Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:18, 3 November 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

Why are articles not written by the foremost experts?

When reading articles on geology, it is often painfully clear to me that experts have not written the articles. Why is this? Prohibiting original research is a very broad brush, and - though absolutely necessary - doesn't distinguish well-reasoned explanation from the incorrect ones. After a few decades of research or teaching, experts likely can't remember whether the reasoning that makes a difficult subject simpler was created themselves or borrowed. It doesn't matter to lectures or journals, as long as the explanation isn't a significant part of the presentation. But, it matters here.

As an example, I am able to write 'any theory of heterogeneous buffering in thermodynamics will likely be based upon equations relating the derivatives of a characteristic function', but only if I can find it somewhere in the published literature. This is not likely, and no good teacher feels 'facts speak for themselves'. Many students pay exorbitant tuition to hear what the Misplaced Pages prohibits. However, I agree that the dangers of allowing 'well-reasoned explanation' are too great: it invites opinionated, poorly-reasoned ones.

Ironically, allowing statements from current texts, which I was told was preferred to 19th Century, primary literature, allows knowingly false statements to make it to the Misplaced Pages. Statements in texts are often inherited, slightly changed, from earlier generations of texts. The primary literature's statement proves either absent, very different from current statements, or was itself just an opinion.

Texts written (not from love but) for mass sale to U.S. state colleges are commonly referenced, but are known to be, essentially, collections of obsolete and even 'false' statements. Experts just wince & stay away. Contributors do not. Experts have read the original, primary literature and often can easily list the best articles on the topic (some are chapters in early texts or monographs).

The Misplaced Pages had the opportunity of inviting the best experts to write articles of interest to them. These have likely already been written, and the owning of articles is a problem in itself. (In my years of making corrections or suggestions in Talk pages, not one has been adopted.

How to attract experts and understand why they are not contributing is undoubtedly something the Misplaced Pages has addressed. This contribution is to suggest that prohibiting 'original research' has, to expert teachers, thrown out their babies with original explanation.

Better people than I may think of a solution. The only objective modifications I can suggest is (1) limiting the use of introductory texts to stubs, and (2) reminding authors that science is made of theories, theories we all hope will be false tomorrow. Dogmatic explanations are not scientific ones. This problem deserves better thought than I can offer. Geologist (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of this is already covered under the tertiary source provision. They should be used sparingly for the reasons you state above, while current but notable journal articles (covered or mentioned in the secondary literature) should be used whenever possible to represent the contemporary body of knowledge. As you made clear above, textbooks are already outdated by the time they are first published. What you are really talking about is authoritativeness and currency, two things I have tried to address in the past with little success. I would support the addition of those two things to this policy or further emphasis placed on their importance. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you write a ] on a subject, co-authored with one of the world's foremost experts, with a foreword from one Nobel Laurate and an endorsement from another, then if you ref it in your edits you will be attacked for WP:COI Ah well :-) NBeale (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Geologist, One of your points seemed to be that you feel too limited in how you are allowed to explain something in Misplaced Pages. In regard to that, consider the following two quotes for guidance:

1. From WP:SYNTH,

Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.

2. From

It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.

My interpretation of these two quotes, in the context of this discussion, is that you are allowed to explain something from published sources in your own way. However, you are not allowed to inject your own ideas, or the unpublished ideas of others, that go beyond the published sources that you are trying to explain. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And just for fun, I did a quick look for some support of your statement, "any theory of heterogeneous buffering in thermodynamics will likely be based upon equations relating the derivatives of a characteristic function". I found this abstract. Possibly this article might be the source that you need since the abstract mentions, "A necessary part of the definition of a buffer..."? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Illness has caused my absence; but I wish to thank each of you for your excellent suggestions (and nice reference). Distinguishing a new presentation from new content is difficult. My apology for not yet reading the fundamental papers of the Wikpedia. There is a problem with referencing both books & journals in that many books being referenced are not of high quality (and experts are not even aware of them); and some experts read only a paper's data (geologists go for the map), ignoring the author's personal interpretation of it. Authors here cite only the personal interpretation.

May I offer here a quick observation of two problems the principal editors may wish to address; problems that do not appear in highly edited encyclopedias. The first is that of audience, and the second is that of presenting science dogmatically.

My old 'Encyclopedia Britannica' wrote to two audiences: the beginning of the article summarized the following content for everyone; and the following content was often for specialists. It was usually a history, pointing them to classical papers in the literature. This made an encyclopedia the place to look for an introduction to a subject and a list of highly regarded books to continue one's study. A specialist need not learn his discipline from an encyclopedia.

Examples

Fundamental to all sciences is the the 'equivalence class', a collection of objects having in common a list of properties. This should, consequently, be one of the Misplaced Pages's best articles, simply written for varying audiences. Equivalence class

Second, science changes regularly, and empirical objects or phenomena should not be presented as theoretical objects, when they are not. It is common in good secondard references to present the object & question, then a history of explanations, ending with the current one. Every primary reference ends with a personal opinion of the article's importance. Scientific articles should name the theory used when offering an explanation. Older 'Encyclopedia Britannica' articles usually offered a history of theories. Being written by experts, they never offered definitive explanations. Volcanic Arc

What I could do, from bed, is possibly start a history (for some subjects) of the better articles & books (possibly annotated) that the reader would want to consult for details. All pretty much agree which these are, and they could offer the reader expert presentations on the different theories. I shall, of course, read the fundamental articles here before contributing anything (but these criticisms :-) Thank you both for the clarifications! Geologist (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating only English source for information

At WT:N I have argued that if a topic is not sufficiently notable to have a reliable source in English, then it is probably not sufficiently notable to have an article in the English Misplaced Pages, but most others disagree. But that discussion has lead me to this argument: If a given topic has no reliable sources in English, then creating an article in the English Misplaced Pages on that topic means creating the only, the original source in English for that topic. That seems to me to be a violation of NOR, in spirit if not in letter. I mean, isn't doing research about a topic in non-English, and not using any sources that are in English, and then writing about it in English, original research by definition? Comments/ thoughts? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle... you really dislike non-English sources, don't you?... you have floated this at WT:RS, at WT:N and now here... forum shopping? To answer your question: no, it is not original research to read a reliable source and summarize what it says... no matter what language the source is in. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As for your first comment: notability is notability worldwide. Misplaced Pages strives to be a global encyclopedia that happens to have articles in different languages but ultimately has the same standards of information (we are light-years away from reaching that, but anyway). Notability standards are unevently implemented across the different projects, but in theory something that's worthy of inclusion on one Misplaced Pages should be worthy of inclusion on all of them.

As for your second, that's just a fundamental misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages writing is. Creating Misplaced Pages articles is not the same as doing original research; likewise, translating information from one language to another is not original research. Original research involves trying to make or prove new ideas that have not been published somewhere. I think you need to reread the policy, because it seems that you're interpreting it as something different than what it actually says. (You wouldn't be the first; I can't tell you how many people I've seen get peeved over other editors citing POINT in the wrong way.) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 00:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you have raised this at WT:V (edit: this thread was initiated by someone else), WT:N and WT:RS and now you are trying to open a fourth debate here? Do you think the overwhelmingly negative response to your suggestion will be different here? Please stop, opening up four discussions on the same topic, hoping that one of them will give you the result you desire is getting disruptive becuase debating the same thing over again in different places is a waste of time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful and informative if someone gave the excerpt(s) here from Misplaced Pages policy that discusses the use of foreign language articles. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Start with WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

From the link that Blueboar kindly provided, it appears that it isn't an NOR issue. However, the situation of having an english Misplaced Pages article dependent entirely on foreign language sources, would severely limit the editors to mainly those who understand the foreign language. This is a situation ripe for violations of WP:NPOV, since those who aren't fluent in the language will be at a disadvantage and outnumbered. For example, consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a Misplaced Pages article whose only sources are in the Arabic language, or one whose only sources are in the Hebrew language. However, I can't think of an actual example, so I'm just putting forth this idea to see if anyone has an interesting thought regarding it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

First, Blueboard, the issue I've raise here is different from those other places. Related? Sure. Same? No way. The question at issue here, and relevant to this page, is whether creating the first and only source on a given topic in English is original research. This is a very different question and issue then what is being discussed on those other pages, and the answers here are very different.

Sjakkalle's answer is particularly helpful because it essentially points out that since WP article writing in general is not OR, then writing the first one that happens to be in English is not either. I think that is a very good point, and I accept it.

As to Bob's concern, that belongs in the dicussion at WT:V since it is about verifiability. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Logical deductions

I see the previous discussion on this has just been archived, prematurely in my view since this is still an ongoing topic as evidenced by the project page edit history. In order for this change to be accepted a much wider consensus is warranted because this does represent a significant change to a core policy and it is not without issues. Citing WP:NOTOR and presenting it as a simple cross referencing exercise between different policies is not valid: WP:NOTOR is not policy or even guideline and has no formal recognition. The original proponent of this change (Brews Ohare) was censured recently by ArbComm for applying these kind of "simple" logical deductions to controversial or simply plain wrong effect, and then arguing that these changes are above reversion since they are somehow reliably sourced: I suspect part of the motivation for this change is simply sour grapes.

The problem is that this kind of process can be used to mask problem areas or elide over huge areas of controversy. To take the very example cited one areas and sub-areas, consider Stanley. Stanley is in the Falkland Islands. I daresay we could find an official Argentine source that describes the Falklands as Argentine, and we will presume for the purposes of illustration such a cite has been found. Therefore we can infer that Stanley is in Argentina. This is clearly not consistent with NPOV.

