Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 21

And God...
..came down from the heavens and spoke unto the wikipedians. "Thou shalt not do original research. Thou shalt be a sheep, follow the herd Do not think for thy self. Plagerise work; Do not thy own. Do not believe in ideas, unless someone done so before"

And Jesus said unto the lord

"But father, what if we find something that proves to be absolutley true and will improve the quality of an article, but no one has said so before?"

God replied as thus: "Thy cannot write thus work, unless it has already been done by someone else. It is a vicious cycle, nothing can be written unless it is already wrote. That is thy lords law."

And thus, God acended unto the heavens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Burden of showing consensus
I've tried to make an edit removing a controversial statement in this policy pending further discussion and the arrival at a consensus. However, Vassyana has reverted this, reinserting the controversial policy statement. The statement at issue, which was inserted into the policy in late 2006 without much comment or notice, has to do with a general preference toward secondary sources and a strong discouragement of the use of primary sources.

In Vassyana's comments in his/her second attempt to reinsert this controversial policy, he/she said that "changing policy requires showing a change of consensus". Something for which there was no consensus to begin with cannot remain in the policy simply because there is no consensus to remove it. If such a practice were followed, any editor who could sneak a controversial statement into a policy could be assured it would forever remain official Wikipedia policy so long as there is some minority faction that agrees with her. Wikipedia policies reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia community. They cannot contain statements favored by only a faction of Wikipedia editors. Though Wikipedia is not a democracy, most often, if numerous editors disagree with a controversial statement in the policy, it should be removed. Therefore, I am removing it once again. CO GDEN  04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the current version has been in place for almost a year, it should remain until consensus is reached on any changes to this version. Please stop the edit warring, and find a consensus.  – Dreadstar  †  04:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar, you have it backwards here. We don't need to find consensus to remove a non-consensus statement from the policy. The fact that consensus doesn't exist means that it shouldn't be in the article. Moreover, I wouldn't say the policy has been "in place", because there has never been a consensus, and the policy is not practiced. If there is any doubt that there is no consensus, consider these facts:
 * Since I first noticed the stealth policy change a few weeks ago and brought up the issue, several editors have expressed the opinion that primary sources should not be generally discouraged. That shows there is no consensus.
 * If you take a look at the Wikipedia, and particularly the featured articles, there is a widespread practice of using primary sources. Take a look, for example, at today's featured article Backmasking. I stopped counting the usage of primary sources. Just as a random example, the article quotes a primary source in its very last sentence, an article in a psychology journal, which states the results of primary research. And it's entirely appropriate, too. It's a commendable article. But in flagrant violation of this controversial policy. If this were a true policy, our best articles would be following it.


 * There already is a consensus for the policy without the offending policy statement regarding primary sources. If we want to find other consensus that treats sources non-neutrally, that takes time. In the meantime, we need to maintain the status quo. CO GDEN  04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I? My apologies if that's the case - but I thought content that had been in place for over eight months would require a consensus, considering the very late dispute over its inclusion.  Are we sure there wasn't a consensus at the time the controversial edit was made?  Was it truly a 'stealth edit'?


 * The continued edit-warring must stop, so thanks for not reverting my reversion ...;)   I was hunting for the diff that actually adds the disputed statement to the policy, and potentially the discussion of that edit.


 * I found this addition: 09:46, 23 October 2006, but the wording was slightly different than now, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." The discussion at the time mentions a consensus on that version.  I was planning on looking for the diff that changed it to the disputed former version.  But I guess that's a waste of time.  Perhaps we should conduct a straw poll to see where editors stand on this controversy now.  This would be preferable to the continued edit-warring and eventual protection of the policy page.  – Dreadstar  †  04:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's ridiculous to assert a lack of consensus for a policy statement that stood for almost a year. "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus. That means since it stood for a year after the initial controversy, consent has been clearly established. Consensus can change, as it did over time leading to the current position on primary sources. It can also change in the other direction, but it has to shown that consensus has changed again. That also means that you cannot revert to a year old version and claim that is current consensus. There was not "stealth change" recently or last year. The changes last year were extensively discussed. Recent fine-tuning was also discussed with only one objection after the fact. These changes weren't done by "stealth" as you'd claim. They were discussed and debated on a very highly watched page, not in some dark corner. You may not like the changes and you're welcome to say so, and even to solicit general opinion from places like the policy village pump, but you just can't walk in and turn back the clock because you disagree. Vassyana 05:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Vassyana for proving that I wasn't crazy...;) The evidence you've provided proves this was no 'stealth edit' and consensus had been reached on the current version.  I agree with that consensus and oppose reverting back to the version from more than a year ago. This version is preferable to me. Just to be clear, I agree that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.". – Dreadstar  †  05:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." If necessary, I will explain why.  TableManners 05:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I too think that the primacy of "secondary sources" is a critical component of this policy. And if discussion is reopened I would like to revive my proposal to add "religious scriptures" to the list of examples of primary sources. Abecedare 06:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the primacy of "secondary sources" is a critical issue, and think that more strong emphasis should be put on the importance of using secondary sources published by recognized academics when such sources are available. I strongly second the proposal to add "religious scriptures" to the list of examples of primary sources and strong language should be added along the lines of "religious scriptures may be quoted to establish what they say, but cannot be used to establish facts.  Buddhipriya 06:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have examples of where this is done (using religious scriptures to establish facts)? Also, what is the rationale behind this?  The implications that religious scriptures are primary sources is interesting.  06:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rationale: Religious scriptures are often (always?) written in esoteric language whose interpretation is the subject of innumerable PhD theses and unending scholarly/lay debate. As such their analysis by anonymous wikipedians is inappropriate (of course quoting documents to show what they say is fine, as long as accompanied by critical commentary by secondary sources)
 * Examples My God, ar you kidding! :-) There are perhaps dozens of such attempts everyday on the few Hinduism related pages on my watchlist. Example: 1 Abecedare 06:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I have it. I thought such edits were being allowed to stand, and you wanted a policy change.  It sounds like you are just looking for a quick wikilink to avoid unnecessary debates.  Let me know if I got this wrong.  Also, I am actually working through an issue that I feel needs clarification.  See below, and comment if you think you have a valid analysis. TableManners 06:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is right; IMO adding "religious scriptures" would be just a useful (Godsent ?) clarification of existing policy and will not involve a policy change/expansion.
 * Aside: I am certain that their are scores of Hinduism related pages alone that cite scriptures to establish facts; such additions are often let to stand because of editorial neglect/laziness (mea culpa) or in consideration of religious sensibilities; but that is not something that can be handled by promulgating policies. Abecedare 06:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding my vote for the retaining the current version's emphasis on the primacy of secondary sources. TimidGuy 11:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Put me down as one who finds the attempt by (some) Wikipedia editors to arbitrarily and a priori categorize primary sources to be unreliable to be without merit. That's a badly complex sentence, what I mean to say is that there should be no language in Wikipedia policies that denigrates primary sources.

It's almost unbelievable. Wikipedia policy is centered on the notion that Wikipedia editors simply can't determine whether or not any so-called OR is valid or not so it is rejected yet somehow simultaneously this same body of editors,incapable of making such a determination (some of them, anyway), declares that it can determine, with finality, that primary sources are inherently and irredeemably inferior to secondary source.

The claim is also made that the EB relies on secondary sources. Have you never heard of how Einstein's contribution to one edition of the EB ended up in the article "Wave Theory of Light" because he didn't submit the material in time for articles that would have been in earlier volumes (the volumes were edited and published serially, not all at once)? (Interestingly, the supplement to the 11th edition stated that Einstein's work was important, but didn't say why - but that's an aside.)

(Effort spent here might better be spent beefing up the article on sophistry.) --Minasbeede 04:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Facts and Interpretations
The definition of secondary sources currently reads, in part: ... An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.

