for a statement of fact. The year of birth is a matter of fact. The family usage is a matter of opinion, perhaps well founded but perhaps not. The distinction between fact and opinion should be made very clear indeed, in the article. Very clear in the article.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If your discussion is missing...

Then please look at the Noticeboard itself, which is where questions about applying the policy should be directed. This rarely used page is for discussing improvements to the noticeboard, not for getting help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Loaded new organized header

As you may have noticed, I've loaded a new header and updated the top section to make it easier to understand. All directions are now in bullet points instead one large section, making it easier to "get to the points" :P. The color should be fine, since I really didn't want it to overlap with any other noticeboards. If anyone has a better suggestion for the colors, please do suggest them! Netalarm^talk 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What to do about disputes that involve multiple policies?

Can editors of this board please join the following discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC input needed

There is an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if anyone is so inclined. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a Noticeboard if no one intends to comment?

What is wrong with this Noticeboard? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366, exactly what I was thinking. A waste of time posting here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Eh, but then again, I see that you are indefinitely blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

and, he posted 10 months ago, and there are comments on the main page as recently as today. Though, maybe wikipedians are unaware that this noticeboard exists as a resource? Where does this notice board fall in the dispute resolution/larger world of wikipedia?Quietmarc (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I take Mrt3366's comment to be referring to outside help. This noticeboard says exactly what it is for, to report violations of WP:Original research (a policy). Therefore, when reporting here, editors clearly expect some outside help, administrative or otherwise, with regard to violations of WP:Original research, just like the outside help that is received at other noticeboards. Otherwise, what is the point of posting at this noticeboard? To resolve matters that can otherwise be resolved at the article's talk page? If so, again...a waste of time. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mrt3366, for the benefit of those of us late to this discussion - could you kindly disclose which item you feel was unjustly ignored? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Salimfadhley, as noted above, he's indefinitely blocked.. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess this injustice will have to remain unresolved forever! <shrugs> --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

My Book is now an Author in Facebook - Is my Book still to be considered as not History ?

Please simply consider to be published as article after "SO MANY YEARS of first publishing", would be more logical for what is considered as a TAG as "Original Work"! THANKS!

My facebook Authors page is: https://www.facebook.com/BookPureLogic ! First published Canada 2008; USA 2009. So plus 10 years would make it 2018 and 2019, before WIKIPEDIA could consider the article about my Book! IS THIS SENSIBLE? THANK AGAIN! (General concensus2012 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC))

Whether your book is considered 'history' or not is a question for historians. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, however, the question is does it meet the relevant notability criteria to merit an article (specifically Wikipedia:Notability (books). Which, as far as I can determine via an online search, it doesn't. Not even remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, in order to be a reliable source (or even a biased source), your publication would need to be peer reviewed by scholars with academic credentials. Being published by authorhouse.com simply means that you were prepared to pay a generic printing firm in order to publish your own work. The fact of publication has no more meaning than any blog (i.e., personal opinion). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not actually publishing, in any meaningful sense, it's simply printing. If I go to Kinkos or FedEx Office or whatever it's called now, and run off 100 copies of my manuscript and pay the place to bind them into book form, that doesn't make me a published author. Getting a book printed, marketed and distributed by a real publisher that wants to publish my work, after some editorial review and control, and based on its merits and my reputability in the topic, is what makes me a published author. Facebook is not a review process for whether someone's really been published; all you have to show them is an ASIN, and Amazon is chock-full of self-"published" nonsense.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed style noticeboard

There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard similar to this one for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS and other talk pages: [2] [3]. They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Wikipedia's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Contributions from users who have experience with Wikipedia's noticeboards would be very welcome. The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is now a related proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

True it's a 1st rough draft but editing is always a concern of mine and proofreading.tx Gogreen... (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Bad archive box

WP:NORN needs a proper archive box like WP:NPOVN and the rest of the noticeboards, listing the archives as links. The search function is crap on WP, because the results are not sortable by date; the only way to find a somewhat recent conversation efficiently is to have the archive pages listed in chronological order in the archive box. That's why it has that feature.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: The archive pages also need to be topped with {{talk archive nav}} not {{talk archive}}  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: - I don't know why anyone would object, but it can always be reverted and then discussed if desired. Assuming there is no ownership here, why not just boldly do it? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Huge WP to-do list backlog on my part, I'm not a regular lately, and my presumption is that various admins maintain this board, and may even have bots or other tools that need to be adjusted. It's embarrassing when I barge in and break things.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to do the work, if someone pings me about it after we're pretty sure it won't disrupt anything. I can bang this out in probably 10 minutes with BBEdit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

How NORN works

This section is about the WP:NORN page in general and not any particular Original Research question.

Based on my recent experience it seems the correct process on the NORN board is that one should not present any logic. Instead one should just post source and summary and ask "Good or Bad?" and if the answer is Good then everyone talks about the exact wording and tries to get consensus.

If this is so then how does one take the consensus from this page and support it on the article page? Does one just link back here and say "Not OR per [this NORN discussion]." What happens if other editors on an article page want to dig in their heels and say "Unacceptable OR!" with their own logic (or without any logic for that matter)?

I see nothing that makes this board's outcomes "authoritative" and I doubt the folks here want to get dragged into potential edit wars on dozens of various article pages.

If there is no logic identified in postings here, how does that help build consensus? How does this help editors to learn how to be good at drawing the line -- between what is OR and what is not -- if logic is not vetted in this forum?

Is this a correct summary of how NORN works? If not please explain how it does (or at least how it is supposed to?) work. Thank you.

-- Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 22:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

OR means you what is stuck into an article should be pretty obviously what the source is saying. If a person needs to present an argument why a source is saying something then they are straying into OR territory. This page presents a third opinion and yes people are entitled to ignore it. To get a reasonably binding decision one may need to start a WP:RfC but one should try resolving a dispute on OR by using this noticeboard first. Wikipedia is a cooperative venture and decisions are made by consensus whilst trying to abide by the policies and guidelines. So basically what you say above is correct and Wikipedia works quite well that way. Dmcq (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree about WP:RFC's being more binding. They might be erroneously treated that way, but RFCs are listed as a form of dispute resolution along side these noticeboards, third opinion, etc. I don't see anything giving one more authority over the other. Seeking an RFC after you've already contacted this board or other boards can actually be seen as WP:forumshopping, especially if one of these boards yields a fairly straightforward outcome. If a person repeatedly ignores consensus from impartial editors then you can report them for disruptive editing. However, as Dmcq said, you shouldn't have to provide a logical argument for why something is/isn't OR. You should be able to suggest an addition to an article and supply a source that explicitly substantiates the addition you want to make. Any logical argument that's designed to take you from point A to point C, would be an example of original research. When using this board and other forms of dispute resolution, the number one focus is to come to an understanding with all parties involved. However, any practical person knows that some people have little interest in this, and WP does have some processes to help with disruptive editors.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case I apologize. I thought this was a user help forum like the research and translate forums, I did not realize this board was a form of DR. Based on the description at the top of the page I thought the purpose of NORN was to help users understand OR better.

For example:

• This page is for requesting input [...]
• Ask for advice [...]
• [...] if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research.

I saw nothing indicating this was a DR forum. Please forgive my ignorance. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 02:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well this is the talk page and you're in the right spot to ask such questions. I believe everything you were asking has been answered. Is there anything else you'd like input on?Scoobydunk (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Things aren't black and white like that. The noticeboard can give advice. You got advice didn't you? This could have been on the noticeboard rather than the talk page and it would have been perfectly okay. It is only when people start getting quite disruptive that things begin getting rather bureaucratic. Otherwise Wikipedia does fulfill its aim of being a cooperative venture.. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: Almost everything I asked about has been answered except for the question of how best to have editors take the discussions here and effectively apply them at article pages, especially if dealing with editors who view the material in question as OR? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dmcq: I wanted to discuss this away from any specific case since I think it is important to have an overview of how this page is supposed to work. The description header is a bit vague and I am genuinely surprised to hear that this page is considered part of Dispute Resolution, especially since there is no posted requirement to notify involved editors as there is with other DR pages. Sadly I think what you say is true, when disruption occurs the solution is often bureaucracy ... sigh. Nonetheless I do appreciate the advice. Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Koala Tea Of Mercy: If you’re looking for “binding decisions,” I think this may be the wrong project. The closest we get here is sanctions and blocks. If someone refuses to accept a consensus (and then a second consensus, and then…) because it “isn’t binding,” that person may not be here to help build an encyclopedia. Taking the diplomatic route, I suggest asking such an editor to review WP:CONSENSUS, because that is what Wikipedia runs on. Well, that and the fundraising drives. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not looking for "binding decisions", I am asking the more basic question of "What happens next?" if article editors reject a consensus established here. As Scoobydunk has already pointed out asking for further DR assistance could be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPing and pinging the involved members of this project to the article would clearly be considered WP:CANVASSing. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 02:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If the editor just won’t WP:LISTEN, I think WP:DDE may be what you’re looking for. Seems the next step would be a WP:RFM request. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Insufficient participation

Seems to me that I've not seen any volunteer checking out cases lately. What gives? --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: I know this is a late response but are there any instructions for volunteering here. This could be one reason why new volunteers don't tend to even have a look here. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I see one from "Additional notes", Yashovardhan saying mark one with "resolved". I don't think additional instructions are necessary. Someone familiar with and comprehensively understanding "no original research" policy can volunteer and work well, right? --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: My bad, I missed that. I think that should suffice. I am accustomed to seeing detailed volunteer instructions otherwise. But that should suffice here. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

May I also Request Input

I have made all the changes Cordless Larry asked. This is not my research, as the 32 references show. All the statements made about the novel are supported by multiple sources. Thank you. Trentprof (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And I am asking about Cogewea Trentprof (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Foreign involvement in Syrian Civil War

Hello, there is an RfC on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War which editors are invited to weigh in on. Thanks, GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC).

How can first-person information be added without violating NOR?

Information I added to the Great Midwest Trivia Contest page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Midwest_Trivia_Contest) was removed because it did not have a citation. It did not have a citation because it was information I knew as a participant in the activities described. Is such information not allowed on Wikipedia? Or is there some particular way that it should be attributed that I failed to follow? There is much more that Wikipedia readers might want to know about the history of this event that I can contribute. What would be wrong with that? EricBuchter (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Eric Buchter, Lawrence University Class of 1975 and WLFM Station Manager 1972-1975

Hello EricBuchter. Unpublished personal recollections are simply not allowed in Wikipedia. This is a firm policy and there are no exceptions. You can write an article about your experiences and have it published in a reliable source. Then, the information could be properly cited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

See on Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Wikipedia isn't a collaborative body of all the knowledge in the world, where people record their own experiences and observations, publish their own scientific findings or mathematical theorems they've proved, log what historical informative they've uncovered on archeological expeditions. It's a compendium of information already published in reliable sources, ideally secondary sources. Largoplazo (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC on nude photos in Going commando

Please participate in RFC on nude photos in Going commando. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on drug name

Requests for comment are sought at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

1998 UNESCO RECORD

The subject was Minister of Education between 1995-1997

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000113535

12 years Free education for all children provided by the government. The free 12 year education was in The 1997 constitution of Thailand.

According to UNESCO, Thailand education reform has led to the following results:

1) The educational budget increased from 133 billion baht in 1996 to 163 billion baht in 1997 (22.5 percent increase)

2) Since 1996, first grade students have learned English and computer literacy.

3) The professional advance from teacher leve1 6 to teacher level 7 without having to submit academic work for consideration was approved by the Thai government

4) There has been drawn up education policy to raise the standards of education from pre-primary to tertiary education.

5) Free 12 years education for all children provided by the government. The free 12 year education was in The 1997 constitution and that was the first time Thailand had give access to education for all citizens.

6)The Education Reform Project involved about 20,000 schools. Yosakrai (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on content concerning illegal fetal tissue dealers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy#/talk/8#/talk/8

I'd love some comments on this. Maybe I misunderstand the Wikipedia policies, but at least some of the content seems relevant. natemup (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Why no original research?

I know this is a core principle. My query is, how did it become a core principle? Who made that decision? What arguments or evidence are behind it? I'm not looking for a one-sentence answer, I'm looking for a discussion. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe, you can get started here: [4] Discussion is at the talk page and its 63 archives. --valereee (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

That page does not dscuss the rationale for the policy. deisenbe (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

From the first edit to the page, this was spawned by the same post from Jimbo that started Wikipedia's concept of due weight. NPOV and OR are intrinsically intertwined because OR cannot be proven to be NPOV. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

So the argument for "no original research" is one sentence from Jimbo Wales? deisenbe (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that one sentence is based upon several years of discussion. Blueboar (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Imagine a Wikipedia with the rule "original research is ok". In that case, you could add notes to an article showing that X is Y, while I could add notes to the same article showing that X is not Y but is in fact Z. Then another editor would add notes showing we're both wrong and that actually X does not exist. There would be no way to resolve the ensuing dispute other than to have a supreme court which ruled which editor's original research was right. Alternatively, the dispute could never be resolved and all three views could be added to the article. The problem with anything goes where everyone's opinion is added would be that there would be no end to it, and every year would see half a dozen more theories added to the article until it was just a pile of junk. The only way to resolve the issue would be to rely on reliable sources, so they may as well be required from the start. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar:, is there any documentation of those discussions? @Johnuniq:, I'm not challenging the policy, I'm inquiring about its history. deisenbe (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Look at the earliest archives of this policy’s talk page ... and also the talk page archives of our various other core policies (sometimes the genesis of one policy comes from discussions at another... For example, lots of stuff grew out of discussions that started at WP:Verifiability)

Question

Am I allowed to post here a dispute that takes place on FAC? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Needs YOU!

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; and Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Function of WP:NORN

Is the project page WP:NORN just for items that are already in articles or is it also for advice on items that are being proposed for articles? Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t discuss (or answer questions) related to a potential article. Helping an editor avoid placing original research into an article - before it is written - would be better than complaining about and removing that original research after the fact. What are your concerns/questions? Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I had already started a section on the project page when it occurred to me that it might not be the place for getting an opinion on whether a proposed edit was OR, so I came to this talk page to check. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)