For a more clear demonstration of a logical fallacy this allows, consider the number zero. states "the positive integers are the same as the natural numbers". states the natural numbers are "the set {0,1,2,…}". In combination this shows that natural numbers are positive and that zero is a natural number. Therefore, zero must be a positive number. This is obviously nonsense.

In each case the logical step is perfectly valid but leaves out a central element. If that central element is problematic then the deduction is invalid. These are simple examples and so easy to see through - it is easy to see that the problem in the first case is the sovereignty of the Falklands which is disputed. In the second case it is the lack of consensus as to what constitutes a natural number. Spotting problems such as these in more obscure topics may not be so easy. That requires genuine expertise in the subject area - we need someone considered reliable to make the connection to establish that it is a valid one. This is why we have NOR in the first place. CrispMuncher (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion is now archived here. Hans Adler 15:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should mention that uncontroverial logical deductions are allowed. The complexity is not that relevant. What matters is that such logical deductions are accepted to be valid in the relevant topic area. Example: Suppose the wiki article on some topic related to quantum field theory is based on sources such as the book by Itzykson & Zuber. In the wiki article, it is almost inevitable that you would have to present the materal differently than the way it is presented in the book. But that requires you have the necessary understanding of the basics that Itzykson & Zuber expected the readers of their book to have.

So, the mathematical manipulations to get from what is written in the source to what is edited in the wiki-article may be highly non-trivial and cannot be considered a simple logical deduction like unit conversions. However, it is not controversial to people who are qualified enough to understand the book. Also such manipulations are necessary to be able to write a good wiki article on such techincal subjects. Count Iblis (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that some good points have been made and here's a modified version, based on those points, for your consideration. I essentially borrowed a phrase from the section Routine calculations and added it to the original version.

Simple logical deductions

---

This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable source.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You realize how many editors have no idea what a syllogism is? Durova 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

27?   : )   There is a link for it, but perhaps the sentence with "syllogism" and the one following it can be deleted? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On average, 90% of people don't click on links. Having seen a lot of POV-pushing disputes, the potential for misuse is quite worrisome. Durova 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Bob K31416 - that is what the link is for. Or (shock, horror) the reader may consult a dictionary. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To return to the proposal it is certainly heading more in the right direction, and it is broadly similar to the status quo (in reality if not on paper, since generally people do not reach for policy on matters they agree with). I wonder if it may be made more robust though. I suspect there are two distinct classes of case where this may be used - one is valid and the other questionable.

The first would be deductions that it can reasonably be expected that the author had in mind when writing a source, or if you were to ask him (at the time of writing) he would immediately agree agree with. This covers unit conversions (when units are quoted it is usually a quantity of interest rather than the system of measurement. It also covers an omission based on, for example, an assumed common knowledge base between author and target audience. So for example, if source A states "The BC547 is a transistor" and source B states "a transistor is a semiconductor" the combination should be uncontroversial, since if we asked the author of A whether the BC547 is a semiconductor he would in all likelihood respond "Yes, of course".

The problem is with the second class, where two sources are combined in a creative manner to produce a result that neither author would have anticipated at the time of writing. This is where we do stray into OR territory. The ultimate example of this would be Einstein's theories of relativity, which were based on nothing that was not already known but the known facts were combined in a new way. That is an extreme example of course, and no one would question the original nature, but it shows that the logical deduction argument can be applied to create what are fundamentally new facts and original research.

How you would codify this and distinguish between the cases in a simple and robust rule escapes me at the moment but I'm sure something will come to mind in time.

As a side note and point of order, Brews Ohare (the original proponent of this change) is currently on a temporary block. I don't see that we need to put the discussion on hold for him but it seems only proper that we allow him right of reply before any assertion of consensus is made. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... There does not seem to be a currently active block , though one appears to have recently expired. There is an active topic ban. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

CrispMuncher, How do you feel about the above version? Would you support or oppose it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of this discussion seems to be about the adequacy of the premises. There is no argument that the premises have to be sourced, and may be challenged by any editor. Given the premises, however, it is very difficult to imagine a situation where the use of simple syllogism can be argued about, as any automaton could use the premises to reach the conclusion. I believe Russell and Whitehead showed this to be the case. Brews ohare (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Brews, and it's why I oppose adding this. Where the syllogism is clear and simple, common sense alone will tell you there's no problem with the material. Anything more complex may or may not be okay, but the text being proposed says that anything more complex is not okay. I think adding a paragraph about this opens a can of worms unnecessarily. SlimVirgin 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in my personal experience, denial of simple syllogism has been used multiple occasions as a pretext to require verbatim statement of a result obtainable by simple syllogism using sourced premises, and I'd guess from the discussion above opposing this simple addition, there are many here that would do the same. Without such a statement, obstructive editors can exclude material they just don't wish to see expressed by requiring verbatim statements, or lazy editors simply can avoid thinking about what is wrong. I'd go further and support Count Iblis. Brews ohare (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't find consensus behind a particular deduction, that's a good sign that it needs more direct sourcing. We should reject any proposed policy change that puts the burden on the editor contesting a particular deduction. Although you believe your deduction was justified, it is possible that the rule against original research worked correctly in this case. --Amble (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Amble, It appears that you support that aspect of the proposal since it contains the phrase "...provided editors agree...", so that it does not put the burden on the editor contesting a particular deduction. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposal is a reasonable way to handle uncontroversial cases, but I'm not convinced that it needs to be codified in policy. The beauty of "no original research" is that it cuts through what would otherwise be interminable (and usually unproductive) discussions with a simple and fair rule. Any time an exception is added, it gives editors the opportunity to argue that the rule doesn't apply to their specific case, and makes it a little bit harder to bring a discussion to a conclusion. There are some comments here that reinforce my suspicion that any exception will be used as another way to prolong arguments even against objections or consensus of other editors. --Amble (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples requested

Before we modify a core content policy (with all the risk of unintended side effects, loopholes, and consequences, especially with respect to future wikilawyering and legalistic reading of policy), could the proponents – or anyone else – supply some examples of cases where uncontroversial logical deductions or syllogisms have been removed from articles? Misplaced Pages has managed for many years without this particular proviso written into WP:NOR, I see two possible explanations. First case — this has been an ongoing problem, and good, encyclopedic content has been removed on the basis of too-narrow reading of WP:NOR. If that is the case, there ought to be ready examples of this damage to the encyclopedia, and a modification to this policy is called for. Second case — there isn't evidence of a problem here. Common sense already generally prevails, and the proposed change would be an attempt to outlawyer potential future wikilawyers with more wikilawyering. Frankly, that never works, and it encourages the idea that editors must be slaves to the specific, codified, yet mutable wording of {policy} pages.