Scholarly work focuses on primary sources precisely because it focuses on facts, more than later interpretations of these facts. As written, this makes it easier to reference interpretations than facts, which is just backwards.

I suggest (rambling):
 * Wikipedia articles should build on factual claims, not interpretations
 * Wikipedia editors should not introduce new factual claims (OR) or new interpretations (OR)
 * Wikipedia articles should list sources for important factual claims and all non-obvious interpretations
 * Factual claims can come from primary or secondary sources.
 * Interpretations can come from primary or secondary sources. Nonpartisan secondary sources are preferred; however, other sources may provide fact claims which contradict the interpretation in question.
 * Quotes may be used, but are not necessary. If possible, quotes should come from the primary source and appear in secondary sources (some older quotes may only appear in secondary sources).
 * Quotes should be removed if they are taken out of context
 * Quotes may be challenged if they contradict other statements from the same author, if they contradict secondary sources about their author, if they are excessive, if they are misleading, or other reasons. Jacob Haller 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very opposed. At the root, such a liberal policy would open up a world of abuse and grossly neglects some basics. For example, historical sources need to be evaluated for accuracy, reliability and similar factors. That requires the use of secondary sources to avoid original research. To present a specific, Caesar's Gallic War is widely renowned for its exacting language and relative accuracy. However, it is also known to contain likely false hearsay and is considered a masterwork of propaganda. So, even one of the most well-regarded historical sources has problems and only reliable secondary/tertiary sources can distinguish for us between the good and the bad, if we're to avoid original research. Primary sources were discouraged with good reason, the change spurred by abuse of such references. Outside the census data and precious few other examples, there is no demonstrated need for primary sources, and we're perfectly allowed to judge when an exception is appropriate. Vassyana 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns. But the way this is written, it's as though the addition of interpretation makes it the reliable source, and we end up being able to cite interpretations, but not facts. I wish we could tag multiple qualities of sources. Jacob Haller 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any bar to citing facts. You can cite primary sources - you just can't use them to make a case that goes against their interpretation by reliable secondary sources. You could cite Einstein's paper on special relativity directly (despite it being a primary source) - you just can't cite it in support of the Time Cube. I think that's really (one of) the point(s) of WP:NOR. MastCell Talk 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy to see that someone above has cited 'common sense', never forgetting that once 'common sense' was that africans had not soul, and perhaps also women as well. But apart this, the fact remains: there are many good stuff both about first and secondary sources, and still the question should be better understood. If i write about Anna Frank or Caesar is pointless tell me 'use only secondary sources'. Perhaps this was meant more for Mein Kampf and similar stuff. Still if i check on a diary of an ace and then a source that negate that day one air victory has occourred, i must at least take care also of the detailed narration of this ace. Then i can add that ufficially squadron X did not substain any losses in Y day, but this not discard automatically 100% the 'ace' narration of the fact, at least must be reported as 'claim'. But as i would remark, the common sense is good, but must be better understood. As example, here in Italy there are many parts burning in flames. Common sense should suggest to arrest incendiarys and trown away the key, instead they are arrested and then released, so if there is still a forest that they did not yet burn, they had the opportunity to do so as freemen. Common sense is good, but overall is not meaning any precise rule and automatic action, nor it does a policy that do not discriminate between Hitler and Anna Frank. Becasue this is the real problem.--Stefanomencarelli 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Jacob Haller's analysis is a good one, although I think it's important to build both on facts and interpretations. Sometimes interpretations are just as important as facts. I think maybe we should start a separate Wikipedia Guideline, or maybe beef up Classification of sources, because this issue gets far beyond the basic issue of prohibiting original research, and also includes issues of WP:NPOV (secondary sources are more biased than primary sources), WP:Notability (the existence of secondary sources is one indicator of notability), and WP:Reliable sources (sources, whether primary or secondary, must be reliable). CO GDEN  17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree: build on both facts and interpretations.  Facts can be based on primary sources, and interpretations from secondary sources. Both are important to a good encyclopedia article. --Coppertwig 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently the page says in bold type: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." This gives a strong impression that primary sources are not to be used. Perhaps it needs to be edited/clarified -- or at least the bold type removed. --Coppertwig 19:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dual nature of OR
I think Jacob Haller hit on a very important point in the second bullet above: " Wikipedia editors should not introduce new factual claims (OR) or new interpretations (OR)." OR as defined here has two different aspects: This may be behind much of the confusion, misunderstanding, and misapplication of this policy. This NOR policy brings two different concepts under one umbrella term, but does not make it clear that it is talking about two different but related things by comparing and contrasting them. We should further develop this distinction. Dhaluza 12:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Creating a primary source by making new factual claims
 * Creating a secondary source by making new interpretation of facts

Proposed new section on Primary and secondary sources
Here is a proposed new section on primary and secondary sources. I think this is a better explanation of the difference between primary and secondary sources, and sets a clear rule for editors to follow, which we need, since this is a policy, not a guideline. If we want to make further suggestions or guidelines regarding the primacy of primary or secondary sources, we can do that in a separate guideline, or at Classification of sources.

Primary and secondary sources
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways. Sources may be divided into two categories:


 * A primary source is a manuscript, record, or document providing original research or documentation. A primary source is where original data, information, theories, or conclusions first appear, and all original research begins its life in a primary source.


 * A secondary source is a second-hand report or review of a primary source. It includes reviews or interpretations of original research written by someone other than the original researcher. A source may be both a primary source and a secondary source; for example, if a scientist reviews the experimental results of another scientist, her review is a secondary source. But if the scientist makes further novel conclusions based on the prior scientist's data, her writing is also a primary source with respect to those novel conclusions. Secondary sources that review many primary and other secondary sources are sometimes called tertiary sources. This sub-category includes textbooks, treatises, dictionaries, and encyclopedias such as Wikipedia itself. Tertiary sources are not usually sources of original research, though they may report and review original research found in other publications.

Wikipedia can never be a primary source. Before being cited by a Wikipedia article, all original research, data, or information must first appear in a primary source, or be commented upon in a secondary source. CO GDEN  18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The use of "original research" here does not fit in with my understanding of it. Original research does not begin its life in a primary source.  It can be born in my own imagination.  I have done so before when composing examples on this talk page.  This proposal is very far off-base in my opinion.-- Birgitte  SB  18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's in your own imagination, it isn't a "source". You can't cite "my mind": it has to be something written. CO GDEN  22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly "original research" is the opposite of "source-based research" it does not depends on sources.  You cannot say "all original research begins its life in a primary source"-- Birgitte  SB  13:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. It differs from WP:RS. It's important that Wikipedia articles be able to cite scientific research articles. In a scientific research article, the actual data (such as filled-out surveys) is a primary source; the published report is a secondary source and normally contains interpretation of the results by the scientific authors. Peer-reviewed articles are normally considered reliable sources. Disallowing them would result in major cutting of science pages -- a lot of useful information would have to be removed. I doubt this change could achieve broad consensus. --Coppertwig 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it's important to cite scientific research articles. This edit would not disallow that, and in fact encourages it. Just because a new theory in a scientific article is a primary source doesn't make it unciteable. Primary sources aren't bad, they're just original. CO GDEN  22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to suggestion
Just as a quick note, it has been pointed out that, in certain unusual cases, wikipedia can be a primary source - about itself.

