Template talk:Primary sources/Archive 1

Reformatted and moved
I've reformatted this template to the talk page style, and moved all uses of it to the talk page. In general templates meant for editors, which this most certainly is, belong on talk pages. Moreover only relying on primary sources is not a great problem, and is explicitly permitted by official policies like No original research. - SimonP 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalized by an anonymous sockpuppet
This template was recently vandalized by an anonymous sockpuppet of User:Hogeye. I fixed it. --AaronS 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Terminology and confusion
I think using primary sources in general can actually be quite useful. The problem this template is trying to address is that of using self-referential primary sources. I think the title "primarysources" is a bit confusing as a result. -- Beland 20:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Would a change of the title to "Template:Reliablesources" resolve that problem. I've only been on WP for a few months, and I find the lack of citations, and the citations of web pages of dubious value, to be issues that need to be addressed. Unevaluated presentation of primary sources is a different problem that may need to be addressed as "poor analysis" or something along that line. --SteveMcCluskey 20:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Especially in scientific articles, primary sources are very useful. Probably need a template for that. Chaos syndrome 11:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beland. I think this template and its text should be changed from "primary sources" to "self referential sources." JianLi 06:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move — Mets501 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Primarysources → Template:Questionablesources — The text of this template presently indicates that primary sources can't be reliable sources. This contradicts WP:OR and WP:RS. Primary sources aren't a problem when used correctly, so I'm requesting both the name and the text of this template be changed to avoid the primary/secondary issue altogether. The real issue is reliable sources vs. questionable sources. Template:Original research already covers misuse of primary sources. -- Bailey(talk) 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add    or     on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose move. I have updated the language so that it no longer seems to completely prohibit the proper use of primary sources. This template is intended to be used on articles which provide only primary sources, such as many of the television and fiction articles. -- Satori Son 19:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments:

Since this has elicted no comments, and the previous commentary on this talk page seems to support it, I have edited this template to avoid explictly mentioning primary sources. Wikipedia policy makes it clear using primary sources is okay; this template previously confused the issue by equating primary with unreliable. -- Bailey(talk) 18:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While I understand and agree with some of your concerns, I feel the major change you have made to this template has severely limited its usefulness. It now no longer serves the purpose for which it was designed. While the use of primary sources is acceptable in some instances, WP:V states that an article must provide "reliable, third-party published sources" (emphasis mine).  This template was designed for use on articles that rely solely on primary sources, and typically those that are self-published by the subject of the article.
 * As an alternative, I have changed to the following: "This article or section does not cite sources or references that appear in a credible, third-party publication. The sole sources provided are self-published primary sources, such as websites, publications, or media broadcasts that are directly affiliated with the subject of the article. You can help Wikipedia by also providing appropriate citations to reliable sources that are independent of the article subject."
 * Like I said, I agree with you that the wording of the template was questionable, but I hate to completely gut the thing, and the above suggested language complies with all relevant policies. -- Satori Son 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The third-party language in WP:V is troublesome, but WP:NOR still makes it clear that use of primary sources is perfectly acceptable. It also directly states: Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources. If the issue is misuse of self-published sources, that has nothing to do with with those sources being primary or secondary. I've changed the text again, because there's no difference between "self-published sources that are directly affiliated with the subject of the article" and "self-published primary sources directly affiliated with the subject of the article", as far as I can tell. And, while there might be something better than the name I've proposed, "primary sources" is still a misleading name for this template. -- Bailey(talk) 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you are completely missing the point. The issue is not the misuse of self-published sources, it is the inappropriate sole and complete reliance on primary sources (except in one of those "rare" occasions where it is acceptable).  The template you are trying to debate is self-published.  This template is called primarysources for a reason and it is not misnamed.  What template do you suggest we use when an article inappropriately relies solely on primary sources when it is one of "most articles" that should not? Why should we be seeking to rename this template that addresses a legitimate policy issue clearly outlined in WP:Verifiability, especially when there is already another template that addresses the entirely different concern you are referring to?  If you truly think this template servers no purpose as written and named, please submit it for a Templates for deletion discussion so we can see what the broader community thinks. But in the interim I humbly ask that you please stop trying to dilute its message. -- Satori Son 22:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not trying to intentionally dilute the content of this template. I merely misunderstood it. I apologize for missing your original point. My only agenda here is trying to clarify what situations this template addresses, which I thought from the beginning was unclear. Obviously, I've clarified in the wrong direction with my previous attempt, so let's start over. If this template is supposed to address articles that only include primary sources when they should be using secondary sources, how about this?