So, what specific instances of reasonable deductions and uncontroversial, logical syllogisms have been removed from Misplaced Pages articles based on a misreading of the existing policy? In those instances, has the beneficial material eventually been restored under the guidance of experienced editors? Briefly, can someone show me examples of the problem we're trying to solve, or are we fixing something that isn't broken? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to comply, but providing such examples would violate my topic ban. BTW, it is not removal alone that is an issue, but wikilawyering using the present form of WP:OR to prevent introduction of simple deductions from sourced premises. That wikilawyering, already evident, would be reduced by this insertion. Brews ohare (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If the only examples you have to draw on are from an area where you are now topic banned for your disruptive approach to editing, they may not be sound examples. In any event, meeting wikilawyering with more wikilawyering is usually profoundly unproductive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As it is the equations here and here are inconsistent. Explanation here of why. Sourcing not available; requires logic to fix.--Michael C. Price 15:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion that you linked, it appears that the editors commenting on the issue agree with you that your change to the article (to update the formula and explain that the L-L pseudotensor was originally formulated assuming a zero cosmological constant) would be reasonable and permissible under existing policy and practice. I don't see any sign of edit warring at the articles in question. I'm not seeing the harm to the encyclopedia here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can only be updated by invoking WP:IAR, which isn't satisfactory since later someone will remove it. As has happened here which I've had to reinsert. --Michael C. Price 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh God. Is all of this policy proposal just fallout from the speed of light arbitration case? As an uninvolved outsider, I give up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Dicklyon. But this particular edit would be consistent with him worrying about various historical definitions of the mile, yard etc., one of which I believe is used for geodesic purposes in some US states even today. Historically the relation between the yard and the meter was not exact; then it was exact but not the same everywhere. Only in the middle of the 20th century it was standardised to a new value, but with some exceptions. Therefore this incident doesn't convince me that consensual IAR will lead to problems in your example. Hans Adler 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The need for consensual IAR indicates that the rules should be modified. Our goal should be to eliminate IAR here, just as we do elsewhere in the real world. --Michael C. Price 15:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a trade-off: Every new rule and every new exception to a rule has a cost because it needs to be discussed, often repeatedly throughout its existence. And it also has a cost in that it increases the overall complexity of our rule set and therefore contributes to making the other rules less effective. The problem as I see it is to find out whether a new rule/exception is a net positive when taking the costs into account. As a general principle we are not optimising our rules to fix every loophole. Hans Adler 16:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If there are really no sources anywhere in this case that's a stupid problem with the real world that needs fixing. And I would think that one or more members of WP:PHYSICS should be able to fix it by putting a short preprint on their homepage. A more pragmatic solution is that in the subculture of WP:PHYSICS and WP:WPMATH we simply ignore the prohibition of logic thinking in such cases. Thus we avoid policy creep and strengthen awareness that common (con)sense trumps policies. Hans Adler 15:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources for the two examples precisely because they aren't real-world problems that require fixing. But they need fixing here. And you're right, we get around it (most of the time) pragmatically, by simply ignoring the rules. Is that really the best solution, though?--Michael C. Price 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone give me an example, please, of a simple syllogism not being allowed in an article on the grounds that it's OR? SlimVirgin 15:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I will paraphrase an example to avoid conflict with my topic ban that includes all physics. Source A said a system called "abra" was characterized uniquely by a certain set of parameters. A source B said a system called "cadabra" was characterized uniquely by the same parameters. I said "abra" was a synonym for "cadabra" The resisting editor said I had no source that said "abra" was "cadabra" and therefore this statement was . Obviously, the resiting editor understood the matter perfectly. However, their position was that it violated guidelines and could not be included without a verbatim quote from a reliable source. Brews ohare (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If there are two technical terms for the same thing, and it's common knowledge in the field that the two terms denote the same thing, there's bound to be a source somewhere that says "Abra and cadabra both refer to X." If there isn't, it suggests the issue might not be so straightforward. SlimVirgin 16:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews, your example does not sound like a simple syllogism to me. For a logical deduction to be allowed under the "simple syllogism exception", it has to be bluntly obvious to both an expert and the average non-expert reader. Things like noting that if a town is in Belgium, it is also in Europe. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Would noting that the town is in Europe be a violation of WP:NOR? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to request a bit of imagination here to envision a reasonable example of this sort, and not request very specific detail that I am not allowed to go into. Suffice it to say, in the case at hand, there was absolutely no way to misconstrue the identity of "abra" and "cadabra", and yet objection was raised because the terms appeared in different sources. Eventually I found a source that used both terms synonymously and I made a verbatim quote. However, I had to look high and low because most sources used one term or the other, and not both. Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC) The point here is not whether I am delusional or lack sophistication of mind, but whether such obstruction or confusion (whatever you want to call it) should be countenanced. Brews ohare (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How about common sense: if other users cannot follow the syllogism, then it isn't simple. Angryapathy (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Angryapathy: The point is that editors do follow the syllogism, but think that WP:OR denies its use, or enables its rejection. Brews ohare (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, proving my point. If somebody challenges the syllogism, then find a ref for it. If it isn't simple enough for everyone to agree on, then it isn't a simple syllogism. Angryapathy (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the proposal satisfies the points of each of you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Modifications of proposal

How about removing the simple vs complex modifier? The emphasis is really on the editors agreeing. If everyone agrees on a change, doesn't matter how complex it is, does it? That would give us a much clearer proposal:

Logical deductions

---

This policy does not forbid logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C.

Better to argue about whether the syllogism is objectively a syllogism, rather than whether it is subjectively simple.--Michael C. Price 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Michael on this. We can't definatively define what a "simple" syllogism is, and it basically comes down to consensus whether or not the information is logically deduced. Angryapathy (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is pretty much the existing situation without a provision like the one being proposed. I'm hesitant as to whether a new rule is needed but if one is to be added it needs a firm grounding - OR is still OR even if it widely accepted, and if your want to publish that Misplaced Pages is not the place to do it. I suggested something to this effect last night and went away and tried to codify it. I eventually came up with:

Logical deductions

---

This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, for example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. Editors must agree that the deduction is likely to reflect the intention and understanding of a source's author at the time it was written. Deductions are not acceptable where it is unclear that the deduction would be obvious to or even accepted by the source(s) on which they are based.

In the event of a lack of consensus over whether a source fulfils this criteria the presumption should be against reliance on that source as evidence for the deduction.

This is of course open to judgement in any particular case but the default case in favour of non-reliance would hopefully prevent disputes spiralling out of control - if it is controversial it is not allowed. The intention at the time of creation seems pretty fundamental to me too. I think the last thing we want is sources being combined to show points that were not apparent at the time they were written. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Speculating on the intention and understanding of a source's author seems impractical. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we not replace :

"Editors must agree that the deduction is likely to reflect the intention and understanding of a source's author at the time it was written. Deductions are not acceptable where it is unclear that the deduction would be obvious to or even accepted by the source(s) on which they are based."

with just

"Editors must agree." !

or even:

"All editors must agree"

After if we all agree then there's no problem; by implication we will be agreeing about reflecting the original source's intention etc. So I propose:

Logical deductions

---

This policy does not forbid logical deductions, provided all editors agree. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C.

The cruical insert is the word all. This is a major change to OR, so let's build in a cast-iron safeguard and see how it goes. --Michael C. Price 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, Perhaps the example in your version is inappropriately simple since you seem to be proposing that more complex deductions be allowed, like the ones you mentioned in a previous message of yours, "As it is the equations here and here are inconsistent. Explanation here of why. Sourcing not available; requires logic to fix." --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The example given is only an example; more complex deductions are permitted. But perhaps we should be explicit, saying that complex deductions require universal assent, simplier deductions require the normal wp:consensus and giving an example of each.--Michael C. Price 01:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stick with just the simple deductions for now. I recognize that you have confidence in your abilities, and probably rightly so, but there are editors that are unjustly confident in their abilities at scientific reasoning, for example. Because a deduction is complex, a consensus of them may not recognize when a complex deduction is incorrect. Recall this quote that I'm sure you've seen before,

It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers.

Although you're not suggesting that Misplaced Pages include something like novel theories of physics, complex deductions may approach that as far as questionable reliability is concerned. I think we need to limit the deductions to the simplest kind, like ones similar to the example in the proposal. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think limiting logical deductions to very simple cases only, does not work for articles on technical topics. Logical deductions and reasoning is needed very often when you read technical articles or books. This is then purely to understand the sources, not to do any original research. If editors were to not do this, then you can expect mistakes to slip into articles. That has been my experience here on Misplaced Pages, which prompted me to propose these guidelines.Count Iblis (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Count Iblis, I read the proposed guidelines that you mentioned and I could support them except for the part which says,

It does not constitute WP:OR to provide the logical connection between sourced premises and sourced conclusions, since “Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.”

It appears that this part allows, for example, original proofs by Misplaced Pages editors of unsolved mathematical conjectures. This goes beyond "carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material". Paraphrasing the quote that I mentioned in a previous message, "It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that." However, we are equipped to determine whether the simplest kind of deductions are valid, like those similar to the example in the proposal.

Re "Logical deductions and reasoning is needed very often when you read technical articles or books. This is then purely to understand the sources, not to do any original research. " - It seems that you are referring here to the normal process of editing that is allowed by the policy, "carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material", rather than including in an article a description of one's own complex deductions and thought processes. This of course is already OK, since editors don't describe in articles the thought processes that they use in summarizing and rephrasing sources. Also, along the lines mentioned in your guidelines, discussion of these thought processes on the article's talk page is OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to adding loopholes to this policy, since they inevitably constitute instruction creep, and will lead to far more abuse than the "issues" they are intended to address. As a simple example, I remember having an editing dispute with one editor, who insisted that because a source said that a specific human population had an admixture of 0.5% per generation for 80 generations, that the total admixture was 40%. In fact, as the source itself stated, the total admixture was estimated at 12.5% What appears to be simple mathematical (or other) deduction is very often not that. Jayjg 00:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it was simply a wrong deduction, right? So this isn't relevant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How is the Misplaced Pages editor supposed to know it's a "wrong deduction"? Looks like simple math/logical deduction. Jayjg 01:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear which editor are you referring to. The editor that puts the item in the article or the editor that evaluates the edit. Anyhow, in both cases the editors are faced with essentially the same situation they are faced with whenever a source is used, i.e. interpreting the source correctly. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed and then it's wise to stick to WP:ESCA  :) Count Iblis (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor that was doing the calculation thought it was simple math. It wasn't, but that wasn't obvious. Opening up the loophole would have made this an allowable one, without the source specifically contradicting it. As for WP:ESCA, that would have opened the loophole as far or farther, at least in the form in which you want to include it, Count Iblis. Jayjg 02:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

J, Whether the editor put it in with or without the math, it would have been misinterpreting the source without having the the other item you mentioned in the article too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, you have proved my point. It would have been misinterpreting the source, but that's not obvious to the lay reader or editor. The current policy would not allow the editor to include the mistaken calculation (40%), but the proposals to loosen the NOR policy would allow that mistaken calculation (sans a specific source contradicting it). Jayjg 03:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

C, Your guidelines look like good work now. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You really should link to a specific version when you write that, so it's clear which version you mean. Can we assume you mean this version? Jayjg 03:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jayjg. In addition to previous problems, the current proposal substitutes two cans of worms for one. Under this wording the wikilawyers gain a wedge to claim that local consensus can trump policy. Durova 03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to expand on what you wrote re cans, worms, wikilawyers, local consensus, etc.? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quick example of how your precise formulation can be used for wikilawyering: "PETA are eco-terrorists and eco-terrorism is terrorism. Therefore PETA are terrorists. Terrorists kill people, therefore PETA kill people. This is just two simple logical deductions exactly as described in the exception. The fact that most media are afraid of PETA and don't mention the obvious truth is no excuse for censorship here. The article must state that PETA kills people to be NPOV."