In terms of Classification of sources, if there is a perceived need (as there seems to be sometimes) then that can be worked into a guideline, although it would need to change in focus somewhat. SamBC(talk) 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can be a primary source, and not only about itself. For example, if someone makes a controversial statement on a Wikipedia talk page, and that statement is later quoted in newspaper articles, and then there's a Wikipedia page about the controversy, the original talk page statement would be a primary source about the statement -- which might have nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Coppertwig 19:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia talk page can be a primary source, but a Wikipedia article should never be a primary source. That's the essence of the original research policy. CO GDEN  22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * An edit to a Wikipedia article can be a primary source, for the same reason as the talk page. Wait, even a Wikipedia article itself (or a particular version of it) can be a primary source.  Suppose there are a lot of newspaper articles about an incident centring around the fact that a certain Wikipedia article contained a certain controversial (perhaps false or even outlandish) statement at a certain time.  The original version of the Wikipedia article would be a primary source to establish a basic fact re the incident -- although the newspaper articles would be required to establish the significance of the whole incident.  But, the Wikipedia article would not be being used as a source in the ordinary way, i.e. to gather facts about the subject matter of the article by taking it at face value. --Coppertwig 22:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that a Wikipedia article can be a primary source. I'm just saying that it shouldn't. If a Wikipedia article every becomes a primary source, something in the process has gone wrong, or somebody hasn't followed Wikipedia policy, and it usually becomes an embarrassment for Wikipedia. CO GDEN  19:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that a Wikipedia article should be able to be used as a primary source in a case such as I described. Please explain why you think it should not.  To clarify, here's an example:  Suppose a  particular version of a Wikipedia article says something controversial about a country, and a leader of another country publicly quotes it as "Wikipedia says that ...", the first country takes offense, and a war begins as a result.  Suppose it's all documented in newspaper articles and other reliable sources.  Later, a Wikipedia article about the causes of the war should be able to use the (appropriate version of the) original Wikipedia article as a primary source to establish a basic fact, i.e. the fact that the Wikipedia article did (or did not) say a certain thing, in the same way that it would use, say, the original newspaper article as a primary source if it was a remark in a newspaper instead that had started the whole thing. --Coppertwig 19:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure we want a special rule for scientific articles?
OK, so there's been a lot of discussion a few sections up. So far, anything published in an academic journal was a secondary source, just like newspapers and non-vanity press books were secondary sources. While that did create a situation where an article in a peer-reviewed journal that reported the original experiment would serve as both a primary and secondary source, I'm not sure we want to change the rules so that the article is no longer a secondary source. I'm concerned that it's going to lead to a lot of flimsy "OR" allegations and removal of good cites to good journal articles. Squidfryerchef 19:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree -- see my message above. --Coppertwig 19:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded above, but briefly - we're not talking about a special rule, but about codifying the way these articles are generally already handled. No one is talking about removing good journal articles, but calling anything peer-reviewed a "secondary source" creates a huge problem: it puts Wikipedians in the position of selecting which, of the thousands of peer-reviewed articles published every week, are the important or notable ones. That determination should be made by review articles, scientific bodies, experts in the field, etc (per WP:WEIGHT). Otherwise you get an editor who cherry-picks a 1970's study suggesting Depo-Provera causes endometrial cancer in animals, and chooses not to present the subsequent studies showing that it has a protective effect in humans (off the top of my head, but a real example). The solution is to use secondary sources (e.g. textbooks or reviews on Depo Provera), and cite primary sources (journal articles) within that context. Otherwise the door is open to all sorts of cherrypicking which violates WP:WEIGHT. MastCell Talk 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The primary/secondary source distinction is inherent to history and similar fields but not useful or even applicable to all other areas. That is the fundamental problem here. Journal articles in the sciences are often both primary (reporting original research) and secondary (interpreting previous research) sources. In any case, we have always treated peer-reviewed sources as reliable; the issue of undue weight is orthogonal to the issue of reliability. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Using textbooks etc. is only one solution. Some research may not make it into that kind of source for a long time.  Another solution is the wiki editing process:  Wikipedians use their judgement as encyclopedia writers to decide what is interesting, relevant and imporant to include, and if one Wikipedian puts in something about cancer in animals, another Wikipedian comes along and insists that it be balanced by a statement about cancer in humans -- or that it be removed because the article is too long, because of arguments about undue weight, etc.  Scientific articles are an excellent, valuable resource for Wikipedia. Limiting ourselves to textbooks etc. would exclude a large amount of useful information.  As someone pointed out (but I can't find it now), some results aren't reported in review articles at least not for a long time:  scientists consider the ordinary scientific articles sufficient in many cases.  I don't see any particular reason why the opinion of a scientist writing a review article should carry much more weight than the opinion of a scientist writing an ordinary scientific article. --Coppertwig 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) I don't think reliability is at issue. I'm merely suggesting that journal articles reporting novel research should be used in a manner which hews very closely to the interpretations drawn by the authors. Reliable, peer-reviewed journal articles can be (and often are) cited out of context to support a conclusion not specifically reached by the authors or contrary to the meaning assigned those papers by experts in the field. That's a WP:WEIGHT issue, but it also turns on WP:NOR and primary vs. secondary sources. To Coppertwig: I'm not saying (nor does WP:NOR say) that journal articles can't be cited till they appear in a review. I am saying that they should not be cited out of context or in a manner unsupported by any secondary sources. MastCell Talk 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha! "the interpretations drawn by the authors" -- that sounds like secondary sources to me!!  All secondary sources, not only scientific articles, should be used in a manner which hews very closely to the interpretations drawn by the authors.  Things are cited out of context; they should not be.  We can repeat that things should not be cited out of context.  We'll never stamp it all out.


 * I don't understand. First you say you're not saying that journal articles can't be cited till they appear in a review.  But then you say that should not be cited in a manner unsupported by any secondary sources.  If you don't count the ordinary scientific articles as secondary sources, and if they haven't appeared in a review article yet, then what secondary source can you use to support them?  I think it's too much to require that they must be supported by a secondary source.  That's equivalent to excluding a lot of scientific results -- anything that isn't reported in a review article or similar type of source.  A lot of good information isn't.  --Coppertwig 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never claimed that journal articles can't be cited unless they've appeared in a review. I am proposing that journal articles should not be cited in a manner that directly contradicts the findings of more secondary sources. If I write that the annual incidence of pancreatic cancer is 5 per 100,000 and cite a primary source/journal article, who's going to disagree with that? But if I cite an article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons claiming that vaccines are responsible for all human ailments as a rebuttal to the World Health Organization, or if I cite a 12-year-old paper by a tobacco-industry consultant to rebut the Surgeon General's finding that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, then I'm engaging in original research or synthesis. That's all I'm getting at. And these are real examples. MastCell Talk 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that a lot of the objections to the classification of journal articles as (partly) primary sources seems to be that this would exclude their usage. However, there has also been discussion as to the (relatively recent) exclusion of primary sources in any case, as opposed to clarifying their appropriate use. Is it possible that it might be better to connect the two discussion more? SamBC(talk) 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that makes sense. Usage is really the main issue anyway, and classification is secondary to that. I know what this policy says, but in practice primary sources are frequently cited and rarely objected to unless they're being used as part of an improper synthesis. The thing about scientific articles would not in any way mandate that they be removed from articles where they're properly cited - it's just an effort to clarify their appropriate use. MastCell Talk 22:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether a journal article is or is not a primary source, we shouldn't assume that primary sources cannot be cited. They clearly can, because they are, and very frequently, and by our best articles. We need to make sure, however, that we are accurately representing the difference between primary and secondary sources. Based on my review of the literature, I think the predominant usage is to call journal articles primary sources, particularly when they contain original research (which they nearly always do, by definition). When you cite the first published instance of a new idea, you are citing a primary source. That holds whether you are in the field of science, history, religion, or any other academic field. CO GDEN  22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What if you have some original research and also some interpretation of others' research? The entire distinction is problematic for many disciplines. It's most useful for history and degrades quickly when you move away from that field. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the interpretation of the others' research is novel and original, I think it's a primary source as to that new research. It's also a secondary source, however, as to any review of the prior research other than the novel research. For example, if a scientist reviews prior scientific results, and then applies those prior results in a new way, the first part is secondary, while the first part is primary. If the Wikipedia article is discussing the new conclusions, the source would be treated as a primary source. If the Wikipedia article just uses the source as an overview of the prior research, it would be treated as a secondary source. CO GDEN  19:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. It's a matter of wording.  Not citing journal articles in a way that contradicts a secondary source, OK (within reason: if it's an important, widely-cited and accepted scientific article that contradicts an earlier secondary source that can now reasonably be considered outdated, it would be OK to cite it -- though that should probably not be explicitly stated in policy or it would be widely abused;  just carefully write the policy so it doesn't prevent it.)  Not contradicting a secondary source is one thing.  Not using it if it's unsupported by any secondary source is something else and would be too restrictive.


