Stan Shebs wrote I don't think 'original research' should cover original scholarship. That's a stretch. Charles

David Gerard wrote That's subject Take [[apple pie]], which cites an original source. WP doesn't need to police whether the conclusions drawn are safely derivative or not. (That's apple sauce - sorry.) Any more than if I wander around Cambridge and see something encyclopedic, I need first to check that it's in a guidebook. That being said, 'secondary source' is a good enough definition to go into a WP mission statement, such as 'master secondary source on the Web'. Charles

--- Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: I'm not sure I understand this distinction, so let me give an example. In the field of music, there are a number of genres that use very simple, stark and emotional lyrics about poverty and bad luck, use sparse, acoustic accompaniment, and are played/invented by a group of poor people, often an ethnic or religious minority. The most famous example is the blues. Many music publications will compare a genre like Brazilian samba or Greek rembetika to the blues because it shares these traits -- these comparisons occur in a wide variety of publications, and it seems to be generally accepted that these similarities are notable, despite there being no historical relationship between the genres. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever specifically studied or documented this phenomenon; it's existence is purely limited to a reference here and there in an article on some other subject. I put a list of such genres on the [[list of genres of the blues]], along with an explanation (the list is separated from the styles with a historical relationship to the blues). Would this count as original research? I didn't create a new observation, but put other peoples' observations together in a new way. Just in case you're interested, here's a quote which is fairly direct. Ironically, it doesn't mention the blues and does note the similarity of being from urban port cities, which wouldn't apply to the blues. :Thus, if we take together the Fado of Lisbon, the Tango of Buenos-Aires and the Rembetika of Athens, we will note firstly that all of them emerged a little before or after the middle of the 19th century in poor districts of the big port cities of the nascent industry, attracting people from the country or from abroad, and who were confined to a marginal existence. And if we look for other parallels in the development of these urban popular cultures, we will find them again: first, their obscure and repressed beginnings, then their discovery and appropriation by elements of the higher social classes, later their acceptance and admission by the establishment (often after their success outside of the native land) before ending as a subject of tourist explorations. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com

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(a)epoptic.com | swamp will take care of the alligators.

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:

Exactly. I was using that to make the point that even by your average inclusionist's standards, this article is unsalvageable without an outside source. John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]]) Mark Richards wrote:

Sorry! Misunderstood! Mark --- David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Sean Barrett wrote: Actually, the reason we should have a "Quick delete" -- if not a delete on sight -- ipolicy on any article about a secret society -- or anything related to the Illuminati -- is very simple: fnord Geoff

Sean Barrett wrote: It's a bit like talking about conspiracy theories, or the cabal that controls Wikipedia. :-) Ec

At 04:25 PM 12/7/2004 -0800, Mark Richards wrote: This exact same issue came up on Talk:Freemasonry just a few weeks back, discussing what to do when Masonic secrets wind up on Wikipedia, and this is the solution that I proposed there too. I expect that someday when the [[Masonic rituals and practices]] (or whatever) article gets written it'll be mostly "Author A says X in book N, and Author B says Y in book M. Both of them say P, but they differ on Q." The credibility and credentials of the various sources would have to be discussed too.

Ray Saintonge stated for the record: The first rule of the cabal that controls Wikipedia is "there is no cabal that controls Wikipedia." The second rule of the cabal that controls Wikipedia is "there is no cabal that controls Wikipedia." -- Sean Barrett | This message is close-fnorded sean(a)epoptic.com | for the illumination-impaired.