Wikipedia talk:No original research

Archives

See also Wikipedia talk:Proposal to replace No Original Research
For the "Sandbox", click here.

RfC: Proposal for WP:PSTS

Proposed: User:Vassyana/NOR 002 as a replacement for WP:PSTS. There may be more that needs to be addressed, but there seems to be broad agreement that this is at least a move in the right direction. We can always address more issues after taking this step, but if we can agree this is a good move from the current language, lets do that and then focus on refining even further. I am posting a notice of this proposal to the policy village pump (again) and listing this as a policy RfC. If someone knows of another venue I should post in to make sure the community is aware, please let me know (or by all means post a notice yourself). Vassyana 08:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This wording appears to have some virtues. I am just not in a position at this time to spend time on it. However, I do note that it says nothing about sources in science. I think you should ask the scientists on several WikiProjects what they think. --Bduke 10:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The draft is an improvement over what we have now, but it unnecessarily uses primary and secondary sources as defined terms, rather than explaining the sourcing issues in plain language. As the draft fonow acknowledges, primary and secondary are defined differently in different fields, and editors will naturally revert to their familiar definitions because of the law of primacy. This has lead to counterproductive arguments over what is primary vs. secondary which distract from the real question of what is OR vs. NOR. Dhaluza 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree. I'd imagine the terminology and general language used would be one of the points covered after this step. There seems to be a lot of discussion over language and it's certainly worthwhile to explore. Vassyana 07:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal very much. While Dhaluza has a point, the simple fact is that there is substantial support (if not full consensus) for including discussion about primary vs. secondary sources in this policy. It has become clear that a version that does not include such a discussion will never be accepted. Compromise must be made on both sides of that issue. One clear benefit of this proposal is that it places the discussion of primary vs. secondary in terms of OR vs. NOR (something that the current PSTS section does not do well). Blueboar 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana, Dhaluza, and Blueboar in that User:Vassyana/NOR 002 should replace for WP:PSTS. We should delay further proposed improvements for after that. As Blueboar pointed out, there is good evidence that this is the best compromise we are capable of reaching - and we have spent over six months on this. WAS 4.250 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree This is far better than the current PSTS section, explaining things more clearly. Some tweaks will probably need to be added here and there as time progresses, but this proposed version is a major improvement. wbfergus ^Talk 17:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• No way Shall I "blue pencil" it? •Jim62sch• 21:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote. "No way" provides no useful information other than that you think you own the page. WAS 4.250 05:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I think I own the page? Damn that's news to me. Had you also noticed the second sentence, you'd know that I offered to edit the proposal in a separate place (that's what "Shall I "blue pencil" it?" means).

Let me put it this way: the propsal begins with an unnecessary digression, and the removal of tertiary sources is a non-starter.•Jim62sch• 20:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how an introduction nipping the "but I learned x sources are y" confusion in the bud is an "unnecessary digression". The fact that even single fields often have various (often incompatible) definitions of PSTS has been repeatedly covered on this talk page. The effect of the law of primacy should not be underestimated, but rather considered and countered (as needed). Could you perhaps better explain your objection? Could you also explain what is essential about tertiary sources that we need to include a distinction that isn't even clear in the fields that use it? Vassyana 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I know you spent a lot of time on your rewrite, and you're to be commended for taking the time to do so. I'm afraid though, that I just don't see the flaws in the verbiage of the policy as it stands now. I'm not saying that your intro is poorly written, in fact far from it -- it's quite well-written, but I just don't see how it's necesary.

The conflation of secondary and tertiary sources troubles me greatly. One of the purposes of the section on tertiary sources is to sound a warning, or caveat, on their use -- by mixing the two, that caveat disappears and opens the door for much contentious sourcing issues in the future. •Jim62sch• 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that certain clarifications are needed or that certain aspects need to be emphasized (or that some of the approaches are correct), but I worked on incorporating many of them because of the long-standing dispute and confusion over the current language. I cannot emphasize enough that the draft is in large part an attempt to compromise between the very broad ranging positions that have been expressed here over the past several months. I've tried to retain the essence of PSTS that supporters of the status quo (or something similar) have identified. At the same time, I've attempted to revise with an eye towards addressing most of the reasonable objections to the current language. It's assuredly not perfect (far far far from it), but I think it does a good job of reconciling quite a diverse array of opinions. Regarding the caveat, given the large variety of definitions given even within single fields and the fact that the law of primacy perennially rears its head with the "here's what I learned" argument, I believe a caveat is highly appropriate and quite needed. For an example of the problem of varying definitions, see one of my replies to Kenosis.[1] Does that clarify the perceived need for such a caveat? Outside of the two objections you've listed (we'll continue to discuss those), do you think it is better, worse or about the same quality as the current language? Why?

The warning in tertiary sources just notes that some are more reliable than others. What is said about them there applies equally well to all sorts of sources. The language originated in addressing the use of encyclopedias, which are an extreme minority of tertiary sources. The vast majority of tertiary sources are covered by textbooks and review literature, both of which tend to be more reliable than average. I certainly could add a note that sources have varying reliability and that those authored by experts are generally more reliable, if that would help accommodate your concern. Please let me know your thoughts in return. Vassyana 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(ri) OK, let me think on this a bit. •Jim62sch• 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Take the time you need to collect your thoughts. Vassyana 07:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:STEAM yet again. Spenny 21:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, Spenny? He who asserts must prove. Prove. It is WP:STEAM how? Do tell. •Jim62sch• 22:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the pair of you simply bowl in and say "no way" without being prepared to engage in discussion, which seems to be based on some view of your own omnipitence. Wikipedia does not belong to anyone, it belongs to the community. A substantial number of the community believe that there is something that needs fixing here. You simply assert that we are wrong, without really attempting to engage or understand, you assume that there is some evil doings going on here. Your superior attitude is offensive, it is the epitome of trolling, that is, the deliberate placing of antagonsitic comments to get a response. It is exactly the behaviour that brings Wikipedia admins into disrepute to the cost of the many worthy workers on our behalf.

Either be prepared to engage in civil and understanding debate on the issue, or if you believe there is malicious intent (which is clear from various talk page comments between yourselves, you do believe) then raise those issues formally, but do not disrupt the workings of Wikipedia based on your own prejudices. Spenny 00:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's an even more substantial segment of the community that feels that there's nothing to fix. They'll weigh in if this ever gets to that stage.

No one said there were "evil doings" here, merely that you want to fix what ain't broken. But seeing that you have inferred that we said that evil doings were afoot, please to 'splain.

I'm so sorry if my attitude offends thee. No really. •Jim62sch• 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also sorry for putting it so strongly, I just find that the statement that nothing is broken does not match my view. I think this is because you have not understood that my concerns are not about the academic world and high quality sources, but that policy needs to work in all areas of Wikipedia, for all editors. Without re-iterating the arguements too much, one reason I was motivated to weigh in here was that I found the policy pages were being used to produce POV articles and when I argued the case this very policy wording was used to defy common sense.

The specific example being using summary press articles to outweigh government Inquiry statements on the dubious grounds of the newspaper reports being secondary sources and the Government Inquiry being a primary source. The issues I had were: using the PSTS argument as a defacto means of excluding "unhelpful" quality sources without proper consideration of all policy (that's primary source, it is out, end of debate); the elevation of the press to an unsailable position (The press is secondary source, from that perspective, anything they report on is their primary source, therefore I can exclude all their sources.). This was being done by someone who exerted significant control over the wording of these policy pages - hence my cynicism that these pages are not broken.

I have no doubt that when applied to a scientific or historical subject with exemplary sources with experienced editors that the current wording works well. My premise has always been that the wording does not work for areas with poor or biased sources, for editors who are not skilled in the ways of academia. I believe therefore that it is important to get NOR back to a simple and obvious statement of what NOR is without the baggage of PSTS, and then allow PSTS to be used as a tool where it is appropriate, recognising that Wikipedia goes into areas which do not fit the academic model. Spenny 09:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There's one of the trolls, the other shouldn't be to far behind. wbfergus ^Talk 22:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Troll, huh? Really? I don't think there are many trolls with three FA's and countless GA's to their credit. And by the way Fergus, the worst way to deal with me is to engage in ad hominems. Capisce? •Jim62sch• 20:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Did Fergus just call you a troll? Wow, that is seriously news to me. Thanks for the information fergus. Orange</nt>Marlin ^Talk•

Contributions 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seems that way. And, from what I can gather, so doing is a bad thing. Of course, I could be mistaken: maybe Fergus' fingers slipped on the keyboard, or maybe Fergus was just in a pissy mood. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I'm back in town again I can reply. Yes, I most certainly did. Your past accomplishments with FA or GA articles does not prevent either of you from engaging in such behaviour, both here and on my own [off_my_page|talk page]. As long as you engage in reasonable discussions, presenting your side articulately, and refrain from "name-calling" or other abusive behaviour, then you obviously are not in the "Troll" category. But your previous behaviour here and on my talk page does clearly fall into the "Trolling" category. Much, if not most of your work, may clearly have been well spent doing constructive edits elsewhere here on Wikipedia, but your comments here (up until the last few immediately above this), clearly fell out of that category. Simply leaving comments here saying 'no way', 'non-starter', etc. without any further explanation does not help others to see why you may object. Your comments are then considered to be merely 'trolling'-type comments, as they do not attempt further discussion, but as an impediment to discussion. wbfergus ^Talk 16:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(ri)Your link speaks for itself (although, likely not in the way you intended). Again I digress. Have you, perhaps, maybe, noticed a difference in the way I deal with you and the way I deal with Vassyana? Probably something there, eh? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever twists your crank Jim. Your comments on my page came out of the blue. I never left you any comments anywhere, or made any statements about you that would entail any response, so either OM asked for your assistance in being a troll, or you followed him around to see what he was editing and where and then decided that he needed assistance as he was floundering. Here at least you are now constructively participating in the discussion, instead of exhibiting the previous behaviour of OM and yourself. Whatever caused the improvement, I really don't care. The point is that you are constructively participating now, instead of just popping in to leave a negative comment without any explanation or supporting statements that could be addressed. wbfergus ^Talk 19:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever twists my crank? ROFL. As for your strange assertions, let me just say that you're free to develop and believe delusions to your heart's content.

OK, so does anyone here really want to discuss the issue, or shall some of us continue to engage in a pissing match? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... I'm not sure if WP:STEAM actually applies... as I think the proposal is a majority opinion and STEAM only applies to squashing minority opinions. But that is a quibble, I do agree that Jim should at least explain what the objection is. Blueboar 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide something more constructive than a "no" without explanation? What is wrong with the proposal? Is it better or worse than the current language? Why? Vassyana 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree Neutral. Vassyana's draft completely omits the most common form of accepted primary sourcing used on Wikipedia: descriptions of artistic works (such as plot summaries). I think it could be sustantially shortened as well, and as Dhaluza points out, made plainer. I'll put my money where my mouth is and offer some revisions within the next two days to demonstrate the kinds of changes I have in mind.--Father Goose 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly common, but also controversial. Rather than add more controversy to an already controversial section, that should be an issue tabled for further discussion. It is not a question of whether or not this proposal is perfectly correct. Rather, it is a question of whether or not this proposal is an improvement over the current language. Further revisions can always be addressed later. Is this proposal better, worse or equitable to the current language? Why? Vassyana 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Saying it could be better does not answer the question asked. This is a wiki. The process is incremental improvements - not freeze something a majority disagrees with until perfection is attained in a proposed replacement. More people like the replacement than like what we have now. Let's get back to normal non-ownership style editing. That is what made wikipedia great in the first place. WAS 4.250 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worse than the current language by completely omitting this critical point. Whether or not some people oppose such sourcing, it is absolutely necessary to use it in certain limited circumstances. If this is not made explicit, people will purge such information as "unverifiable" (though it is verifiable), and huge holes will form in Wikipedia, particularly in our coverage of creative works. This is one point that cannot be glossed over or avoided.

As for "saying it could be better" -- like I said, I'll offer some revisions to make explicit what I feel needs to be changed.--Father Goose 06:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the proposal omits a "critical point", that is not in the current language, the draft is worse than the current language? That makes no sense. If you want to include such language, we can always address that controversial topic separately. What makes this proposal worse, other than the absence of additional proposed language? Vassyana 07:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The critical point that is in the current language is articles "should (1) only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable". Your version restricts this to "only report what the source states". This omission makes it impossible to provide any form of basic description of a subject (such as a plot summary or something simple like the fact that KITT was housed in a black Trans Am) unless that description appears in a secondary source. This is vastly more restrictive than the current policy, and unnecessarily so.--Father Goose 06:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies for not understanding your concern. That was an error on my part in choice of language. I have changed that to "only report the content of the source", which should accomodate your concerns. It would plainly allow someone to saw KITT is a black Trans Am, for example. Is there anything else about the draft that raises alarm bells for you? Vassyana 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That addresses my greatest concern well enough that I'll switch my position to "neutral". I still have some problem with "some occasions and exceptions" linking to WP:IAR and a single obscure exception. One should not invoke IAR to deal with known shortcomings of a policy, and one should not invoke it in a policy to handle "unanticipated cases" since that's one of IAR's jobs anyway. I'd be somewhat happier if it were rewritten as "some occasions and exceptions (such as WP:SELFPUB)", with the link to IAR discarded.

Then there's the problem that the whole thing is still rather muddled, and that we should possibly be considering moving the entire PSTS section to WP:RS. Fullstop and others are expressing this point well. But that problem exists with both the current version and the NOR002 version, so it's not specifically an objection to NOR002. I've been working on trying to generalize the principles behind PSTS, instead of just shuffle it around, and if I get anywhere with it, I'll share my ideas here.--Father Goose 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The IAR language concern is a legitimate concern and your suggested replacement seems solid to me. I've altered that phrasing accordingly. If you think of anything else, please let us know. Your concerns and suggestions have been on the money, and the feedback for improvement is quite appreciated. Vassyana 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would additionally point out that the draft acknowledges that "there is a broad consensus for widespread use of some primary sources", with census data and interviews as examples. It uses two clear and noncontroversial examples. If someone would want to assert that a particular use of primary sources has broad consensus, it would be up to them to defend that assertion (like any other time someone declares consensus). Vassyana 07:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with the edit (though I don't fully agree with the draft). I think the edit would be a step in the right direction. I don't think we really need to listen to editors who say "I oppose draft X because it does not contain controversial language or theory Y". That's not a valid objection, and such statements do not annul consensus. I hear and agree with Dhaluza's statements above, but I'm willing to go with a draft that is less controversial than the current one, rather than insisting at this point that the expression of the policy have no controversy. (Eventually, all significant controversy must be eliminated, of course; otherwise, it's not a true consensus policy article.)COGDEN 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're free to disagree with others' views, but saying "we do not need to listen to them" does not lead discussion in a constructive direction.--Father Goose 07:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weakly agree. It is barely any different, only slightly better in some ways. I do prefer “raw facts” in the lead of the primary source definition. I don’t approve of the mention of “A secondary source” before its definition. There are many more than “some occasions” where primary sources prove useful. The biggest benefit of agreeing is that it encourages further efforts. --SmokeyJoe 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Some improvement is better than none after the long period of disagreement. I agree that more improvement is necessary, but one step at a time. :) Vassyana 07:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The first paragraph of the proposal is unnecessary and confuses the issues needlessly, IMO. The WP usage already closely tracks the usage of PSTS in library and information science. I adjusted the footnote so it reads accordingly here.
  ...... The proposed presentation also, IMO, gets bogged down in explanations that are perhaps best put into one or more additional footnotes to supplement existing basic material in PSTS rather than attempt to replace it.
  ...... I do see some merit in the passage explaining that a given source might be primary in one application but secondary in some other context. Perhaps this would be useful in a footnote as well. If it were concise enough (say, one sentence or two short sentences at most), I'd support its inclusion in the body text of the policy page. ... Kenosis 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Kenosis. It is productive and constructive and positive to add parts of the proposal to footnotes in the current version. At this point I approve of any movement forward no matter how small. While one way of looking at it might be to see it as an attempt to see how little of the proposal can be added; I think it is better viewed as part of the beginning of a series of constructive incremental steps to improve the policy in ways corresponding to conclusions reached in a debate in which for over six months almost all discussion participants had a similar problem with the current PSTS section. WAS 4.250 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is something that has been covered multiple times in discussion. Even within library science, there are various definitions. Another common information science definition is that primary sources are simply materials that make original assertions or provide original material. Another definition in the same discipline, is that primary sources are purely source materials; even secondary sources drawn upon in other secondary references are considered primary sources. I will not revert, but rather ask you to reconsider your edit as it amounts to cherry-picking a definition and is misleading in that it implies there is a unified definition in that field (which is patently false). Vassyana 17:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Misleading my foot. It is a general definition that is in fact fairly consistent across the field of library science, which is in turn very closely in keeping with WP's usage of PSTS. Specific interpretations of which sources belong precisely in which classification, with respect to a given topic, are no less specific or universally consistent than interpretations of WP:NPOV, WP:V or for that matter the rest of WP:NOR. They are all editorial policies that are defined case-by-case and article-by-article within a consensus process among those WP users participating in each particular article. ... Kenosis 19:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between primary sources as purely source material and primary sources as the original source. How NOR is interpreted in local consensus is an entirely separate matter from the various (and conflicting) definitions of sources used within a particular discipline. It is misleading to present (or imply) a false fact, such as that the definition provided is universal to information science. It's even worse when the second reference explicitly lists some of the various definitions of primary sources, rather than presenting the field specific definition (as implied by the edit). The page explicitly aims to present an overview of how they are used and defined, not present the library science point of view. According to this glossary, primary sources are original works in the creative and informational sense, as opposed to the historical sense used by your first reference.[2] Another presents primary sources as the original source of information.[3] Another relates primary status to closeness to an event, or rather first-hand accounts are primary.[4] This one uses the definition equating primary sources with source material.[5] This one supports the historical sense used by your first reference.[6] It's pretty clear your presentation of a universal definition just doesn't wash. Vassyana 21:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the incentive to replace the prior version of "Secondary sources" with Vassyana's version of "Secondary sources". Personally I feel sure that's the strongest part of the proposal, and does not substantively change or diminish the present expression of the policy. The prior text in secondary sources was not well written in it's latest incarnation, and the examples of the traffic accident simply wasn't very useful. The edit is here. ... Kenosis 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Before we make any changes, we really should allow time for people to discuss the proposal, for those active in the discussions to comment and for the request for comment to have a chance to draw outside opinions. I am going to revert the change for now, as the section is highly controversial and there's no rush. We can wait at least a few more days or a week to make sure there are no significant and well-founded objections. Vassyana 21:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I may or may not be around in a few days. Since it's got my interest at the moment: If the proposal is to eliminate tertiary sources and give the long apologetic in the body text about how some fields may use it differently -- this belongs in a footnote at most. I must oppose the proposed replacement for PSTS. In addition, the removal of the many currently used examples of primary sources in favor of the proposed paragraph on primary sources doesn't represent an improvement, IMO. The proposed paragraph on "Secondary sources" does represent a significant improvement, mainly because that paragraph is presently in a severely deficient state that doesn't effectively convey the breadth of secondary sources across the wiki, while the proposed paragraph does much more effectively convey the typical range of secondary sources than does the current version. ... Kenosis 22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the elimination of the tertiary source distinction problematic? Why do we need to distinguish them for the purposes of NOR? Why is the caveat so problematic? Why do we need an extensive list of primary sources? What is wrong with the primary sources section, beyond the shortened list of examples? Vassyana 10:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Among the benefits of User:Vassyana/NOR 002 over current wording is that it avoids this entire argument over what is the "real" meaning of "primary source" and makes clear that we are using some real world usages as a springboard to craft a new related meaning that is useful and relevant in the context of evaluating the useage of sources as references for claims in wikipedia articles. WAS 4.250 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the expression of primary sources could use further discussion as well, so as to express it in a way that doesn't affect continuity of usage of the policy among those who've already taken it to heart across the wiki. For instance, the reason that original philosophical works and religious scripture are primary sources is that they are closest to the topic when the topic is the original philosophical work or the statements therein, or the original religious scripture or the statements therein, When the topic is whether the religious scripture accurately represents the historical information, as in the case of historical Jesus, then scripture might not be primary source and other artifacts may be primary sources instead. When the topic is Aristotle's ideas, Aristotle's works are primary sources. If the topic is Plato's or Socrates' ideas as talked about by Aristotle, then Aristotle's works are secondary. It depends on the topic and on the discussion among editors at a given article who are negotiating the content in the context of NOR. ... Kenosis 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: this new PSTS - though less foamy than its predecessors - still does not cut to the chase. And like its predecessors, this latest incarnation too has forgotten the context, which is how PST sources are related to 'No original research' policy.

-- back to basics begin --

The fundamental and general characteristics of PST sources are:

1. A primary source is a piece of (typically novel) information that is subject(ed) to analysis.
2. A secondary source is an analysis or interpretation of preceding material.
3. A tertiary source is a non-analytical review/summary of existing analyses or interpretations. A tertiary source is "tertiary" by virtue of not being either a primary or secondary source: It is not primary because it neither introduces novel information nor lends itself to analysis, and it is not secondary because it does not itself analyze or interpret.

A Wikipedia article may not itself be either a primary or secondary source: it may not introduce novel ideas (original material), nor may it introduce novel analyses or interpretations (original research).

-- back to basics end --

Fullstop 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the view of PSTS presented by most editors. It would be an entirely different discussion. Though I doubt you'll receive much support for that approach (review the talk archives), I would recommend raising this as a separate proposal. The draft was intended to better frame the section in terms of NOR, and to compromise between the various concerns and views raised over the past several months here. How does it measure in those terms? Is this overall better, worse or just a sideways shift compared to the current PSTS section? Vassyana 10:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. If your "draft was intended to better frame the section in terms of NOR" then the draft is not doing what you intended it to do. As NOR_002 concludes: "drawing conclusions not stated in the reference, or extrapolating a position from the claims in a source, is original research regardless of the type of source." If something can be original research "regardless of the type of source", then there is no need for a classification of "type of source" is there?
   ~ Note also that "drawing conclusions" or "extrapolating a position" can be summarized with "analysis" or "interpretation," which are the keywords of my "back to basics" summary of PSTS. As such, I'm rather surprised that you conclude that it is "not the view of PSTS presented by most editors."
   If this were really so, then NOR_002 is of course "not the view of PSTS presented by most editors" either.
   On the other hand, it appears that pretty much everything so far "is not the view of PSTS presented by most editors," otherwise we would have had a majority by now, wouldn't we?
2. The fundamental "flaw" in all the drafts so far is that a) these definitions attempt to be comprehensive, b) the sheer length of the descriptions encourage glossing. Together, these factors discourage thinking about any description under review. You (and I) are just at fault as anyone else: your description can - in principle - apply to what I had written, but if it does not, then its either because you haven't thought about what I had written and/or I had misunderstood what you had written.
3. To answer your "How does it measure in [terms of terms of compromise and in terms of applicability to NOR]":
   • Applicability to NOR: Given that
     a) the words "analysis" and "interpretation" are the key definitions of "original research" and that these words occur in every sentence in my "back-to-basics" definition, and that
     b) the ~125 words of "back-to-basics" actually lead up to the (last) two words "original research",
     I suspect that my "back to basics" definition of PSTS is slightly more related to NOR policy than anything so far.
   • In terms of compromise: I really think that if anyone were to earnestly try to find the kernel in what they think P/S/T sources are, they would find a match in my back-to-basics suggestion. The inverse - that my back-to-basics suggestion is the kernel of any notion of PSTS - would also be true.
     This is because "back-to-basics" represents the commonality of all definitions and objections so far. Your draft included.

-- Fullstop 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this "back-to-basics" suggestion an explicit suggestion to be found somewhere? --SmokeyJoe 06:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The problem is not with the conclusion of your "back to basics", but rather the definition of primary sources you choose. It's so broad as to be useless. Additionally, plenty of secondary sources are subjected to analysis, but are not treated as primary sources in Wikipedia. It's most certainly not the way most editors treat or define primary sources.
2. The current section is fairly comprehensive as well. While simplification is a fine goal, given the length of the controversial discussion and page protection of this policy, our first priority should be reconciling as many of the opposing views as possible. After an initial compromise to move forward from the dispute, discussing further refinement (such as using different terms or severe simplification) would be perfectly appropriate. We should be looking at ways to move forward, not demanding an extreme solution or nothing.
3. Trumpeting your extreme simplification is not an answer to my questions. The implication that if people would just earnestly examine the issue (as if a large number of editors haven't over the past several months), they would "see the light" is degrading and insulting. Please actually answer the questions, explaining why or why not the proposal on the table is better or worse than the current PSTS section and explaining why or why not the proposal on the table is a reasonable compromise of the various opinions and concerns expressed here over the past several months.

Vassyana 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. • Your "it's so broad as to be useless" is precisely the result of "reconciling as many of the opposing views as possible". A definition of PSTS with respect to NOR is indeed useless. You know that (as evident in the second last sentence of NOR_002) and I know that, and pretty much anyone who has thought about the permissibility of a source knows it as well.
   • Indeed, "plenty of secondary sources are subjected to analysis, but are not treated as primary sources in Wikipedia" is perfectly true. Back-to-basics does not say otherwise.
   • I (think I) am beginning to understand that you think of "sources" in terms of a book, a chapter, an article, a volume, a series. In reality though, a "source" can be as small as a phrase or factoid. A "source" has to considered in terms of "pieces of information" and in context of usage. A head count (raw or otherwise) is a primary source, the analysis of such a head count is a secondary source. And yet both appear in a census report. It doesn't matter what kind of source the census report is altogether, its the individual facts in them that are either primary or secondary.
   • "Raw facts" are primary sources because they do not analyze (themselves?). "Transcripts of the Nixon tapes" is a primary source because it is subject to analysis, not because it does not analyze (the "situation"). And historiographic accounts are not admissible for RS reasons, not for NOR, because when historiographers do analyze, they are usually flawed analyses. That is an issue for RS, not NOR.
   • Shakespeare is a primary source because he does not analyze Ovid (or whoever) he is using as a source. But a quotation from Shakespeare is not by-default a bad thing. If however, an editor were to conclude that Shakespeare was a racist because Othello is a negative character, then that would be OR. It is irrelevant which source were being cited: either Shakespeare directly or Bloom's observation that Othello is a negative character. "Do not interpret" is the crux of OR, not what kind of source is being used to interpret from.
2. "We should be looking at ways to move forward, not demanding an extreme solution or nothing." After six months we are no further ("moving forward") then we were to begin with. As such, it might be a real step forward to reconsider whether the path being trod on has lost sight of where it is coming from or where it hopes to go. Its no surprise that NOR_002 is in the middle of nowhere, discussing the color of the grass by the wayside: The document is called NOR, but NOR is not the subject in that document. This is not moving forward; this is preserving the chaotic state of affairs.
3. "is not an answer to my questions." If you think an answer does not suitably answer the questions you asked, then perhaps you need to consider that you had failed to phrase them in an appropriate fashion. Its not necessary to assume that the reader is an imbecile. Not that your latest phrasing accords with with you initially asked, but this new question is easy enough to answer:

   NOR_002 is no better or worse than the current PSTS section. Its still a load of dowah, undermining its own conclusion that "Drawing conclusions not stated in the reference, or extrapolating a position from the claims in a source, is original research regardless of the type of source."

   This is precisely the same idea (though slightly less convoluted) as that expressed in the conclusion of the current PSTS section: "Like primary sources, secondary and tertiary sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable from either the sources themselves or from other sources."

   The message is the same: both conclude that any kind of source can be misused for OR, and that - irrespective of kind of source - analysis and interpretation is a no-no. But both ramble on about kinds of sources anyway. Different nitty-gritty, but same ole blether. Not going anywhere, leave alone forward.

   The question you ought to have asked was: "Does NOR_002 make the the editorship-at-large actually understand NOR policy better?"

-- Fullstop 17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is really starting to fork into an entirely separate discussion, so I will keep this relatively brief. It is not so broad as to be useless because of a broad compromise, but because the definition you offer is relativistic, providing no guidance or help in using sources. It simply says that primary sources are the subject of analysis. In the absence of a more comprehensive explanation the plain reading does indeed indicate any source subjected to analysis is a primary source, including other secondary sources. A "source" is commonly treated as a complete individual work, not individual claims within a work. If you wish to change that, I recommend starting by changing the common practice along with WP:V and WP:RS. It's noted that you disagree with the entire approach of the status quo. However, if you wish to participate constructively, you have to realize that is our starting point, that we need to work incrementally and that there must be compromise. Finally, you make the fundamental error that a conclusion about all sources indicates there is nothing else to say about differing types of sources in relation to NOR. That the conclusion limits us from making other statements, advice or restrictions regarding particular sources is a fallacious position on its face Vassyana 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My definition of PST is not the point. This talk section is not about my definition, but the failures of yours, as indicated is the very first two sentences of my initial comment. My apologies for assuming that you were a thoughtful person who would assume that a comment tagged with *Comment* might actually be saying something that you could use, or even for assuming you would actually read or think about it. Apologies also for subsequently assuming that you were actually trying to understand where I was coming from.
That said,...

1. Yes, the definition I provide is indeed relativistic. And this is what your definition should be too. This is because a) "secondary" would not be "secondary" without there being a "primary" (and vice-versa), and b) what is understood by "primary"/"secondary" is always relative to both the context of the source and well as the context of the material that the source is being cited for.
2. And yes, the definition I provide "providing no guidance or help in using sources." And this is what your definition should be too. That is not NOR's business! WP:SOURCES is not WP:NOR.
   The conclusion might just as well read:
   A Wikipedia article may not itself be either a primary or secondary source: it may not introduce novel ideas (original material), nor may it introduce novel analyses or interpretations (original research).
   *poof* Sense maintained and no previous definition of PST (or even "sources"!) necessary. One could even keep the struck-out bit, and simply link to the relevant articles.
3. And if I and others are supposedly making a "fundamental error" in concluding that an understanding of NOR is independent of an understanding of "differing types of sources," then perhaps - just perhaps - you need to consider that your NOR_002 is not doing anything to correct this (supposed) misconception. Instead, NOR_002 and current WP:PSTS actually tell us that the "kinds of sources" differentiation is irrelevant to NOR.
4. I did not say the "conclusion [of NOR_002/current WP:PSTS] limits us from making other statements, advice or restrictions regarding particular sources." Thats your reading. What I did say was If something can be original research "regardless of the type of source", then there is no need for a classification of "type of source" is there?
   And if "kinds of sources" don't have to be described, then they shouldn't be. And if "kinds of sources" aren't described then all debate over what is/isn't a P/S/T source is moot. And so WP:KISS prevails.

-- Fullstop 17:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I commented about how your definition was so broad as to be useless. The parallel you drew to the proposal is simply false. The draft is not so broad as to be useless. A completely relativistic definition that provides no context and guidance is however. Your definition is indeed salient, since you clearly have advocated it and framed your commentary on your "back to basic approach". Your continuing incivility is unwelcome, and I'd recommend you reconsider your choice of language and attitude. Engaging in gross simplification and insulting the intellectual capacity of others who disagree is distinctly unhelpful. You repeat the fallacy again while denying that you are making the assertion. Simply because original research can be engaged in regardless of the type of source doesn't mean that all sources are equally prone to abuse nor that there is an absence of anything else to say about sourcing in relation to NOR. In the absence of your interest in rationally and civilly discussing this matter, I have nothing further to say. Vassyana 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Vassyana, it simply won't do to make backhanded allusions to irrationality, fallaciousness, "having an attitude," incivility, "engaging in gross simplification," "insulting the intellectual capacity of others" and heaven knows what else, just because you don't like (or don't understand) what I have to say. And don't dish out what you won't eat yourself.
• You also continue to harp on the my definition although my definition is not the subject of this RFC. Its your definition that you put on the whipping post. So take the critique without whining and without getting defensive/offensive about it. In contrast, I have responded to every single one of your remarks, and in which I have repeatedly agreed with you, and in each case I have explained why they are - by design - the way they are. That you ignore that and simply reiterate your remarks is not fruitful.
• But then again, your "definition was so broad as to be useless", "completely relativistic definition," "provides no context and guidance" etc are oblique and open-ended assertions that are actually meaningless without accompanying explanation.
  So,... if my response wasn't appropriate for what you had in mind, then its because you weren't specific enough. What, when, where, why, how.
• Inversely, by cricitizing the alternate position, you are implicitely asserting that the opposite is true for your own draft. That is, you imply that it is necessary for your draft to be non-relativistic (about what?) and that it is necessary to provide context and guidance (for sources!) in NOR.
  But so far, you haven't provided a rationale as to why it is necessary to be non-relativistic (independent of context?), and why it is necessary to provide guidance for sources even though this is none of WP:NOR's business and is what WP:SOURCES is there for.
• Indeed, "simply because original research can be engaged in regardless of the type of source doesn't mean that all sources are equally prone to abuse."
  But so what? Simply because not all sources are not equally prone to abuse does not mean that it is necessary to categorize these sources according to their susceptibility to abuse, or to suggest that there is a relationship between degree of susceptibility and some (perforce arbitrary) definition of PSTs.
• "... nor that there is an absence of anything else to say about sourcing in relation to NOR."
  Indeed, but is it necessary?
• NOR is simple. There is no need to make it complicated by discussing source types, even though such typing does not influence the understanding of OR.
  There is no such thing as "gross simplification." Simplification is never gross. A complex idea described in the simplest possible fashion is the ultimate sophistication.
• But if sources must be explained on the NOR page (and thus partially undermining the purpose of the WP:RS and WP:SOURCES pages), then for heaven's sake explain why this is so, instead of simply insisting that it is so. What, when, where, why, how.

-- Fullstop 14:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Support the inclusion of the paragraph on "Secondary sources", but only this paragraph. However, the words "offer a more independent view" in the proposed replacement for "Secondary sources" paragraph is not necessarily the case and should be further discussed IMO. Oppose the rest of the proposal as presently written. Additionally, I'd like to request discussion on the inclusion of the following sentence under "Tertiary sources": Such sources can be useful in providing a more general overview of topics where secondary sources are highly complex, in disagreement with other secondary sources, or otherwise difficult to summarize. IMO, this proposed sentence would help to put tertiary sources into better perspective. ... Kenosis 22:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The newspaper report of an event is to an historian a primary source, not a secondary source. The Vassyanana proposal excludes newspapers from use as sources in Wikipedia.(except for their editorials). 03:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it? Really? Where? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree to Vassyana's proposed edit. The language lays out the potential NOR pitfalls of prim, sec sources. It eliminates the "tertiary" distinction which even experienced editors here aren't able to agree is necessary (there really isn't a significant distinction that need be made between sec and tert sources in terms of NOR anyway. I'd argue there is somewhat more value in separate "policy" points between sec and tert in describing pitfalls with NPOV.) This is not a departure in longstanding NOR policy, just a refinement. This proposal does not restrict in any way the use of primary sources for making uncontroverted claims. And we need to get on with it--we need "good enough" policies at WP which are stable, more than we need crystal perfect policies which are continually shifting. Professor marginalia 15:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• No way. Since webfergus, because he's the all knowing individual, will request reason, let me put it this way. I don't need a reason to stand on a principle to NOT fix what is NOT broken. I am unconvinced by the any of the arguments. In other words, the proposal is so minor as to be irrelevant, and what we have works so well. So there webfergus, am I a troll too? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If the proposal is "so minor as to be irrelevant", then why are you stating opposition instead of abstention or neutrality? It makes no sense to oppose what many support if there is little to no difference either way. Vassyana 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

While wbfergus has fallen for the irritated response, I'm afraid putting antagonistic comments up is the very definition of trolling, so, as an admin, you are not abiding by the spirit of what Wikipedia should be about.

Still, that aside, my main quibble with your response is that if, as you appear contend, the policy is expressed as the epitome of perfection, why are there so many diverse opinions on what the policy means or should mean? Spenny 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I would even deserve the backhanded characterization of me as a troll, but I was definitely passive aggressive to wbfergus. His comments were unnecessary. That being said, let me respond to you.

I thank you for responding sensibly and I appreciate for the tone in which you respond. I agree that his comments were unnecessary and antagonistic, but in responding in the style that you did, when you know people are sensitive then I suspect you know you are going to elicit a response. I simply ask that next time around, (and there will be I'm afraid!), you display a little more tact. There are ways of being robust without being dismissive. Spenny 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

From my personal observation, which is definitely original research, everyone tries to use rules to benefit themselves. I edit mostly science and medicine articles, and I frankly see some of the worst possible citations to defend an edit. Alternative medicine and Creationist cruft, utilizing bogus research and claiming the Journal of "I think I observe this" as the source of their POV, is the worst possible way for this project to go. I think people want to move Original research to mean slightly different things is a canard. Most of us with strong SPOV's, think that the NOR here is perfectly fine. Small changes, over several months, tend to move the ideal in a direction that will make this project no better than Conservapedia. So, you might observe diverse opinions, but what I think you're observing is POV warriors whining about the fact that they get reverted in their edits. Not sure that constitutes a great groundswell of support for change. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I responded to Jim above, and I think the issue with your position is the the same. You work in a particular area with an academic bent, using an academic perspective and the rules work well for you. My contention is that Wikipedia is a wider community and covers a wider range, with varying qualities of editor. My motives are: to have a policy that speaks to the average person, not just to academics (I actually had someone use primary sources as a phrase for the first time in the real world a couple of weeks ago and it was the first time in nearly 50 years that has happened); to ensure that PSTS is not used to falsely elevate poor sources by giving it precedence over other policy (specifically being careful about setting the press, very accessible via Google, as a sound source over other sources of merit); being aware that policy needs to work for notable subjects without good quality sources where the community clearly wants articles. An example of the later, which is more my field, is computer software where often the highest quality, definitive, source is either the manual or manufacturer sourced papers (for example IBM red books or Microsoft Knowledgebase). Bear in mind that these sources (close to the subject) I would have interpreted with the wording as being primary sources and at times people have sought to have PSTS wording that bans them in entirety.

My point is that you see PSTS as a tool for avoiding undue manipulation of sources: my point is that the current wording is used to manipulate sources for POV warrioring. A clear statement of NOR can be made without source typing which therefore avoids this manipulation, but that does not stop PSTS being used as a tool to support the NOR where appropriate. You see it as ideal and therefore any changes must therefore be retrograde. I wish I knew how to engage with you constructively and concisely (I'm not good at that!) to persuade you that this is a flawed position. Spenny 09:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree, for reasons similar to what Fullstop set forth above. While these definitions are obviously put forward in good faith, I honestly worry that they will only serve to confuse unnecessarily those who want to be guided by policy, while providing a club to those who wish to advocate their own agendas -- or to simply cause trouble. The primary problem with the existing definition of "primary sources" has been that its meaning differs between disciplines: a "primary source" in history is far different from a "primary source" in the research sciences, for example. Any changes should be made to fix this disagreement in meanings, while attempting to simplify the language -- the "back-to-the-basics" approach that Fullstop advocates. We are not writing a law here; we don't need to be exacting in the details. -- llywrch 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tut-tut, OM, you said no way. Like OMG, how horrid. Of course, I say of course, attempting to "fix" something that isn't broken is pretty horrid too. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And your evidence for that position is? Spenny 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to Fullstop above. Vassyana 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I also have a few direct questions. Could you please explain how the proposal is worse than the current PSTS section? Could you explain why it is not an appropriate compromise of the various (and often conflicting) concerns and opinions expressed here over the past several months? Vassyana 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Object. The original phrasing was accurate, more clear, and enjoyed wide support for over a year or more. I don't see any reason why it needs to change and this is not an improvement. FeloniousMonk 05:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be very difficult to show what the genuine support for policy was over the last year based on the strong ownership that was enforced on the policy pages at certain times.

It might also be useful to suggest which version you thought was better. There have been some consensus amendments over the last few months to remove inappropriate statements, and is there now is not what was there a year ago. Spenny 11:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think FeloniousMonk overstates the original accuracy, clarity and support to the point of disingenuity. PSTS is not a work of art. Its inertia/stagnancy should not be mistaken for stability implying quality. --SmokeyJoe 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The original phrasing was far from clear, contained loopholes, and hardly had wide support for over a year. Just in the last year from today, the policy itself has had over 500 edits. That is hardly a stable policy and clearly shows that numerous people had problems with the wording and attempted to clarify various parts of it. Further examination shows that the majority of those edits related to PSTS, which is also what most of the discussion on this talk page has centered around for the last few months. Saying otherwise, as stated above is either an inadvertant wording due to lack of researching (or more probably just going by memory without looking at the facts), or intentionally misleading. I would have expected better from an Administrator. wbfergus ^Talk 15:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree I definitely am eager to see that there continue to be a distinction among types of sources. If it's necessary to give more latitude to primary sources, then I think Vassyana's draft is a good compromise. I really appreciate the work he's done on this. TimidGuy 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed replacement is too wordy and it's hard to follow the train of thought. The current version is shorter and easier to read. Also, I disagree with requiring explicit in-text attribution or with stating that secondary sources are preferred. Thanks, however, to those who put a lot of work into it. Balancing the various concerns on this page is not easy. --Coppertwig 00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

First, I want to acknowledge that it's clear a lot of work has gone into this definition. And creating standards can be a useful thing: instead of putting effort into choosing between two or more alternatives, I can simply look to see what the Wikipedia policy is on a given situation is, & act accordingly.

However, my point in my objection above is that, as someone who struggles with issues of original research whenever I write articles, all of this effort fails to help me one bit. Maybe it's the subject I concentrate on: I write a lot of articles on history, & I find that, if I try to follow what I think is the intent of "no original research" (& I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years now, so I should have some idea about what I'm doing), I honestly can't think of any reason to treat primary & secondary sources differently. If Tacitus or Suetonius state A, I report (in effect) "according to Tacitus, A." If a secondary source like Edward Gibbon, A.H.M. Jones, or Ramsay McMullen say "A is supposed to mean B", I write (in effect) "according to Edward Gibbon, A is supposed to mean B". Citing a statement from Gibbon, another from Jones & a third form McMullen & saying that it proves some novel concept is, IMHO, just as much original research as if someone were to the same by citing from Tactius & Suetonius. Lastly, if a tertiary source like an encyclopedia says "C", I should take a step back, scratch my head & wonder why I am relying on an encyclopedia for my research. (Admittedly, there are reasons.) In short, for someone writing history (& related subjects), this detailed definition of the three types of sources is not a positive aid.

This detained definition does help two sorts of people: the extreme literalist & the motivated troublemaker. Wikipedia encourages the use of secondary sources over primary ones -- for reasons we need not go into here. Yet sometimes secondary sources get the facts wrong: respected authors confuse dates, botch translations, get sloppy in their research. Or sometimes they state fact A, & themselves reference a primary source; why not then cut out the middleman & cite the primary source alone? Despite all of this, there are people who will argue that Wikipedia articles should always avoid using primary sources, no matter the reason. (Note: this is not a "strawman argument"; I have seen many such arguments put forth by established Wikipedians in good faith. It is amazing -- & a little sad -- to see the many ways a simple statement of policy has been twisted.)

Now I came to all of this as an outsider: I saw Vassyana's notice at the Village Pump, & followed the link. I don't know what has been argued here before I popped in, & to be blunt, if this is a compromise of what has gone before then this effort is in a lot of trouble. I've stayed away from policy for a long while because I've learned that either I can spend my time arguing policy or writing articles; I decided I feel more productive writing articles. So I've mostly ignored whatever the policy about original research said; as I wrote above, I think I know what the policy is supposed to mean, & unless I encounter some odd case I have no reason to look at the policy; I suspect this is the case for most Wikipedians who are contributing content. So a group of people can write the most comprehensive, detailed explanation of these classes of sources -- only to have no one make good use of them, because we don't want to take the time to digest such a large slab of text -- & if in doubt, there's always the safety valve of ignore all rules. Or on the other hand, this group can write a less detailed definition that people will read & can apply to their own experiences, & it will be used & actually influence how things are done on Wikipedia.

A last note: I've tried to present the above in a dispassionate, & non-accusatory manner. If I've offended anyone, I apologize. I also apologize for the length of this response. However, I honestly feel that this rewrite is heading in the wrong direction, & that the direction Fullstop writes -- whether or not he did so in good faith -- a simpler, back-to-the-basics definition, is the right one. And if my comments are not deemed as useful, I'll be happy to leave & return to working on content. -- llywrch 05:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that "outside view". As someone who has long argued for a major simplification, in which I see the classification of sources as an unnecessary obfustication of the basic policy of NOR I strongly agree with your concern. The issue is how do we get from here to something more obvious and streamlined which does not go down a detailed rabbit hole. The long discussions were about saying that policy based on classification of sources was doomed to be unacceptable when what we were asking for could be summed up as stick to the sources. To attempt a compromise, those in favour of simplification have tried to move slowly, but the result is that we seem to have satisfied nobody - the simplication has not been achieved and the obstructionists for change claim any change is too much yet the proposed change is too small to be worthwhile. The key phrase of FullStop, which there is good consensus amongst the advocates of change is If something can be original research "regardless of the type of source", then there is no need for a classification of "type of source" is there? Spenny 10:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Llywrch, I appreciate that you provide some well-considered comments. However, I am troubled by comments which undermine my good faith in your participation here. For example, you digress about tertiary sources, but the proposal quite clearly leaves out that distinction. That leaves in serious question whether you even looked over the proposal, considering the absence of tertiary sources is plainly obvious. Your comments (as a whole) are a tangent raging against the status quo and anything like it. If you choose to actually participate, you are quite welcome to, but outright ignoring the actual proposal on the table while soapboxing your opinion is unhelpful and a serious disservice to the editors here trying to work out a compromise. Vassyana 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First, my comment about tertiary sources was meant as a joke. Obviously you didn't see the humor, but my intent was simply to diffuse the tension evident here. However, as for your comment about "outright ignoring the actual proposal on the table while soapboxing", my only response is that I'm not posting to stir up trouble -- I'm honestly puzzled that so much effort has gone over some definitions of tangential value to Wikipedia policy. I have read the proposal, but I didn't see anything there that helps to explain why so much effort should be expended on defining them. (Maybe there's more than meets the eye to this whole discussion.) As I wrote above, if the best thing I can do at this point is to bow out -- I will. -- llywrch 22:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't let my response discourage you from participating in the discussion. I thought the comment about tertiary sources was a bit flippant (in the lighthearted sense), but at the same time the proposal doesn't use tertiary sources. In combination with the fact that your post was more a statement against the existance of anything but a very simplistic version of the section (and a few other aspects of the post), it seemed like you weren't addressing the proposal or discussion at hand. I apologize for my lack of good faith. I simply should have asked for clarification. On that note, is the proposal better or worse (or just about the same mess :-P) as the current section? (Also, you've obviously put a lot of thought into this topic and I'd encourage you to stick around to help us further refine the section, whether or not this proposal succeeds.) Vassyana 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to a portion of your post, a lot of people believe primary sources are more likely to be misused for original research. For example, in topics related to Christianity it is generally (perceived to be) more likely that Bible quotations will be used inappropriately in relation to NOR, than a theologian's book describing the meaning and correlation of various biblical verses. Another problem is the (perceived) inherent original research in using some primary sources directly. This is particularly true of historical sources lacking the editorial oversight and/or modern credentialing generally required of reliable sources. For example, Caesar's Gallic War is widely considered a golden example of ancient reporting, but is also considered a masterpiece of propaganda and known to contain inaccurate hearsay. Without relying upon a reputable scholar to determine which parts are reliable, and to what extant, direct use of that primary source is almost unavoidably original research. (And that's a reputable example of ancient sources.) Just a couple of examples to illustrate what the problem as many see it is with such sources. Vassyana 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry for the delay; I had some off-wiki business that kept me from thinking & writing out a prompt response. First, I think it is an improvement in that (if I understand it correctly) it removes a discussion of tertiary sources. Other than that, as I said above, because it doesn't trim back the wording I'm not entirely convinced that it is an improvement.

To respond to your second post, V., the reason we worry more about people misusing primary sources to create novel interpretations than about misusing secondary (or, excuse me, tertiary) is that in the later case, this misuse is far easier to identify & deal with: as important as a storehouse of facts a book like (for example) A.H.M. Jones' The Later Roman Empire is, obviously Jones presents only a selection of the material he has found, & with a patina of his interpretation. For that reason, I become concerned when I encounter Wikipedians who seriously argue that we should never quote primary sources; sometimes the secondary sources make their own mistakes.

From my (admittedly incomplete) reading of Wikipedia, the only case I've encountered where it is important to existing policy to distinguish between primary & secondary sources is in the formulation of notability: there are instances where it is very appropriate to use the existence of a secondary literature to prove notability. (However in some cases it's not as clear-cut, such as Ethiopian history: the secondary literature is not as rich as in the case of, say, Early Medieval European History, so some very important people & events are not covered. But I'm rambling here.) It might be best, for this reason, if this section were moved to WP:NOTE.

The problem with primary texts is the Wikiepdian who insists on reading into the passage his own interpretation, & cannot be shaken lose from that interpretation. Passages in religious texts are the best example of this, & they will just as eagerly read their own meanings into the secondary literature as well (e.g. "The book of Mark says this, & it is proven by Tertullian"). I don't know what to do about these people, except to let their own lack of ability to interact with other people defeat themselves.

As for your example of Caesar's Gallic Wars, IMNSHO the proper solution would be to quote what Caesar wrote but also quote later scholars who interpret him, as other points of view. This follows the principle of neutral point of view. Opinions in the secondary literature often mutate, & the predominant opinion of one generation may be reversed by the next; the text most often remains the same.

Sorry to have written so much again; I'm honestly not trying to soapbox here -- I have a blog to do that. -- llywrch 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem! We all have lives. :) I don't think anyone is advocating, or has advocated, that we should never draw upon primary sources. The proposal itself moves to some degree in the opposite direction, identifying more clearly instances where the use of primary sources is accepted. (For example, noting the broad consensus for the use of census data and interviews. As another example, making it clear that "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" contained within primary sources are acceptable when explicitly attributed in-text to the source.) As far as notability, I believe you are conflating third-party/independent with secondary. There is some overlap, but they are distinct from each other. For example, the commentary and interpretive analysis of the Tanakh in the Christian New Testament, or of the New Testament in the Koran, are certainly third-party, but are still treated as primary sources. (There would be additional concerns of reliability, but it's just an example to address the conflation of independent and secondary.) Just a side response, Tertullian is unlikely to be accepted as a secondary source by most editors, and in most of the relevant fields (anthropology, history, etc) he is a primary source (and treated as such under the proposed draft). On your response about the Gallic Wars, that approach would be perfectly acceptable under the proposal. (If you believe otherwise, please let me know the what language gives the opposite impression, so it can be repaired.) No need to apologize for the length. You're responding directly to the discussion and your post is plainly well-thought. Vassyana 23:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus and compromise

There are a number of editors on both extremes of almost literally all or nothing. On the "all" side, there are a few editors who object to any significant change from the current language. On the "nothing" side, there are a few editors who object to any change short of an extreme simplification or complete removal of source discussion from NOR. I believe both extremes honestly have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.

Those trying to preserve the section are not trying to wikilawyer the place to death and those opposed to the section are not out to dismantle core policy. However, an all or nothing approach is not helpful, and I would even say it's contrary to the fundamentals of the wiki.

Consensus isn't built with a "my way or the highway" approach. Most often, it's built with compromise and incremental change. This policy has been highly controversial and debate has raged for months. This policy has even been repeatedly protected over the dispute, for periods that would be considered troubling for mainspace articles, let alone core policy.

If you're here to point out flaws and work with us to address them and improve, by all means, you are most welcome. If you're here to tell us it's your way or the highway, I'd venture to say you need to reexamine your approach and decide whether or not Wikipedia as a whole is a suitable place for you. Consensus is fundamental to the wiki and it does not arise among entrenched parties unwilling to compromise or work together in an intelligent and civil fashion.

A broad swath of editors have joined together in this discussion and even in supporting the draft as a positive change to one degree or another. Those editors range from those who have vigorously defended the current policy to those who have vigorously opposed the disputed section. The individual editors here and the community as a whole are under no obligation to entertain those holding extreme positions in discussions, even as we do our best to form some compromise between them. Similarly, we are only obligated to engage and consider those participating in productive discussion and consensus building. </end rant> Vassyana 08:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I Challenge the Following

"Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses."

That is ridiculously impractical. It encourages avenues of research that are wastes of energy while imposing undue and equally impractical spectres of authority on social discussion. It detracts from Wikipedia as a source of information while implicitly reinforcing the academic authority regime.

By challenging this term of the policy I envoke the discontent that surrounds it and dissolve the existing consensus regarding it. For the policy to regain consensus the community must provide for either of the following.

1) the criterion for reliable sourcing of interpretations and syntheses must be lowered from the mass media/academic standard, because these may be controlled. (e.g., if someone sets up a pseudo-organization for the purpose of letting people publish their conclusions, then that organization should be respected as a reliable source if those conclusions seem plausible. Obviously there is room for abuse of such a proposition (the JFK assasination controversy is an example), but appropriate countermeasures are realizable and would be required.)

2) a criterion for "obviousness" and "novelty" reminiscent of patent law. Just as obvious applications of devices are unacceptable patent material, so should Wikipedia allow for the publishing in its articles of conclusions that are obvious to most people given the context of the provided information without requiring sourcing save from the synthesized material. Truely who, if anyone, loses from such a policy?

As it stood this term was irrespective of the existence of the opinion leadership phenomenon and its role in the production of synthesized information. A correct synthesis of information should be respected whatever its origin.

Alternatively Wikipedia must redefine itself as simply a repository for records and descriptions of academic and mass media information, which will redirect the efforts en mass of those who wish away from it and towards an organized challenge to the existing information regime itself. Progressivism demands nothing less. Tcaudilllg 20:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you want that sentence removed from the policy? Do you want it changed to something like "Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to the person that make these interpretations and syntheses." or "Editors are free to add their own interpretations and syntheses to articles." ? --Pixelface (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, just as a matter of curiosity here, do you have any specific examples of where the existing system has caused a tangible problem? Also, I don't see any problem with this at all. If someone decides that Passage A leads to conclusions X Y and Z about something, its important to know where that extrapolation comes from so that any reader or editor concerned with the validity of the assertion is able to do adequately determine the source's qualifications for making such a statement are, or if it has any possible affiliations that may influence the neutrality of its assertions. By taking away this limit, there would be no basis in policy to argue against someone making a claim based on their own interpretation and including it. It sounds to me that you just don't like the NOR policy altogether.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Honestly, this doesn't restrict the overall citation in articles all that much. So long as a person or entity has a verified notability, or some level of credibility in a field, they are generally quotable, so long as any caveats are included to make sure the reader is aware of the nature of these extrapolations.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the need for the NOR policy, but it goes beyond the needs of Wikipedia. The reason for the policy, as Jimmy Wales says, is to sort out the crackpots, the personality disordered, the absolute fringe. But in so doing, the current policy also limits the expression of knowledge. I suppose my problem is ultimately with the interconnectedness of the internet and the problems of finding relevant information. People know to go to Wikipedia to find something they don't know: Wikipedia has access and visibility. It also has depth, far more so than any other source available today. Especially since the search engines were polluted by mass media interests, it is very difficult to find information on anything on the 'Net these days except in well-established sources like Wikipedia.

On most topics, such as matters of empirical fact like brain research, NOR isn't really an issue: there is a definite mainstream and that which lies outside it tends to have serious problems. However, works of fiction are another story entirely. Wikipedia's approach to fictional analysis is rather horrible.

To test this issue as a case in point, consider the article Wilhelm (Xenosaga). I note in that article several intuitive similarities, such as the dissipation of consciousness phenomenon being equivalent to the universe's heat death. Others have noted various allusions to the Dune series. There are subtle hints that one of the characters depicted is the historical Jesus or someone close to Jesus, etc.

Do we as a society really want to have our professionals studying imagined characters in popular culture? Is this something we should reward? That's the larger issue underlying this one. My position is that although there is value in studying these characters and concepts due to their intuitive similarities to real people and real phenomena, only the nature of the similarities themselves is worthy of academic study and not the concrete analysis of the characters and their relationship to the world. (because there are simply so many, with more being created all the time, and if there were a real academic push to this effect it would have been felt by now.)

Perhaps my argument could be summarized thus: Wikipedia gives more credence to the concrete and explicit than to the intuitive and implicit. Tcaudilllg 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one person can ligitimately challenge consensus like that. Heck, if the last six months are any indication, even ten or twenty people are not enough to challenge consensus. (we would have a very different policy statement if that were true). I may be wrong (and if so, I appologize) but I suspect this is simply another case of someone who wanted to have a pet theory included, and they were just told "no" on WP:SYNTH grounds. Blueboar 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think they can. But let's find out. Who supports this challenge, or at the very least feels uncomfortable with the existing consensus? Tcaudilllg 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what I'm arguing for, after reading it, is the "Proposal to Replace NOR". Consider the above plausible beginning points for alternatives. Tcaudilllg 22:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd to know what you mean by "last six months". I'm not informed on that. Tcaudilllg 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

To explain... If you look at the archives of this talk page you will find that there has been an ongoing debate over another section of the policy, and at times we had as many as twenty editors agreeing that the wording needed to be changed. A typical comment was that a few malcontents were not enough to challenge consensus. My point was that if ten or twenty people are not enough to challenge consensus, then certainly just one person is not enough to challenge it. You can certainly make a proposal... but don't expect it to fly.Blueboar 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there are better ways to spend one's time than this. Honestly for this change to go through (which it really shouldn't), it would need massive display of consensus. An encyclopedia is not to discuss any allusions or allegories that are not academically recognized or debated. That is exactly why the Xenosaga character article you linked is a case for why this should NOT happen. That article is a disgusting mess of conjecture and rumor, that would spiral out of control if it were not for the policy. If an allusion of symbol in a work is notable enough to mention, someone will have written something on it in a peer reviewed journal or source.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed you have very few article name space edits, and that you prefer to discuss theory and meaning based on your previous edits. That appears to be what you are trying to enable here. Wikipedia is not for that, there are forums you may go to if you wish to engage in such. In the meantime, I suggest you engage in more practical editing of main-space articles to better understand how wikipedia works.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your very rationale here introduces the major flaw in your argument. You are asking what we as a society want. Wikipedia isn't geared towards that purpose of directing society. It is a repository of verified and neutral information. Not a place for people to voice their theories. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Something that may disturb you: I knew that you had marked the Wilhelm article with warning tags even before I looked at it. I understand your thinking style very, very well. I understand your motivations. Your fears are unfounded; I only desire greater differentiation of existing information. Foolish of you to take considerations to the extremes and create issues where there are none: the observation of the implicit implies change, not chaos. But there are already forces for change at work here apart from my own motives, and the motives of progressivism. Alienating the forces of progress only drives them toward the radical and individual.

I wasn't questioning what Wikipedia wanted, but what society wanted. At least, that element of society which desires individuation.

"That article is a disgusting mess of conjecture and rumor, that would spiral out of control if it were not for the policy." You should look at the other character articles too, then. You wanna take on the Xenosaga fan community? Go ahead. Personally I found the game enlightening. When I've finished my psychology degree I will write at length about the discoveries I've made from analyzing the means and methods of these and many other video game characters. (which I have found intuitively similar to real people.) I will not, however, be discussing from where the conclusions came. (once awareness is drawn to them, they are self-evident enough)

But I suspect you're going to face a nasty challenge over the synthesis rule. You're making a lot of people upset, and forcing the redefinition of the very concept of the encyclopedia. Tcaudilllg 23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet again you speak of what society wants. Wikipedia isn't going to change itself because one user claims certain elements of society don't agree with a standard it holds. Question what society wants all you want, it's not going to change what we do here unless there is a demonstrated consensus to do so. I have no interest in "taking on" anyone, but yes, the other articles are just as bad. In fact, a good portion of Wikipedia articles, especially that on works of fiction, have the problem, and I'm sure it will be fixed in due time as editors with time and resolve to deal with it come across it. Supposedly this makes a lot of people upset. This rule has been in place as long as I can remember in one form or another, and it remains in place with little opposition other than a few malcontents who weren't allowed the latitude they wanted on a given topic. I suspected you were in the study of psychology or something similar based on your theoretical approach to these issues. I wish you luck in your studies and academic life, but as I've stated previously, it has really no place in an article.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments such as these made by Tcaudilllg in this thread, only shows the importance and need to stick with this policy as currently worded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments such as these made by Tcaudilllg in this thread, only shows the importance and need to emphasize stick to the sources (for all claims challenged or likely to be challenged) rather than distract the reader with the irrelevant PSTS section. I would note that perhaps Tcaudilllg should realize that if no one contests a claim in an article, then it need not be sourced at all; so in actual fact there are many articles on fiction in which wikipedians have added comments relating something in the fiction to what they believe it was a cultural reference to - without using a source and without anyone contesting it. WAS 4.250 20:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I've thought about it and I've resolved to take a different approach to this issue. Oni Alfador in particular doesn't seem to agree with your "uncontested content" theory, so I don't think that policy is geniunely effective, except to the extent that people choose not to challenge a statement for whatever reason. Certainly therer do not seem to be rules for veryfying the veracity of a challenge. As I judge them Wikipedia is mostly about veryfying whether someone or something is in violation of a rule, as opposed to what reasons may exist for the rule's challenge based on what aspects of the real situation the rule may not adequately address. Such arrogant abuse of authority is intolerable and subtly evil.

Instead you should reword your policies saying what is on wikipedia and what isn't. For example, you should say "Wikipedia articles do not contain in-universe information" as opposed to saying "Wikipedia articles should not discuss in-universe information." Then you are telling people who come to the page point blank that if they want substantial information on the work beyond that which has stated by the media, academic, and public authorities which Wikipedia de facto declares the only valid sources of encyclopediac information (which they probably already know in any case due to their familiarity with media reports, interviews, etc.) then they should look to the External links at the bottom of the page, not to the article itself. Wikipedia under such conditions ultimately reverts to a stagnant source of sparse information as the extremists, unsatiated, reveal the true extent of their reach for dominion and finding their lust for suppression unsatiated; Wikipedia loses, but in exchange the extremists get their agenda taken to its logical conclusion. That's alright: once people look to sources outside Wikipedia for substantial information, then the article pages themselves will become merely links pages by which to access the real content. And then you'll challenge the freedom of thought in those places on grounds unforseen, and again there will be redirections, and so it will continue ad nauseum. In the end, the reasonable shall thrive and the extremists will dwindle away to their inevitable fates of mass social rejection, as is the dynamic between the individuation capable and incapable. Tcaudilllg 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And, please, take content disputes to the relevant article talk page rather than doing it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems rather dismissive, particularly since his comments here were directed at the root policy, not the article dispute. I don't think we should allow editors to add their personal opinions to articles (or policies), but the discussion is valid, whether you like it or not. My personal opinion is that in a case where the conclusions are obvious, you can simply present the facts, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. If it really is obvious, then why does it need to be stated? If someone else published the obvious conclusion in a RS, then we can include it with a cite, but we still present the evidence so the reader can validate the conclusion. Dhaluza (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Origins of this policy

I've wondered for a while why this section is needed. It's bloated and it's not actually dispensing policy. Well, in part it dispenses policy through the bullet lists. But this makes the page positively confusing: was this policy or is this policy? Can we take out the bullets that we need and scrap the remainder (or perhaps move it to a sub essay page)? Marskell 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Programming Code

Why isn't all the code on the various computer science pages a violation of "no original research?" You have all this demonstrative code that wiki dudes have written just for the wikipedia with assertions like "this code does X and says Y about this language," etc. etc. There is example code all over the internet, in dozens of books, and in other sources that could be solidly referenced.

Basically, I can go and write a bunch of code and post it, and say what it does, and that isn't original research? You may say "Well other wiki dudes can go and verify the code," but I ask you this, is that not ALSO original, unverifiable research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.109.226 (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be helpful if you give us some example articles to look at, so we can see what you are referring to. Blueboar 18:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If multiple editors can look at a statement, such as one that says "this code does thus-and-such", and see that it's correct, then it's considered verifiable. One can say "'radar' is a palindrome", or something similarly uncontroversial, without needing to provide a source.--Father Goose 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, I know very little about code, but I think the IP editor who raises the issue does have a point about OR... if the code was created by a Wikipedia editor, and not discussed by some form of reliable source prior to having an article written about it, then Wikipedia has become the primary source for presentation of that code ... and isn't the whole point behind WP:NOR to say don't do that?

As to WP:V... I think this is really more of an issue for WP:Notability than WP:Verifiability. If a bit of code has not been discussed by some form of reliable source (tech oriented media or websites, etc.) I have to question whether it is really notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia... is it really encyclopedic? Do we have a set of notability guidelines that discuss these articles? Blueboar 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that if a piece of code is able to meet WP:V, chances are that it's notable. According to the verifiability policy "...a reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Only a tiny percentage of code has actually been discussed (as opposed to merely being included) in a reliable source. I'd have to see an actual example to give an informed opinion, but in general I'd agree that unsourced code is probably OR. Chaz ^Beckett 19:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is both a concern of NOR and V. Generally, we expect information to be verifiable by any reasonable educated person, with a notable exception for foreign language sources. If the examples are original, it is then also a concern of original research, in addition to verifiability. Also, chances are the point could be explained (if in simplified fashion) in layman's terms without resorting to code examples and highly technical claims. Vassyana 21:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as a short math equation needs no source, as long as it is supported by the surrounding sourced English, similarly a short piece of computer code does not need to be directly quoted in order to be used. An article that had nothing but code would be no good, but an article like Join (SQL) is improved by giving some example code. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Join (SQL) is a good example about what exactly is wrong with many computing and mathematics articles on Wikipedia. It is nearly incomprehensible to anyone without specialist knowledge. It also is a great example of the overcoverage computer and technical topics receive on Wikipedia (which is a natural consequence of its primary talent pool). Vassyana 21:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Explaining things in a simplified fashion is also a goal, but there's no way to demonstrate the precise syntax better than just exhibiting it. The goal of our articles is to give both an adequately general and adequately detailed presentation. The lede of that article seems perfectly comprehensible if you accept that you might have to use the blue links to find the definitions of terms you don't know.

In any case, those code snippets are no more original research than the examples in this article on conjugation in latin, and are used for similar purposes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just it, I don't think demonstrating the precise syntax of individual database commands and functions is appropriate for Wikipedia. This isn't Computapedia. Such excessive detail is no less cruft than fancruft, if a bit more respectable because "it's science" (so to speak). But, I think this is digressing into an entirely separate conversion, so I'll just agree to disagree. Vassyana 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Latin article is better, but still similarly poor. In either case, there are more than enough sources available to cite examples and their context. There are a ridiculous number of introductory Latin books available, that would probably add some better context and explanatory text. For the SQL commands, there are plenty of reliable sources that explain SQL and its commands. There is simply no need at all for original examples in either instance, as solid references are abundant and easily available. Vassyana 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying you think that in addition to having examples of verb conjugations, the article on latin conjugation should explicitly quote those examples from some other book? I don't see how would that benefit the reader, or increase the accuracy of the article, given that the example is just a list of conjugated forms of some common verb. Similarly, I don't see the need to source the scale displayed in whole tone scale, even though a naive reader doesn't know how to read or write musical notation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

General comment: I've been away from this discussion for some time, and I congratulate those working on the PSTS section: the current version appears to me to satisfy the various concerns that have been raised and balance the various viewpoints. I like it. Re computer code: perhaps math proofs and computer code need to be specifically mentioned in NOR. I would like the policy to allow relatively simple computer code and math proofs that can clearly be seen as correct by people checking them. There's a problem with math stuff: if you follow exactly an example in a book it's plagiarism, but if you use your own slightly different example you can be caught by NOR. It's a bit different from the case with history or something where you can paraphrase a few words and it's still correct. With math, if you change one part of an example, you have to change a bunch of other parts to to keep the whole example accurate. It's also different from history in that history requires reliable sources to back things up, while math can be verified by reading the proof. The thing being proved should still be attributable to reliable sources. --Coppertwig 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to change the wording to "help" with math. Simple computer code and examples are already allowed by longstanding interpretation of this document, and the people who edit math articles find the current wording perfectly adequate for dealing with cranks without limiting our ability to write an encyclopedia. Trying to explicitly deal with math (and CS and the physical sciences) will just result in a lot of discussion in which nobody seems to agree. If it isn't broke... — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I do have a question of the notability of a simple computer language command such as JOIN clauses... does it really rate an article in a general encyclopedia? Do we have articles on every other code command? If so, WHY? I can understand an article on the Language itself, but is a general encyclopedia really the right place for information on specific code commands? I would think that should be relegated to programing manuals. What is so notable about JOIN clauses and similar code that they rate an article? (OK, this isn't really the place to discuss this... I just had to say it.) Blueboar 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to several of the above concerns, I'd argue that programming code, even in short snippets, is not like short math equations. Math equations exist in a very specific context. If I say 2 + 2 = 4, it is understood by all involved that we are in the context of good, old fashioned base 10 integer arithmetic. With code, there are so many questions about the context that get left unanswered. What OS is this running under, what compiler, what version of the language, etc. etc. etc. And most of the code I see written here is stuff that could easily be taken from and cited from the language manual or other authority. Regarding the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" argument, what exactly is NOR about? The code on many pages goes way beyond "short snippet" and into fairly long multi-line blocks. That's a lot of information content to take on good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.109.226 (talk) 2007-11-16T16:41:24

Long extracts of code should be discussed and removed on a case-by-case basis. They probably aren't appropriate. Short (four to five line) blocks of code are usually fine, and they are not what NOR is about. Based on your contribution history, it doesn't look like you are actually active in editing computer science articles. That makes me think you might just be trying to fan flames with this discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Carl, please assume good faith. I think the question is worth asking. It does not matter if the person who asks it is active in editing computer science articles... sometimes an "outsider", someone who is not intimately involved in a given subject area, can see problems that "insiders" don't see. That said, I agree with your conclusion that this really needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. Like anything else, Code can be OR... but it is not by definition OR. -- Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position"

I am seeking clarification on the section entitled "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". Specifically, I've seen some people arguing that this prohibits a "synthesis" of published information even if it doesn't advance a position, or advances a wholly uncontroversial one. In my opinion, collecting information from a variety of sources in ways that may have never been published before is one of the things that makes Wikipedia a great resource, and as long as doing so isn't used to promote a particular point-of-view or pet theory, I see nothing wrong with it. Any comments? Can anyone think of a way to make this section clearer to address these concerns? DHowell 23:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Synthesizing sources is how we write an encyclopedia article. anything other than that, is just assembling an indiscriminate list. Synthesis should be interpreted as "synthesis that amounts to original research" as the development of a new position on contested matter, or a new correlation of previously uncorrelated disparate items. DGG (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, up to "a new correlation of previously uncorrelated disparate items." If such a correlation isn't serving to advance a potentially controversial position, should this be prohibited? Why? DHowell 00:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if the correlation was disputed, you'd be obliged to provide sources that attest to the correlation itself. But bringing together any form of material into a single article is just the basics of encyclopedia writing.--Father Goose 02:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with this line of reasoning. The whole point to WP:NOR is that wikipedia is not the original publisher for the ideas and thoughts of our editors. Wikipedia articles are not the place to correlate previously uncorreleted disperate items, even when doing so is not controvercial. That should be done elsewhere, published in an appropriate reliable source... once it is, then we can discuss what that source has to say. Blueboar 15:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would you seek to ban things which by definition no one finds problematic? Don't write a rule where there isn't a problem.---- Father Goose (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well put. It is a fallacy to assume that knowledge exists in a pre-existing form that we can simply report on. There is no description without interpretation and synthesis. The question is distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable synthesis. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the current synthesis example looks to me as if the main problem it has is that it is opinion. An opinion that might be reasonable given the two sources, or any on academic plagiarism, but the opinion is the only relevant problem. John Nevard (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do interpretive primary reliable sources need to be verified by a second interpretive reliable source?

User:Dave souza has introduced an edit and comments suggesting that even if a primary source contains its own interpretation of facts, an editor still must cite to yet another source (a secondary source this time) for a second interpretation of those facts. Do we really need to require two reliable sources on any given point in an article? If so, what's the rationale, and what does it have to do with original research? COGDEN 17:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, my edit[7] "Undid revision 171795309 by COGDEN" which had the summary "Okay. Instead of "another," though, what about "a", since the primary source could contain its own interpretation."[8] This introduced a conflict with the next sentence which stated, "To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should... make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable from another source." That complies with the requirement to base sections on third party sources, and to avoid SYN any interpretation by the primary source should be stated as a fact, as in "X interprets the data in this way". However, I note that an anon has now reverted[9] back to the Revision as of 17:45, 15 November 2007 by Philip Baird Shearer (rv changes by COGDEN as they are more than minor changes. Please discuss it further on the talk page) .. dave souza, talk 21:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Third party sources" does not mean what I think you think it means. It means non-self-published sources. That issue came up at WP:RS and that was our resolution. It does not mean that you can't use an interpretive primary source without backing it up with a separate secondary source. It's not original research to only use one reliable source instead of two. That's not the policy, and if that's how it's going to be interpreted, we need to revert the the language to that effect. COGDEN 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I think the point is being missed here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re this edit: [10] This could be misinterpreted, since some people consider most scientific articles to be primary sources, and they usually contain interpretations of their own results. I suggest the following wording: rather than "must be verifiable" or "requires another source for that interpretation", I suggest "must be attributable to a reliable source". Rather than "unless such claims are verifiable" or "unless such claims are verifiable from another source", I suggest "unless such claims are attributable to a reliable source." Rather than "conclusions that are not verifiable" or "conclusions that are not verifiable from either the sources themselves or from other sources," I suggest "conclusions that are not found in either the sources themselves or other sources". Or it could be even stronger with "stated" rather than "found". The trouble with "verifiable" in this context is that it could be taken to mean that a person looking at the primary material would draw this conclusion, whereas what I think we want to say in these sentences is that the source should actually state the conclusion or interpretation. (elsewhere, it's clarified that in certain circumstances, conclusions based on very simple logic or straightforward arithmetic are allowed. Or at least it used to be. Where is that?) --Coppertwig (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Primary source distinction

This really is not a good section, and never has been a good section. For one thing, the secondary/tertiary distinction is tenuous at best (at this point almost all secondary sources also use other secondary sources, at least in academic writing). For another, it flies in the face of the usual primary/secondary distinction, which is to point out that primary sources are more accurate because they don't introduce error. For our purposes, a primary source, assuming its relevance to the situation is clear, will always provide more detail and more information than secondary sources - this is very important. Thirdly, the idea that secondary sources are somehow inherently easier to interpret is just silly. Fourthly, this seems to me to serve mostly to confuse the real issue, which is original synthesis, which has very little to do with primary/secondary sources, and is actually a pretty subtle issue that our policy formation has basically steered around in favor of the broken primary/secondary/tertiary distinction.

So here's the question I think is really important here - what is the difference between a novel synthesis and an acceptable one? Thoughts? -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Films are primary sources. Film reviews are secondary sources. An encyclopedia that cites a film review is a tertiary source. The Magna Carta is a primary source. A book about the Magna Carta is a secondary source. An encyclopedia that cites that book is a tertiary source. Whenever someone interprets a primary source, they become a secondary source. Editors on Wikipedia are not considered reliable sources for interpretations. Editors on Wikipedia do not have to edit under their real name (although editors on Citizendium do). Wikipedia articles do not cite who wrote every sentence in an article. Encyclopedia editors collate previously published information. The term "original research" refers to "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." If certain information hasn't already been published, Wikipedia should not be the first publisher. We should quote secondary sources that make syntheses, not put forth our own. Adding your own previously unpublished ideas into a Wikipedia article can be considered self-publishing. Primary sources are accurate when it comes to direct quotes — we do have WikiSource for source texts. But for any interpretation of a primary source, we must cite published secondary sources. I think the availability of a primary source is also an issue. We can certainly cite the Magna Carta in the article about the Magna Carta, but readers should not have to travel to where a copy of the Magna Carta is on permanent display to verify an article is correct. To answer your last question, a synthesis is acceptable if it's been previously published, outside of Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Films are are not necessarily primary sources. Primary/Seconday source distinction depends on the usage. A film about a subject can be a secondary source for the subject. It might demonstrate notability of the subject. It might offer an alternative perspective, or criticism, or analysis.

What’s a novel synthesis? I don’t think that a simple, generic formula can be used. I’d suggest that that the first test for a novel synthesis is that it gets challenged, and then the question should be resolved on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is not between a novel synthesis and an acceptable one. Rather, it is between a novel synthesis and a published one. As for the primary source/secondary source distinction, the issue is that in the context of NOR, we have experienced situations in which primary sources have been "quote mined",for effect or to push a certain POV, or to create a novel interpretation of that source. That is why it is better to rely on secondary sources that describe these primary sources rather that quote these sources directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that logic flies in the face of the standard lessons of responsible research, which send you to primary sources specifically to avoid quote-mining and the like in secondary sources. And, of course, secondary sources can be just as easily quote-mined and selectively interpreted, creating portraits of the truth that grow ever more distant from accuracy. Yes, primary sources have been abused. But they are indisputably superior sources for almost all purposes than secondary ones. The responsible thing to do is to figure out how they have been abused and to caution against that - not to so actively discourage them in favor of inferior sources. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear God. Is the standard wording of this page really that interpretation of a primary source requires a secondary source? What does that even mean? Somehow words become dense and impenetrable to Wikipedians when they are employed in primary sources, but the language clarifies magically in secondary sources? WTF? -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of us recognize that the section as it now stands is not a true Wikipedia consensus, and we've been trying to arrive at a better formulation that meets Jossi's concerns. Unfortunately, there is a great resistance to any kind of clarification here whatsoever, and we've had to proceed slowly. Eventually, we'll get to consensus and this section will reflect Wikipedia policy. COGDEN 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading correctly, jossi's concern is that primary sources can be used to push a particular POV. But as Phil Sandifer points out, secondary sources can also be used to push a particular POV. If so, why then isn't the NPOV policy sufficient to address these concerns? DHowell (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not the main concern. This article is about OR and states that we do not edit into articles novel syntheses. We can describe syntheses that have been published by others. When we discuss primary sources, this is most pertinent, as any analysis of primary sources is indeed original research. Can people make novel syntheses of secondary sources? Sure they can. But that is not the point; the point is that any analysis of primary sources performed by a Wikipedia editor will be novel by default. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That does not preclude the use of a primary source to state a fact, such as provide a number from census data. What this policy forces us it to avoid using census data to make a novel interpretation of that data. It is quite simple, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Phil: I think I see what is the problem. You say: standard lessons of responsible research, which send you to primary sources. That is the way it works in high-school, college, or in academic research. But not for Wikipedia, and that is the reason we have this policy in place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that amounts, in practice, to Wikipedia's research being irresponsible and bad. Writing entirely from secondary sources leads to bad research. Or, at least, to research that is not recognized by any reputable authorities as good. Wikipedia should not be rejecting academic standards and substituting its own. As for the statement that "any analysis of primary sources performed by a Wikipedia editor will be novel by default," sure. But the same is true of any analysis of any sources. Interpretation does not become magically clarified just because the source is secondary. It is always a complex act. The idea that there is, in secondary sources, some fully formed interpretation that can be excavated and presented straightforwardly is utter fantasy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's untrue that any analysis of a primary source is original research. Actually, any original analysis of a primary source is original research. If it's not original, it's not original research. That's why we have the word "original" in the name, otherwise it would just be "research". So if a Wikipedia editor is just citing an analysis contained in a prior source (be it primary or secondary) that can never be original research. Also, if an interpretation of a primary source is verifiable, there's no problem, because by definition, anything verifiable cannot be original research. COGDEN 03:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Novel synthesis is certainly not forbidden. The writing of Wikipedia articles is all novel synthesis. The collection of ideas from reliable sources and the forming of them into never-before-published sentences, never-before-published paragraphs and never-before-published articles is totally allowed, provided these new paragraphs etc. do not present new ideas. Simple, straightforward logic and arithmetic is also allowed. Wikipedia is not limited to direct quotes of sources only. (If it were, there would be problems with copyright, as well as with cohesion and readability of articles.) Primary sources often contain interpretations. I agree with Paul Sandifer that secondary sources are not necessarily easier to interpret than primary ones.

The current wording is a good compromise between the position that primary sources have to be treated specially and the position that the same rules apply to all sources. The current wording spends time telling people how to be careful with primary sources, and then says "Like primary sources, secondary and tertiary sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable from either the sources themselves or from other sources." I don't see how people from either camp can complain about the current wording. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That sentence is true, but it contradicts a couple of earlier sentences in the section, which state that while you can cite to interpretations found in secondary sources, you cannot cite to interpretations found in primary sources alone. (Which is stupid, because maybe the secondary source simply repeats the interpretation by the primary source without additional comment. How does that transmute the argument into something acceptable that wasn't acceptable before?) Also, the section still gives the implication that somehow primary sources are inferior to secondary sources for Wikipedia purposes, which is not true. COGDEN 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Super-verifiability" requirement

I recently proposed replacing the statement "To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should…make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable from another source with the same statement, minus the "from another source". Is there any reason why we should include extra requirements for any statement in an article beyond verifiability? If a statement is verifiable, isn't that sufficient?

Think, for example, about two situations:

1. The source is a diary that says "I killed President Smith today. I think it was because I'm mentally ill." The Wikipedia article says, "According to Joe's diary, he killed President Smith because he was mentally ill.(citation)." Now, the diary is a reliable source, but it's also a primary source, so do we require the article to go beyond verifiability by citing: "See Prof. Smith (noting that Joe said in his diary that he was mentally ill)"? Wouldn't that requirement be overkill and just plain stupid?
2. The source is a novel that says "Just then, Captain Kirk grabbed the young female ensign in the ass and said 'sleep with me or you're fired', which she thought seemed kind of illegal under Federation labor laws, considering the ensign was his employee and the advances were unwelcome." The Wikipedia article says, "In the novel Kirk's Smirk, Captain Kirk sexually harassed a young ensign." The novel is, of course, a primary source, and the conclusion that sexual harassment took place is not explicit, but is non-controversial; thus, it's a verifiable interpretation of the novel even though there's no source. (Sometimes verifiability does not require a source.) So, even though the statement in the article is verifiable, are we required to go beyond verifiability by also cite the following: "See James Tiberius Jones, Trek News (noting that in the novel Kirk's Smirk, Captain Kirk sexually harassed a young ensign)". Overkill? And what does this have to do with original research, anyway?

COGDEN 03:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem?

1. You're proposing giving credence to the diary or someone who's mentally ill? The statement of fact that the diary says that is fine, but independent assessment is needed of its importance, credibility and implications.

2. Non controversial summary of the novel is fine. Any controversial interpretations, find a source. .. dave souza, talk 11:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. No he's not - or at least, I don't see him anywhere advocating concluding "Joe is mentally ill," or "Joe killed President Smith" from the primary source. What he's saying is that we can take as valid the fact that Joe did write what he wrote in his diary without reference to a secondary source to confirm each line independently. (That is, once we've verified the diary as actually Joe's diary we can furthermore assume that everything in the diary can be ascribed to Joe - we do not need to go running to a secondary source every time we want to cite a new line.
2. Exactly. So the question here is "what are our standards for declaring something controversial." And I think that's the question I try to answer below, albeit after a lengthy bit where I try to demolish some false assumptions about how an encyclopedia might be written. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree completely with Dave. To answer Phil's question, I think there is an important answer vis a vis this policy, and another answer that is perhaps more strictly pragmatic. First answer: it is controversial is a notable secondary source provides a different interpretation. Put another way, if there is a notable secondary source that proposes a particular interpretation, and an editor has another interpretation of the primary source, then the editor's interpretation is controversial and can only be added if it can be pegged to another secondary source. Second answer: it is controversial when more than one editor on the talk page questions it. Then it is reasonable to provide a secondary source to support the interpretation.

I get the sense that Phil thinks that this policy or people who support the distinction between primary and secondary sources oppose ever using primary sources. This is a straw-man argument and I think a sign of bad faith because (1) neither this policy nor anyone who has ever supported the primary/secondary distinction have ever suggested that primary sources should never be used and (2) arguing over whether there are conceivable cases when primary sources can be used - i.e. arguing over a point everyone agrees with - only takes time away from the real issue at hand, which is how best to phrase this part of the policy. Why is it that when one person says "the distinction between primary and secondary sources is important because many times we should use secondary rather than primary sources" there is always someone else who feels the need to say "You are wrong, because there are times when it is enough to use a primary source?" It is a non-sequitr. "many times" does not mean "all the time." We have gone back and forth with this for months. It is a waste of time. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the present wording says you absolutely cannot cite interpretive statements in primary sources (without also citing a secondary source). COGDEN 05:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To respond to Cogden's original proposal, though - that proposal guts the policy. If you remove "from another source" then you are opening the door for editors to use Wikipedia to forward their own views. That is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not gut the policy: it prevents the creation of a back-door addition to WP:V. Plus, the idea that you have to have two sources for every interpretive proposition has never been Wikipedia policy. You just need one good one, preferably in a peer-reviewed journal, which is a primary source for that interpretation. COGDEN 05:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To give a real world example that is in Wikipedia. There are a lot of articles that quote parts of treaties to explain international law on many issues. For example in the military use of children article there is a quote from Article 77.2 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions:

"The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces."

Now that might seem straight forward, but a none expert needs an expert commentary to understand what it really says, because phrases such as "all feasible measures" have a specific meaning in this context, as does "direct part in hostilities" and "refrain from recruiting". Without the ICRC commentary, or a similar text, a none expert is almost bound to get an interpretation of this sentence wrong -- As the drafting of such treaties is similar to that used over Wikipedia policies and one needs to have access to the "talk page" to fully understand what phrases mean -- (see military use of children#International humanitarian law for a summary of the ICRC commentary). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "from another source" is extraneous verbiage, since verifiability requires a source. The example from the Geneva conventions you cite simply shows the limits of primary sources. We can cite the passage from the primary source as a direct quotation without a secondary source. But we can't interpret it further without a secondary source. It does not explain why we need to add what appear to be nothing more than comfort words to the policy. Dhaluza (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that citing Joe's diary for the fact that "he thought he was crazy" is never original research. The only research was conducted by Joe, not the editor. Citing Joe is just making a verifiable statement about what Joe thought (an interpretive claim), because Joe's diary (let's say it's a published diary) is a reliable source for Joe's thoughts and whether or not he thought he was crazy. If we impose any requirements upon such a citation other than simple verifiability, we are saying that verifiability isn't enough. Whether Joe is credible or not is a matter of WP:NPOV, and has nothing to do with either verifiability or original research. Joe's statement that he "thought he was crazy" could very well have 100% consensus. Or it might be questionable, in which case we'd have to provide other sources, hopefully additional primary sources like peer-reviewed journals, addressing the truth of whether Joe actually thought he was crazy, or whether he was lying when he said he thought he was crazy. COGDEN 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, verifiability does not always even require a source. If a statement about anything, including a primary source, is not controversial, WP:V says you don't necessarily even need to cite any source: primary, secondary, or otherwise. Is this where we rewrite WP:V? COGDEN 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The interminable ramble

I've been shorter than is ideal in a few of my comments, so now I'm going to overcompensate and be longer than is ideal. What I'm offering here is a concept of what "research" means in the context of a college instructor who has taught courses on writing the research paper, and who is generally interested in questions of interpretation, production of meaning, and the like.

First, let me state unambiguously what is the default position of pretty much every credible instruction on research is: use primary sources. There are a multitude of reasons for this - one very standard text, The Craft of Research, says of primary sources "these are the materials you directly write about." Meanwhile, of tertiary sources, it is said that "they usually oversimplify, are seldom up-to-date, and are consequently mistrusted by most experts."

Second, then, some more general reflections on what we do here. I have seen, on several instances, language thrown around like "a primary source requires another source for its interpretation." It is difficult to describe just how ridiculous this idea is from a serious academic perspective, at least in the humanities. The idea that any source or text, primary, secondary, or otherwise, is going to somehow hold an absolute and clear interpretation of anything - itself or another text - is absurd. And the absurdity of this can quickly be seen in practice - consider the following hypothetical.

John Milton is, obviously, a major poet. But to interpret his writing - whether poetic or philosophical/political, in the current view, we need a secondary source. One like Stanley Fish - the most important Milton critic of the 20th century. Now, never mind that one of Fish's most famous essays on Milton takes explicit issue with the idea that "there is a sense, that it is embedded or encoded in the text, and that it can be taken in a single glance" (the exact idea that we are buying into when we believe that secondary sources can somehow be used purely and straightforwardlly.) What strikes me as so very strange is that the same exact essay, "Interpreting the Variorum" magically becomes impenetrable the moment we try to write about it, despite the fact that it was perfectly clear when we were using it to write about Milton.

This is obviously a very silly situation. And it gets to the heart of what is wrong with trying to use the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction on Wikipedia in a programmatic way - exactly what Fish says. The act of reading is itself interpretive. There is not some meaning that springs, fully formed, from a text - all reading involves interpretation, synthesis, analysis, etc.

This, obviously, gets at the heart of this policy. Because, from any mainstream humanities perspective, when talking about the act of textual interpretation, it is not possible to engage in any textual interpretation whatsoever without indulging in original research. Period. To read is to interpret. There is no independent, Platonic interpretation out there that we can grab and transmit through Wikipedia. Words do not work that way.

It should be noted, this is manifestly not a claim of postmodernist relativism (though it may be postmodernist). I am not saying that, because all reading is interpretive and there is no absolute and perfect interpretation that we can just glom onto and transmit as is it therefore follows that all readings are equivalent. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" does not, in any remotely useful sense, mean "I like yogurt." Value judgments about the quality of an interpretation do exist, and are valid. What it does mean, though, is that we have to acknowledge that "no original research" does not mean "no interpretive acts."

So how do we make these value judgments? This is where it gets tricky. In 99% of the intellectual world, we do this via expert peer review. But, of course, we've rejected that idea for Wikipedia. So what are we left with? Well, if we were the peer reviewing experts, we'd do it on a number of grounds - our own knowledge, our evaluation of the sources cited by the interpretation we're judging, other sources, both primary and secondary, etc. And while we reject credentialism, none of these approaches are lost to us here. Indeed, this seems to me the very basis of consensus and of our semi-anarchic model of article content. An article is never finished, its just not being objected to at a given moment.

So what becomes relevant is less an attempt to define absolutely what "original" research is (a difficult task at best, given the above observations about interpretation always being necessary and never being trivial) and more an attempt to figure out criteria that constitute good and bad interpretation. The social norms of consensus go a long way here - if an article is stable, we generally trust it somewhat. A secondary issue here is that we generally assume that if you're editing in an area, you know something about the area. I don't go removing OR from articles I know little about. I might add Template:fact to them, but I won't proclaim OR. On the other hand, if I'm reading an article I know something about and see a line that I can tell is a reader's interpretation of something that's vague in the original, out it goes. Remember - our anti-credentialism does not mean that we are an encyclopedia written by people who know nothing about the topic they're writing about.

A final reflection - this page does not describe a class of edit that is bad in and of itself. The problem with original research is not that it is necessarily bad - it's that we can't easily tell if its good or bad. NOR and V are, in the end, very similar policies. But in the end, content that nobody actually thinks is inaccurate should be given the benefit of the doubt, and articles should not be approached with Cartesian skepticism. This is the biggest problem with the primary/secondary/tertiary section - it's written, ultimately, with the intention of being applied by people who do not actually know anything about the subject they're writing about. This is not a sound way to write policy or an encyclopedia. This policy needs to be reapproached from the assumption that people who write about a given topic and edit a given topic presumably know something about it. That doesn't mean we don't verify what they say. But it does mean that we can temper our requirements with a deference to the idea that contributors are not idiots. The easiest way to identify whether a synthesis is novel is not to demand that it be cited to a secondary source - that just recreates the initial dilemma on a secondary source which, as stated above, is already a step removed from what we're trying to describe and adding a level of simplification and interpretation. The easiest way to identify whether a synthesis is novel is if somebody goes "Wait a minute, I know a bit about this, and I've never heard that before." Which sets off a complex process of demanding sources, finding sources, interpreting sources, coming to consensus about what a source says, coming to consensus about what in a source is open to interpretation. In other words, it sets off writing and editing.

Sorry that this is so long, but as I hope you see, the issues here actually are complex and nuanced, and don't lend themselves at all to bright line policy making. This is a very fuzzy, tricky thing to judge - what perspectives are important enough to go into a general summary and what perspectives are silly, novel, minor, etc. We cannot be programmatic here, and we have to accept that judgments on this aren't going to be able to be made quickly, simply, or effortlessly.

In any case, if you're still reading this, A), you're a lunatic, and B) thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I do not want to be a lunative I have taken Phil's point and did not read this to the end. But I have one point to make concerning this: "it is not possible to engage in any textual interpretation whatsoever without indulging in original research. Period. To read is to interpret." I agree that "to read is to interpret" but I do not agree that from this follows the point that all acts of reading are ipso facto original research. This would only be true if every act of reading involved an original interpretation. I do not think this is the case. I think that most readers have available to them a limited, often culturally sanctioned, repertoire of interpretive strategies and, in the case of some texts, actual interpretations that they learned and further at some point learned not to question, so that when they read a text - Milton or the Bible - they do "interpret" but the interpretation is not really their own and not original. This I suggest is precisely why people can continue to write new interpretations (readings) of the Bible, Shakespeare, Milton - they are not just new in some "platonic ideal" sense ... they are new in the sense that they challenge conventional readings, the un-original interpretations most people have when they read "the classics." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, here we have to be precise about what we mean by "original." Surely every interpretation is original in that it was created in the head of the reader. Now, sometimes that interpretation mirrors one that has been created elsewhere, but the act of interpretation is always original as it is being made. Even if I read Fish on Milton and then go read Milton to see exactly where Fish got his interpretation, I am not having Fish's interpretation again - I am reading and myself assembling Fish's interpretation, if not from scratch, at least from the ground up. Fish pushes this question quite far - further than I'm comfortable doing so here - but I think his basic observation that all interpretation is a creative act is true. And, furthermore, is important, because there are things that come up sufficiently routinely in interpretations that nobody has really found it worth writing them down. Plot summaries are the most basic example of this, but it's also true for extremely complex topics. Secondary sources on Derrida are rarely much easier than the primary source, and certainly rarely take up the task of explaining Derrida as such. People learn Derrida not by reading all the secondary sources until they understand but, among other things, by coursework with a substantial oral component, by reading Derrida, through conference presentations and conversations, etc. All of this is a vital part of how academic interpretations are formulated, and cannot be easily replaced with "printed secondary sources." To attempt to do so demands poor articles. (Which is why I have routinely said that you cannot write a decent article on Derrida where every line is sourced). This policy needs to distinguish between original research and "common knowledge among specialists that it was never worth writing down in a published source." Because the difference is huge. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be obvious, but as I see it the aim here is not to do research, but to produce a concise and accurate summary of published reputable independent research about the subject of the article in question. As you say, it's a judgement call whenever we read and summarise something, and equally judgement is needed in establishing the best sources. Looking at the original primary source is valuable as a way of seeing if there are obvious discrepancies between that source and independent commentary on the source, but if our expertise gives us a novel non-obvious interpretation of the source, Wikipedia is not the place to publish it first. The complex process you describe is indeed the motor behind improving articles, and in my opinion these constraints help the process. As a non-expert, .... dave souza, talk 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's inaccurate to say that the aim here is not to do research - given that we demand that people cite sources, we demand that people do research. It's not even fair to say that the aim here is not to construct an original argument - as one of the standard composition textbooks says, everything is an argument, and a Wikipedia article is no different - the lead is essentially a thesis statement declaring "these are the major things to understand about this topic," then the remainder of the article explains what those things are and supports its claims with evidence in the form of sources. (The argument is original because, well, we are not simply copying or summarizing other tertiary sources - we are engaging in this process of overview ourselves.) The line between what we do and what academic research does is narrow. To some extent, this policy is necessarily mistitled - we do not really mean "original" as such, as we expect people to synthesize secondary sources into a summary overview, nor do we mean "research" as such, since many of the articles we have we are the first people to write tertiary sources about. What we really mean is "no novel results" or "no new theories." And you seem to understand that - we do not want "novel non-obvious" content derived from any source - primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. But the controls we are putting in place - rigid distinction among primary, secondary, and tertiary sources - both do not produce the desired ban and needlessly ban things that are absolutely what we do want. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Dave souza, and I think his comment gets right to the point of this ongoing discussion. Wikipedia is not a venue for frustrated academics who cannot get published in peer reviewed journals (and lest anyone think I am casting stones, I am referring to myself). I very much want to do the kind of research to which Phil refers and when I do I submit it to peer-reviewed publications or academic presses. There is a process by which my research based on primary sources will - or will not - achieve notability. But I will not use Wikipedia as a venue to publish what I ought to be submitting elsewhere. As Dave states, clearly and convincingly, this is an encyclopedia in which we provide an account of established research on various topics. This has been a part of NOR from the start: if someone has new research they want published, they should seek to have it published by a journal or publishing house. Only then can it be considered for citation in an encycloipedia article. By the way, I agree with Phil's point that all reading involves an interpretive act. But perhaps there is room for Phil and Dave to find common ground. The issue is indeed whether an editor uses Wikipedia to forward an original interpretation (analysis, synthesis, explanation, etc.) this is why NOR has never banned the use of primary sources - it has only restricted the use of primary sources so that they are not used to support original arguments or controversial representations of the source. The bias towards secondary sources, as I understand it, is that the person whose "reading" is being provided is not a Wikipedia editor, and is clearly identified - it helps us also comply with NPOV by ensuring that something added to an article is presented not as "the truth" but as a view, in many cases the view of the author of the (secondary) source. In other words, a secondary source is (or at least, often is) a text that admits that its account of a primary source is a "reading," an interpretive act, and thus, the view of the interpreter (author of the secondary source), in short, a particular and identifiable point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but your research on primary sources is not academic because it is based on primary sources - it's academic because of how it uses those sources, how it engages with existing secondary sources, etc. And one of the ways your research will live or die is on whether it's original - that is, sometimes you'll send it to a journal and they'll reject it as insufficiently original despite being based on primary sources. (Other times they'll reject it as excessively so because it doesn't use secondary sources enough.) The point being that the division between that kind of research and Wikipedia is not a division based on sources as such.

I think you come very close to a good rephrasing of the source distinction section. The issue is not whether primary sources are used, but rather whether significant secondary sources are written about in a NPOV manner. Perhaps this is the form the policy should take: "While primary sources are considered more reliable and complete for describing something, WP:NPOV requires that we give a thorough summary to all major perspectives offered in secondary sources on the topic." Reword away, obviously. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm offering here is a concept of what "research" means in the context of a college instructor. Thanks, but not thanks. That is exactly what this policy is trying to tell us not to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You would prefer shitty research that gives incomplete accounts of things? Because that's what you get working entirely from secondary sources. The policy is not telling us to abandon all training as researchers, scholars, and writers - it's telling us to summarize existing texts instead of creating new primary or secondary sources. Trust me - as a college English instructor, we spent a significant portion of class time on exactly this task. And still, rule #2 (#1 being "don't plagiarize") is "primary sources are more complete." And that's the issue - every time you move to a secondary or tertiary source you remove information and add other information, and get further and further from the object you're trying to describe. The policy that stops creation of new primary and secondary sources should not moonlight as a policy mandating bad writing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a miscommunication here. Phil, when you invoke being a college instructure I think you can be "read" two ways. first, you are saying that you have and try to communicate to your students high standards. I doubt that Jossi would reject this point. Surely, you don't think Jossi wants a shitty encyclopedia? But I think you can be read another way: you are teaching your students how to do a particular kind of research. When I took college English classes one of the things I recall being taught was how to make an original argument (clearly expressed, well-organized, supported by appropriate evidence). This is my goal when I teach. Even an undergraduate research paper has something in common with an MA dissertation and a PhD. thesis - forwarding a well-argued and appropriately-supported argument in a clear and well-organized way. That is the kind of research I try to teach students. But I am not trying to teach them how to write encyclopedia articles. I think this is Jossi's point - the criteria for a well-researched research paper and a well-researched encyclopedia article are different. We want to encourage the latter, not the former. Are we misunderstanding you? Are you teaching your students how to write encyclopedia articles? If so, to be frank, I would be surprised that you ask them to rely on primary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The criteria are different, but I don't think the techniques are - and I would not direct students entirely to primary sources to teach them to write an encyclopedia article, but I would also not direct them away from them. Of course, all of this is made harder by the requirement that we not be credentialist. That is, after all, how most encyclopedias function - they get experts to write articles. And those experts do not, in my experience, ignore primary sources in favor of secondary ones. They give an overview of what the secondary sources say, but they also use the primary sources heavily, as, in the end, it is still the primary sources they are trying to summarize. And that's the point I'm trying to make - one cannot write well about X, whether on the level of summary or on the level of academic research, without engaging X directly. And, in the end, academic research still starts with the lit review and with summary of major texts. The difference between it and encyclopedia writing is not method - it's stopping point. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They have credentials because they are trained to use primary sources. I see NOR and V as being important precisely because one need not have credentials i.e. be trained in the kind of research you are talking about, the kind of training that is indicated by an academic credential, to edit at Wikipedia. EB hires people with credentials because those credentials presumably indicate that they are well-qualified to do original research. It is because they have credentials that EB does not have an NOR policy! Wikipedia makes the opposite presumption: that our editors are not necessarily qualified to do original research. Nor is it our role to provide people the training in how to do research that they might receive in a University. Our NOR and V policies should ensure that people who are not qualified to do original research or research based on primary sources can nevertheless contribute to this encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Except EB does have a NOR policy. Or, at least, it is not a publisher of original research. I take Wikipedia's position on its editors to be "trust their competence but verify their work." But that doesn't mean a line-by-line audit either. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Phil, are you editing the same Wikipedia that I? We have thousands of contributors, and thousands more join each week, and the vast majority of us are not experts on anything we edit ... thus this policy is necessary so that we can continue to contribute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

When you say that, do you mean that in the sense of "are not credentialed experts on anything we edit" or in the sense of "don't know a lot about the topics we edit." The former is true. The latter, I should hope, is not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Phil, what on earth do you mean by "line-by-line audit?" I am flumoxed. Did you just write the above in response to my comment? Did I say anything about lin-by line audit? Or are you ignoring my comment and making a general comment on this policy? Then I am still confused - nothing in this policy suggests a line-by-line audit. Has anyone mentioned it on this talk page? is this just another of your red-herrings? Where did it come from?

On the other hand, don't you know that no wikipedia article has an "author," that all articles are collaborative, that anyone can edit at any time? Doesn't this (NOT this policy, but the wiki technology itself) mean that ay and every line I write in an article can be changed by any other editor? Isn't this just business as usual at Wikipedia?

I really wonder what you are talking about. It makes no sense to me. I'm genuinely confused. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I'll try to be clearer. Yes, Wikipedia demands a level of verification of its contents - that's obviously what WP:V means. But, as I've said, that does not amount to a Cartesian doubt where we must check and source every statement - which is a viewpoint that comes up in policy debates related to these issues. There is some situation in which we don't particularly worry how a claim is backed up. And I think that situation is more than just an incidental error on our part - there are things we more or less deliberately overlook. What I'm arguing is that figuring out what these are is important to figuring out how to appropriately calibrate this policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. My own view - which I believe is not shared by many people, people who I bet irritate you as much as they irritate me - is that this matter is best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, by editors of a given article. I see V and NOR as guidelines and ideals and points of reference in disputes. If there is an article and a diverse group of editors are satisfied with it, great, leave well-enough alone. Busybodies who go around adding a "cite" template to every sentence do irritate me! But I do not think that the response to these irritants is to weaken policy. I think instead we need to educate people as to the value of policy, which as i said is primarily to help educate newbies, and as a point of reference in disputes. No dispute, no problem. My princple is this: the greater the dispute at a page, the greater the need to enforce a policy strictly. The more consensus among (ideally a truly diverse group of ) editors, the less need for wiki-lawyering. In short, I say let's not overcentralize and over-plan. Rely on the judgement of editors active on an article. If they all think the article is good, great! But when editors start warring then obviously claims in the article ae by definition controversial and it becomes very important to make sure that no onre is violating NOR, that claims are verifiable, etc. I am tired, i hope this makes sense. Policies and sub-groups of the wiki community need to work hand in hand; when one is weak the other must be strong, and when one is strong we can tolerate more weaknesses in the other. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

articles signed by experts

I'd like to draw attention to this WP:EA thread, where it was asked if unsigned articles in other encyclopedias may be considered reliable. The user had asked after noticing the current NOR wording for tertiary sources: "For example, articles signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can be regarded as reliable sources." Maybe that should be amended with something along the lines of what I replied there? Input appreciated. |dorftrottel |humor me 12:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so see Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Reliability of unsigned encyclopaedia articles --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See my reply there as well. |dorftrottel |humor me 14:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In an unsigned article, the responsibility is the editors--just as in a newspaper. I think in an encyclopedia of established high reliability, its acceptable, though not of the highest degree if there are better sources. DGG (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. While there are usually better sources available, it's not like a reputable encyclopedia should automatically be considered a bad source, signed article or no.--Father Goose (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with DGG. The best encyclopædias can be an excellent source, but are by no means infallible and should ideally be checked against better sources. ... dave souza, talk 12:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested tweak

"...only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and..." should become "...only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and relevance of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and..." to avoid excessive quoting out of context. Relata refero (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to shoehorn the issue of relevance into a page dealing with the issue of verifiability? Relevance is its own, equally thorny issue that does not need to be raised in this policy.--Father Goose (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, this is the original research page. And we're concerned that primary sources will be used to create original research by synthesizing novel conclusions or implications. In other words, primary sources mustn't be quote- or data-mined. Which is why, in controversial cases, we need to ensure that secondary sources indicate that they are deserving of being quoted, and are not, for example, un-representative. (I sympathize over WP:REL, but this deals with another issue from what that tried to address. Perhaps another word could be used conveying the same sense.) Relata refero (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more like an issue of WP:DUE. |dorftrottel |humor me 03:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I say "an issue of verifiability" because while WP:NOR is not WP:V, it is still an issue of verifiability.

If I understand your concern better now, namely that sources not relevant to the claim being put forward should not be used, that is already in the policy: "However, using information from references out-of-context or to forward claims not directly supported by the sources is original research."--Father Goose (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That sentence ensures that secondary sources are not misquoted. It is my concern that that does not cover those who might wish to, for example, produce a sentence or two that is indisputably part of a particular writer's work, in order to support an implication that they were racist or push for the inclusion of some equivocating quote from some little-known political speech to ensure that a fringe theory that they're fond of gets coverage. None of that is prohibited specifically by policy as written. We need to make sure that it is; by ensuring that if primary sources are used, then which bits are used can be defended, if necessary, by reference to secondary sources. We shouldn't be highlighting bits of primary sources that secondary sources consider unimportant. That is original research. Relata refero (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything that makes that sentence not apply to primary sources. For instance, I remember Jim Webb being accused of all sorts of things that were found in fiction he had written, that was not representative of his personal views. Quoting that stuff to characterize him as holding those views is clearly taking material from a reference (a primary source) out of context. The "synthesis" section also addresses a class of misrepresentations like these.--Father Goose (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That sentence says "forward claims not directly supported by the sources". It does not cover the fact that claiming X said Y might be OR in terms of its implication for X's thought even if primary sources "directly support" the claim that X said Y. Relata refero (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point I'd like to see an example of what you have in mind. As yet I don't see how these cases are not covered by the existing policy.--Father Goose (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An example I've used before is in the history of Max Mueller. He published, at various points, some views of Indian literature and religion that sound definitely supremacist to modern ears. There is no question that there is ample support in primary sources for the claim "Max Mueller wrote X thing.", without commentary. However, the point is that (i) if X thing is considered non-notable by scholarship and (ii) X thing is not representative of his main thrust of work, according to secondary sources, we're conducting original research. Yet that will be permitted by existing policy, but not by my tweak. Relata refero (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Relata refero, are you suggesting that we restrict use of primary sources simply because they could be abused by quote mining? I think that is what you said, and that goes way beyond what we have been discussing here. Selective use of primary sources is a problem, but secondary sources do not necessarily solve that problem. In fact, secondary sources may use quote mining as well to support their biased conclusions. Certainly in areas where there are an abundance of secondary sources, they should be put to best use. But we have many subject areas where secondary sources are scarce or non-existent, and this policy must be generally applicable. We limit primary sources to direct quotes, and obvious conclusions which naturally must be relevant. But sometimes it is relevant to present a raw fact from a primary source and put it in juxtaposition with a seemingly contradictory conclusion from a secondary source. One case of this is to point out a simple error, or obvious mistake. We can't put our own conclusion that the source is in error (without a secondary source making that conclusion), but it would be a disservice to the reader to leave them with the apparently erroneous conclusion by withholding relevant facts simply because of source typing. Dhaluza (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, secondary sources may use quote mining as well to support their biased conclusions. What is the problem with that? That is exactly what we do in Wikipedia: we describe what secondary sources says a bout a subject, while attributing that to the source. We are not claiming X is the truth, we are saying X claims it is the truth. Big difference. And this is what WP:NPOR says: we should prefer the latter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with it at all, as long as we include all relevant secondary sources to get a NPOV. If someone was inclined to quote mining, they could do it with secondary sources as well as primary ones, so secondary sources are not a magic bullet to stop this. But some editors take this to the extreme, and suggest that you cannot also include primary sources, when a secondary source has spoken, and that is nonsense. Dhaluza (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, in contentious cases, that is exactly correct. Introducing primary sources that no secondary sources have considered relevant is precisely original research. Relata refero (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, particularly in the case of a simple error, or obvious mistake. Another example would be an out-of-date secondary source vs. a more recent primary source. We can use the primary source to update the secondary one. Dhaluza (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A simple error or obvious mistake is not a contentious case. POlicy is especially useful for contentious cases, not for everyday editing. Relata refero (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking a statement out of context is NOR too, which is what I read the "relevance" in the tweak to be addressing. In this, the tweak itself is valid. But of course, taking a statement out of context can occur with any kind of source. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. Have a look at my example above. Relata refero (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll about interpretive primary sources.

Question (True or false):

If an analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claim is found explicitly in a reliable primary source, simply citing the source for that claim is not original research.

• True. Seems self-evident. If it's in a reliable source, it's not original. COGDEN 05:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Self-contradiction. Wouldn't that make it a secondary source per our defined term? Furthermore, doesn't this just emphasize the point about the futility of source typing? Dhaluza (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• False. If a primary source is a source 'close' to the article's subject, and that source makes a an explicit explanatory claim, we cannot repeat it -if challenged - unless reliable sources have made an evaluation that that explanatory claim is both representative and relevant. Relata refero (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but that does not make it OR. What you are describing is WP:NPOV or WP:SPS. Dhaluza (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Such a claim cannot occur in a primary source. To make such a claim in the first place, makes the nature of the source a secondary or tertiary source. DGG (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Says who? Primary sources can certainly make evaluative or interpretive claims. For example, a scientist can provide experimental data and then evaluate it in the same paper. COGDEN 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe. Can you give some examples? Such sources would be combining characteristics of a primary and a secondary source, much like research papers, even in the same paragraph in a “results and discussion” section. You could try to separate the primary source aspects from the secondary source aspects, and then consider whether the secondary source aspects are really reliable on their own, and also note that the secondary source aspects are not independent of the primary source aspects (by different authors, etc), as we usually prefer them to be. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Examples:

(1) In a novel, a private eye explains whodunit based on the evidence. (--COGDEN)

False. I'd recommend paying attention to WP:WAF first. When properly done, and avoiding the misconception that fictional-facts are facts, it becomes clear that the work of fiction can only ever be a primary source for anything contained within that work of fiction. If the whodunit story was a real event, then the fiction could be considered a secondary source with respect to the real event. Reliability would be questionable. (--SmokeyJoe)

I don't understand. The facts and conclusions of whodunit are entirely contained within the work of fiction. The work is a primary source for both the facts underlying the murder, and the conclusions by the private eye interpreting or evaluating those facts. The novel is very much a primary source of both. But under the current PSTS language, you can cite the book to show the underlying facts of the murder, but you can't cite the novel for the conclusions about whodunit, unless you have some source outside the novel that also made that whodunit conclusion, which is a very strange loophole.

Speaking of WP:WAF, I'd say that guideline contradicts the PSTS section as now written. WP:WAF essentially says that primary source material is required, and secondary source material should be "used with care", kind of the opposite of what we have here. COGDEN 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Where the subject is a work of fiction, the “facts and conclusions” are not facts or conclusions. They are fiction. The work of fiction is a primary source for the fiction, and as per WP:NOR (as I understood it) and WP:WAF, an article cannot be written entirely sourced from the work of fiction itself. Among other things, that would also mean that the article is a derivative work of the fiction and therefore a copyright violation. I don’t see the loophole. You can cite the fictional conclusion, but don’t confuse it with a real conclusion in the real world sense. Perhaps WP:WAF is currently in better shape that WP:PSTS. I particularly like the “maintain a balanced use of both primary and secondary sources” which is lacking in WP:PSTS. Primary sources are important for reliable facts. Secondary sources are important for context. Both are important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) In a peer-reviewed journal article, Albert Einstein puts forth a new theory explaining the photoelectric effect. (--COGDEN)

Not applicable. If the subject is the theory, the commentary on the theory is too non-independant to be called reliable. Further sources would be needed. If the subject is the photoelectric effect, the entire article is secondary. (--SmokeyJoe)

Secondary to what? What's the primary source? Peer-reviewed journal articles that propose new theories are almost always considered to be primary sources for the new theories. I think there are citations at primary source. Also, why would Albert Einstein's commentary on the photoelectric effect be considered unreliable? It's his theory, so why shouldn't he be considered the most authoritative source? Plus, it's in a peer-reviewed journal. And besides, Einstein got the Nobel Prize for his commentary on the subject. If there ever was a reliable source of primary-source analysys or commentary, it would be this. COGDEN 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here and below lies the typical problem that causes the discussion to go around and around in circles. Before we can talk about whether a source is primary or secondary, we first must be clear about what the subject is, and how the source is being used. If the subject is the photoelectric effect, primary sources would be reports demonstrating the photoelectric effect. Often in secondary sources, the primary sources are so well known that they are left implicit. Everyday this happens in newspaper editorials. The editorial doesn’t explicitly cite primary sources, it assumes that the reader is already familiar with them. Einstein’s commentary on his own theory on the photoelectric effect should be considered unreliable. His commentary on the photoelectric effect would be reliable. Einstein is too close to his own invented theory, but he didn’t invent the photoelectric effect. Einstein [‘s writing] is a fine primary source for his own theory, but is not a fine secondary source for it, unless perhaps he is commenting years afterwards. Citing the nobel prize award would support using Einstein’s own commentary, but note that now you are not relying solely on Einstein’s manuscript. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(3) In a celebrity's memoirs, she evaluates her life and concludes that all her problems stem from a bad childhood. (--COGDEN)

True, though again I am concerned about your assumption of reliability due to the non-independance of the secondary-source aspects. I'd recommend explicit reference to "celebrity herself stated...", treating the memoir explicitly as a primary-source, subject to as-yet unsource interpretation, rather than assuming her statements are facts. (--SmokeyJoe)

That's a good recommendation, but not a requirement (and failure to do so is not original research), so long as the statement is not controversial and otherwise meets the requirements of WP:V. COGDEN 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(4) Karl Marx publishes the Communist Manifesto analyzing how and why capitalist societies are replaced through worker revolution. (--COGDEN)

Not applicable to the question. I assume the subject is "capitalist societies" or "worker revolution". The Maifesto is a secondary source. If the subject is the Manifesto, I'd want you to find another source to provide comment or analysis on the manifesto. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Communist Manifesto is secondary to what? Who is Marx citing for this proposition? It's Marx's ideas, so he's not citing anybody. He's the primary source for that idea. But it's an "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claim". I'd want to find other sources too, but failure to do so does not constitute original research. COGDEN 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

“The Communist Manifesto is secondary to what?” typifies the recurring problem here. The subject has not been defined. I guessed at the implied subject. Karl is implicitly citing common knowledge, much like the newspaper editorial. Unless the subject is the manifesto itself, or subsequent consequences of the existence, use or effects of the manifesto, then the manifesto is not a primary source, it is a secondary source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the question is too general for it to be judged in absolute terms. I can see sense in the question, but I don't like the implied permission to be satisfied with both facts and commentary coming from the one source --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If both facts and commentary come from the same source, do you believe that simply repeating that commentary is original research? If so, how can it be original, if you're just repeating what somebody else did? COGDEN 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, simply repeating is not original research, obviously. But if you just have a single source, you cannot assume that the opinion you have cited is true. You should have to explicitly quote “so and so says this”. You are then treating your source as a primary source for the opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I missed your point, but now I think I see it. Are you trying to point out that the conflation of close sources with factual sources in the current definition of primary sources creates an inherent contradiction? For example that SPS can be RS in relation to themselves, so their analysis of themselves are reliable (even though they are biased). Therefore using SPS in this way is not OR, although the PSTS section would make it so. Dhaluza (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This situation is already covered by the current text "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so. ... dave souza, talk 12:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll note that the section requires that articles make only descriptive claims and that analytical claims require two sources. It's not or, it's and. Maybe I'll attempt to change that, so that your argument would be valid. COGDEN 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken, Wikipedia can only make descriptive claims about the information, but the information in the primary source may be of any type. For example Wellington said of the Battle of Waterloo "The nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life." which is an analysis of the battle and we can quote him (as is done in the article) or we could write Wellington said that the battle was a close run thing, either is acceptable (with the appropriate citation) and it is a description of a primary source that makes an analysis of the battle. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But suppose Wellington's statement was not controversial, and the article said, "The Battle of Waterloo was a near run. See Wellington." According to the present language, you couldn't do that. But that goes against WP:V which requires no source citations at all for non-controversial statements. If no source is required, certainly a primary source is welcome. COGDEN 20:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think I follow fully what you are saying here! If one adds an edit to the article the Battle of Waterloo that says The Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing. without a citation then if someone sticks The Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing.{{fact}}; then one can do one of two things either just leave it as The Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing (Arthur Wellesley quoted in the Creevey Papers, ch. x, p. 236). or better write Wellington said that the Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing (Arthur Wellesley quoted in the Creevey Papers, ch. x, p. 236). The first, without the citation, might perhaps be a breach NOR ("descriptive claims" not sure and this is not a star chamber and it is poor form not to add a citation for such material) but the last two with a citation are not a breach of the NOR and the last two fulfill WP:PROVEIT if requested. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the last two are not a breach of NOR. But they are a breach of PSTS, at least as it is currently described. The statement "The Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing" is more than just a "descriptive claim about the information found in the primary source". It's a statement of conclusion. I don't know, on these facts, whether Wellington's statement is verifiable from "another source" other than Wellington, but suppose it weren't. Suppose that the only person in history who ever said "The Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing" was Wellington himself. Who cares? It's still verifiable to Wellington. Why do we need two sources? COGDEN 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PSTS is part of the NOR so if they are not in breach of the NOR they are not in breach of PSTS. Before I comment further I wish to point out that I would always put in the author of such a primary source before using it. But for the purposes of this conversation lets play it out with the wording given, and assume that the source is cited. You say it is more than a descriptive claim because it "It's a statement of conclusion" but the wording pr PSTS does not disallow that. All PSTS demands is that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source" and that "To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable from another source." which is what the sentence "The Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing (Arthur Wellesley quoted in the Creevey Papers, ch. x, p. 236)." complies with. A second source is not needed because the statement is a description that can be checked by anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source and it does not make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. If anyone complains on a talk page that it is not descriptive enough it is easily fixed by adding "Wellington said that" at the start of the sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above "I do not think I follow fully what you are saying here!" and so I have been re-reading the sentences and I think I may have found were we are differing in our interpretation of the clauses. I take "and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" to implicitly include "and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims [about the information (in the primary source)]" because for me that is implied by the earlier clause in the sentence: "that part of the article should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source". Is that where the misunderstanding lies? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• False, unless you strike the word "primary", in which case it is true, but off-topic.
  Cf. also preceding remarks by Dhaluza and DGG in this section. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• If it's true for "sources", then it's true for "primary sources", since "primary sources" are a sub-category of "sources". QED. COGDEN 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Cats have whiskers. Shall whiskers be discussed as if they were exclusive to cats?
  Similarly, if something is true for "sources," then its false to suggest that it applies only to "primary sources."
  The logical continuation of that is:
  * If something is not specific to a particular kind of source, an explanation of it will not further a differentiation of PSTS.
  * And if something does not further a differentiation of PSTS, it should not appear in a differentiation of PSTS.
  In any case, I don't see what yet another qualification of a "reliable source" has to do with WP:NOR. Has Occam's razor gone completely blunt now?
  -- Fullstop (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll agree with you there. I just thought that establishing the truth of the above statement would lead us toward consensus. At least there would be one statement we all could agree is either true or false—which would be an accomplishment here, given the history of this debate. It baffles me how language that is so controversial as the present language could exist on a pillar policy page for so long, when policy pages are supposed to reflect consensus. But this page has too many opinionated owners to actually insist on a consensus article. COGDEN 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is, I think, one statement in current PSTS that everyone can agree on. The last one. Well, with that idea anyway. Its the only one that hasn't been significantly fiddled with, and all suggestions for improvement include that sentence (or a less verbose version of it).
• I recall some wise person here once asking if it would not be a better idea to move PSTS to its own page, and then develop it there (before - optionally - being transcluded from or merged into NOR). The wise person never got an answer, but I think that would be a sane step.
  As a work-in-progress...
  * it wouldn't be on the normal editor's radar;
  * it would have a chance to demonstrate how WP:RS and WP:SOURCES might be complemented without also immediately compromising them;
  * it might finally get someone to explain how a differentiation of PSTS furthers an understanding of NOR.
  * it would have to undergo full review to be acknowledged as policy material.
• The often-seen argument that policy should be difficult to change does not, I think, apply to PSTS. The section got smuggled in without due process, which should never have been allowed to happen to begin with.
  The perfectly valid original idea has become a Frankenstein's monster. Cf. also this intermediate stage, when it was still slightly (but barely) relating to NOR, but the monster was already roaring and the umbilical tie was conclusively broken in less than a week from there.
• There are 176 article talk pages & 42 user talk pages that link to WP:PSTS. In the first three I looked at, the policy that the editors invoking PSTS really meant to refer to were RS, V, and UNDUE respectively. If these three (1.3%) are representative of the general understanding of PSTS, there cannot ever be any consensual understanding of what PSTS "policy" is supposed to represent, leave alone of PSTS' (hypothetical) relationship to NOR.

-- Fullstop (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think several people have proposed moving the section to its own article, I included. I'd like to see it happen. Maybe we should make another proposal and see what people think, now that they've had a chance to think for a while. I think you're absolutely right that nobody really understands this PSTS section. In fact, half of us who are editing the section think that the other half doesn't understand it, and vice versa. I'm sure most lay Wikipedians have no clue what we're talking about. They just write articles using the best primary and secondary sources they can find for the task. COGDEN 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Category error. If a primary source is a source 'close' to the article's subject, and that source makes a an explicit explanatory claim, we can state the obvious fact that it makes that claim, but must look for a reliable secondary / third party / independent source for evaluation or analysis of that "explanatory claim". . .. dave souza, talk 11:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Then it sounds like you agree with the premise. Obviously, if you need an "explanation of the explanation", you'd need to verify that, too. COGDEN 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you really having so much difficulty with grasping the concept of stating verified facts, and finding a reliable secondary / third party / independent source for evaluation or analysis of those facts?... dave souza, talk 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I "grasp" it, but just don't think "second independent sources" is a requirement (nor does Wikipedia, apparently, otherwise they'd actually be following that requirement). If a statement in an article is already verifiable, you don't need any more sources. You can stop there if you want. Any further sources is just icing on the cake. COGDEN 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• No answer. The term primary source is only loosely defined, and this policy should not adopt a unique definition that only applies within this policy. Thus, the term primary source is not defined well enough to decide the question. If the issue must be decided, the term primary source must be removed and replaced with a better term. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's a good point, and I 100% agree with the fact that primary source is not well defined and that if anything, we need another term. But for this particular question, I would argue that the above statement is true even if you deleted the primary and just said If an analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claim is found explicitly in a reliable source, simply citing the source for that claim is not original research. If it's not original research with respect to any source, then it's also not original research with respect to primary sources. COGDEN 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• True. It's not original research: it's previously published material. Example. Suppose a peer-reviewed scientific paper says "Results: Those taking the test substance had statistically significant improvements in their symptoms compared to those taking placebo (P < 0.01). Conclusion: This substance may be useful in treating this condition." I see nothing in the policy clarifying whether this is a primary source, but it certainly ought to be possible to cite this result if the editors of a page consider it sufficiently relevant. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• What level of hell is this? Seriously, there seems to be only one editor (well, since the ec, two) having difficulty with these concepts and yet he is tying up a lot of valuable time with his disruptive editing and seems to be either unable or unwilling to attempt to comprehend the concepts in NOR, PSTS, etc. Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Take a look at the archive pages. You'll see it's pretty evenly split. Since July, about half the editors who have commented on this have problems with the current formulation. Plus, it is inconsistent with the majority of Wikipedia articles, particularly featured articles, which use primary sources with abandon, and in strong preference to secondary sources. COGDEN 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH violation

Hi. I'd appreciate some feedback on the following. User:Giovanni33 has been making a series of edits on Jung Chang that appear to be a case of SYNTH - specifically here and here. He has removed my fact request tag and provided a source that does not accurately cite the point made.

What do you think? John Smith's (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good source for the points, in my reading. What do you think makes it original research? ... dave souza, talk 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any SYNTH here, but perhaps that is so because you haven't noted the original statements that you believe Giovanni33 is synthesizing from.

The other NOR can easily be resolved:

• "... in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical ..."
  should be rephrased as
  "... in academic journals – so Jonathan Fenby's assessment^[cite] of the debate – was far more critical ..."
• The source does not say the book is "fundamentally flawed," so that phrase needs to vanish. In any case, such strong language should be a direct quote.

The only other immediate "problem" I can see is a MOS/stylistic one: The source should be properly formatted and listed in the references section, and it should be referenced by all statements that allude to it.

-- Fullstop (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case of WP:SYNTH. The first diff is best, imo, but the second would be just as good with a little tweaking. I'd be careful not to convey this as an opinion of Jonathan Fenby. Fenby seems to be describing the nature of the controversy, not offering an opinion about one side or another. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I hadn't realized that "assessment" could be read like that, but yes, I see it could.

Perhaps a better phrase would be: "– according to one description of the controversy –"

The point being that it should be clear from the text that the source being cited is not the "Sinologists" or "academic journals" that are being referred to.

-- Fullstop (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I was only referred to SYNTH by another party, so my knowledge of it is limited. John Smith's (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible way toward consensus: strengthening the neglected S and T elements of PSTS.

Here's a possibility that might move us toward consensus. Many of the arguments against changing the controversial language in the article take the form of "you can't do that because it would weaken PSTS." On the other hand, those absolutely insisting on consensus language argue that "primary sources shouldn't be treated differently than secondary sources". So, what about this: let's leave the primary source requirements as they are, but add the same cautionary material to secondary and tertiary sources. Maybe it's not the final version, but it could be a step in the direction toward consensus and finally achieving a stable, actionable section on how sources relate to OR. COGDEN 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Primary sources provide facts, including the fact that a primary source close to the subject has made an analysis etc. Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, and are cited for such analysis of the primary source. If you can't understand that, you appear to be the odd one out here. You're welcome to discuss proposals, but repeatedly hacking about a policy page looks very much like disruptive editing. ... dave souza, talk 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I had been the only person to feel that way regarding Cogden's edits -- it's refreshing to see that I'm not. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a disruptive edit just to make a point. I think that strengthening the S and T elements of the policy would be a definite improvement, and a move toward consensus. If you think that a weaker S and T aspect of PSTS is preferable, then please explain why, rather than conduct ad hominem attacks. COGDEN 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think one of your edits was repeating a lot of the same words that had already been said earlier on the page. That makes it hard for a reader to follow -- or at least it takes up the reader's valuable time. It's better to use short forms like "the same rules also apply to secondary and tertiary sources." I think the current version already does that reasonably well, or at least as well as can be expected when people with different strongly held views have to work together to get consensus on it. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else frustrated by endless rumbles over the main page?

This is one of the key pillars at WP, so why does my watchlist's window on the main page here remind me so much of streaming video of puppies tug-of-warring over a chew toy! WP:Consensus is needed here, editors, not WP:BRD or WP:EW -- Professor marginalia (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Stability of key policy pages is essential, and any changes should be fully considered on the talk page before being implemented. If people can't restrain themselves, perhaps protection is going to be necessary. Again. ... dave souza, talk 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This particular section isn't particularly "hallowed", since (1) it's tagged as a non-consensus section, and (2) it's clear that the section is not yet actionable policy, at least until we achieve consensus. There's no reason anybody shouldn't be able to propose changes. We haven't had an edit war on this page for several weeks now, so I'm not worried. Some of the proposed changes to this page actually stick, which is a good sign. Until we achieve consensus language, this is an experimental section, so let's experiment. COGDEN 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As there seems to be no signs of agreement, perhaps the section should be removed, as discussed elsewhere as an essay or guideline. Policy needs a very broad consensus, and it should be plain by now that it just is not there. DGG (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, if the intent of this thread was "calling the motion", then I would have to vote with DGG to remove PSTS from NOR. I really have not seen a solid stand-alone cogent argument for keeping it here beyond the trivial "it's really important" or "it's been here for a really long time" and I still don't see a favorable cost/benefit to keeping it. Dhaluza (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The benefit is that it provides a check on POV-pushers and those with an interest in fringe theories. The cost is that it means that some common-sense corrections are technically made more difficult to make. The point is that people rarely need policy to justify that sort of common sense correction. So the benefits outweigh the costs. Relata refero (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's the rationale, it's a very weak one. I've seen much more POV-pushing by people using secondary sources. In fact, one of the best ways to prevent such POV-pushing is to cite the primary sources, rather than the rantings of some crackpot who merely interprets the primary sources. Is it better to quote Albert Einstein, or some evangelical creationist's interpretation of Albert Einstein? COGDEN 19:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If the benefit of PSTS is to prevent POV pushing, then it belongs in WP:NPOV, because that policy properly deals with POV. We should not be stretching this policy to cover all bases. NOR only deals with unpublished fringe theories. The cost of PSTS is that it diverts limited resources to arguments over what is primary vs. secondary, rather than what is OR ve. NOR. Dhaluza (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't support many if any of the changes Cogden has tried out so far, I support his right to try them. He's not engaging in a revert war, but he is making a number of good-faith attempts to improve the policy. We need more of the latter and less of the former. Without it, discussion becomes nothing more than an elaborate form of inaction.--Father Goose (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reality check time: this page is ignored by 99% of active wikipedian's because most are busy working on articles rather than keeping their eye on WP policy page changes. And for those who have half an eye on this page to see what settles out, we're led round-and-round the mulberry bush while a small handful devote themselves to brainstorm endless iterations of text changes--unfortunately, too often, on the policy page itself. This is a backwater in here--I see no obvious evidence here of any WP consensus to change the policy in the first place. And it's exhausted my energies trying to find the initial source of the problem. At one point there was a consensus policy. At what point was there a demonstrated consensus put forth to change it? And what was the consensus reason given to change it? I came to weigh in on an RC and I'll be damned if I can see that there is anything behind all the turmoil except a small number of editors who think the PSTS doesn't conform well enough in the Platonic sense to real PSTS. I say the PSTS section goes back to the last stable version and we then go through a solid consensus process to justify any further changes to it. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself one of the editors who tries to keep busy working primarily on articles, and only dabbling in a policy here and there. I was drawn into this discussion because I thought PSTS was out of place when I created the WP:PSTS shortcut link for reference. But at that time I was busy creating content, and didn't take an active roll until some editors tried to push the envelope on source typing to all but exclude primary sources. When I looked into the history, I saw that the PSTS section has changed considerably over time. It was originally formulated to say that WP is a secondary source, and the tertiary distinction was only added later. Then the definitions have experienced continual scope creep which finally lead to the conflation of close and factual sources into primary sources. So I completely disagree with your assessment that because people working on articles are not active in the discussion the text represented consensus. What is relevant is what they would say if they were brought in as if on jury duty to decide the case. I suspect that many active content editors like myself would not support the excessive definition and restriction, and would instead prefer a simple plain language explanation of the basic principles. And I also disagree that any formulation of PSTS had a stable consensus. There is no stable version to go back to. Dhaluza (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it goes much deeper than arguments over what the Platonic definition of PSTS is; what's in the section right now has neither verbal nor intellectual clarity about how we should and shouldn't use sources. A revamp is long overdue.

As for a solid consensus process, I'd say the best we have is WP:BRD. Without the B, we twiddle our thumbs. But it works best as a pure cycle: BRDBRDBRDBRD, with everybody contributing to the brainstorming, not when it gets stuck in BRRRRRRprotect or BRDDDDDD.

Also, a counter-reality check: policy pages, when they are misconceived and miswritten, result in the misdeletion of content. Those working on the creation of content ignore policy at their peril; it undermines their work when it is errantly written or errantly applied.--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked back, and work hammering out the text of descriptions of PSTS have been under negotiations here for at least 3.5 years. Is the claim then that at no point in these 3.5 years has there ever been consensus for this pillar policy? Throughout the period since it included, the policy has sported a prominent template promising widespread acceptance, and only in the last two months have I found any warning given on the page this is perhaps not so. If all this is true, then there are a few unmistakable lessons taught here: there is no need of any policy text beyond the brief "nutshell" since WP has done just fine blithely ignoring it and letting editors sort OR disputes out for themselves for 3.5 years; continuing this another 3.5 days, months or years is unlikely to have any different outcome; and sometimes editors show more diligence for crafting policies than heeding them. BRD is a technique that, used tentatively, might squeeze problem issues to the surface to be dealt with there explicitly; editors then can chisel away at those problem issues until consensus is achieved. But let's look at the 20 edits thrown up in the last 24 hours--and compare them to the contributions made to the talk page. I don't see evidence of a direct relationship of any kind (besides general complaining about the disruption), but certainly little sign of them provoking the explicit contentions to rise to the surface for discussion. BRD is no different than step-wise edit warring if it isn't honing in on just one target at a time and funneling towards a resolution. If it's working, BRD is Where's Waldo - when it's not working, it's World of Warcraft. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In 3.5 years, there never has been a stable consensus (if there has, point to the diffs). And I disagree that PSTS is a pillar of this policy--the original versions of WP:NOR did not have it, and I still fail to see why it is essential. The current version also makes no longer makes sense. The definition of primary sources has morphed from factual to close sources, so the following restriction on non-interpretation is not directly related anymore. Dhaluza (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remember, guys. While we war over clauses and subclauses here, most people read this policy once, around when they first joined, and don't remember nor care about the specifics. -Amarkov moo! 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, for the most part, editors ignore PSTS and instead do the right thing by making effective use of reliable primary sources. The problem arises when some well-meaning or not-so-well-meaning editor wants to push some POV, and doesn't like a reliable primary source, so he cites PSTS so that he can cite some biased interpretation of the primary sources instead of the sources themselves. That leads to edit wars, and is a problem. COGDEN 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Update on Todays Score: TBBTRBBTBRRRRRR; 3 Tweaks, 5 Bolds, 7 Reverts and count 'em, 1 D regarding the edits; it followed a revert and has been so far ignored. Correction, 2 D regarding edits, both ignored with one reply. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC) update Professor marginalia (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's find Waldo

Debates are still not coalescing to any measurable degree toward consensus. We're still stuck in the "I don't like it because ..." with very little overlap between the discussants in either the what I don't likes or the becauses. So let's try tackling one issue at a time:

• Do we dispose of PSTS clause in WP:NOR altogether? Please post a simple yes or no followed by a concise, single sentence argument for holding that position. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely no. The principle of NOR requires an understanding of how to use sources, and the dangers of allowing the use of primary sources from which to derive novel syntheses. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• No. While primary sources close to the subject can be used with care for facts, including such facts as stating that opinions have been expressed by the sources , independent sources are needed for analysis and assessment to avoid original research. ... dave souza, talk 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• No. The concept of what PSTS is trying to say is valid (extreme care needs to be taken when citing to primary sources, because they are easy to misuse in ways that lead to OR). We just need to be willing to compromise and reach consensus on the wording. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• No. I would not be opposed to creating a separate PSTS page in the future and allocating it as appropriate to each of the three core content policies. (As we've seen, it has implications w.r.t. all three, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, especially WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.) I think such a move would be premature at this moment in time, though, so it should be left right where it began roughly four years ago. I must say I'm also disturbed by the tendency of vocal opponent(s) of WP:PSTS to confuse the scholarly usage of PSTS with the library and information science usage. The goal of scholarly use of primary/secondary or primary/secondary/tertiary is to improve original research in scholarly disciplines, thus favoring primary sources over secondary and tertiary sources in those disciplines, while Wikipedia's goal is to avoid original research and be a repository of information, thus weighing its orientation towards the use of secondary and tertiary sources in topics where multiple sources exist and where significant analysis, generalization and/or synthesis are involved. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• No, but first of all, it ought to be in WP:RS. How on earth did we end up putting a breakout of "sources and how to use them" on any page other than "Wikipedia:Reliable sources"? Second, in its present form, it's a hacked-up little collage of ideas that doesn't reflect a good understanding of "how we use sources". We ought to have an explanation of how to use sources, including whatever distinctions exist between primary and secondary sources, but I think a complete rewrite is needed. Complete -- ignore what the current text says, think through the issue, rewrite it from the beginning.--Father Goose (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. While there needs to be guidance on the use of sources, there's no need to use the complicated and confusing framework of primary sources and secondary sources. Almost no Wikipedia editor even really knows what these two terms mean. The ideal is to use other terminology that doesn't have so much baggage. Failing that, we need to use standard definitions of primary and secondary sources. In any case, we need to specify exactly what kinds of reliable sources fit within the "bad" category and which fit within the "good" category, because most primary sources used by Wikipedians, like peer-reviewed journals, novels, and journalistic interviews, are very "good" and should be encouraged. COGDEN 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• No, explaining core content principles like these is typical policy material, e.g. saving a lot of time when explaining to new editors how we do things around here. Note that it's highly unlikely that a consensus to remove such longstanding principles from the policy (years, similar language was there when I started editing almost two years ago) will emerge. Arguments per my edit history, Jossi, Dave, Kenosis, et al. Avb 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yes as per the commendations of FatherGoose and Cogden and Kenosis to move out.
  It is rather clear that
  1. the current differentiation of PSTS contributes nothing to an understanding of NOR and
  2. thus - in NOR - it violates the principles of Occam's razor and WP:KISS;
  3. it is so all-encompassing that it can actually be misused to show "new editors how we do things around here";
  4. it hypnotizes editors into equating "sources" with "primary sources";
  5. it subverts WP:RS by willy-nilly redefining/qualifying what is/isn't "reliable" and what is/isn't a "source."
  -- Fullstop (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, my statement was "such a move would be premature at this moment in time, though, so it should be left right where it began roughly four years ago", in the context that the policy is four years old and that thousands of WP users have come to expect that it's part of WP policy, which includes those who've heard the audio version of this policy complied and disseminated at the beginning of 2007. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Aaah. Only that the original (and perfectly valid) idea behind a mention of source type (February 13, 2004) has since been lost.
      The loose cannon we have today conclusively broke its relationship to NOR on September 6, 2005 (after picking up speed a a week earlier).
      -- Fullstop (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yes and No We should get rid of the arbitrarily defined terms, and replace PSTS with a plain language explanation of the essential points. Dhaluza (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• No. Often during disputes editors presume that their own interpretations or conclusions from primary sources are definitive and should be given priority over contrary interpretations found in secondary and tertiary sources, whereas the opposite is the case: in most cases, in an editor dispute over the meaning or impact of some aspect of a primary source material, only solid secondary or tertiary published references suffice to source novel claims in WP. PSTS clause is needed in WP:OR to offer clarity in Rock, Paper, Scissors style battles over which variety of source is the trump card when a claim has been challenged as an editor's novel interpretation or conclusion, ie "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position".Professor marginalia (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC) revised Professor marginalia (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Because you initiated the Yes/No and "dispose of" can be ambiguous, could you clarify your comment please? Its missing a crucial prefix that should read: "The PSTS section should be <xyz> in NOR because ..."
    As it stands your comment suggests:
    The PSTS section should be retained in NOR because "in an editor dispute over the meaning or impact of some aspect of a primary source material, only solid secondary or tertiary published references suffice to source novel claims in WP."
    But that is presumably not what you meant to say. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I hope this is clearer. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is a trump card needed to resolve a NOR issue--either the fact or conclusion is published, or it's not. If it's not, it's OR; if it is, it's either a RS or NPOV issue. It does not matter what type of source it is published in. If the source only published facts, and the editor used that to cite conclusions, the conclusions are unpublished, plain and simple. Dhaluza (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • As I have seen and apparently many other editors here have as well, editors frequently do assert that either a primary, secondary or tertiary source can be used to assess if some claim added by an editor, (usually based on a P in my experience, though not always), is a personal or novel interpretation or conclusion taken from it. One editor has repeated the assertion here more than once that taking directly from a primary source is superior reference to the "interpretation" given in a secondary source. There are pros and cons, and strong differences of opinion between editors on this very issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Sort of, but not really. The definition of PST differs considerably from field to field. The definition we're using is the one commonly used in non-science fields (or social sciences). In the natural sciences we think of PST very differently. In particular we consider primary sources the best sources; i.e., the peer-reviewed literature, in strong conflict with Wikipedia's caution that "primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." What WP calls primary sources, we view as raw data. See e.g., here for some of the pitfalls of a PST classification -- there are many instances where a source type listed as primary "may also be secondary", a type listed as secondary "may also be tertiary", and so on. Let's keep most of the present ideas regarding discrimination between different types of sources but move away from the somewhat arbitrary and potentially confusing nomenclature of PST. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• No Discussion of these sourcing issues should be a guideline, not a policy. Policies are for clear, enforcable, hard-and-fast rules. Matters that are subject to exceptions and judgment are more appropriate for guidelines then policies. These sourcing categories are not hard-and-fast. They should be addressed in a separate guideline, not the NOR policy itself. --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you meant Yes it should be disposed of; No? Dhaluza (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

**Please view clarification above and adjust your comments if need be. This is the talk page for WP:NOR and the discussion currently underway is whether to dispose of the PSTS clause in WP:NOR. Thank you. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your strawpoll is pretty good in asking a true/false question, but unfortunately, you asked it in the negative, which always is more likely to confuse. You should have asked "Should we keep the PSTS secrion in WP:NOR". (Ref: from Robert's Rules of Order) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• No. PSTS is central to avoiding original research, as has been said many, many times. Relata refero (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How is source typing important for understanding how not to include unpublished claims? If the claim has been published, it's not OR, so why does it matter what type of source published it? People may try to misuse sources to justify OR, but at bottom the problem is that the resulting claim is previously unpublished, not that the sources were misused to make it. Dhaluza (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The discussion here seems to be morphing month-to-month. A few months ago, I think the anti-primary crowd would dispute this statement, but now, I think that their argument is, "Okay, I'll admit that accurately-cited primary sources can never be OR per se, but having the policy here nevertheless makes OR statistically less likely". Thus, the PSTS policy supposedly belongs here because one of its effects is to reduce the statistical likelihood of OR, even though the connection to OR is indirect. The biggest problem with this thinking is that the statistical connection actually works the opposite way, at least in my experience: the further-removed a source is from the original material, the easier it is for an editor to inject his own interpretations into that twice-removed material. The closer you are to the original source, the easier it is to enforce fidelity to it, and to detect departures. COGDEN 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• No, it can be a useful guide-- but unless we can agree on the definition it would be better to remove it altogether than continue the perennial debate about it . DGG (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• No This section of the policy has helped disallow citing some documents floating around the web -- a letter, an affidavit -- that made egregious claims that were never corroborated in the 20 years since they were written. TimidGuy (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • *sigh* "Help disallow citing some documents" is what the eponymous *WP:RS* is there for. NOR policy cannot be used to disqualify sources, doing so undermines RS policy. The principle behind NOR is "stick to sources"; the allowability of sources (that are then stuck to) is governed by WP:RS. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, allow primary sources as currently stated in the policy. Links to primary sources immeasurably increase Wikipedia's credibility; let's rely on the rest of WP:NOR to keep out individual interpretations. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PSTS relative to subject

A common concern is explaining that these categories are relative to the subject, so that a primary source in one context can be a secondary source elswhere. To point this out at the outset I've extended the introductory sentence to explain this: "Sources may be divided into three basic categories of how they relate to the subject being written about" This replaces a more extended example which was added earlier, and ties in with an edit which usefully clarifies the use of secondary and tertiary sources[11] which I welcome. .. dave souza, talk 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal: moving PSTS to WP:V?

We've talked several times about moving PSTS to its own article and fleshing it out, but here's another possibility: what about moving it to WP:V? (Not WP:RS, because it looks like that article is just about dead, and will soon be deleted.) This will help us work out some of the current contradictions between WP:V and PSTS, such as the fact that some sourcing practices currently accepted by V are prohibited by PSTS. We need V and PSTS to be consistent. Plus, the arguments in favor of PSTS have very little to do with original research anymore, and much more to do with the reliability of primary sources and how to cite them properly. Yes, there's the occasional argument that original research would be more difficult if editors have to go through the hoops of using secondary sources, but nobody is arguing that citing primary sources in a verifiable way is itself original research. PSTS is really an "enhanced" verifiability requirement, and should be included, if anywhere, at WP:V. COGDEN 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think PSTS is really a Verification issue... and it isn't really an issue of reliability either. The simple fact is that using a primary source is very difficult to do without introducing OR. A strongly worded caution about that difficulty needs to be in this policy, as the misuse of primary sources relates directly to the concpet of NOR. So, we are going to have to have some sort of discussion about using primary and secondary sources in this policy no matter what we do. I am more open on the question as to whether we define these terms here or on some other page... as long as we keep the caution about use and/or misuse. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea. I, and others are in fact arguing that it is very hard to cite primary sources in many cases without introducing original research. Plus, V might permit some things that PSTS disallows, but that does not mean they are inconsistent; they are complementary. Relata refero (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While I would agree that it is easy to misuse primary sources if you intend to publish OR on WP, I do not agree that the converse is true. It's also easy to use primary sources properly, provided you "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Dhaluza (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that PSTS is really talking about RS and NPOV issues. If you are misusing a source, but the content has been published, then it's not OR. OR must be original, and therefore unpublished. Using a source, whether primary, secondary, tertiary, or quantinary, to support your arguments is OR because what you are saying has not been published. But including arguments actually published by someone else is a matter for RS or NPOV to cover. Stretching NOR to try to be all things only makes it confusing and subject to misuse. Dhaluza (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and also add that it is no less easy to misuse secondary sources if you intend to publish OR on WP. In fact, I'd argue it is much easier. If you cite secondary sources for your original research, you are doubly-removed from the primary sources, and it's much easier to misconstrue the primary sources. For example, look at the following, and ask in which of the following examples is OR most facilitated?:

1. Joe Editor misquotes an article in Creationist Enquirer (secondary source), which misquotes an article in Paleontology Journal (primary source).
2. Joe Editor misquotes an article in Paleontology Journal (primary source).

It's much easier to detect and remove OR in the second case, because the only issue is whether Paleontology Journal actually says what Joe Editor claims it says. If you have to go through the additional hoop of Creationist Enquirer, you are bound to get edit wars, and it's much more difficult to erradicate the OR. Trust me—I've had these kind of battles with secondary sources, and going straight to the primary source helps things immensely. COGDEN 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that several recent proposals have no basis in current practice. Various PSTS changes seem e.g. to miss the fact that interpretive/evaluative/etc secondary sources are required to assess (un)due weight. Also, what happened to the standard that we shouldn't make large changes to policies without wide discussion or smaller changes to policies without talk page discussion, and can only make non-controversial changes when using only edit summaries? Avb 22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you advocate this, since you have three times inserted the phrase "Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors", because "I saw a consensus for that version". But, "that version" was first entered today, without any discussion on the talk page. What is going on here? COGDEN 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientific articles

I see an edit adding this: "Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors." I oppose this edit on the ground that it could be used to exclude peer-reviewed scientific articles as sources of conclusions based on scientific experiments reported in the same article. For the same reason, I also think this wording needs to be changed: "A primary source is a document or person very close to the situation being written about. [...] Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation." Two suggestions for changing the latter are: (1) change "another reliable source" to "a reliable source" or "a source stating that interpretation". (2) change it to "requires a secondary source", and somewhere in the policy, e.g. in the section on secondary sources, insert something like, "When a published scientific article reports on an experiment and also makes interpretive statements about it, it is normally treated as both a primary and a secondary source." If we wanted to exclude conclusions of experiments, it would be a V or NPOV issue. It is not a NOR issue, as I think others have pointed out. Anyway, something needs to be done or this policy is going to be used to delete a lot of good encyclopedic material. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on "Where interpretive claims (...) Wikipedia editors." -- I think that would only be a problem if the language applied to published material instead of OR by WP editors. Avb 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The point holds, that an independent source is needed to provide any evaluation or interpretation of the conclusions of peer reviewed scientific papers – in a circumstance where such papers are the primary source, we can report what they say but should seek good secondary sources for any analysis we do, as I found in a couple of cases at Australopithecus afarensis. ... dave souza, talk 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"We can report what they say" -- can we? If what they say is an interpretation or conclusion, we should probably at least be able to say that they said it. But according to the current wording, we can't. In order to "include[d]" such a conclusion in a Wikipedia article, it says we would need "another source". Bizarrely, the uninterpreted details of the paper can be reported, but not its main conclusions! -- which is the opposite of actual Wikipedia practice. I'm not talking about reporting an evaluation or interpretation of the conclusions -- I'm talking about reporting the actual conclusions as stated in the scientific paper. If there's any problem with that, it should not be a NOR problem, since the conclusion is already published. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Avb:It does apply to published material. It says "secondary sources", which is published material, and by not saying "primary sources," which are also published material, it implies that primary sources cannot be used for that purpose. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This language emphasizes existing practice: where Wikipedia is providing interpretation/etc of a primary source, that interpretation etc. should be based on a secondary source, not on OR by WP editors. The language does not exclude interpretation/etc. presented in a primary source. Please note the word "about". Avb 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When peer-reviewed, published scientific papers draw conclusions or otherwise interpret data, they are (and always have been) treated as secondary sources for the purposes of this policy. I am quite certain there is not consensus to change that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A simple formulation: "where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion". State the facts about the conclusions drawn in the primary source, and look for secondary sources for third party evaluation. Of course a scientific paper can be used as a secondary source when it gives an outside view on the primary source we're writing about. ... dave souza, talk 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As with primary sources generally, sometimes peer-reviewed research articles are clear enough to use directly, though the publication of a single scientific article about something is not generally proof of notability. Over-rigid classifications prevent rational decisions in many cases. Guidelines need to be interpreted with understanding of the subject being discussed. DGG (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so, DGG. Avb 00:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for special pleading or added sections: actually its easier than that. When the subject of the article is the phenomenon that the experiment is trying to explain, then we should treat the experiment description as a PS and the discussion of the phenomenon as explicated by the experiment as a SS. This falls neatly within the system already drawn up. When the subject is, as it sometimes can be, the experiment itself, then the whole paper is a primary source. Relata refero (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How about inserting in the section on secondary sources, "When peer-reviewed, published scientific papers draw conclusions or otherwise interpret data, they are treated as secondary sources." --Coppertwig (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's a topic or issue notable enough to write an article, or section, or even a paragraph about, there's almost universally more than one published work on the issue. That is where PSTS is important in the context of WP:NOR. If a published experiment has a unique analysis of certain data, it should readily be possible to find published secondary analysis of that unique primary analysis. And if it's so obscure that no secondary sources exist, why are we discussing it? The "logical flaw" that Coppertwig identifies may apply to original scholarly commentary outside of Wikipedia, but we aren't supposed to be doing original that type of original scholarly commentary in WP. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many, many instances where conclusions in primary sources have not yet been repeated in the secondary literature. Particularly current event topics. For example, the announcement today by two research teams regarding the creation of a new type of stem cells. There's some secondary literature, but the newspapers haven't yet discussed all the conclusions in the papers. All of these conclusions are notable, and should be included in a Wikipedia article post haste without waiting for comments by Pat Robertson. COGDEN 02:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that all of them are notable. Seriously. That's the problem. They may be in this case, but we have no way of knowing.Relata refero (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today, after I saw this insertion, I tried to modify this along the lines Coppertwig suggested above, by referring to just "sources", or to "primary, secondary, or tertiary sources" (because primary sources aren't the only thing you can make analyses about), but this was reverted by User:Avb. I also just tried removing the sentence until we worked out consensus language, and this too was reverted by User:Avb. Apparently, there's some "consensus" in favor of adding this that I don't know about.

Honestly, I think Dave Souza's quite radical suggestion that conclusions from peer-reviewed journals are insufficient verification is absurd. This has never been Wikipedia practice, and although this is technically required by the present language (a problem I've been trying to point out for several months), nobody prior to Souza has actually admitted this. At least this brings the issue into sharp focus: The question is, which is more likely to lead to original research:

1. Conclusions from peer-reviewed scientific journals; or
2. Conclusions from a pamphlet published by some crackpot intelligent design advocate interpreting those peer-reviewed scientific journals?

COGDEN 01:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither. Being previously published, neither should be classed as "original research" on Wikipedia. The problem there is V, NPOV and notability -- not OR. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect on both counts. Where intelligent design is the topic, the original writings of intelligent design proponents are the primary sources. Thus, we quote them or carefully represent those statements without commentary, and use the numerous secondary sources for the analysis. Where reliability of the secondary-source analysis is the issue, WP:RS comes into play. Where NPOV is the issue, WP:NPOV#undue_weight and other aspects of the NPOV analysis come into play. Where an assertion is made that the content of the WP article is unverified, WP:V comes into play. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about when the intelligent design proponents are citing peer-reviewed journals (which they tend to do, and not accurately, either). The crackpot sources are secondary to the primary peer-reviewed journals. But according to PSTS version 17.4 (or whatever this is), we can cite the conclusions of secondary crackpot literature to our heart's content, but we have to be "careful" citing the conclusions of the peer-reviewed journals upon which the crackpot literature is based. COGDEN 02:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Such a content disagreement is still subject to the rest of the core content policy analysis, including WP:RS and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. It might be helpful to view it as analogous to some of the balancing tests used in many a legal analysis where the factors often work interactively with one another. In Wikipedia, like it or not, we're conduits of a sort-- our opinion that something is "crackpot literature" is irrelevant in the article, and we must derive the notion that something is "unscientific" or "pseudoscientific" not of our own accord, but only by thoroughly assessing the secondary sources, e.g., regarding the viability of certain aspects of evolutionary theory, and the lack of viability of the alternative proposed by the advocates of the alternative. In this case, in general the writings of the original literature on the topic are the primary sources regarding that particular topic, including writings by Behe, Wells, Dembski, Johnson, etc., so we must rely on secondary sources to interpret the implications, which is what was done in that article. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's a balancing test, then PSTS belongs in a guideline, not a policy. COGDEN 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Great-- try persuading the participants in WT:NPOV that because it's a balancing test, that it should be a guideline instead of an editorial policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Another point, putting aside their status as secondary sources for the ideas of real scientists, you agree that Behe, Wells, Dembski, and Johnson are primary sources for their own analytical, evaluative, and interpretive theories in the intelligent design article, which now has featured status. However, in that article, please note the following:

1. Behe (a primary source, remember) is cited for the sole explanation for the creationist view on what "irreducible complexity" is, and that explanation is not backed up by secondary sources. How can this be? Because Behe is a perfectly-reliable primary source on that point, and Wikipedia editors know instinctively that requiring a secondary source here would be stupid.
2. Dembski (primary source) is the sole cited source for the interpretation that Jesus is an "alien life force". Why this breach of PSTS? Because reasonable editors don't care who else besides Dembski thinks that God is an alien. His view is notable, and how best to cite his view than by citing the primary source without filtration through a secondary source?
3. Johnson (primary source) is the sole cited source for his theories on how the Christian God can best be injected into science, and his evaluation of Bible-usage as a potentially negative influence in the field of intelligent design. Should the article's featured status be revoked because of this breach of PSTS? No, because in actual Wikipedia practice, apart from the rarified air inhabited by us policy wonks, it doesn't matter whether a source is primary or secondary. One good, reliable source is plenty.

COGDEN 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Response:

1. If a dispute were to ensue over whether or not that's Behe's official definition of irreducible complexity, or whether or not his definition is adopted by ID movement, other sources would be needed. Also if it were disputed whether or not he is the originator of the idea--that probably shouldn't be self-sourced either. Obvious analogy would be Darwin's On the OoS which went through numerous revisions, and at some points his text even reverted to pre-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Also if there was a dispute over the claim, Darwin can't be used to verify: "Darwin was the first to propose a theory of natural selection".
2. Dembski's a secondary source on Jesus, not a primary source. Where is this claim made in WP btw?
3. Assertions sourced directly from Johnson texts could need verification in secondary sources - it completely depends on how the primary text is used in support of a particular claim. In many cases there is a dispute over whether or not claims from primary sources extend into conclusions which are not given in the source itself. PSTS is not a guideline for choosing one of several consistently confirmational references for the bibliography--it's a guideline for making good assessments whether or not a conclusion, interpretation, or assessment claim is faithfully and directly sourced or whether it's used to synthesize, originate, or stage the set for broader conclusions.

Professor marginalia (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that such statements are not WP:OR and shouldn't be prohibited by this policy, but nonetheless for reasons of WP:NPOV opinion/conclusion statements often need to be attributed as an identified party's opinion/conclusion rather than presented as fact, and may have other issues as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a "primary source"?

It appears there has been a complete transformation of the NOR definition of primary sources" from factual to close sources. This edit from March 8, 2005 introduced the original definition as:

Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.

This edit from October 23, 2006 changed that definition, which had remained basically unaltered, to:

Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The White House's summary of a president's speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, video or transcript of surveillance, a public hearing, trial, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded records of laboratory assays or observations; written or recorded records of field observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

That conflated close sources with examples of factual sources. But then this recent edit removed the examples, leaving a definition here that is inconsistent with the one at primary source. It's also inconsistent with the following two bullets, regarding descriptive and non-analytic claims, which were also added with the original definition as factual sources. Dhaluza (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If we include any definition of primary sources in this article (and I don't think we should), then it should match up exactly with the primary source article which, at least in theory, (1) is NPOV, and (2) is verifiable. That definition is currently as follows:

“ A primary source is a document, recording or other source of information that was created at roughly the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. Primary sources are those sources closest to the origin of the information or idea under study. Primary sources provide researchers with "direct, unmediated information about the object of study." They may contain original research or new information not previously published elsewhere. They are distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. They serve as an original source of information or new ideas about the topic. Primary and secondary, however, are relative terms, and any given source may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used. ”

If we depart from the main namespace definition, we also depart from neutrality and verifiability (and we possibly are conducting original research). Policy pages should show a proper example by following themselves. COGDEN 19:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick to real-world definitions. How else can you hope to remain consistent with the majority of wikipedians who will never read or re-read the detail? If we must depart from existing (verifiable) definitions, a strong case should be made, and the fact that a new definition is being made should be clear and up front. Three key references, from the mainspace articles, for source typing are pasted below. Note the explicit mentions of how it is not easy or it is problematic to make some of the definitions.
http://www.ithaca.edu/library/course/primary.html
http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/primary-sources.html
http://www.library.jcu.edu.au/LibraryGuides/primsrcs.shtml
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the arbitrary close source definition with a quote from primary source that captures the essence of the more generic definition; that is that a primary source is used to provide "direct, unmediated information". Note that this also places the emphasis on how the source is used in an article, rather than who, what, when, where, why and how it was written. For the purposes of NOR, we should only be concerned with how a source is used, or misused, by WP editors, not how they were written by the original authors. Dhaluza (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this change. For one thing, the new language came from article space which, unlike policy pages, is governed by our policies. Avb 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's really not a very good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. Then again, you may want to consider the possibility that you have not understood the argument. It seems less obvious than I thought it would be, so here's a partial explanation. Please consider one of the aspects that, I believe, are very important here: in policies we can and should use non-generic definitions if that is the best way to describe current editing practice, whereas in article space we need to conform to our sources. In other words, yes, our policies have acquired idiosyncratic usage of terms over time, and yes, that's a problem, but we can't simply adopt more generic definitions without upsetting the entire structure. There's also a circular reasoning involved. Avb 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or to sum it up, the definition from article space is attributable to a source, while the one reverted to here is, ironically, OR. Dhaluza (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and quite rightly so. Avb 00:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't think the argument that the definition from article space is not usable has merit, I will revert to the original definition from the policy version linked and quoted above. The current definition relates to close sources, not factual sources, and this transition does not make sense in relation to the core issue of NOR, which is editing that makes WP articles primary sources. Dhaluza (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cogden's revert

Cogden, the sentence you removed has strong consensus. Indeed, it goes right to the heart of the NOR policy. It said:

"Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors."

What is your objection to it? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are my problems with this sentence, and I've tried to make incremental modifications, but they've been reverted:

1. Interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims can be about secondary and tertiary sources, just as easily (if not more so) than about primary sources. Just because the source being analyzed is secondary or tertiary, that's no license for the editor to inject her own original analysis into the mixture, so we shouldn't imply that.
2. You don't necessarily have to use secondary sources. If the primary source itself contains an interpretive claim, analysis, or synthetic claim, you can use that too, as long as the source is not you. You can use tertiary sources, too (which are a type of secondary source).
3. The amended sentence, "Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary or tertiary sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors," which I tried to make but was reverted, is more accurate. Since I was disallowed from making incremental improvements, I thought it best to just revert the change and throw the baby out with the bathwater, which seems to be the prevailing practice around here.

COGDEN 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the longer amended version. Without it, there seems to be nothing in the section relevant to why we distinguish between primary and secondary sources. And is there any point in distinguishing tertiary sources from secondary sources? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have partially reverted Cogden's revert, restoring the sentence, which makes an important point, but without engaging in unnecessary source typing. I have instead placed it in the last paragraph of the section, as follows:

Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims are included in Wikipedia articles, use appropriate sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors.

I think this retains the essential elements while addressing Cogden's concerns above. Dhaluza (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent modification. Thank you. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so... The issue of interpretative claims based on primary sources is what is being addressed here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Are you referring to interpretive claims made by published authors in primary sources, or interpretive claims made by WP editors citing primary sources which do not include that interpretation? Dhaluza (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So then, you are saying that "interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims" of a secondary source be okay then? That only those related to primary sources are the ones being prohibited? That appears to be what the (original) sentence says, while the new version makes it more clear that the type of source doesn't matter. wbfergus ^Talk 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Since people keep toying with live policy language, I've tentatively accepted the reasoning for one of the changes and removed the resulting redundancies instead of outright reversion. Everyone please take a look at my interim version and see whether it works for you. Avb 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict addressing SmokeyJoe's comment above)

At no time in recent history was there anything in the section that establishes why it is necessary or relevant to distinguish between primary and secondary sources.

Establishing relevance to NOR policy hasn't even been made here on talk. All I've seen are claims that "primary sources" (whatever that is supposed to entail) are more susceptible to OR than "secondary" ones. Of course, there is no evidence forthcoming for that either, but even if there was, it could only itself qualify as original research.

Even the amended version does not establish why it is necessary to distinguish between types of sources; the phrase "primary and secondary and tertiary sources" can be collapsed to "sources" with no loss of meaning.

Both the amended and unamended version are equally pedestrian. When stripped of all extraneous verbiage, both just say: "Statements that violate NOR policy should be replaced by statements that don't."

Oh, duh. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I too found it a bit redundant (except perhaps for the purpose described by Jossi) but I think there is significant support for the original edit by Kenosis.

I would certainly support adding reasons. One example might be the special function of interpretive material in secondary sources when it comes to determine (un)due weight: i.e. the relative importance of information in comparison with the rest of the article. In WP:BLP, the canary in the WP:coal mine, this has led to the requirement that a secondary source needs to have commented on a primary source before we can even use the primary source... Avb 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is a WP:NPOV issue, not a NOR issue. Dhaluza (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's one of the reasons underlying the PSTS distinction, regardless of the location of its language. Perhaps you're in favor of moving the PSTS language to a separate page as suggested by Kenosis (see #Let's find Waldo)? Avb 00:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated many times, I still have not seen a solid argument for why PSTS is essential to NOR, and no one has yet taken up that challenge. PSTS may be useful in some context, but if it is not essential to NOR, then it is superfluous here. NOR relates to including previously unpublished material; if it has been published, then from a NOR perspective it does not matter what type of source it was published in, because it is not original. Dhaluza (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll to narrow dispute more

With views expressed so far leaning strongly towards keeping some form of a PSTS clause in the WP:NOR policy, it might be helpful to try to gauge where we are about defining primary, secondary and teriary sources in terms of their application to this WP policy. The polls are just meant to be tiny baby steps to sort out how strong the consensus is for going one way, vs another way, vs standing in place.

Should this clause adopt

A) an academically sourced definition of primary, secondary and teritiary sources?

B) a definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources which was previously accepted at wikipedia by consensus?

C) somewhat different terminology to replace primary, secondary, tertiary to avoid confusion with other definitions used elsewhere

D) none of the above (please specify)

Please identify a choice by its letter and share a concise, single sentence argument for holding that position. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)