Your proposal makes it harder to dispose of editors who argue in this way. If you doubt that there are editors arguing like this in the real world, have a look at this. The editor filing this request has used even worse logic in the past. Once people stopped responding to his nonsense he claimed consensus through silence since nobody had reacted to what he felt was conclusive proof. Hans Adler 09:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The requirenment that "all editors agree" would block this illogic.--Michael C. Price 09:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears Michael C. Price thinks a majority of editors are able to be logical, so a majority view would trump illogical thought. However, the advantage of logic is that it transcends a majority opinion. Why would it be hard to point out that this argument is invalid because "all A is B" does not imply "all B is A" , or possibly because "some terrorists kill people" doesn't mean "all terrorists kill people"? Are we to have guidelines simply so editors do not have to present their reasons for objections, but can simply "rubber stamp" or "pigeon hole" when reasoning is a nuisance? That is what seems to me to be the position behind denying inclusion of simple syllogisms in WP:NOR, and avoiding misuse of WP:NOR is the reason for the explicit inclusion of syllogisms. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears Michael C. Price thinks a majority of editors are able to be logical, so a majority view would trump illogical thought. It appears that Brews does not understand the difference between "a majority" and "all". --Michael C. Price 19:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not hard at all to point this out. What sometimes turns out to be extremely hard in such situations is to make the people using the faulty logic understand that their logic is sufficiently non-trivial to make them not entitled to edit war or argue until everybody else has run away from the talk page.

For a real-life example of this problem see here. (Sorry for the length, which is actually a main point of this example. Be sure to read the following sections as well. This continued at ANI.)

It's the most crass example I know. Even though it's about policy space, I am sure it's pertinent. This story continued yesterday with an absurd Arbcom filing of 20x the maximum length, the relevant passage being here. I think if you follow these links and read what you find there (it's funny enough to make this potentially rewarding) you will understand the problem: Good faith editors who think they are using flawless logic when they are just making assertions, and who think that their opponents are avoiding their arguments and just attacking them personally when they are actually using proper arguments. In other words: If we enable the use of logic explicitly (practically speaking it's no problem anyway), then we will have to argue against all the cranks who think they can win based on their superior logic. Hans Adler 17:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Re Hans Adler's remark,

"For a real-life example of this problem see here. (Sorry for the length, which is actually a main point of this example. Be sure to read the following sections as well. This continued at ANI.) It's the most crass example I know. Even though it's about policy space, I am sure it's pertinent."

I don't see the pertinence. Perhaps you could point out the part on the policy page where an edit included a simple deduction that was a problem. Or are you suggesting that deductive reasoning should not be used on Talk pages??? Also please note that policy pages can be considered almost entirely "original research" or the unsourced original thoughts and guidance of the editors who contructed those policy pages. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A look at the issue from a different angle

WP:NOR evolved out of WP:V... and essentially says the same thing from a different perspective... ie: in order to say something in Misplaced Pages, you need to be able to cite a source for it.

Now... when it comes to WP:V, it is understood that not every single sentence in Misplaced Pages has to actually be cited. Everything has to be verifiable, not necessarily verified. However, WP:V does not actually come out and say this... it does not explicitly say: "it is ok to add some information without citing a source"... instead it implies this by using the phrase "challenged or likely to be challenged". The phrase implies that it is OK to add verifiable but uncited material that is unlikely to be challenged. And to make things clearer... WP:V goes on to say that if the material ends up being challenged, the burden of finding and supplying a source falls on those who wish to include the information; and, if a citation is not supplied, then the information can be removed.

So how does this relate to WP:NOR and our discussion of logical deductions... I would argue that we should take a similar line... We should use similar language as is used at WP:V... we should state that logical deductions that are challenged or likely to be challenged require a citation (and make it clear that, to prevent a Synthesis, the entire deduction must be cited to one source.) We should leave unsaid the implication that some logical deductions (ie those that are unlikely to be challenged) may not need to be cited, by focusing on where the burden lies when they are challenged.

In other words we should follow the path taken by WP:V... don't come right out and actually state that some logical deductions are OK... imply it by focussing on how to deal with the ones that are not OK. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Blueboar is saying the same thing I was saying earlier (although he is saying it much more eloquently). Since we would technically be allowing information that is not directly verifiable, the burden on the syllogisms/logical deductions should be whether or not they are likely to be challenged. If an editor does not see the information to be easily deduced, then it should require a source. Angryapathy (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we'd be opening a can of worms unnecessarily. The situation is that all material added to WP must be attributable i.e. there must be a reliable published source out there somewhere that says it. That source must be added if someone requests it, or if it's the kind of thing where someone is likely to request it. This is true of all material. We don't have to start adding, "and it's also true of syllogisms." SlimVirgin 18:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A big difference when comparing V to NOR, is that it's fairly easy for virtually any editor to verify that "source X says Y", while in the case of unsourced logical deductions, judging the degree of difficulty, novelty or complexity in reaching conclusion Y from sources X1 and X2, can be very subjective and depend on one's education or professional background. Therefore, if we were to include the language proposed by Blueboar, it would have to be made very clear that the 'challenge' may come from any editor, not just an expert in the field, since we are not equipped to verify expertise. And then you could run into situations where someone with an opposing POV could use the 'challenge rule' as a roadblock against inserting something fairly obvious, but contrary to his POV. This is why I prefer to leave things like "logical deduction" to the common sense of the editors working on the article. Trying to define things further than they are, besides being an instruction creep, may introduce more problems (e.g. with POV pushers) than it will solve. Crum375 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Um... I don't think I have proposed any language... In fact, if I am proposing anything it is a lack of language. My intent was to simply suggest another way of looking at the underlying issue. I definitely don't want to open any cans of worms... in fact, I am trying to keep worm cans closed... which is why I stress discussing what isn't allowed, rather than outlining what is. By purposely not stating that uncited logical deductions might, in certain circumstances, be OK, you remove the chance that someone will squeeze their own OR into that statement. Essentially, I think we should stress that logical deductions should be cited like any other piece of information in Misplaced Pages... so if a logical deduction is questioned, the burden is on those who wish to include it to find and cite a source for it (and that source needs to follow the same chain of logic as is included in the article). However, to give editors the freedom to write good articles, we should remain completely silent on what happens when no one actually does question an uncited logical deduction. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Crum375 puts it very well. This proposal appears well intentioned. With respect extended toward the editors who are putting it forward, in practice it would probably cause more problems than it solves. Durova 19:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there an obession with leaving things unsaid? So that we can have endless squabbles? Why not be explicit? Is it beyond our ability to formalise what mostly already happens in a confused fashion? Would not clarity be welcome? --Michael C. Price 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We have clarity already. For everything we add to an article, there must exist a reliable published source who says that precise thing in the context of the article's topic. If we're asked to produce that source, we must do so within a reasonable time, or the edit may be removed.

So far, no one has produced a real example of a truly simple syllogism not being allowed in an article. It seems we're discussing a problem with no evidence that it really exists. SlimVirgin 20:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at megadose or orthomolecular medicine. I gave up on them awhile back because simple syllogisms would be reverted.--Michael C. Price 22:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael, can you give us an example from megadose where a "simple syllogism reverted" and the reversion stuck? This would have to be material which is based on published reliable sources which are acceptable to the other editors, and the 'syllogism' so simple that virtually all editors working on the article would accept as logically correct, but reject solely because the NOR policy is improperly written. Crum375 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Syllogism rejected on talk page. Orthomolecular medicine (OMM) advocates megadosing. I said:

If an OMM source says OMM implies taking loads of vitamin D then we can mention studies about vitamin D and leave it to the reader to form any conclusions (if any).

This was rejected with the conclusion..

.. without an independent source linking the current mania for Vitamin D to orthomolecular medicine, it's all WP:OR.

and the current OMM article contains not a single reference to vitamin D. --Michael C. Price 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a different matter. That's not a dispute about a syllogism but (if correct as you state it) you have been a victim of bad wikilawyering. Of course it's up to OMM sources to decide whether vitamin D is relevant to OMM or not, and if it is studies about vitamin D can be cited to source specific claims. Within reason, of course, to avoid being misleading by giving undue weight to the vitamin D business.

I found nothing relevant at the first article, but at the second there were the usual surreal discussions that one would get into with OrangeMarlin. He never argued rationally and typically made rules and facts up according to his intuitions. The proposed change would not have helped you. (And as far as I know he stopped editing after I contacted a reincarnation of his.) Hans Adler 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

True, OrangeMarlin was a large part of the problem (glad we agree about him!). But the OR rebuttal (above) was made by someone else, and so the point still stands that difficult and irrational editors are able to use OR as a weapon to block progress. I take your point that their argument was flawed, but it was still presented. Changing the policy to be clearer or more precise would remove that obstructive cop-out. --Michael C. Price 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Re example - There's a discussion that is currently in progress at WP:NORN. During the discussion, the editor who brought it up has simplified his question to the following issue, in order to get help with understanding what is and what is not allowed. I expect the editor will get back to the more complicated issue once he gets this simpler hypothetical example clarified. (I edited it a little to clarify.)

My question is if the source says that 64% of Turks are unwilling to live next to Jews and 75% of Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists, can we simply say that more Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists than to Jews?

