No Original Research?Edit
I'd like to open a discussion on the "No Original Research" part of current Wookieepedia policy. The policy can be found here in full, but the relevant part is this:
Material counts as original research if it:
Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:
The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
It qualifies this by saying:
Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions.
I'd like a clarification on what constitutes what. The context for this is various bts comments could be placed into, or removed from articles. I'll illustrate with a few examples.
Some bts comments draw attention to possible connections between characters with the same names, such as the comment on Astraal Vao's page. It notes she could be a descendant of Mission Vao or Griff Vao from the Old Republic period. This certainly strikes me as a plausible theory, especially since Astraal's appearances were published after Mission's, and so is likely deliberate by the authors.
However, other connections may not be so clear. As one example, I added a bts comment suggesting that Wade Vox could be connected to a "Vox" that posted in Cynabar's Fantastic Technology: Droids. The computer game featuring Wade Vox did come out later than CFT, yet the mention of Vox in CTF is so minor as to make it unlikely that any deliberate connection was intended. However, given the timing of both and some other characteristics, it strikes me as plausible that in-universe they could be the same person. As a fan, I value these notes in the bts sections, so long as they are clearly portrayed for what they are—possible or likely connections, rather than established conintuity. If such connections were presented in the main text, they would of course be fanon.
Another example is that of Platt Okeefe from the WEG sourcebooks. The later source, Coruscant and the Core Worlds, described a character Barthos Okeefe, who is also from Brentaal, and from a notable family, such as Okeefe was. I'm currently writing Okeefe's article and intend to mention this connection in the main text, although it has not conclusively been made in a published source.
I think an argument could be made that some of these connections are only "straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data" and so are valid under the current rules.
Any thoughts on what constitues "original research"? At what point does a connection move beyond a logical deduction into rampant speculation? --Eyrezer 01:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- All of the examples above explain in and of themselves why they are logical. I think that it constitutes original research at the point when you cannot explain concisely why this is logical. "They have the same last name and are of the same species" is a statement of why a possibility is logical. If it takes longer to explain the logic of a fact than the fact itself, then that would probably not hold up as a logical deduction and would then require citation. It brings to mind the bi-sexual debate over Zekk. That's why it was removed from the page after discussion on the talk page. Way more explanation needed to explain the possibility than to state the possibility itself. Wildyoda 01:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)