Talk:original research

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

• 19 November 2006: Request for deletion (kept)

Request for verification

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

"unverified material" seems to be a partial description rather than a definition. SemperBlotto 19:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the definition of "original research". Fark 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a start, but there are other meanings. This definition misses the meaning as in the sentence In order to get a Ph.D., you must do original research. The meaning in that sentence is: "work leading to an addition to human knowledge" or perhaps (more generously) "an attempt to add to human knowledge". Brholden 21:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Move to RFC, or RFT? --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it is anything other than sum of parts. Deleting pending comprehensive reasons for keeping. Andrew massyn 09:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Froom RFD: This entry keeps on being deleted, as if it were itself original research. Since it's not, it shouldn't be deleted. This is a request to protect it from being deleted, rather than a request to delete it. Fark 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps those prior deletions were because the definition as listed was formerly of a too-narrow, wiki-specific sense. I've rewritten it to admit the more mainstream meaning and usage of the term. (Would-be-deleters: please review before any knee-jerk redeletion. :-) ) —scs 22:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the talk page with this conversation and changed the talk page to rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 18:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

GENERAL MOAN: WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK TALK PAGES ARE FOR!!! Andrew massyn 18:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RFD

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

original research

I read the previous discussions about deleting this page but none of them seem to mention the fact that (deprecated template usage) original research is completely SOP. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the Wikimedia sense if we could cite it might be allowable, but not this. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Which sense at [[original#Adjective]] applies? Which one could best be reworded to more clearly apply? Does this collocation need to be represented there with a usage example?

WP's section at w:Research#Original Research has "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. This material is of a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)". What they are defining builds on the restricted meaning of "research" established earlier in the article, but this wording puts a lot on the word original. DCDuring TALK 10:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't quote Wikipedia to prove your point. Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary and Wiktionary is NOT an encyclopedia. Here's an analogy: English grammar refers to the grammar of the English language, regardless of whether this grammar supports "I am" or "I is". And the United States Constitution refers to the constitution of the United States, regardless of whether this constitution supports free speech or free donuts. Likewise, original research refers to research that is original, regardless of the details of what counts as original research and what does not.

As for which definition of (deprecated template usage) original applies, it seems to be some combination of 2 and 3. But the quality of the page [[original]] is irrelevant to whether original research is SOP. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't really taking a legalistic approach. What does WT:NOT have to do with making a simple point that it is probably original rather than research that needs to be shown to fit. I do think we owe it to our users to have an adequate definition of component terms. RfD discussion of multi-word terms are a particularly good opportunity to discover whether the component term definitions are adequate.

How would you recommend our users combine the two definitions? Or should they go to another dictionary to find an adequate definition that fits? They do have choices. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean that it's better to improve the component terms' definitions than to use them as an excuse to keep SOP words. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, but it's not obvious whether there is a sense of original that fits exactly with this. Were we merely a general-purpose dictionary, we could easily say that this sense of original or original research is too specialized in its nuances to be worth the space. But we aspire to be a universal dictionary, including items often limited to technical glossaries. WP's definition is just a convenient synthesis and example, not a source to be relied on for attestation, of course.

Original as applied in original research seems to mean "not primarily dependent on secondary sources". MWOnline accommodates that at original with "not secondary, derivative or imitative". That puts a lot of burden on the user to grasp what sense of "secondary" is meant. Wiktionary has no such accommodation, but obviously could. But I wonder what other nouns besides research are modified by original in this sense. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you can say "This research is original." shows that it is not a term. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 20:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)