 * I agree with CBM. Outside Wikipedia, I think the terms "primary source" and "secondary source" are used in history or similar fields but not widely used elsewhere. --Coppertwig 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think the definitions are just a bit field-specific. There's a pretty clear distinction in the scientific literature between articles which report novel findings, and those which largely or only synthesize the work of others (e.g. review articles, textbook chapters, etc). Perhaps calling them "primary" and "secondary" sources sets up a misleading parallel with historical sources, but the distinction is very real and appropriate nonetheless. MastCell Talk 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree there are "research" papers and "review" papers. In the field I edit here, math, we already cite textbooks and review papers for the bulk of things, and research papers almost only when we need to cite the original work. But the review papers often have original research in them (rephrasing theorems, proving unifying results, etc.). That's why the primary/secondary distinction isn't particularly relevant. In every case, the point is to cite the best reference(s) for the ideas being described. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Outside of history, the terms are not used widely, but are used sometimes. Basically, they are terms of historiography, and they are used to refer to the history of science, math, as well as other fields. Science historians, for example, refer to primary sources (e.g., original writings by Copernicus, Charles Darwin, or Einstein), and secondary sources (e.g., a 1875 newspaper article explaining the theory of Evolution in lay terms, or a Discover magazine article describing the theory of Relativity). But if a secondary article both reviews past scientific or mathematical research, and adds its own original research, it's both a primary and secondary source. CO GDEN  22:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carl that the most important thing is to cite the best (or I would say "most appropriate") sources for what is being described. I think we need better guidance on this, less blunt and confusing than what NOR currently seems to say. SamBC(talk) 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) There's a couple of references in the discussion at WT:SCLASS the show that the terms are used, or at least understood, in natural and social sciences. SamBC(talk) 22:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with this sentence, but it seems to have been in there for some time: "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases)."  If this sentence is present, then classifying scientific articles as primary sources is pretty much equivalent to excluding their use. Besides, scientific articles don't fit my intuitive idea of what a primary source is. --Coppertwig 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Intuition isn't often the best measure. However, this whole sort of thing is why some of us thought that it might be worth having interdisciplinary working definitions for wikipedia, which is how WP:SCLASS started. SamBC(talk) 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, ISTR that that sentence was in part a reaction to other sentences in the page that suggested that primary sources shouldn't be used, full stop. SamBC(talk) 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. That's why this sentence must go. It does not reflect the current consensus of the Wikipedia community, nor does it reflect current or past Wikipedia practice. We can't even come to a consensus as to what primary source means, let alone that they should be "rare". CO GDEN  23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - I have no intention of altering policy in a way which excludes the use of scientific papers - quite the contrary, I'd rather they were used more often where appropriate. I've been the primary contributor to 2 featured articles (acute myeloid leukemia and cholangiocarcinoma), and you'll see that the bulk of the sources I used were "primary source" journal articles (though I would hope that the review articles etc. that I cited supported their use). Perhaps User:Sambc's suggestion to tackle the usage guidelines makes the most sense. MastCell Talk 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with COgden that Wikipedia articles are based on both facts and interpretations. Facts come from primary sources, and interpretations from secondary sources. I therefore support COgden's recent revert along these lines: use of primary sources should not be restricted to "rare".

One editor's intuition as to what something means is a reasonable predictor that there will likely be (at least some) others interpreting the words of the policy along similar lines. --Coppertwig 23:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Coppertwig that a well written article contains both "facts and interpretations" and it is only OR if the facts or interpretations come from the WP editor, not WP:RS. We need primary sources for facts, and some subjects are necessarily fact heavy, because they either have not yet had extensive published analysis, or they are hard subjects that are not very subjective and not subject to interpretation in RS. So the blanket statement that all WP articles should rely on secondary sources is just wrong, and does not even approach a consensus opinion. It's probably OK to say that articles should rely on secondary sources where practicable, or some such weasel words, but if it has to be weasel worded, it should probably just be dropped. Dhaluza 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protected
I've reprotected this page for 7 days, since it took a shade less than 24 hours after Husond's unprotection for people to go back to edit warring. It's unseemly to do this on a major policy page.

Sort out compromise wording here and I (or someone else not directly involved in the dispute) can unprotect earlier. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the issue: we need to decide what language, if any, should replace these two controversial statements:
 * Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. (in bold)
 * Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources.
 * A policy is "the codification of current convention and common practice which already have wide consensus." It is supposed to "document the way that Wikipedia works." (See Policies and guidelines). If we can't come to a consensus that these two statements document the way that Wikipedia currently works, we should just omit them. Personally, I don't think there is even consensus about what a primary or secondary source means, let alone that they should be "rare" or "predominently relied upon" CO GDEN  23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately some of us believe those statements do document the way Wikipedia works. It would be much easier to settle if the disagreement was actually over how articles are written rather than the particular wording that describes how articles are written.-- Birgitte  SB  13:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. I don't believe the statements need to be rewritten or replaced.  Dreadstar  †  17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But on the other hand, "I" don't beleive that Wikipedia should be so restrictive as to prohibit truth either. A made up example would be along the lines of "(no name, but somebody with a bunch of money) was driving while drunk, sideswiping several cars before crashing into a mailbox, and rendering a child who was a passenger in one of the sideswiped cars comatose. Another person inside the car climbs behind the wheel while the "rich person" staggers out of the car and leaves. Several, say 40, eyewitnesses observe the entire chain of events and report it. The "rich persons" publicist immediately makes several press releases which are then printed and even included in an upcoming biography of the person, saying that the "rich person" wasn't present, and the car was only occupied by the one who subsequently traded places with the drunk "rich person". The only accounts of the eyewitnesses is in a police report which is sealed by the court by the "rich persons" lawyer, and on several blogs that the various eyewitnesses maintain. The media only makes a casual mention of these, saying "various fringe elements contend that the car was actually driven by "rich person", but no proof of these claims has ever been documented"." A crimal charge of reckless driving is made against the sober driver, and in a civil suit, the "rich person" offers to pay a small settlement to the parents of the comatose child in exchange for keeping the proceedings sealed. The parents are now restricted from publicy acknowledging the truth, the eyewitneses don't get any money either way, and just their simple little observation isn't worthy of an entire book, even though one them tried to get it published.


 * So, by Wikipedia "standards", the only thing that ever appears on here would be the perpetuated lie, as the eyewitness accounts would be a "primary source", correct? Just trying to get some clarification on how things are "supposed" to work on here, vs. how things "should" work. wbfergus 14:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you can only put the media accounts and such on Wikipedia. Unfortunate in some cases, but consider this: what if a group of 40 people who hate "rich person" decided to lie and say that "rich person" was in a particular place when "rich person" really wasn't?  (Or what if a bunch of people saw someone who looked quite similar to "rich person" and started claiming (and believing) they'd seen "rich person" after they heard that other people were claiming the same thing?)  What if the newspapers rightly ignored them?  Maybe false claims like that happen often to famous people.  If it's sufficiently important, couldn't you find at least one newspaper or thingy leaning in the political direction that would publish it?  Isn't it better to err on the side of saying nothing than to wrongly defame someone -- both from an ethical and a pragmatic point of view, since contending against a single "rich person"'s lawyers could bring the whole Wikimedia foundation to bankruptcy? --Coppertwig 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is worth nothing that our living persons policy encourages the immediate removal of any unsourced material about living people, whether negative or positive. Vassyana 17:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm now starting to see why there's been so many articles, blog postings, etc. about how Wikipedia has so much false information. I always just thought it because anybody could edit (and therefore vandalize), and more interested people were needed to keep tabs on articles to revert vandalism faster. Now it appears that if any wacko gets a book published, no matter what is in it, then parts of that book can used as a reliable source. If I could get a book published saying Kennedy was actually shot from the grssy knoll by three hidden snipers and the CIA has the recovered shell casing in different calibers locked away in a safe, then by Wikipedia "standards", this could suddenly be placed in the Wikipedia article, as long as it's appropriately referenced and perhaps written as "according to some sources..."? I know of a few places here in Colorado that will publish books for anybody on any subject for a minimum order of $5,000 (US). That's all it takes? wbfergus 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-published (including vanity-published) sources are excluded, and have been for quite some time. SamBC(talk) 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, it would very quickly run into WP:V self-published as well as Notability issues. Dreadstar  †  18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, if a writer uses a pen-name (so nobody knows who they really are) to get their work published, and then references that book on here (under a different name), how would anybody be able to put two plus two together to determine that the author and the editor were the same person? The wiki editor could claim that since their names were different, he wasn't the author and he was just citing it, as I've seen on many different military history articles on here (the claim that is, not the actual made-up example, though there is one questionable site that I've seen cited on several articles, www.centurychina.org or something like that, under the KoreanWarFAQ). Basically, I'm just playing devils advocate here, trying to when and/or if there are certain occasions where the rules do get broken, either intentially, unintenionally, or with concensus of that articles editors. wbfergus 18:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-published doesn't mean published by the same person who is editing the Wikipedia article (as in WP:COI); it means the author and the publisher are the same person, i.e. someone has paid to have their work published.  If an author sends their work to a publisher and the publisher decides to publish it, then there is an additional step of approval, so it's more reliable, but still not necessarily a good source.  See WP:RS.  Just because something is in a book doesn't necessarily mean it has to be in a Wikipedia article.  Also, often the Wikipedia article will say something like "A book by X states that ..." rather than just asserting controversial statements.  --Coppertwig 18:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding to Birgitte's statement that: "Unfortunately some of us believe those statements do document the way Wikipedia works" :
 * I think the key word here is "some". I doubt you could even say "most", and that is clearly not a consensus. Besides nobody has responded to my repeated argument that nearly all featured articles make liberal use of primary sources. If it's deemed acceptable in any substantial number of featured articles, it's clearly not a policy. CO GDEN  19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides nobody has responded to my repeated argument that nearly all featured articles make liberal use of primary sources. I don't see the argument in that, those articles still rely on secondary sources. If you instead had said that nearly all featured articles do not rely secondary sources, then there would be an argument.  From your proposed re-write above, I am not even certain you clearly understand what original research is at this point.  I understand that you believe the status quo of this policy doesn't have consensus, but by that same argument you can hardly claim that your own edits have consensus.  Consider that under this status quo policy, many quality articles that you are happy with have been written.  Therefore do you not think it is possible that this status quo policy actually supports those articles and is more in line with your own ideas than you have believed up till now.-- Birgitte  SB  19:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BirgitteSB, please clarify. I think maybe you mean that all Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources, and that they may also rely on primary sources too:  i.e. Wikipedia articles should rely on either secondary sources, or a combination of primary and secondary sources.  Is that what you mean? --Coppertwig 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to speak for Birgitte, but what she previously said seems to agree with my perspective that Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources, although there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. Exactly what the policy stated prior to Cogden's non-consensus changes.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, BrigitteSB!  Dreadstar  †  20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) I think the distinction is whether they use them, or rely on them. Would the article be plausible (albeit sparser) without them? SamBC(talk) 20:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, good distinction. How often does an article completely rely on primary sources alone?  I think we would run into problems if there were limited or no restrictions on use of primary sources.  I tend to think that 'rare' is is indeed the watchword on the subject of articles relying on primary sources.  There can be a mixture, naturally, but to totally rely should be somewhat of a rarity, I would think.... Dreadstar  †  20:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorsing the use vs. rely distinction. It should not be rare for an article to use a primary source, however the more encyclopedic portions of the article will inevitably rely on secondary sources.  Direct quotes give nice illustration and insight into article but what is encyclopedic is information put context.  What is parts of an event were most important, what incident was a turning point, whose decision made a difference, what lasting influences of that event are still felt today.  These things answers can only be found in secondary sources which have the "distance" to look at the event within a larger context.-- Birgitte  SB  21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Well put.  Dreadstar  †  03:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong, as I have already commented above, in aviation, specifically for aircraft and airports, we rely on primary sources. Also many, many geographic place articles rely on primary sources. So while the majority of articles may be primarily based on secondary sources, there are significant sub-groups of articles that do not. The myopic focus on primary vs. secondary sourcing, and the wholesale depreciation of primary sources is unnecessarily distracting. Why don't we focus on how and why primary and secondary sources are problematic, rather than trying to make one-size-doesn't-necessarily-fit-all prescriptive guidelines?
 * The current version of this sentence is fine: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.".  An earlier version which said "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." is at best confusing.
 * I think it only adds confusion to make a use/rely distinction. Two different Wikipedians can write the same article in the same style using the same proportion of primary and seconary sources in the same way, while one of them sees the facts from the primary sources as being dry and less important and the interpretations from the secondary sources as the essential glue that holds the article together, and the other Wikipedian sees the facts from the primary sources as being the important information in the article and the interpretations from the secondary sources as being the mere glue that holds the article together.  Since both Wikipedians are carrying out the same edits to create the same article, they must both be following policy (or both violating it), yet to one, the article clearly "relies" on primary sources to establish facts.  Actually, even if one considers the facts unimportant, can't one still say that the article "relies" on a primary source to establish certain (unimportant) facts?  Maybe the people writing "rely" in the policy really mean that it's the article's existence or the article's central threads that must rely on secondary sources, not that the article must rely on secondary sources for everything, even the establishment of (little) facts.
 * The definition of "encyclopedia" in my dictionary says nothing about secondary or tertiary sources. I think many people consulting Wikipedia are looking for specific facts such as "What is the population of Australia?"  To them, the important thing about an article is whether it contains this fact and how easy it is to find.  We can specify how articles are to be organized, but we can't legislate mind control over either the readers or Wikipedians.  We can allow or disallow the inclusion of facts from primary source (I strongly vote allow), but we cannot force readers or editors to think of these as unimportant. --Coppertwig 13:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that we further clarify the sentence: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources." to say "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary sources for facts, and secondary sources for any interpretation of those facts." I think this slight expansion should cover the major points raised here, and make the distinctions much clearer. Dhaluza 15:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The only problem I see with that, personally, is that there are circumstances where primary sources are nonexistant or not available, at which point getting facts from secondary sources is fine. Primary better for facts, secondary acceptable. SamBC(talk) 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in that case, you are still using the source as a primary source to support the fact. A fact remains a fact throughout the chain of custody, so even if it has been repeated 10 times, the source is still being used as a primary source. Naturally, the fact becomes less reliable the more times it is repeated, so we prefer the original source to a non-original source. But if we are citing a fact as a fact, we are using a primary source. Perhaps we need to make a clear distinction between original and primary sources to clear some of the confusion? Dhaluza 16:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding to Birgitte's comment above, "What is parts of an event were most important, what incident was a turning point, whose decision made a difference, what lasting influences of that event are still felt today. These things answers can only be found in secondary sources which have the "distance" to look at the event within a larger context". While I mostly agree with this, there is still that old adage that goes something like "the victorious get to write history". Especially with ancient history, most of the sources of information are from those who were victorious, so practically every interpretation through time has been made solely on the accounts of the victor. In many cases, everything from the vanquished was destroyed, leaving only a one-sided perspective, however right or wrong. It also makes it almost impossible to present the side of the vanquished without making conjectures from what limited information may be available for that side. As well, in many cases, such conjecture may not be worthy of an entire book or article, but maybe it could be included in a section called something like "Editors conjectures" or something. Some way of not preventing the thoughts of some of the well educated editors on here, and allowing some ideas to be presented, and then left to the reader to decide whether there is any merit in them or not. A possible case may be with a recent arguement we had over on the Korean War page. Most western sources place the Chinese casualties at approximately 400,000 killed (either directly or indirectly) with approximately 486,000 wounded. The Chinese however claim to only have lost 114,000 dead and 380,000 wounded (exactly). Just the dry facts themselves lead to many edit wars, while a policy that would allow something like "A claims X, however B claims Y. The actual Z is probably somewhere in between". I've never seen this print anywhere, yet it is logical to assume that, yet Wiki policy currently prevents it. wbfergus 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, just state "A claims X, however B claims Y" and leave it to the reader to form their own opinion. Your "The actual Z is probably somewhere in between" is just speculation and should not be included, because that is OR. In your example, the western sources may also have underestimated the actual casualties for a number of reasons, and putting speculation in the article, informed or not, is nonsense. Now if a respected military historian came to that conclusion after studying the evidence from both sides, then you could attribute that opinion to the expert, and it would be relevant in that context. If dry facts lead to edit wars, it's not the facts' fault, and your solution just creates a bigger problem, because it sends us down the slippery slope. Dhaluza 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I unwittingly etided while the page was protected. Fortunately, someone brought my error to my intention and I reverted. Just reviewing this section of the debate, however, I would like to add two comments. first, above, one editor wrote, "But on the other hand, "I" don't beleive that Wikipedia should be so restrictive as to prohibit truth either." This comment is just inappropriate for Wikipedia and it doesn't even have to do with this policy - our NPOV and V policies make it clear that Wikipedia's standard is verifiability and not truth. this has been a guiding principle of Wikipedia practically since its inception. Even if someone could come up with a compelling argument that such a thing as "objective truth" exists, practically people always disagree on it. Our policies are meant to provide a framework for ensureing that people with divergent, even opposing views can collaborate on writing a great encyclopedia. This would be impossible if editors kept arguing over who is "right" (i.e. knows the truth). But regardless of our views on the truth, we can all agree that "x (a given verifiable source) claims y." All of this is explained in the NPOV and V policies. Any discussion here will be more productive and any argument more easily resolved if we just forget about truth. fell free to argue about what you think the truth is on your blog, usenet, a chatroom, or your favorite bar or pub. Second, another editor remarked that many (perhaps most) articles rely on primary sources. Thee are two reasons for this. First, in many cases it is absolutely fine (in the limited sense that "it has never violated any Wikipedia policy, certainly not this one"). It is fine to use primary sources as long as they are verifiable, and as long as they are not used to forward an editor's own view via an editor's own analytic, synthetic, explanatory, or interpretive claim. Second: in some article primary sources are used, and indeed used inappropriately. There is a good reason for this: Wikipedia is a wikipedia - anyone can edit, at any time ... which means anyone can break the rules at any time by inappropriately using primary sources, and thanks to the wiki software, some other editor can fix the mess. It also means that our hope is through constant involvement by more and more people, Wikipedia will continuously improve - and, logically, if it gets better over time, then it was worse in the past. No one denies this. We all know that four years ago Wikipedia didn't cover nearly as many topics as it did now. But Wikipedia was worse in the past in other ways - some articles really were not NPOV, and some articles were not verifiable. over time we have developed a clearer sense of the kind of franework we need to make Wikipedia work, and this policy is one of them. Of course it is possible that an article that was written in 2001 (before this policy took its present form) and hasn't been edited since actually complies with this policy, all other policies, and is a great article. But it is more likely that it has problems, and is not fully compliant with policy. The fact that many articles may not comply with policy does not mean that the policies are wrong ... it means this is a wikipedia which means it is a perpetual work in progress meaning EVERYTHING can ALWAYS be improved in SOME way. I hope that we can resolve this dispute quickly (and unprotect the page so i can put in my edits again ... and so some other editor can delete or rewrite or add to what I wrote to make it beter ... and so some other editor can make it even more better ...) so people can do what we really should be doing: making sure existing articles comply with NPOV, NOR, and V by adding proper citations or more content from verifiable sources representing other points of view, and writing new articles, guided by these policies. But whatever you write, remember - it can always be made better, and hopefully a few years from now someone will read it, and see a way to improve it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "This comment is just inappropriate for Wikipedia and it doesn't even have to do with this policy - our NPOV and V policies make it clear that Wikipedia's standard is verifiability and not truth." Fine, let's do it: get rid of "truth."  But when we chuck "truth" out the window let's be honest enough to chuck "encyclopedia" with it.   What I perceive is a mighty struggle to rationalize an ill-conceived "policy."  Truth is out, logic is out, primary sources are being forced out (by a vocal minority.)  Do it, but change the name to something that doesn't claim nor imply "encyclopedia."  It's the Wiki-secondary-sources-only-truth-doesn't-matter-logic-doesn't-matter-pedia.  And I'd like to issue a request that all those who denigrate primary sources show secondary source references to back the claims.  Criminy, show primary sources, show any sources.  For people who claim to be all hot and bothered about verifiability you sure do duck that responsibility with the backbone of your argument. --Minasbeede 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, ideally, Wikipedia should provide the truth, but pragmatically, I think it should provide (1) the general consensus, and notable dissenting views, on the topic (2) a quick intro for people unfamiliar with, and marginally interested in the subject, and hopefully eventually (3) help identifying and finding the important works, primary and secondary, on the subject. That third goal is a long way off, but disfavoring primary sources puts it ever-further off.
 * For each goal, the article should review the literature - it should not present new hypotheses. Jacob Haller 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, the scary thing about what you say is that it seems to indicate that flat-earthers and the like should get equal coverage, equal weight, equal treatment. As long as what's in Wikipedia can be "verified" (attributed to some source) it belongs.  That opens wide the door to what NOR is supposedly meant to prevent.  (Yes, I know qualifying adjectives are attached to "source" in many of the statements made but all the adjectives serve to do is to mask the issue and make possible a parroting of the policy that avoids the important issues involved.) --Minasbeede 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Minasbeede, I will ingore your sarcasm and hypebole. These policies have massive support in the community and really do get at the heart of the project. So you don't like them? Well, guss what: you do NOT have to comply with our policies at all! You do nothave to edit Wikipedia articles! you don't to be here ate all! You reject our values and policies, well, you are a free person, just go away. Based on your idea of a propoer encyclopedia, I have good advice for you: put together your resum and apply for a job with Encyclopedia Brittancia. Go work for them, I am sure you would be happier! Slrubenstein  |  Talk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 20:10, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to respond to your ad hominem  rant in kind. (You should remove it, Slrubebenstein: it's unseemly.) Your claim of "massive support" is exactly the kind of useless material that the Wikipedia policies are intended to prevent appearing in the work itself. You people who are so adamant in your twisted and rigid interpretations of policies flagrantly violate the policies and their spirit while you claim to be upholding and supporting them. Find me a reference that shows that any sizable body of people anywhere (outside the old Politburo of the USSR) support the notion that an encyclopedia should not be concerned with truth but only with "verifiability" (and of course with the Politburo "verifiability" meant "complies with the current party line.") --Minasbeede 22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Appears that"
Am I right in believing that pretty well any sentence in Wikipedia that says that something "appears to" be true or false or what have you violates this policy? For example, in hackle, the statement "the French-speaking fusilier regiments do not appear to" wear hackles looks to me like somebody was unable to find any reliable third party sources indicating that these regiments wear hackles, and then concluded that they probably don't. That conclusion is OR, no? Sarcasticidealist 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The sentence with "appears to" might have a footnote attached, going to a source stating that X does not wear Y or that apparently X does not wear Y. In that case I don't think it would be OR.  It does sound a bit like a weasel word, though. --Coppertwig 16:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While it won't apply to 100% of situations, "appears to" is a pretty good indicator of OR. If a source states something like "X appears to be Y" then it should be stated in the article that "according to source S, X appears to be Y". Otherwise, even it is properly sourced, it's going to appear to be OR. Chaz Beckett 16:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it. If a source states "X is Y", then the Wikipedia article can either state "X is Y" (if this is uncontroversial), or "According to source S, X is Y".  But if the source says "X appears to be Y", then I can't think of a good way to word the Wikipedia article without prose attribution.   It wouldn't sound right to say "X appears to be Y," since that's an opinion, and a Wikipedia article can sometimes assert facts but cannot assert an opinion.  (But what if everyone agrees that X appears to be Y -- for example, if that's the only reasonable interpretation of a certain scientific result?) --Coppertwig 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If everyone agrees that a claim is factual and accurate, then a citation is probably not required. References are required when a claim is challenged, or likely to be challenged. Vassyana 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the important point is that it should always be made clear where a particular assertion came from. A prhase such as "appears to" is almost always going to be a interpretation or judgement instead of an objective fact. It especially important to make sure it not us, as editor, making the interpretation. We need to cite who's making it and possibly quote their reasoning. For example, "according to John Smith, professor of economics at Harvard University, the housing market appears to be stabilizing, based on several new reports". If an editor read these same reports and stated that the housing market appears to be stabilizing, that would be OR. Overall, with the exception of direct quotes, I can't really think of situations in which "appears to" would be a good phrase to use in an article. Chaz Beckett 17:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all. You've more or less confirmed what I thought, but I didn't want to start deleting what is a very common phrase on Wikipedia's lower-end articles without some validation (even now I'm not going to become some kind of crusader - I'll just fix it as I come across it). Sarcasticidealist 18:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about in a caption to a photograph. Then it would be just a careful way of wording a description of the photo without making any assumptions.  For example, if there was a photo of one of these regiments mentioned in the original post, and it was a bunch of soldiers not wearing hackles, then it could be appropriate to write "the French-speaking fusilier regiments do not appear to wear hackles". Squidfryerchef 01:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are more than free to try omitting a reference, and see what happens. One of the most unambiguous ways to determine whether a claim is likely to be challenged is to see if someone challenges it. If you upload a picture of something, it is usually acceptable to make some obvious claims about what it represents. When someone disputes an unattributed claim, then it is time to find a reference. —Kanodin 01:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A different explanation in hopes of clarity
I don't know if this will be useful but it likely won't hurt. So let me share an interesting quote from The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing: "Knowledge differs from data or information in that new knowledge may be created from existing knowledge using logical inference. If information is data plus meaning then knowledge is information plus processing."

