[WikiEN-l] Original research (was 3RR applied to both parties?)

Fri Mar 4 17:39:44 UTC 2005

>From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
>
>Peter, you may be right about there being an argument in favor of
>saying that Australia is, in effect, a republic. But if you want to
>introduce an issue like that into an article, you have to be very
>careful not to violate the no-original-research rule, which says that
>editors shouldn't come up any new analysis or synthesis of facts. In
>other words, if you want to say Australia is a republic, you have to
>find reputable sources who have actually said that precise thing, and
>not just sources who have said things which, put together in a certain
>way in a certain light, could be interpreted as implying that.The
>former is okay; the latter is original research.
>

I find this to be this single most difficult concept to get across to 
editors, some of them long time Wikipedia contributors.  The inevitable 
response is "this isn't original research, these are simple facts."  Even if 
they are indeed "simple facts" (and that is often not the case), putting 
"simple facts" together to build a case, in order to refute a quoted 
argument or position you see in some article which you don't agree with, is 
"original research."  Repeating the mantra "find some reputable cited source 
which makes this argument, don't present it on your own" rarely helps.

Jay.