 * This way, if self-published sources are being misused, we can use the self-published template; if self-published primary sources are being misused in way that's overtly unbalanced (ie, over-representation of sources affiliated with the subject of the article) an NPOV tag could be used; but if the only problem is that there should be secondary sources for the sake of comprehensiveness and out-of-universe perspective then this tag would relevant. -- Bailey(talk) 23:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a great start. I'm certainly not opposed to language that makes the purpose of the template more clear. My only concern is that we don't want to limit the applicability of the template.  Your suggested rationale above is very good, but there may be other reasons primary sources alone are insufficient.  For example, an article might require credible, third-party sources to establish notability, or to meet WP:V. If we get too specific as to why secondary sources are needed, it's arguably not as versatile. What about an additional sentence such as "Seconday sources are also often required to properly verify information or confirm the notability of the subject."? Just a suggestion. -- Satori Son 00:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my thinking here is that if the article contains no secondary sources and contains unsourced statements, it would be easy to just use this template with another template, such as unreferenced, or unreliable. The uses of primary sources in Wikipedia are so misunderstood that I think it might be preferable to address those issues seperately to avoid conflating primary sources with lack of verification in cases where lack of verification doesn't apply. If the article has unsourced statements, it's probably better to say so outright anyway, rather than just using a template that tacks the issue on as a "maybe".
 * With regard to the notability idea, I'm conflicted. It makes sense to me in principle, but off the top of my head I can't think of ways secondary sources would establish notability without providing interpretation or context. I suppose it could be added to particularly emphasize notability, but I'm a bit shy about that, since notability is such a loaded word in Wikipedia -- it's a quality that we mention all the time, yet have meticulously avoided pinning down a precise rubric for establishing. If you think it's necessary, though, I'll support it, since I'm of two minds here anyway. -- Bailey(talk) 02:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Notability is a loaded concept, and I suppose the more specific a template is, the more guidance it gives editors to improve the article.  And that is obviously the goal here.  I have changed the template to your text above.  Thanks so much for taking the time to hash it out, and hopefully other editors will agree with us.  -- Satori Son 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well. These changes resolve all my issues without requiring a name change, and I think the template is a lot more clear because we had this little brainstorming session. Here's hoping the changes will stick. -- Bailey(talk) 03:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is the difference
Between this template and self-published? -- ReyBrujo 05:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * self-published is concerned with using self-published sources as secondary sources rather than as primary sources. This one seems to assume that there's something wrong with primary sources themselves, which is misleading. I've suggested it be renamed and reworded deal with unreliable sources rather than primary sources because of this. -- Bailey(talk) 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true at all. See my explanation above. -- Satori Son 22:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If no such sources exist
Perhaps we should add a small line that if no such sources exist the article does not warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia? —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I am not sure, people reading such tag stating that the article may not be worth would remove it on sight... -- ReyBrujo 13:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, for some articles, albeit a very small percentage, primary sources alone are sufficient. This tag is intended for use on those articles that, while citing a primary source, do not provide secondary sources to support the analysis and context. Many, many television show and comic fiction articles need this tag, but I think the best solution for those is clean-up and sourcing, not deletion. -- Satori Son 14:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For what articles are primary sources sufficient? This is stated above, but there is no support shown for it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy, even with examples, comes from No original research, which states "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or Braunfeld v. Brown). An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." I have expressed some concerns with that language, especially its seeming contradiction with language from Verifiability, but it is official policy nonetheless. -- Satori Son 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is misleading; while they can rely on primary sources, they should not rely entirely on primary sources. Secondary sources might be insufficient to make a complete article in these cases, but there are secondary sources on any encyclopedic subject, which summarize and corroborate. In the case of current events, there are newspapers and magazines that go back and check before reporting again, and for legal cases there are law journals, magazines, and even later cases that confirm an interpretation using it as precedent. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear as to what you refer as misleading. Whether an article "should" rely entirely on primary sources or not, official Wikipedia policy clearly states that it is permissible in rare instances (the word "entirely" itself is actually used). Even if I agree with you, and for the most part I actually do, we seem restrained by policy from rewriting this template to prohibit the exclusive use of primary sources for an article. Have there been discussion elsewhere to possibly change this policy? The only recent debate I have seen regarding this is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, but there is no indication there of a desire to change WP:OR in this manner. -- Satori Son 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is "permissible" on Wikipedia to have no sources at all, and many articles have no sources at all, but as with any sourcing it is optimal—and possible—to have these secondary sources even in the mentioned rare instances. As with any policy page, we can make changes and if there is disagreement it is discussed, but the policy page is incorrect about it. The change is also not that major, and it is not difficult to come up with viable secondary sources for apple pie or Braunfeld v. Brown (at least, the examples are bad if I can disqualify them just by Lexis-Nexis and Google). —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While I see your overall point, this template was modified to bring it line with existing policy. If you feel that a policy is incorrect, it should be discussed on the talk page for that policy to gather a wide consensus rather than on this template's talk. I've commented on the rest below. -- Bailey(talk) 16:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See below. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How about something a little more implicit like. "Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable secondary sources." Also, secondary sources are not merely "to provide interpretation or context", they are also to have articles with reliable information. That was lost when the template was changed; secondary sources are not merely about the sources being independent of the subject, they are a third party deciding that a subject has a certain importance, and that third party making efforts to verify that information. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to NOR, though, interpretation and context precisely defines what a primary source can't provide and a secondary source can. That's really the only difference between primary and secondary sources categorically. Some primary sources may be less reliable than some secondary sources in some cases, but they aren't categorically less reliable. Ultimately, I would think that virtually all articles will need context and interpretation before they're complete, but that's an issue of completeness, not unacceptable sources. If the sources being used in an article are unacceptable, we have seperate templates for that. As far as establishing the importance of a subject, my feeling is that that's a form of providing context, since real-world relevance can only be established relative to the real world. Regardless, any article that fails to establish the notability of it's subject can always be nominated for deletion. -- Bailey(talk) 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What are the separate templates for unacceptable sources or sources being used unacceptably? —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, unreliable deals directly with the use of unreliable sources. self-published also deals with at least one specific misuse of primary source material. -- Bailey(talk) 23:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about for cases where there are no secondary, reliable sources, and the reason for having them is not simply to provide "context"? This is the much more common case, and the prior wording of this template. Also, note that while primary sources are not categorically inferior to secondary sources, the problem is that the more primary a source, the more editors need to do their own analysis and interpretation of it. Ultimately, we don't need any sources at all for any article about mathematics or physics, but we need them to ensure that someone is not using their own naive interpretation, or that there are not flaws in their proofs; we don't need sources on historical persons, all of the writings and newspapers of the time are available, but who is to decide which interpretation of them is incorrect except reliable sources? —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You've confused me a little here. You say above that while primary sources are not categorically inferior to secondary sources, the problem is that the more primary a source, the more editors need to do their own analysis and interpretation of it. Original analysis and interpretation of primary sources is explictly forbidden by WP:NOR. Primary sources are only acceptable to source soley descriptive claims, with no interpretation. If an article is using only primary sources, but only uses them to make soley descriptive, non-interpretive claims, the article is not violating any policy -- it's just incomplete. That's why "needs secondary sources to provide context and interpretation" makes sense to me.
 * The thing I've concerned about is diagnosing the symptom and not the disease. I agree that an article lacking secondary sources is more likely to suffer from original reasearch/interpretation, speculation, or lack of NPOV balance. Many articles that lack primary sources will also qualify for AfD for notability reasons. If primary sources are not categorically inferior, though, and NOR states that in some cases using entirely primary sources is okay, we should endevour to say what the specific problem with an article is. Primary sources are already confusing enough -- the term means something quite different in history than it does in science. The only thing we can say for certain about an article that uses only primary sources is that there's no legal way for that article to provide "context or interpretation", which is necessary to completeness. If we want to identify other problems, we can use other templates, or even create other templates, to avoid conflating the issues. Templates are cheap. -- Bailey(talk) 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there is a person adding the template in order to specifically question the reliability of the sources. It continues to be useful to do so, in all cases where there are no such "exceptions", even supposing the perfect correctness of the policy with exceptions. There is a need for such a template, and that need was formerly satisfied by this template. Further, these templates were added by people based on the old wording. The overwhelming majority of pages that have this template have it because someone thought the article needed reliable, secondary sources. The current wording of the template makes no sense in these cases; these articles have plenty of "context" and little need for "interpretation". You cannot change a template currently in use to mean something substantially different. Create a new template. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I repeatedly have occasion to use this template, and before that purpose was properly served by this template, which was created for that purpose and served that purpose until it was only very recently changed. Note that in the new wording you proposed, this is rather redundant with context. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry you do not approve of our good faith efforts to bring this template in line with current official policy. It would have been nice if you could have expressed your concerns earlier when a renaming of this template was proposed above. (Perhaps a renaming would have been more appropriate?) Anyway, I've said my peace and you remain unconvinced, so I'll let it go for now. -- Satori Son 18:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Another template can be made, and this one renamed (though the old name would have to remain a redirect at least for many months). Note that it is and always has always been official policy, without dispute, that articles that do not fall under the rare exceptions require reliable, secondary sources. This template can be used in those cases. The template would not need to be added to every article that only has primary sources, but to articles where those primary sources are insufficient that someone is flagging. This is not in conflict with any policy. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template syntax problem
Hiya, I've noticed that there's a push to use dates with this template. Currently, the proper syntax is:. However, this is very non-intuitive, especially because with most other dated templates, the syntax is simpler, like. However, using that format with primarysources gets rather bizarre results. Can someone here update the code, so that it can accept the simpler date format? Or should we perhaps make another template that's easier to use? --Elonka 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Non compliant
The previous version of this template contradicted established guidelines for reliable sources. I have added language to explaiu when primary sources published by the subject can be used. in articles. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside from anything else, 4 lines is way too long. Anyway, this template does not say that every single statement in the article must be cited in third-party publications; non-independent sources are acceptable in certain cases. At one extreme this template says that an article does not have any third-party sources, and that is the situation in which it is most commonly used. This template is used less on articles which cite some, but not many, third-party sources; still, articles must be based on third-party sources. The title of the template and its wording with regard to "primary sources" may warrant changing, but what the template clearly means is non-independent sources, and what it says about them is accurate. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Centrx, editors are using this article too inconsistently. The explanation is needed, but maybe you can summarize it or shorten it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please find agreement on the talk page before editing the template Jeepday 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeepday, we cannot have a template that contradicts policy and/or established guidelines about which there is consensus. I have amended the template to contain wording that makes the template compliant with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To prevent edit and revert wars that show up on all of the pages that have the Primarysources tag please post your suggested changes and reasoning on the this talk page to reach consensus with all editors before changing the text of the template. Jeepday 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * see also The Most Important Thing Possible Jeepday 13:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is incompatible with WP:V and WP:RS
I have discussed my edits and provided arguments for why it needs to be modified so that it does not contradicts established policies (WP:V) and guidelines (WP:RS), related to the use of primary sources in articles about the author(s) themselves. I have highlighted below the additions I find to be necessary for this not to contradict guidelines:
 * This article or section does not cite any sources or references that appear in a credible, third-party publication. The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article, which are acceptable under certain circumstances and if accompanied by third-party sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations from reliable sources.

See:
 * WP:V
 * WP:RS

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the version I came up with before Jeepday reverted everything? I thought this resolved the issue. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for brining it here.

I personally prefer the version presented by User:Jossi IMO it is more clear, I personally would change any to should as below. It gives direction without being as threatening. Just my thoughts the edit belongs to you all, I just post it.

This article or section should cite sources or references that appear in a credible, third-party publication. The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article, which are acceptable under certain circumstances and if accompanied by third-party sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations from reliable sources. Jeepday 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles without any third-party sources are deleted. Also, the template does not need to describe what is on the page ("The sources provided are..."); that is unnecessary and unusual, templates describe what is wrong with the page. Also, this is far too long, and the ther version included the relevant information. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Users are misusing this template because it is misleading. Primary sources are OK sources in the circumstances addressed by the template. The wording The sources provided are primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article means that it isnot OK to use such sources, when actually WP:V states the contrary. Work with me here Centrx, and propose a wording that addresses this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I already did, and it did not have the problematic phrasing. Look at the revision before Jeepday reverted. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * * User Perspective offered - I use the tag primarysources a lot when I working the Stubsensor cleanup project; you can help!. The article “what-ever” is built as or gets tagged as a stub.  A helpful person comes along goes to “what-ever.com” web page copies and pastes the link into the article as an external link.  Next helpful user comes along grabs (and hopefully rephrases) a bunch of content from “what-ever.com”.  Some other helpful user does some wikification.  The page is no longer a stub has lots of valuable content but still needs work, and primarily at this point it needs references and content from other then “what-ever.com”.  Even if Cummins (recently edited example, (also note why I didn’t like the word “any” in Jossi’s proposal)) was originally self published (not saying it was or was not) it is definitely notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  The next step is helping the article broaden it’s point of view and the references.  IMHO articles are not born perfect they are edited into perfection by multiple editors, tags are a tool to help guide that growth.  Jeepday 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx version was an excellent compromise in addressing the issue at hand. Tags are only helpful when they encourage editors to move an article along toward compliance with policies. Restored Centrx version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)