I think the proposed addition and Blueboar's approach, would not prohibit this simple deduction. But it could still be excluded if it was objected to and didn't get a consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the source mentioned this in relation to the article in question, and that NPOV and other potential issues are dealt with, we could simply report that according to source X, 75% of Turks are unwilling to live next to Atheists, and 64% are unwilling to live next to Jews. The word "more" is not needed, since the reader can see the numbers. And this would be a straightforward presentation of a reliable source per V and NOR, with no 'syllogism' needed. Crum375 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia that summarizes where possible. If not for the prohibition, the author could have summarized the info without giving the statistics which are more cumbersome. Also, note that with the proposed change in policy, if anyone objects to it's inclusion, the burden is on the editor who wants it in to demonstrate that it has consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We already allow routine arithemtic calculations, and stating that 75 is more than 64 would fall under that, assuming other issues are properly handled. I can see situations where statistics can be misused, such as the polls taken at different times, the margin of error could play a role, or the format of the question could have an impact on the results, and would have to be included, if controversial. But just saying that 4 is more than 2 does not require a change in policy, per above. Crum375 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quote from an editor that opposed it on the article's talk page.

"Can you quote the sentence that specifically says that "turks are less willing to live near atheists than jews"? If it did, there wouldn't be a problem. But it's just not there. You are assuming that this is the case from the numbers given, (and you may be right) but on WP you can't do that per No original research."

This is the usual refrain: You're probably right but we can't put it in because it's OR.

With the proposed change the editors wouldn't be limited by this but could include or exclude it using more reasonable criteria. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. These criteria wouldn't be more reasonable. We must live with people sometimes being probably right and not being able to put something into an article. Hans Adler 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, stating that 75 is more than 64 is not a routine calculation in this case. There are all sorts of potential reasons to make the "more" statement invalid. E.g. the following scenarios that I made up completely on the spot for illustration:

1. The Turkish language has two words for "Jew": One referring to the religion and one to the ethnic group. The distinction is relevant in Turkish society since there are many ethnic Jews who are atheists, Christians or Muslims, and also a number of ethnic Turks, Kurds and Armenians of Jewish faith. It turns out that while 'only' 64% of all Turks are unwilling to live next to ethnic Jews, a full 82% don't want to live next to people of Jewish faith. Therefore it would be more correct to say that more Turks a unwilling to live next to Jews than to atheists. (Since in this context "Jew" will be read as referring to the faith, so 82% applies.)
2. The Turkish language has only one word for "Jew", but the two numbers come from 1) a telephone poll conducted among 200 households in Istanbul, and 2) from the responses to a question that an East Anatolian radio chain asked to its audience. Therefore the numbers are simply not comparable.
3. The numbers are comparable in principle, but both come from the same telephone poll with 50 non-representative participants. Upon reading the full version of the report we learn that with a 95% confidence, 38-81% of Turks are unwilling to live next to Jews and 53-92% are unwilling to live next to atheists. Therefore it's impossible to say with the same confidence that more Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists than to Jews. Hans Adler 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans. This is exactly why NOR is OK the way it is. Statistics is a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. It involves simple numbers, but to correlate them to reality, esp. in controversial public opinion polls, is very tricky if not impossible, and is often misused to pursue specific agendas. We can say 4 is bigger than 2, but we can't draw far-reaching conclusions about behavior or feelings of people based on statistical polls. Crum375 (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, your 3 objections may be valid, but were they mentioned in the source? If not then we shouldn't be concerned with them either, but just with the question of whether the syllogism /calculation is correct.--Michael C. Price 01:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hans Adler, I think you're missing the point. All the arguments that you are bringing up are possibly the "reasonable criteria" that I mentioned in my last message. Please reread my last message with this in mind. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, due to fear of edit conflicts (which freeze my browser) I was a bit hasty and misread what you wrote. Hans Adler 01:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael: No, that's not how it works. There are millions of ways the argument may be wrong. Even ignoring the POV question whether 75% is really "more" than 64% or "on about the same level". The syllogism is correct if and only if none of these flaws applies. Finding out that all of these flaws don't apply is massive original research. We can't do this. We must rely on a RS to do this for us. And if the fact is noteworthy, the odds are a reliable source has done it for us. Hans Adler 01:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, I think I see the source of confusion here; I was making an implicit assumption. To be explicit: Suppose the question were rephrased slightly, so that the revised claim is attributed to the source:

My question is if the source says that 64% of Turks are unwilling to live next to Jews and 75% of Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists, can we simply say that, according to the source, more Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists than to Jews?

Is this now acceptable?--Michael C. Price 01:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right that having both in one sentences really changes things. I would say it's a borderline case and may still depend on the context of that sentence. Depending on that we may be able to say "more" (most likely, I admit), "about the same number", or neither. Of course a single word like "only" in the source would make everything crystal clear. Hans Adler 02:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't Hans' argument show that you need to allow for more than just simple syllogisms? Keeping an edit out of an article is in a certain sense also an edit (a negative edit). But this is then based on a more complex argument based on statistics that proves that the simple syllogism is not valid and hence one would need a direct quote from a source. Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Just like the real world, Misplaced Pages has only few rules prescribing actions but plenty of rules proscribing actions. I can think only of two rules that tell us that we have to say something in article space: The principle that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and WP:NPOV, which tells us that if we tell one half of the truth, we must tell the other as well. Insofar as the other rules talk about content they are only meant to prevent us from creating hoaxes, whether intentionally or not.

But we are never forced to say something just because it's true and we can source it. Even the principle that removal of sourced information is disruptive isn't universally valid; it's not meant to trump encyclopedic brevity, for example. Hans Adler 02:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the example

There is a source that says that 64% of Turks are unwilling to live next to Jews and 75% of Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists. Michael raised the question of whether the following statement would be acceptable, " according to the source, more Turks are unwilling to live next to atheists than to Jews." Hans felt this was better, but still seemed to feel that NOR prohibits it. This is the crux of the issue. Editors believe that this statement is prohibited by the current form of WP:NOR. Futhermore, that appears to be the fallback position of those opposed to the statement on the article's Talk page. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, it's a simple deduction and therefore prohibited. The proposed changes would not prohibit it but still require consensus for including it. With the proposed change in policy, the burden to establish consensus is still on the editor who wants to put it in, but the possibility of including it would not be eliminated solely by WP:NOR, which is currently the case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction: The change that made it acceptable to me wasn't "according to the source". I wasn't even aware of that and might have objected to it. What made it acceptable to me was that in the revised example both numbers occurred in the same sentence, obviously inviting the reader to read between the lines and make the comparison. Hans Adler 19:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. But that makes the point even stronger. You feel that the above excerpt with or without the part in bold should be excluded, if it appears by itself. SlimVirgin, in a comment below, seems to think that WP:NOR allows statements like that. Perhaps you two should discuss that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are demonstrating how dangerous the proposal is. Deciding whether the statement in question really follows from the source needs much more competence than a syllogism does. And, by the way, even formally valid syllogisms do not always produce correct results in practice, since the real world isn't as simple as the ideal world modelled by formal logic. People like you misunderstanding the guideline in this way is exactly what we need to avoid. I don't think there is any disagreement with SV, since she is talking about syllogisms and I am talking about this complicated example. Hans Adler 20:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a simpler and less emotional example: If a source said 1/4 of all cultivatable land was grown in hay, and 1/2 in corn, it presently would be WP:OR to say more cultivatable land was in corn than in hay unless that claim could be found verbatim in some source. Opponents to a change in WP:OR will argue that inability to include this statement (or enabling obstruction of simple statements) is just collateral damage, because allowing it opens the floodgates. It is an impasse. Brews ohare (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What I'm not understanding is why, if someone were to object to your summary, you couldn't just say "1/4 of this, 1/2 of that," per the source. There's no need to change a policy when a tweak of the writing will meet objections, rare as they doubtless are. SlimVirgin 19:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, SlimVirgin, you are taking a simple example intended to illustrate the point, and making it into the point. To phrase matters more abstractly, "There are simple statements that presently are excludable, and in practice are excluded by citing WP:OR, that would become explicitly allowed with a modification of WP:OR; but changes to WP:OR that would allow explicitly such statements are opposed on the basis that such changes make the editing task of excluding bogus arguments too onerous." Brews ohare (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

