Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:Original research. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:Original research, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:Original research in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:Original research you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:Original research will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:Original research, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Just created by User:Ivan Štambuk. I am really bothered by his "crusade" against original research. We had a rather large discussion on the topic with no clear consensus, yet he still tries to push his views on OR through as though they were policy. —CodeCat02:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm really bothered with this "crusade" of yours against standards endorsed by the academic community. It's important to tag the fabricated etymologies that you put in entries so that users don't confuse it with proper scholarship.--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Academic standards don't mean anything until Wiktionary adopts them as its own standards. And I don't understand your argument... academic sources engage in original research all the time, that's the whole point of them publishing things. What does that have to do with Wiktionary? More to the point: what purpose does an OR tag serve on a wiki that has no accepted policy on OR? —CodeCat03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
They mean a lot - perhaps not to you, but to me and I suspect many others as well. We have to have a way to mark entries that are a result of original research by Wiktionarians. We use referenced etymologies for normal entries, and those that cannot be referenced from works by established authorities must have a "reference" of their own, by means of such template. That Wiktionary doesn't yet have a policy on OR is unfortunate, but immaterial - it can be argued to both support or refute having such notice; i.e. it doesn't matter. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
We don't use Wikipedia for cites and references for the same reason- which has nothing to do with being "a joke". For that matter, Wikipedia doesn't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, either. We should do our best to maintain high standards, but we are, after all, a wiki with no professional editorial staff. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I suppose you're right. In that case Wiktionary is doomed due to its lack of standards and POV pushers who legitimize fringe theories and OR by absence of such standards ("anything goes"). At any case, that WP page nicely covers what exactly OR is, and what does this tag mean. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ehm, this page starts with <!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en" dir="ltr" class="client-nojs">; that lang="en" is, AFAIK, above every page. That isn't a crusade against the English language, it just tells that the page probably is written in English. --80.114.178.721:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
But that's missing the point. I am saying, if it's ok to label OR by putting a big notice at the top of the page, then it would be also ok to label English text by putting a similar big notice at the top of the page. After all, just because we can label something doesn't mean we should or whether it's useful. That's why I nominated this; I don't think it's useful given what the status of OR is on Wiktionary. If we do end up making rules on OR then of course this template might be useful, but until then it's not, so there's no reason to keep it and certainly no reason to put it on pages. —CodeCat22:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Almost all pages are in English (and uses of "foreign" words and phrases are marked as such). I wouldn't mind a big label to warn people that a page on en.wiktionary.org were written in French, German, or whatever language. If there's a template we don't need, it's User:CodeCat/signature: every talkpage where you "contribute" gets slowed down. --80.114.178.723:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
On the contrary, it is exactly because there is no policy forbidding OR why this template serves purpose. It makes a clear distinction between.
1) Etymologies supported by established scholars in the field, i.e. real historical linguistis and etymologists. Such etymologies will commonly have a ===Reference=== section, with author's name and page number, using one of the many many reference templates.
2)' Etymologies that are a result of Wiktionarian's guesswork, which cannot be found anywhere else, and which are probably wrong.
Of course, certainly there are many cases where good, valid etymologies lack sources. In fact, probably most etymologies on Wiktionary lack sources (I almost always added them, though sometimes indirectly). Which makes it even more important to separate such valid etymologies lacking sources, from those that couldn't be sourced even if we wanted - because there exists no literature supporting them, since they are made up. This template dispels such doubts. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Keep This template will mostly be used to label User:CodeCat's invented reconstructions that cannot be corroborated by academic sources, should the innocent reader somehow stumble upon them. All editors --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
