Anonnymos

Welcome

Hello, Anonnymos, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Footwarrior (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Original Research

Hi, Thanks for your observation and your analysis that the two lines are similar. However, this is classified as original research and is against Wikipedia's policy. A way to address this issue is to cite a notable, and thus reliable, source that makes that observation. Thanks. Also, please review the guideline bold edit, revert, and discuss on talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I read the link you indicated. I'm a newbie here (obviously), + it's perplexing. I added 2 links, one to Oates+his last words, and one to another Dr.Who episode where someone else had noted the same thing, to cite 2 proofs that it was indeed a quote, and Dr. Who had done this quote before. The other article had had a note that it needed a citation, which was dated Feb., so someone else was able to make this observation WITHOUT having it removed. Things w/o citations are left alone when OTHER people do it, why not make the same kind of note in my case,+ hope someone sharp can provide the citation? Since the episode was just re-shown after many years, the chances that someone WOULD go to the article+do that seem high to me. That you would class an observation that seems blindingly obvious as "original research" blindsided me. I did zero research--I simply recognized a quote--the words of which are in a WP article which should stand as proof. I'm not trying to be disruptive, replacing again+again, but there seems to be something wrong here, and as I've said, someone else did the same thing w/o being treated the same way. I have no idea how I would scare up a Notable Source. My recognition WAS reliable even though you don't acknowledge it as such, + to me, research is a much more difficult+weighty thing.Anonnymos (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

But in Wikipedia terms, original research is doing exactly what you describe above - watching a DW episode and recognising a quote made decades earlier by a historic figure. We do not report on what we have observed - we report on what others have already observed and reported upon. The places where such reports were made are the sources, see WP:RS and WP:V.

I should also point out that material added to Wikipedia must not be sourced from elsewhere in Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR); also that because other people have done something similar, it doesn't mean that it is right to do the same. Each case must be considered on its own merits. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)