[WikiEN-l] original research

Tue Dec 7 17:43:48 UTC 2004

Publish a book about it. If the society is interesting enough to be of 
note, sufficient pop culture should arise surrounding it to justify an 
article.

The incident you mention is indeed original rsearch - that is why we 
need an external source. Original research cannot be verified - that is 
why we need an external source. The inclusionists harp on it - "But it's 
VERIFIABLE! We gotta' keep it!" Without a source not from Wikipedia, 
this is not verifiable at all.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

Sean Barrett wrote:

> I have recently noticed another form of what I consider to be 
> "original research," and I'd like to see if the consensus agrees with me.
>
> The article [[The League of Distinguished Gentlemen]] purports to 
> describe a secret society at Creighton University.  It clearly was 
> written by the secret society himself and is currently listed for 
> deletion.  A popular reason given in the votes for deletion is 
> "unverifiable," the rebuttal to which is "you can't verify it because 
> it's a /truly/ secret secret society!"
>
> All of which is only mildly amusing, but did lead me to contemplate 
> the possibility of a /real/ truly secret secret society.  Even if such 
> an Illuminatus really did exist, and someone really were able to 
> penetrate it, it seems to me that the resulting exposé would be 
> original research, and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
>
> Thus, it seems to me that all unverifiable claims about secret 
> societies are logically either
> (A) untrue, in which case they should be deleted, or
> (2) true, in which case they are original research and should be deleted.
>
> Comments?
>
> -- 
>  Sean Barrett     | Remember your priorities. Draining the
>  sean at epoptic.com | swamp will take care of the alligators.