Tolkien Gateway

User talk:Sage/Original research

I really don't mean to stir things up, but after I added some details and references to the 5-year old article on "Rimdath" it sure inspired a lot of people to add various tweaks! All to the good, but I have a question. In Sage's discussion on Original Research, all three allowed cases start with "When an unreferenced claim...". In the Rimdath article there is the following:

The second element in ''Rhimdath'' is likely a derivative of the stem '''[[DAT|DAT-]]''' ("fall down").{{or}}<ref>{{LR|Etymologies}}, p. 354</ref>

The {[or]} notation is immediately followed by the reference to The Etymologies. So if a claim or connection is made (stated as "likely") and has a reference to back it up, is it still "Original Research" or is it a legitimate Tolkienology-acceptable inference?

-- Gamling 22:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say a "likely etymology" is in most cases Original research, unless someone not of TG came up with it, in which case we credit that person. If the reference is to the roots in the Etymologies where the word itself is not mentioned, it should get both a ref to the etymologies and an {[or]} tag. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, that was my thought too. The reference was added to show that the claim is not purely an "invention", but derives from a logical conclusion of a published source. --Morgan 07:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)