They're not excluded. We're just not explicitly saying they're okay. We're leaving it up to the editors on the page, because circumstances vary, and some apparently simple syllogisms may not be so simple when looked at carefully. The editors on the page know the context and the sources, and are better equipped to judge. SlimVirgin 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and that is the problem. Take a look at this discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's too much to read. Can you point to the specific issue? SlimVirgin 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would border on my topic ban. Nonetheless, it is an example where WP:SYN is used to block a simple syllogism. However, to continue, no matter what examples are brought up, and no matter how clear-cut the problem may be in some particular instances, there is no way to combat the argument that explicit inclusion of such cases opens the floodgates and makes editing too difficult. What is "too difficult" for a particular editor is a judgment call beyond argument. Change of WP:OR is at an impasse. Brews ohare (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews, throughout this entire discussion, no one has given a real example of a simple syllogism being disallowed with this policy being cited. I think you need to produce one, or let the discussion come to a close, because as things stand, we seem to be talking about a non-existent problem. If you can talk about changing the policy without violating your topic ban, and you can link to that discussion, I can't see what difference adding an example would make. SlimVirgin 19:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are upping the ante here to say that no clear-cut examples exist. I have pointed one out: you claim it's too much to read. The example is moot, because even if we ultimately agree that this example is clear-cut, the next step in your argument is that it is "only" one example. That makes the argument a matter of persuading you that "sufficient" examples exist, and a blow-by-blow construction of a list of what is mutually agreed upon are examples, and that their number is sufficient. That is going nowhere. It is an impasse. Brews ohare (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion: perhaps you could leave the issue for now, and for the next six months or so, whenever you see an example of this, make a note of it—and perhaps some of the rest of us can do the same—then if you have sufficient numbers to suggest there's cause for concern, come back here and we can take another look. SlimVirgin 19:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Slim Virgin, Re your remark, "They're not excluded." - Perhaps you and Hans should discuss this since you two seem to have a difference of opinion on that. See my response to Hans above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Slim Virgin: I have no intention of pursuing this argument along those lines. The matter really should not be decided upon this basis at all, but upon the basis that WP:OR never should be abused to exclude material that is the result of a simple syllogism. If the value of that principle cannot be established, there is no point in proceeding. Brews ohare (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews, 'simple' means different things to different people in different contexts. My simple can be your complex, and vice versa. This is why Misplaced Pages does not allow editors to provide their own conclusions, and requires them to neutrally report and summarize what published reliable sources have said about issues, not create new material. This is what this project is all about. Crum375 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Crum375: The notion of simple in this discussion is used in the combination "simple syllogism" and refers specifically to the topic syllogism. Brews ohare (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews, real life situations can rarely (if ever) be reduced to "simple syllogisms", acceptable to all sides, especially in controversial issues. Therefore we must stick to what the reliable sources have said, and present them neutrally. Crum375 (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Crum375: This discussion is not about controversial issues: it is about syllogisms, regardless of whether they are common or interesting. Brews ohare (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Crum375, Re your comment "'simple' means different things to different people in different contexts. My simple can be your complex, and vice versa. " - We're not talking about novel theories of physics but the example of making a statement regarding more atheists than Jews when the source says 75% atheists, 64% Jews. On an article talk page, at WP:NORN, and here, this has been considered a violation of WP:NOR by various editors. As I mentioned numerous times, consensus would still be required for including the statement, where in the case that you brought up, the question of whether it is a simple deduction can be brought up and would need to be confirmed by consensus before the simple deduction is included in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I think you are missing the point. In real life, esp. in circumstantial issues, it is very difficult to agree on reduction of the sourced information into a "simple syllogism", and the word "simple" is not a clear concept in itself. In the example brought above about Turkish attitudes towards ethnic groups, it relies on statistics, which are notoriously unreliable and variable, esp. when it comes to polling people. This is why it is much preferable to simply quote the source verbatim, or close to it, and not "editorialize" by adding our own conclusions, because they can introduce subtle (or not so subtle) POV. If the issue is simple arithmetic calculation, that's already covered; when you venture farther into "logical deductions", you open the door to POV and OR. In summary, stick to what the reliable sources said, esp. in contentious issues. Crum375 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Crum375: Again, this discussion is not about "real life" and is not about "statistical reliability". It is about syllogisms, which are symbolic manipulations of premises that find statements logically equivalent to the premises. These manipulations are purely mechanical, can be made by automatons, and have nothing to do with the validity of the premises, only with statements that are equivalent to the premises. Brews ohare (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Crum375, Re your comment "I think you are missing the point. In real life, esp. in circumstantial issues, it is very difficult to agree on reduction of the sourced information into a "simple syllogism", and the word "simple" is not a clear concept in itself." - Again, as I mentioned numerous times, consensus is required for inclusion of the statement. If in the case you are bringing up, some editors believed it is not simple, consensus would not be reached and it would be excluded. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that in contentious cases there is rarely agreement on the reduction of the real issues to a "syllogism", and even more so to "simple" one. The only real example I see above is the Turkish attitudes poll and it was clearly not consensual that the issue was reducible to a "simple syllogism". In fact, as an uninvolved party I can see major issues in that reduction. If all sides agree that a conclusion is trivial and correct, they will use their common sense and consider it part of the allowed "summary and neutral presentation" process. If there is any dispute, then it's not really trivial or indisputably correct, and needs exact sourcing. Crum375 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the proposal for reference.

Simple logical deductions

---

This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable source.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem, again, is that some editors may disagree about the deduction, for example the ones favoring a small minority view. But because they may be overidden by consensus, the large majority will ignore them, and decide that their view can be discounted. This is exactly what V and NOR try to avoid: we should be able to source any statement when challenged. Adding this language will allow a majority of editors (able to achieve a "consensus" by their sheer number) to bulldozer their personal views using "simple logical deduction" as argument. Crum375 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pandora's Box

I think one fear here is that while allowing some simple syllogisms might improve the encyclopedia, it could potentially be misused to introduce WP:OR and WP:SYN into WP. Brews has seen a "hole" in the guidelines that he feels should be plugged, but he is making the same mistake I have made a number of times: the policies/guidelines of WP cannot cover every possible set of circumstances. Some debates and arguments come up that are totally germaine to that conversation, and don't apply outside of that realm. Other times, the editors at a certain article must make decisions based on current policies (and the spirits of policies) which may only work for that article. That's the nature of consensus and WP:IAR. Adding the section on syllogisms/logical deductions is a bit like this: You have a mild headache, so the doctor prescribes drug A. Drug A causes a rash, so the doctor gives you drug B. Drug B makes you nauseous, so he gives you drug C, ad nauseum. Sometimes the attempts to fix a problem will cause more and more problems, so it's best just to deal with the inital headache. Angryapathy (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe your comment is what I referred to as the "open the floodgates" argument, which is essentially an argument that it is too much trouble to deal with illogical editors, and so it is better to allow abusive editorial use of WP:OR to exclude the obvious, on the basis that abuse is easier to deal with. Unfortunately, such abuse actually cannot be dealt with: one is forced to find exact verbatim statements or have materials excluded. No-one can argue with you about what you find to be "too much trouble". The subject is at an impasse. Brews ohare (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews, do you understand that "simple" and "obvious" to you can be totally different to another editor? That's where this issue lies. Angryapathy (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Angryapathy: I don't agree that this is a subjective matter. Everyone agrees what a syllogism is, and a syllogism can be established by simple symbolic manipulation that is totally non-subjective. That is what the Russell-Whitehead link is about. Brews ohare (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Angryapathy, Re your comment " 'simple' and 'obvious' to you can be totally different to another editor" - See my last message in the above section and here's a link to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews, the problems usually happen when we formalise a statement in order to apply a syllogism. We can't do this without simplifications. Some people are unable to see that the simplifications they are applying aren't valid in the particular example. When we tell them simple syllogisms are allowed, they will feel wronged when "their" syllogism isn't allowed. Hans Adler 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans: Undoubtedly some will not understand that they are not using a syllogism, or have incorrectly stated the premises, or have incorrect premises. A discussion will follow, which may converge or not. The issue is how much is gained by a practice that allows abusive use of WP:NOR compared to how much is lost by excluding statements logically implied by sourced premises. Brews ohare (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No movement towards including the proposal

So far, the only movement by editors opposed to the proposal, towards including it, was long ago in this discussion by the editor who originally removed it from the policy page, and that editor left the discussion long ago. I've done about all I can so I'll exit now. Thanks for the discussion. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative approach

Here is the original proposal:

Simple logical deductions

---

This policy does not forbid simple logical deductions, provided editors agree that the deductions correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which they are derived. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable source.

This proposal seems fine to me, but objections have been raised. Therefore, below is an alternative. Brews ohare (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Inasmuch as it already is part of WP:NOR that routine mathematical operations are allowable, I'd suggest that the statement be added that all syllogisms that can be related logically to routine calculations are acceptable, and are not considered to be WP:SYN or WP:OR. Perhaps an article can be written that demonstrates explicitly the equivalence of certain syllogisms to mathematical operations, and Routine calculations can be linked to this article. Brews ohare (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to say this? Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on this page is evidence that such a statement is considered non-empty, as many have expressed reservations about it. It is my view that the trivial nature of this statement is not evident to all, and that statements have been excluded from WP based upon a misunderstanding of its nature. Brews ohare (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. What will be gained by doing this? Angryapathy (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Statements have been excluded from WP based upon a misunderstanding of the equivalence of syllogisms to routine mathematical manipulations. Other statements of this type have been included only after long discussions and the locating of exact verbatim statements, where simple logic based upon premises should suffice. These costs would be eliminated by adding this statement. Brews ohare (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please show us one such example, Brews. And please focus on one bite-sized atomic issue. Crum375 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. For the last few weeks small number of editors have been proposing changes that would constitute major change to longstanding policy; as each subthread fails to gain consensus the discussion gets a jump start with a minor variation on the same basic proposal--none of which addresses the substantive objections. In an ideal world the proposed changes might be reasonable, but they fail to safeguard against frequent and longstanding types of wikilawyering. Sometimes a minor inconvenience really is necessary for the good of the project. Please let it go. Durova 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

