-----Original Message----- From: Earle Martin [mailto:wikipedia@downlode.org] Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 05:35 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?
On [[Latymer Upper School]], one contributor has added, in relation to the school's new logo/shield:
"No approval was obtained from the [[College of Arms]] for this new shield, and it is, therefore, unauthorised by the [[Law of Arms]]."
I originally removed it from the article as needing a source, but replaced it after the contributor in question demonstrated to me on the talk page that he appears to know what he is talking about - certainly more than I know about heraldry.
However, is this original research? Or does it follow on naturally once the Law of Arms is understood? It appears to be a legal opinion, and I would imagine that any legal opinions should come from a citable source.
My main concern is that, even if it is true, it would need to be proved that approval was not in fact obtained, and that could be difficult to do. My instinct is to remove the statement from the article again pending this.
-- Earle Martin
It strikes me that this information can be checked. Also, the harm done if it is wrong is minimal.
Fred
On 03/04/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It strikes me that this information can be checked. Also, the harm done if it is wrong is minimal.
Yes. As I just commented to Guy, I've sent a query to the school; I've also sent one to the College of Arms. We'll see if anything comes out of it.
On 04/04/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Yes. As I just commented to Guy, I've sent a query to the school; I've also sent one to the College of Arms. We'll see if anything comes out of it.
I have now received a response from the wonderfully-titled "Bluemantle Pursuivant" of the College of Arms, who says:
"I have made a brief search in the records of grants of Arms to corporate bodies and can find no indication that this school is entitled to bear Arms. This is an anomaly which should be corrected; if the school decided to petition for a grant of Arms, as have a great many other independent schools, they would no doubt be successful."
I also had a response from the school, who state that the symbol "is a logo, as was the previous version". So. This is relevant information, but how can I cite emails I have received in the article? Thoughts appreciated.
On 4/4/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
I also had a response from the school, who state that the symbol "is a logo, as was the previous version". So. This is relevant information, but how can I cite emails I have received in the article? Thoughts appreciated.
Quite simply, you can't. Personal communications can't be cited as sources for Wikipedia articles.
-Matt
On 04/04/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/4/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
I also had a response from the school, who state that the symbol "is a logo, as was the previous version". So. This is relevant information, but how can I cite emails I have received in the article? Thoughts appreciated.
Quite simply, you can't. Personal communications can't be cited as sources for Wikipedia articles.
Yes, I understand that. How then is one supposed to add unpublished true facts that have been obtained personally? (As opposed to original research, which this is not.)
On 4/4/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Yes, I understand that. How then is one supposed to add unpublished true facts that have been obtained personally? (As opposed to original research, which this is not.)
By getting them published somewhere. Unpublished true facts are original research by the generally accepted Wikipedia definition.
-Matt
On 04/04/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
By getting them published somewhere. Unpublished true facts are original research by the generally accepted Wikipedia definition.
So if there were an article about, say, my grandfather, and I edited it to add something that was true (say, that he was in the RAF during the war) but unpublished, this information is not suitable for inclusion? (Surely notability does not imply that all relevant facts on a topic have been published.)
Anyway, I was under the impression that "original research" was taking facts A, B, and C about topic X and concluding N. In the case that I am following up, I've asked Z, an authority on X, if A is true, and they have confirmed that it is. But according to your definition, this proven fact A must float in limbo because it is unpublished. That doesn't feel right.
Earle Martin wrote:
On 04/04/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
By getting them published somewhere. Unpublished true facts are original research by the generally accepted Wikipedia definition.
So if there were an article about, say, my grandfather, and I edited it to add something that was true (say, that he was in the RAF during the war) but unpublished, this information is not suitable for inclusion? (Surely notability does not imply that all relevant facts on a topic have been published.)
Anyway, I was under the impression that "original research" was taking facts A, B, and C about topic X and concluding N. In the case that I am following up, I've asked Z, an authority on X, if A is true, and they have confirmed that it is. But according to your definition, this proven fact A must float in limbo because it is unpublished. That doesn't feel right.
Perhaps then one legitimate application of Ignore All Rules would be if a constellation of rules led us into a paradox. My one concern with the statement that initiated this thread was that "No approval was obtained..." is a negative statement. By their nature negative statements are mostly impossible to substantiate. Allowing personal communications from a subject or official body that something has not been done as prima facie evidence may be the only way to establish a fact. Prima facie evidence is always rebuttable. Is it realistic to expect that someone will publish a statement in an acceptable publication for the sole reason of saying that they have not followed trivial requirements?
Ec
On 04/04/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Personal communications can't be cited as sources for Wikipedia articles.
Hang on, though. Is it not the case that if the subject of an article contacts the project via OTRS to request an article be changed, it is then changed? If that change involves the alteration of material, the source for that alteration would need to be cited, which is impossible according to your statement here.