Template talk:original research

RFD discussion
This is the RFD discussion that I found at --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC):

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. 02:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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? 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I do find it a bit deceptive linking to a page on a Wikipedia policy- as if their policies were ours. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention pointless, since it goes to a redirect that was deleted in 2011 Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what w:Wikipedia:Dictionaries_as_sources says: A dictionary that hardly has standards or hardly enforces them is probably not a reliable source for Wikipedia. A wiki-based dictionary that anyone can edit is not reliable and that includes Wiktionary. We're a joke already. If Wiktionary endorses OR in etymologies, particularly non-tagged OR, we can expect Wikipedia to forbid linking to us. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete for so many reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Such as? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Why would labeling original research as original research be a crusade against original research? --80.114.178.7 20:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning we could also put "This page is written in English" above every page. 20:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ehm, this page starts with ; that   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. --80.114.178.7 21:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. 22:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. --80.114.178.7 23:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * So you made a template for personal attack/trolling purposes? Wow, I'm honoured... 01:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reasons for this template's existence are outlined above. It has absolutely nothing to do with you in person. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted by the pseudonym User:CodeCat/signature, who will channel "other" pseudonyms to defend the out-of-process deletion. --80.114.178.7 03:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This behavior is even block-worthy. However, according to User:Chuck Entz CodeCat is a "valuable" editor and they must not be blocked. All editors are not equal. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)