While there are many critiques of WP, I think WP:Verifiably gives WP credibility. You are advocating a system where someone can use "simple logic" to derive a conclusion, which I am sorry to say you fail to see the future implications. This will cause more problems than the very few that have happened or will happen without the proposed policies. Just find a source for the information, or leave it out. That's how it works, and has worked for years before this. Angryapathy (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Durova: It would be a useful contribution to this discussion if you could list the substantive objections, which in my mind boil down to the single "floodgate" or "Pandora's box" argument. That is the one argument you have raised as well. It's natural for a discussion of this kind to take some time, even though it is not a "major change", or even a change at all, but simply an explicit statement of what is already implicit in the Routine calculations subsection. Let's see what people think about that. Brews ohare (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews, our goal is to keep policies short and sweet and avoid instruction creep. To add or modify a policy we need justification, i.e. a clear example where the current policy wording fails. I have yet to see such example. Crum375 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Brews ignores the implications of the addition because it justifies why he fought so hard and eventually got a topic ban from physics. Angryapathy (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Angryapathy: That remark of yours is a violation of civility , and an indication that you want to drag this discussion into the mire of hypothetical motivation (entirely erroneous, BTW) instead of addressing the topic. It also is a misstatement of the facts. Brews ohare (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Brews, you have on a few occasions obliquely mentioned in this discussion how you would like to mention the topic in which you have been banned from discussing. I guess I'm using a syllogism to connect this proposal with that topic. Angryapathy (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Like many WP policies, if this is applied with common sense, as it ususally is, it's OK. Sometimes Editors get too hung up on the literal wording and then it can be un-helpful, but almost any change to the policy would have the same objections, and would in practice lead to all kinds of wikilawyering problems alas. NBeale (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a perfectly acceptable argument for Wikilawyering a statement that uses a syllogism would be that the policy already allows routine mathematical calculations, the syllogism is logically equivalent to such a routine calculation, and therefore WP:NOR is inapplicable. What will be your response to such an argument, supposing you were the reverting editor? Brews ohare (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that, as I and others noted elsewhere, routine arithmetic calculations are not the same as logical deductions. The reason is that in the case of logic we first need to reduce reality into a logical formulation. That process is very open to abuse by POV pushers, and is OR by itself. Crum375 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And Brews, I am still waiting to see one example which clearly demonstrates there is a problem with the current policy wording. Not a link to a discussion page, but an atomic bite-sized example, reduced to its essentials. Crum375 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:OMCV wanted to put this article on AFD, just because it contains unsourced logical deductions/mathematical derivations. Count Iblis (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Crum375: There is a semantic difficulty here: routine mathematical calculations are equivalent to certain logical syllogisms. See Russell and Whitehead. The "reduction of reality" to a logical formulation is a process that is error prone, as you note, but is not a part of logic. That process is always subject to editorial review, and may be a valid use of WP:NOR. However, that process is not part of the subject of including syllogism explicitly in WP:OR. As for examples, several have been provided above, one is pointed out immediately above by Count Iblis. However, as indicated, the existence of examples will not resolve the issue. Brews ohare (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Glancing at the talk page of that example, I see other points being made by editors, and they are not related to an objection to syllogism. One editor makes a point that a source for the derivations would be helpful to students, another makes a point that the article is just a list of equations and derivations and thus does not merit its own page. I see nothing on that talk page that would support changes to any existing policy. Crum375 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Crum375: Again, the goal here is not a change in policy. It is the making explicit of the application of the section on Routine calculations to the logically equivalent use of syllogism. This application is already implied by this section of WP:NOR, and making it explicit clarifies inapplicability of WP:NOR as a grounds for excluding simple syllogisms. Brews ohare (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews, if we are not here to change policy, then why not go somewhere else? And if we are here to change policy, it requires good justification. At this point, I don't see a single example to justify any change, however small, in this policy. But I am open-minded, and any good example could sway me. Crum375 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Crum375: Here is a possible formulation:

Routine calculations

---

This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived. Likewise, simple syllogisms may be used that are logical equivalents of routine mathematical calculations, as described by Russell and Whitehead. Care must be taken to observe no synthesis takes place.

Brews ohare (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think what is missing here is an explanation of why we allow editors to perform routine calculation, but do not allow syllogisms... We do not call a routine calculation (such as coversion of standard US measurments into metric measurments) "Original research" because the calculation involved does not originate with the editor who performs the calculation. The formula for the calculation could be cited (to a grade school math text book) every time someone performs the calculation, but we agree they don't have to do so. The same is not true with syllogisms... an unsourced syllogism is Original research, in that the entire logic chain originates with the editor who creates it. Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the articles symbolic logic, mathematical logic and propositional calculus may be unfamiliar to the editors, and should be consulted. The concept of an "unsourced syllogism" is a bit mind boggling. Brews ohare (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews, the way I see it, your wording opens the door to a lot of OR. I think we should stick to the principle that made Misplaced Pages a success: all material should be directly attributable to a reliably published source. Those "simple logical derivations" will allow POV pushers to create new material supporting their view, or frustrated authors to use WP as a publishing house for their original material. And I am still waiting for a clear example why this change is needed. Crum375 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the articles symbolic logic, mathematical logic and propositional calculus may be unfamiliar. The use of a syllogism is a symbol manipulation, just like algebra, and cannot be thought of as original research. Brews ohare (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick status check (straw poll)

While I'm generally strongly disinclined to recommend or encourage the use of straw polls as part of the policy-making process, it seems to me that (per Durova and others above) we've reached the point where the discussion is becoming circular, and no significant advancement is likely.

I would like to pose the following questions, and get a yes/no wherever possible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of problem

Has there been a clear demonstration that simple, unambiguous syllogisms are incorrectly removed from Misplaced Pages articles on a regular basis?

Yes, evidence has been presented that syllogisms are often removed inappropriately.

No, evidence has not been presented to demonstrate the problem.

1. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
2. SlimVirgin 23:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Hans Adler 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Crum375 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
5. With slight distaste for straw polling as a method of problem solving, basically valid. Durova 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
6. I think the key here is not whether syllogisms have been removed... but whether they have been incorrectly removed. So far, the few examples of syllogisms seem to have been removed correctly. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Angryapathy (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Finell (Talk) 01:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is a rather poorly put question. "Clear demonstration" sets the bar high and would require a considerable amount of research into the histories of articles. "Unambiguous syllogisms" again unnecessarily narrows the subject more than it is since the proposal applied to simple deductions in general. "Often" in the yes part, and "on a regular basis" in the question, again makes the question difficult. Consider how this type of a question, narrowed in the way it has been, would be answered when it is applied to each existing part of WP:NOR. For example: Has there been a clear demonstration that there are situations like the Smith/Jones example that occur in Misplaced Pages articles on a regular basis and often?

Please note that when an example was requested, I found an example of a simple deduction that was excluded from an article, by giving a quick look at the current discussions at WP:NORN. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't require any research at all. Those who propose or support this policy change ought to have instances in mind that justify it. We should not complicate a policy with an exception unless the lack of the exception has caused problems, or waste time trying solve a non-existent problem. As for "clear", the proposed policy change is to make an exception for "simple syllogisms"; if it is simple, it should be clear. If it isn't a clear instance, it probably wasn't a simple syllogism in the first place. —Finell (Talk) 03:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you misread the question regarding what the adjective "clear" modifies. Also, you either misread the proposal since it included the more general "simple logical deductions", or got it mixed up with the ones in the section for modifications, which is understandable considering all the discussion. Regarding what someone ought to have in their mind and that it shouldn't require any research at all, is pure opinion and unsupported speculation. Apparently you ignored the fact that I found an example at the current discussions at WP:NORN with just a quick look. I'm getting the same feeling I had when I exited the other related discussion, so that's it for me here too. Bye. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is perfectly worded. The only syllogisms presented were marginal at best. If we can't show a list of examples in which valid, logical information is squashed by the weight of WP:NOR, then obviously we don't need to complicate the policy by adding the proposal. Angryapathy (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Support for changes

As proposed above (in any section) would you endorse a change explicitly exempting syllogisms and/or logical deductions to this policy?

Yes, I would support the proposed addition (specify which).

1. Clearly, there are problems regarding OR, Synth, verifiability, "NotTextBook", etc. etc. etc. when editing technical scientific articles. It usually doesn't make "wiki-news headlines" at AN/I because there is usually no conflict between editors. Wiki policy making is driven by the need to resolve conflicts. But that has led to policies that are very good at dealing with issues you typically face on politics pages where editors edit with some agenda. But these policies leave no room for explaining things from first principles in wiki articles (it is e.g. almost unavoidable that you'll violate Synth). Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
2. I thought the proposal that I suggested, which was a modification of a previous proposal by Brews, was worthwhile, and I felt I successfully defended it against criticism. I stopped participating in the discussion because it appeared that the opposition couldn't be swayed, so that it was a waste of my time to continue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, such an addition to this policy is not necessary. Obvious syllogisms are adequately covered by existing Misplaced Pages policies.

1. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
2. SlimVirgin 23:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Not exactly by the policies/guidelines themselves. They are just there to speed up the process of finding consensus. Where there is a consensus before people even start to think about guidelines, the guidelines are not needed. Hans Adler 23:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree with Hans. Crum375 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Durova 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
6. I see no reason to specify an exemption. Syllogisms and other logical deductions are no different than any other statements in Misplaced Pages... If a syllogism or other logical deduction is created by an editor, and has never appeared in a source it is original to Misplaced Pages... the very dfinition of Original research.Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
7. There is no evidence that this proposal would improve WP. Angryapathy (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Finell (Talk) 01:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Table the matter

As it appears that the discussion here has largely run its course, it may be worthwhile to table the matter for the time being. New proposals regarding syllogisms should not be brought forward again for a period of not less than 12 months.

Yes, the discussion is essentially complete. We can take at least a 12-month break from this issue.

1. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
2. SlimVirgin 23:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Hans Adler 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Crum375 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Durova 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
6. It is clear that there is strong opposition to any overt "exemption" for syllogisms... to continue to float proposals in this area is simply an example of WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT and is waisting everyone's time.Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And we should mention that "table the matter" means to end the discussion (for those in the UK). Angryapathy (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC) While I do think that the proposal is dead in the water, and that Brews has been beating a dead horse (he mentioned that we were at an impasse, then proceeded to start a new thread with the same proposal, slightly reworded), on second read I think the "12 month" tabling seems a little silly. While I doubt consensus is suddenly going to flip in one year, this section is unnecessary. Angryapathy (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Finell (Talk) 01:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, there is additional important ground which much be discussed on this issue. (Describe briefly.)

1. To place a time limit before further discussion of this topic is permitted seems bizarre - it simply stifles discussion, and not only for the present participants. If some editors do not wish to discuss this topic further, they have a simple, obvious option: don't discuss it. Go ahead and bring up other topics on different threads. There is no basis for preventing those that do wish to discuss from continuing to do so. If there is no interest, the thread will die all by itself. Brews ohare (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
2. As I explained above, there are problems that need to be discussed. There mere fact that the problems with the polcies usually do lead to edit wars is not a good reason to ignore them. Indeed, as I explained above, the lack of such conflict between editors is the very reason why such a problem could arise. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
3. I made the personal decision not to continue the discussion because I didn't think those opposed could be swayed. I think everyone should make that decision for themselves. If you would like to end discussion, try encouraging the editor to form a serious proposal and then take a poll on whether or not to include it in policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
4. The additional point (which has only emerged tangentially so far) that needs discussing is the problem of editors inappropriately using WP:NOR to block improvements. Discussions of valid updates are sidelined and dismissed out of hand; the current formulation of WP:NOR lends itself to such blocking behaviour (e.g. in the vitamin D example I cited above, where the response here was that this wasn't really a violation of OR, yet the update was blocked). Rewording OR would make this inappropriate blocking behaviour more difficult. This aspect of the discussion has not run its course. --Michael C. Price 11:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Please note this excerpt from WP:Consensus:

"polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale."

Please note that when I posted this message, one side on these issues is just voting, without giving their personal rationale for their opinion, which reduces the weight of those opinions, according to WP:Consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of comments above this straw poll from other editors regarding the opposition to the proposal. Angryapathy (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the reason I'm suggesting that it might be time to let this discussion go is that it has become repetitive, and the participants positions have solidified. Repeating the same arguments over and over again is precisely what I'm hoping to avoid. Editors who don't agree with the straw poll options exactly as written seem to have had no difficulty expressing nuanced meaning.

The point which I find most telling is that no one has offered any affirmative response to the first poll question — there still isn't any clear expression of what problem we're trying to fix. The 'clear-cut' examples in the earlier discussions have, on reflection, turned out to be somewhat ambiguous, and examination of those cases in light of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, and other policies has been worthwhile. Attempting to stifle article-space discussions (which, after all, is the aim of these proposals) by creating a specific loophole in WP:NOR seems likely to be counterproductive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec with several comments) I think I can speak for most of the others here: The reason we did not give rationales is that we are sick and tired of this nonsense. No matter what the policy says, it will be abused by one way or the other. There is no magic bullet version of the text that solves all problems. A number of very experienced editors (meaning they have spent hours if not days fighting in both directions, depending on whether someone was trying to push their original research, or whether someone was trying to censor well-sourced content) think that the current text should not be changed. A smaller number of less experienced editors, some of whom are in current disputes relating to this policy or had such disputes recently, disagree. After about 250 comments (100 KB) it became clear that you are not going to stop. Perhaps in the case of some of you that is exactly what happened in your other conflicts for which you now want to change this policy; perhaps you are simply not able to accept that sometimes consensus is against you. In any case I think I can be forgiven if I think that if everybody who disagrees with you just gradually dropped out of this discussion to stop wasting their time, you would simply claim a consensus to change the policy and then a new round would start. So all those who are tired of this discussion had to leave at the same time and make it clear that they continue to disagree. That's the main purpose of this poll. Hans Adler 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to block discussion for one year

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A motion has been made on Misplaced Pages talk:No original research to prevent further discussion of a topic by setting a time limit of one year before anyone is allowed to bring up the subject. This action appears to me to be a violation of the spirit of WP, as well as being unnecessary. What is your opinion? Brews ohare (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reason for request

To place a time limit before further discussion of this topic is permitted seems bizarre - it simply stifles discussion, and not only for the present participants. If some editors do not wish to discuss this topic further, they have a simple, obvious option: don't discuss it. Go ahead and bring up other topics on different threads. There is no basis for preventing those that do wish to discuss from continuing to do so. If there is no interest, the thread will die all by itself. Brews ohare (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

This is ridiculous. The straw poll was an attempt to prevent further time-wasting. Now you are wasting even more editors' time by interpreting it as a formal decision. What the outcome of the straw poll really means is that most participants are going to walk away now, and even if you find one or two more editors who agree with you, you can't claim there is a sufficient consensus to change the policy without getting wider input first. Hans Adler 00:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Hans Adler. Durova 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans & Durova: I filed this RfC at the suggestion of TenOfAllTrades. There is no suggestion that this is a formal decision, but that it is a motion under discussion. We'll see if others agree that the idea is simply one of defining how many editors constitute consensus, or whether the idea is to have no more discussion, period. Brews ohare (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion to you, Brews, was that you add a RfC for the existing poll, rather than to start yet another discussion about whether or not we can have a discussion about finally reaching some sort of resolution for this interminable discussion. I advised you that opening an RfC would be a good way to bring in neutral parties, in lieu of the selective canvassing you had been doing. I assure you that my intent wasn't to encourage you to soapbox on this talk page. I'll further note that while I did allude to my opinion in the prefacing remarks, my straw poll attempted to present the options neutrally. Your RfC singularly fails to do so. Finally, there would be no attempt to limit the discussion (so we can all get some peace and quiet) if you dind't keep bringing this issue up again and again despite a failure to attract consensus for a change. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good laugh everyone. A small group of editors trying to restrict discussion on a subject they don't agree with by all the other editors on a talk page for a year! LOL! Looks like a mass block of editors is coming if those editors try to enforce it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See strawman argument and push poll. Durova 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. I misunderstood the type of poll in the previous section. Sorry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the strikethrough; returning the favor. Durova 02:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When I put forward the idea of closing discussions per consensus in the ARBcom case about the problems on the speed of light page, this was dismissed because it was not grounded in wiki policies. But in that case, you had very long discusssions that were seen to be a problem (not by me, but by most other editors). So, I am sympathetic to the idea that you could do this. However, in this case, the discussions have barely started. While a lot has been written, it has been a "rapid fire" discussion. If you visit this page every few days, the discussion could have been declared "over" before you would have had a chance to take your time to think things over and give your opinion.

Perhaps we should accept that this can be long discussion that can take some time and act accordingly (i.e. slow down, there is no need to reply immediately, posting once per day is more than enough). Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to comment on. Brews asks for comment on a "motion". There was no motion, and I am not aware that Misplaced Pages has a procedure or practice for motions on a policy talk page. The preceding section was very clearly labeled a straw poll. Brews misinterpreted that straw poll as a "motion". More needless drama. —Finell (Talk) 03:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Finell: On the contrary, there is no misinterpretation of the straw pole. This pole's aim is to browbeat the responders who do not favor limiting discussion. So obtaining a wide response to this tendentious proposal is important. For this reason, an RfC was suggested by TenOfAllTrades, apparently a suggestion not greatly favored by those contributing to the pole so far. Brews ohare (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems you missed the comment by TenOfAllTrades above, where he explains that you misunderstood him. But let's just wait for the feedback to this RfC. Hans Adler 10:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying that a year must pass before further discussion takes place may be wrong... but so is continuing to push for discussion of an idea that clearly does not have consensus. It smacks of WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To build on Blueboar's comment, Brews stated, "The subject is at an impasse," and then about a hour later started a new thread on a slightly modified proposal. Blueboar is right, the 12 month thing is not right, but the intent was to prevent someone from started a new thread as soon as the discussion was finished. Angryapathy (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A(nother) query

I have been accused of various nasty and unpleasant things as a result of my attempt above to assess the sense of the community on where (or whether) these proposals are going. Everyone (I hope) can agree that it's unnecessary, wasteful, and distracting to encourage or allow a policy proposal to drag on forever with no resolution. There must be an eventual end to the process. So now I'm going to ask the proponents of this proposal:

• Under what conditions would you accept that this proposal is not going to become part of WP:NOR? or, alternatively,
• How and when is a final decision to be reached?

I'm looking for a fairly specific framework here. 'After the discussion concludes' is not going to cut it. There's been significant input from a number of experienced, long-term Misplaced Pages editors. While I hesitate to draw policy conclusions from a counting of heads, I also don't think that policy change should be brought about by war of attrition. It appears that a substantial majority of participating editors are not persuaded that the proponents of these changes have made their case effectively. Moreover, many editors have made comments to indicate that they're not interested in expending much more effort in a futile endeavour. I have a suspicion that the patience of many editors has already been exhausted, and absent a clear indication that proponents are willing – or at least able – to accept a negative decision then those editors will disengage and there will be no change to the policy regardless of how much more text is spilled on this talk page. Without clear and reasonable answers to the above question(s), I know that I can see no further reason to discuss this issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment