Template talk:Primary sources/Archive 2

Rename or move?
While I greatly appreciate your decision to post for discussion before making a move. Make up your mind User:Centrx do you want rename it to Reliablesources or your tag 5 minutes later to merge it to Unreferenced?
 * 1) (cur) (last)  07:00, 10 January 2007 Centrx (Talk | contribs) ( see talk page there)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 06:55, 10 January 2007 Centrx (Talk | contribs) (Propose rename to Template:Reliablesources; Also, it might be good to do some consolidation with the other templates anyway. Any case where an article would warrant Template:Unreferenced only?)

And why do you want to discuss it on the Template talk:Unreferenced that you chose not to include the merge tag on, instead of here? The Tag clearly directs discussion to occur on this talk page ‘Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move."’

To me a tag named Reliablesources implies that sources (references) all ready on the page are not reliable. While the Tag Primary Sources clearly indicates that more references are needed with out implying fault with the ones currently there (even if they are) “Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article”. The Tag is available to as well as a whole list on Template messages/Sources of articles to question the accuracy of references. Jeepday 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is not merged, it should still be renamed. They are separate things, though the merge could be discussed first and concluded.
 * I forgot to put the merge tag on Template:Unreferenced. It is there now. The idea is just to have a centralized place for discussion, and the original merge tag I used here had Template talk:Unreferenced as that centralized place. It does not really matter where it is, though Template talk:Unreferenced would probably be better because it is probably a more watched page.
 * I don't see why "Reliablesources" would imply that the sources on the page are not reliable, but "Primarysources" would not imply that the sources on the page are not primary. The emphasis of the template is not actually primary sources; that's not how it's used and primary sources are acceptable for articles. A newspaper is a "primary source". Anyway, the purpose is to consolidate these templates, to simplify their use and maintenance.
 * What do you think about the merge? I am thinking it might be better to simply change the Unreferenced template to refer to "credible third-party sources", without using the "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated..." part, as that does not really fit if the person used independent sources but did not cite them. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge
If you merged Template:Unreferenced and Template talk:Primarysources then it starts getting big and leads issues over size like this Template talk:Citations missing. Also if you are going to merge it with Template:Unreferenced it would be completely redundant to move it, my understanding of a merge is that one goes away and redirects to the other. So if you moved it and merged it where would you redirect Template talk:Primarysources to Template:Unreferenced or Template:Reliablesources? Also the merge Idea was not well received on Template_talk:Unreferenced So I would like to suggest that you withdraw that suggestion and we can discuss your two remaining points. Jeepday 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Rewording the template
 * 2) Possibly moving the template to Template:Reliablesources


 * No, it would be no greater than the size of the current Template:Primarysources. If merged, it might warrant being moved to Template:Sources or Template:Reliablesources. No one has yet commented on the merge at Template_talk:Unreferenced; one person made a bizarre 'vote' with no explanation. That's meaningless. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That person has responded with more detail.
 * Why would a vote be meaningless? Jeepday 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by simply casting ballots. They are made based on reasons, with reference to the principles of a free, neutral encyclopedia and from policies derived therefrom. This is even more of a problem if, as in this case, someone uses voting as a first resort. You could have a reasonable vote if it was widely advertised, if it was ensured that the users voting had the principles of Wikipedia at heart and were in fact independent persons rather than sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and if a long discussion period preceded the vote, but that is far from the case here. There are several problems with polling in general or setting up a poll, but in this case I wasn't even making some formal proposal and the comment was presented in the most tentative, self-questioning manner; I was simply asking a question with possible ideas about what to do about it and immediately find that someone responds with a "No. Bye." That is bizarre is not helpful at all; that does not tell me why the ideas are wrong, or possible alternatives that correct the problem I see. That does not even tell me that the person who did it actually considered what I was proposing or the reasons behind it. The alternative possibility which I came up with after reading your objections with reasons would never have been conceived if everyone simply responded with "Yes" and "No", and you can see that in his further explanation the same alternative addresses the concern. I don't think Template:Unreferenced should be replaced with Template:Primarysources; that was the solution I came up with before but it is not good. That's what consensus is here: Reasonable people with similar goals discussing issues, coming up with solutions, and deliberating over what would be best. I say "There's a problem, here's a possible solution", someone else says "Here's a problem with that solution", I say "Oh yes, you are right, here is an alternative", or maybe someone says "There's no problem, here's why". See also Consensus, Polling is evil, and Polling is not a substitute for discussion for general issues. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to Template:Reliablesources
A move to Template:Reliablesources would require an a text that we could all agree upon and a redirect from here Template talk:Primarysources to there Template:Reliablesources, So I would like to suggest that we leave this topic open for discussion but table it until the more primary question of what the text will say is resolved. Agreed? Jeepday 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A move to Template:Reliablesources or a similar wording but not "Primary sources", such as Template:Crediblesources, could use the very same text. What is wrong with the current text? —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is wrong with the current text? Your the one who suggested changing it.  See Template_talk:Primarysources below. Jeepday 14:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of the Template:Unreferenced template, but the current wording here would still be appropriate for cases where there are sources, but not reliable or independent ones. —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewording the template Template talk:Primarysources,
I am always open to rewording for clarification, that is what Wikipedia is about. So what you are suggesting as I under stand it is changing the text from Current (as below) to Proposed (as below)? P.S. Life may keep me from responding for a couple days, if a detailed reply is indicated. Jeepday 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Current - This article or section needs sources or references that appear in credible, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include appropriate citations from reliable sources.

Proposed – This article or section needs sources or references that appear in credible, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include appropriate citations from reliable sources.


 * The possibility was to use the text without "Alone, primary sources..." on Template:Unreferenced, while keeping the current text at this template, not merging them. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting changing the text to match Proposed above (I changed the strike out for clarification)? Jeepday 14:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See the talk page there. I mean without the sentence about the current state of the article. This would still be a sort of merge, but it would not be replacing Template:Unreferenced with this one. This would just be a change on Template:Unreferenced, not Template:Primarysources (though I think a move of some sort is still be appropriate). —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to suggest a specific change suggest it, WRITE IT DOWN SO EVERYONE CAN SEE IT, you are alluding to change this to that with a wave of your keyboard but I (for one) have no idea what you even what to change it to. You have 3 separate ideas here that appear to be linked to a single issue. I am trying to understand but everything is to fragmented and your not making yourself clear, one place your asking for a change and two paragraphs away you are challenging me for mentioning it.  On the 18th of december you User:Centrx changed the wording of this template and reported you were happy with it.  So if any one of the changes you are talking about was done now, how long are you going to be happy with it?
 * I am rambling and probably being a bit grumpy (I apologize if so) In part you are talking about changes that have all ready been discussed and closed.  Is there really a big difference between the suggestion above to move to Template:Questionablesources and your suggestion to move to Template:Reliablesources?
 * Try this write down what the you believe the problem is give detail and reference so others can see what you see. Maybe list some possible solutions to resolve the issue as you see it.  Leave it on your computer a couple days and think about it then post it.  You have some good points and some valid concerns but your presentation is so confusing it makes your solution impossible to see. Jeepday 05:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." is compliant with current policies. Without that caveat, it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If an article needs third-party sources, then it must not have them or it must not have enough. This is just a matter of wording. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Primarysources = Unsourced?
What's the difference between this template and unsourced? They both seem to have the same exact meaning, except that Primarysources is more verbose about it. - Brian Kendig 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A page tagged with Primarysources might have "sources", but not third-party sources. See above. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary Sources Tag Explanation
I was requested to explain why I had used a Primarysources tag on the article Churnet Valley Railway. Well, one thing lead to another and I wrote this in my sandbox User:Jeepday/Sandbox/Primary Sources Tag Explanation. It is well wiki-linked to support the explanation, please feel free to comment on it, or use it. Jeepday 16:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"or add more"
I have changed the last line to "Please include or add more appropriate citations from reliable sources." This way this template is a universal template for articles which need more sources, need better sources, or don't have any sources and need good sources. If anyone objects to the edit, please discuss here. I also think this makes the Primarysources template preferable over unreferenced. --Anthony5429 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also now made appropriate changes to other wording in the template. Please discuss here if you have a question about it. --Anthony5429 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

REWORD
This needs to be reworded - in the wikipedia article on reliable sources, it says that primary sources CAN be used if they are reputable. I saw this tag on an NFL Draft page where the source was the NFL website. Obviously that's a fine source, but the wording of this template led someone to believe it's not. DanielFolsom T|C|U 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:N a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. But at the same time per WP:V Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. So while you can can probably argue a single source of the NFL web site is reliable, using only that source leaves the article open to criticism of failure to pass Notability which it needs to do if you want the article to be able to pass an WP:AFD. Additionally it needs to meet all three of Wikipedia's core content policies Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view and that can be challenging to do with only primary source.  So it kind of breaks down to while the NFL site is probably ok for referencing a fact or two, if it is the only reference available the article most likely has other shortcomings that need to be addressed, or it has other reference available that should be used to remove any question that the article is encyclopedic.  Jeepday 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, per Reliable_sources- one of those (it's linked to in the template - Primary sources are ok if they are "reputable." This is not mentioned in the template and as I stated above therefore the template has been misused. DanielFolsom T|C|U 01:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I don't really care about that one instance - your arguing the instance I'm arguing that this template contradicts basic Wikipedia policy.


 * If an article should be deleted it should be deleted, but this is not a deletion template so obviously it was misused. DanielFolsom T|C|U 01:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by the quote, but a Wikipedia article must have reliable independent sources. That primary sources can be used in certain cases to support an article, does not mean that an entire article can be created with only primary sources. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Omg - I just realized what I did. the template was incorectly placed on a page with multiple sources (obviously refering to the NFL one), so I skimmed through it and missed the "alone" part (probably since I was assuming it was correctly placed according to it). Wow I look like an idiot. I need to stop assuming things.... sorry bout that. DanielFolsom T|C|U 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories not being added?
I've recently added the template to Superheist, Singapore Art Museum, Rosmini College and Ash Comic Convention, yet the articles aren't being added to the relevant categories. One Night In Hackney IRA 15:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed; I hope I haven’t broken anything. —xyzzyn 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed link
I have boldly changed the link from the wikipedia entry on primary source to a policy page - Attribution. IMO the primary source entry is about the use of primary sources by historians and is not particularly helpful for assistance with editing. Rjm at sleepers 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources has been supereceded by Attribution
Reliable sources has been supereceded by Attribution. Should this template be updated to refer to current policy.--ZayZayEM 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RS (which this template links to) now redirects to Attribution. --Geniac 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Att no longer policy
ATT no longer policy. Verifiablitiy link needs to be replaced. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed it back, this page isn't protected though. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Articles lacking sources
I am probably going to be sorry I brought this up,(deep breath) ok, here goes. It would seem kind of pointless to use unreferenced for article with absolutely no references and More sources or Refimprove for those that are poorly sourced if they all place article in the same category. As it happens Refimprove puts articles into Category:Articles lacking reliable references, so perhaps Category:Articles lacking sources should be limited to unreferenced and everything else like primarysources should go to Category:Articles lacking reliable references.
 * Above is posted to Category_talk:Articles_lacking_sources please go there for central discussion. Jeepday (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Strike Usually?
The sentence "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are usually not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." is included in the template. I can't think of subject that would only have primary sources available where those primary sources would be sufficient for encyclopedic entry. Would anyone mind if I removed usually from the template? the sentence would then read "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." Per No_original_research Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source so while Ignore all rules might apply on a rare occasion I think the current template seems to conflict with policy. Jeepday (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem lies within the contradictory language of No original research itself. It currently states that "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 legal cases)." And while I'm not sure that is even accurate (How could you write about a current event without secondary sources? And shouldn't the analysis of a legal case come from a reliable secondary source?), unfortunately it is current official policy.
 * So, the "usually" was likely added to bring this template in line with that language. -- Satori Son 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for full disclosure, please note that this issue was discussed in great detail above at "If no such sources exist", where the opinion I just expressed above was rejected as "misleading" by another editor. Once again, I am not saying I agree with the statement that proper articles can be written using only primary sources, only that official policy says that they can on "rare occasions". Personally, I would strongly support removing that language from WP:NOR, but that decision is a little above my pay grade.
 * I also do not know who re-added the "usually" language to the template. I let the issue go and have not done so. -- Satori Son 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it was recently added without discussion, I don't see any problem with simply removing it on the merits. I don't see any reason why primary sources alone would be sufficient for an entire article. WP:NOR probably means that it is not original research to use only primary sources for a description of a legal case, or that it is okay to have articles that currently or temporarily only have primary sources, but the fact remains that the non-primary sources are eventually needed. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As you are aware, I respectfully disagree with you on the wording of this template. While I wholeheartedly agree with you on the need for every article to have secondary sources, and I really wish that language was not included in WP:NOR, I feel we are obligated to abide by the current language of that official policy.
 * I would be curious to hear the opinions of other editors. And I strongly encourage everyone to go and actually re-read that policy, no matter how familiar you think you are with it. Please do not rely on our interpretations of it. -- Satori Son 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read it, and it is being imprecise. In certain cases articles relying entirely on primary sources are not original research, but that nevertheless does not make for a good article, and it is not relevant to this tag. It is perfectly fine for someone to put this tag on an article without secondary sources, even if it were one of the "rare occasions" on which articles "may" rely entirely on primary sources. While the article may not be original research, it is nevertheless not a good encyclopedia article, and WP:NOR is irrelevant to whether someone is flagging a page as needing primary sources; and unless we are going to paste in all of WP:NOR to this tag, it is misleading to to have "usually" which is itself some random person's interpretation. The tag does not say "primary sources are not sufficient for an article that does not violate WP:NOR", it says "primary sources are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article", by which is meant an encyclopedic article; there is no article that does not warrant having some secondary sources. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored the non-absolute language but used the term "typically". There are occasions where primary sources are used alone--the thousands of bot created articles on populated places from census data are one example, and it would be pointless to apply this tag to all of them. Whether an article based on primary sources is good or bad is not relevant, whether it is good enough is, and the census example shows that it can be good enough for now. I have also added a note to encourage discussion on the talk page. This provides a way to address the specific issues on a particular page so that the tag does not become a permanent badge of shame, but rather is used as a vehicle to address the actionable issues. Dhaluza (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to add an icon?
A conversation has been started at Template talk:Unreferenced to consider adding an icon to the unreferenced family of templates, including this template. Jeepday (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅; it said "intentionally left blank", but I believe the icon I've added is doing fine. If there are objections, please raise them over here. -- Lea (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy?? Nope. Needs rewording.
Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article.

The word "accuracy" is clearly wrong. In various contexts, especially the technical fields I work in, only primary sources can be authoritative. A specification will either say X, or it won't; and if it doesn't, no third party could possibly change that. Easily verified in many cases, just download the PDF and read. That is, primary sources are sufficient for accuracy in those cases ... and in particular, secondary sources can't ever affect accuracy. The bias at WP:NOR in favor of secondary sources over more accurate primary ones is acknowledged, and seemingly will be removed. In any case, this template can achieve its goals without furthering that bias. (Reading various Talk: pages, it seems like that bug/bias in favor of secondary/error-prone sources is newly introduced, sometime in the last year. Hmm...)

More specifically with respect to this template, I'm thinking that rewording should help. Possibly like this:

''This article or section uses only primary sources. Primary sources must be used with care, since they may be unreliable or incomplete. Moreover, primary sources can not establish notability about their topic, and rarely help with context and interpretation. Please add citations from reliable secondary or tertiary sources.''

Comments? That maintains the "add secondary sources" intent of this template, giving a better explanation of just why to add them while getting rid of that bogus claim about accuracy. --69.226.208.120 02:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps wikilink primary sources. WP:NOR seems to have the wrong terminology usage here...
 * Quite frankly, I think this whole template should go away as it is not in line with WP policy or guidelines. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the part about "or section" NEEDS to be removed. Sections only a few sentences long can easily use "sources affiliated with the subject of this article" and easily be accurate. As an example, why couldn't you use the white house website alone to reference the basic dimensions of the oval office? Contrary to this template, they can be sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article.
 * Keep in mind the above editor is pushing an agenda that goes against what this tag is used to call out. 216.85.6.131 12:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that you should focus your comments on the edits of users, not the user himself/herself. As for your comment, that is kinda my point: as-is, this template doesn't have a basis in WP policy or guidelines and, therefore, should be removed, IMHO. If an opinion is an "agenda" to you, then so be it. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, your comment in the edit summary ("As you have pointed out at WP:V, changes like this should be discussed") misquoted what I said. That was a policy. Specifically, "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." This template does not have the same backing as a policy; these are not the same thing and is comparison between apples and lampshades. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the original comment, the purpose of the phrase is that primary sources are needed in order for an article to be both encyclopedic and accurate. A Wikipedia article can be accurate with only primary sources, but it would not be a proper encyclopedia article. Conversely, a Wikipedia article that is encyclopedic but uses only primary sources is not accurate (or verifiably accurate). Perhaps "accurate encyclopedia article" should be changed to "accurate, encyclopedic article"? —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If everything in an article is from primary sources, then it certainly needs more, however, some people take this to mean that if a primary source is used, then it isn't accurate. This view is wrong. While a secondary source is more appropriate and certainly gives more insight, certain things do not need a backup unless they are contentious (i.e. census figures). — BQZip01 —  talk 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The template does not say that data from primary sources is necessarily inaccurate or unverifiable, so I don't see the problem or why the template should be eliminated altogether. However, note in general: even data obtained from primary sources should be verified in secondary sources. There may very well be errors in the primary source data or there may be factors that need to be considered alongside the data in order for it to be interpreted correctly (e.g. changes in the way certain census metrics are tabulated; or trends of false responses as with Jedi census phenomenon). Such errors would be detected and such considerations would be explained by an historian, statistician, etc. who publishes a secondary source. So it is true that primary source data alone is less verifiable and more likely to be inaccurate, even aside from the fact that it is not sufficient for an encyclopedic article. The reason the word "accurate" is used in the template is so that the template is easily understandable by people who do not need to read Verifiability. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Equally, secondary (and tertiary) sources can be unreliable and primary sources sometimes need to be cited to make this clear. Quoting primary sources is different from interpreting it. Ideally, you would quote another secondary source that points out the error in the original secondary source, but that is not always possible. I agree that "accurate" is not the best wording here. The way the template is worded at the moment, it implies that primary sources are inherently unreliable. What is really needed is (depending on the article) the best possible mix of primary, secondary and tertiary sources that establish notability, and provide reliable, verifiable references for the information in the article in question. Generic tags will always be lacking if they try to over-generalise. Carcharoth 13:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)