I would argue that primary sources, for our purposes here, are "unprocessed" sources. They can only offer us "data" and/or "information", while an encyclopedia must contain "knowledge". Primary sources are certainly acceptable sources for "data" or "information". However if an article does not rely on sources which actually offer "knowledge", it will fail to be encyclopedic. You can write beautiful source-based descriptions and spreadsheets with primary sources, but you cannot put them into context without either relying on a)your personal interpretations or b)secondary sources. A) would be original research while b) would be source-based research. Of course this is not the only way to produce original research but is the way the concerns the disputed section. Hopefully this explanation can clarify a few points.-- Birgitte SB  21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable distinction between "knowledge" and "information", but not between primary and secondary sources. If a primary source is so narrowly defined as to only include "unprocessed information", that would include novels, journal articles, interviews, and poems, all of which are treated by non-Wikipedians as primary sources, even though they usually contain conclusions, interpretations, and other original "research". For example, a transcript of a reporter's interview with Abraham Lincoln might contain Lincoln's novel conclusions and insights into the Civil War. It's interpretive and analytical, yet it's also a primary source by any definition in common use outside of Wikipedia.


 * I think the kernel of the primary/secondary source idea has to do not with the rather metaphysical distinction between knowledge and information, but rather with the concept of precedence in time: A "source" is an idea, information, or research that can be cited, and it is "primary" if what you're citing is the original source of that information or conclusion. The information or conclusion being cited is "secondary" if it comes to the reader second-hand, not directly from the idea's original source. CO GDEN  23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That brings to mind another example: Churchill's six volumes on the 2nd World War. He was there when many decisions were made, he made many decisions himself. With anything Churchill wrote and with anything anyone else wrote there's a need to be aware and sensitive in choosing what to use in writing about the war but to claim that secondary sources on war-cabinet-level decisions, actions, discussions, and conflicts are superior to Churchill's own writings seems absurd.  Granted, Churchill may often or always have a personal agenda, but there is no proof that writers of secondary material do not also have agendas.  Nor is having an agenda inimical to the truth.


 * In some ways this entire discussion is reminiscent of a comic sketch in which one person says something and another immediately claims that what the first person meant to say was something else. Here the primary source speaks (or writes) and a multitude of Wiki editors scurries around looking for someone, anyone, who removes all that nasty "primary" character from the statement (or writing) and turns it into good, solid, secondary material - necessarily altering it in character to get rid of the stain of primariness.  (There's a possible religious example to be used here, too: a religious leader or prophet says something, hoards of later proponents of the religion based on that prophet's words expound a hugely different and distorted message.  But they're secondary, so by the attitude so often exposed here they're correct and the original great figure was misguided - or something.)  There's good and bad primary material, good and bad secondary material.  Use the good, don't use the bad.  Be willing to have someone else show why what seems good may not be, be willing to correct that someone if that someone is in error, be willing to work to resolve the issue if it's not all that clear (and in the case where it's not all that clear nothing other than useless simplicity is served by relying on some strict but unrealistic rule.) --Minasbeede 03:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Total in agreement, to my mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 August 2007


 * Maybe another religious example (thanks for reminding me of it) is this. My dad majored in dead and ancient languages when he went to seminary, so that he could read all of the original biblical texts in their native language instead of through somebody elses interpretation of them. One example he always used was the 6th Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". According to my dad, in the original language (Hebrew I think), it actually tranlates closer to "Thou shalt not commit murder". So, the translation itself was flawed, by using the most common verbiage of the time, while the actual word more accurately translates into a different meaning. While murder is killing, killing is different than murder in that killing does neccessarily involve premeditation or forthought, hence a completely different meaning and context. So in this case, the secondary source is almost always cited as being correct, when in fact it is incorrect and replied solely on original research, while the primary source (the original scrolls in their native language) by Wikipedia standards, can't (or rarely, should) be used. wbfergus 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, that's i also try to explain. No dogma can solve this issues, nor burocracy can do it as well. But it happears to be a dialogue between deafs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 August 2007


 * There is a mountain of reliable modern secondary sources available for the meaning of Biblical phrases and words, including such discussions in context of cultural period, etc. If current sources do not document the claim, it's quite likely a fringe or extreme minority claim, if not purely novel. Also, Bible translations are not a secondary source. A translation of a primary source is still a primary source. Vassyana 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, and the modern Hebrew language (which hasn't changed that much from the ancient Hebrew), translate the key symbols or word on the scroll as "to kill, murder or slay". The problem with translations is (especially with ancient translations) that along with literally translating the words or symbols, the resulting translation must also take into account common usage and context, making most translations "interpretations" or secondary sources. This is something that wasn't done hundreds of years ago during original transcriptions of the Bible, which is why King James allowed a new version to be re-translated, though some of their "guidelines" still specified various occasions to not translate correctly, like keeping "church" instead of correctly translating it as "congregation". Again, this is an incorrect (and acknowledged) translation, showing how the orinal source is incorrectly "interpreted", but the resulting incorrect translation can be the one perpetuated down through the years, as it is more common in daily use. There are also numerous examples of updates from the King James or older versions to more common modern language, so the inaccuaricies get perpetuated once again, possibly giving even more of a different meaning to various phrases or words from the original source. Sometimes during the translations of ancient documents, the original language used words that have no counterpart in modern languages, and various translators over the years struggle (and argue) with which word or group of words, would most accuratelt convey the same meaning, again lending the resulting translation to "interpretation and synthesis", both of which move something such as this from the "primary source" into the "secondary source" category. Also, if as you claim, even the (incorrect) translations of the Bible are considered "primary sources", then by the arguments of some on here, there should never be any quotations from the Bible on Wikipedia, as they come from a primary source. wbfergus 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a gross misunderstanding of what the policy prohibits. The policy certainly doesn't say the primary sources should never be used. It states that relying on primary sources should be rare and done with great caution. (Whether or not it creates a de facto prohibition due to the general interpretation of the policy is another question, and a possibility I'm willing to accept.) Additionally, on a ridiculously well-covered topic like the Bible and accompanying religions, it's quite sufficient to limit the citation of the Bible to what reliable references say about it. Certainly, in the case of the Bible, it's incredibly rare that you would be able to cite a Bible verse independently of a secondary source without explicitly engaging in original research. Far and away, the vast majority of cases where people want to cite Bible verses, it is to support a particular interpretation of Christianity, Jesus, the Bible or the verses themselves. It's a wonderful example of why primary sources came to be discouraged, in relation to original research. Vassyana 23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't reorganization, that was a major rewrite
Any comments on Slrubenstein's version of the policy? In some ways it looks like an improvement, but (1) I don't like people using protection to shield major, disputed, edits (2) it makes the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction even more important, and different editors have different interpretations of the distinction (3) there are cases where primary sources are appropriate for (semi)-evaluative conclusions, e.g. citing The Origin of Species to show that Darwin concerned himself with certain problems in biology and believed that natural selection could resolve them. Jacob Haller 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the section should give insight into good practice, recognizing exceptions, not ammo for wikilawyering, and for this reason, strongly prefer "should" to "must." Jacob Haller 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the explanation of primary/secondary/tertiary, but I'll also second my preference for "should" over "must". But I strongly suggest striking "explanatory" from "never to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."  Explanatory is a good thing.  The other 4 adjectives indicate O.R. Squidfryerchef 03:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest "to avoid making new analytic, synthetic, interpretive or evaluative claims, not found in the original sources." Jacob Haller 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it a major rewrite, it is mostly a reorganization, and it does present a more logical grouping of the concepts. The only significant change I see is including explanatory in the secondary sources section, which did add consistency. But I think we may need a definition of what explanatory means in this context. Dhaluza 09:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, so many places on this page this comment could go, but I'll just post in this one section. Like others, I agree with should over must. I also agree with removing the explanatory condition, as on occasions it helps the article to have some explanation if can be kept NPOV. I also tend to think that there should be something in there to the effect of "there are intended as general guidleines, not hard and fast rules, as there is always an exception to every rule" (as many points others on this page have pointed out time after time for either side of the argument). We need something that spells out guidelines, not rules, to keep some of the edit wars to a minimum. There are a lot of "rule nazis" or "wiki-lawyers" on here who interpret everything as a hard and fast rule with no leeway either way. wbfergus 14:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I should also say I'm puzzled as to why there is such an intense desire to paint primary sources as being less reliable.   Primary sources can be reliable or unreliable, secondary sources can be reliable or unreliable.  The proponents of a rule that rejects primary sources assert that primary sources are less reliable - but as far as I recall they've never provided a reference for that claim.


 * I just looked at the Wikipedia article on the Jahn-Teller effect. Unless you look at the original articles (the primary source) you don't know how Jahn and Teller proved the theorem, don't know that the articles provide tables that make determining Γvib for a symmetric molecule almost trivial.  Perhaps somewhere there's a secondary source that explains that Jahn and Teller proved the theorem by exhaustive analysis of the degenerate symmetries in every molecular symmetry point group (that's partly why those tables are in the article) but I've never seen it.


 * I also think I recall that in some college history class I heard that historians were supposed to seek out primary sources. --Minasbeede 14:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely correct that professionals (and students learning the field) are encouraged to seek out primary sources to analyze and interpret them, especially in comparison to the existing work in the field. However, this policy prohibits that kind of analysis and is against the fundamental nature of the project. (See BirgitteSB's eloquent related comments.) Also, this policy prohibits the kind of interpretation you're forwarding. If the tables and raw data indeed lead to such a conclusion, a secondary source is needed to make that claim. If the claim cannot be found in independent sources, it isn't a notable one, no matter how crucial you think it may be. Those interested in primary sources and original research have many Foundation projects to choose from, such as Wikiversity, Wikibooks, Wikisource and Wikiquote, however Wikipedia is not such a project. It would also be even better if the editor is an expert and publishes a reliable source about the matter that we can cite here. Vassyana 16:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to what I said about the Jahn-Teller papers ("the kind of interpretation you're forwarding") I'm certain that the papers themselves state that their approach is to examine each point group (well, duh, if they did it they'd surely say so) and pretty certain that the papers also point out that the tables they use in that proof can also be used to create Γvib for a symmetric molecule. It's irritating to experience editors who are distressingly eager to find "original research" fault with simple statements instead of paying attention to the meat of what is being said.  My point is that secondary sources overlook key parts of those publications since the secondary sources concentrate on a single aspect of the papers (the theorem proved.)  You have to go to the original papers, the primary sources, to see the entire range of what they published.  (I could check on the Γvib statement - I have copies of the papers on my computer - but I'm tired.  The point remains that the primary sources are superior to the secondary sources, in this instance.  It should not be necessary to have to explain why the primary source is used when the facts are that the primary source has the superior information.  Wikipedia does not need and should not have a policy that makes a blanket condemnation or deprecation of primary sources.  "In this instance" is italicized in order to emphasize how foolish it would be to require justification of use of a primary source for every instance in which the primary source is superior.  Let the superiority of the result be adequate.  If it turns out in some cases that use of primary sources produces an inferior result then let that be adequate reason to switch to a better source.  You cannot, however, make an accurate blanket statement about the quality of sources on the basis of whether or not they are primary.)  --Minasbeede 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're writing an academic thesis then you're actually supposed to be doing original research. You'll see that term on the mastheads of academic journals "...a publisher of original research".  We didn't make up that term just for Wikipedia.  That said, primary sources are a nice thing to have in a WP article for various reasons ( fact checking, NPOV, detail, providing resources for others to do research ). Squidfryerchef 02:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh, but the policy is too broad and is interpreted still more too broadly, to the detriment of the quality of Wikipedia. The policy is like rejecting all arithmetic division because a fallacious proof that 1 = 2 can be made by doing a forbidden division by zero in something that looks like a proof but is not (because of that fallacious division.) --Minasbeede 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Squidfryerchef has it just right. Minasbeede writes, "My point is that secondary sources overlook key parts of those publications since the secondary sources concentrate on a single aspect of the papers (the theorem proved.) You have to go to the original papers, the primary sources, to see the entire range of what they published" and I agree completely. If all you want to do is quote a primary source for a fact, completely independent of any interpretation or argument, that is absolutely permitted by the policy. However, if your goal is to fill in a gap in the secondary literature by going to the primary sources and using something hithertoo unused to support or develop an argument, analysis, interpretation, explanation ... well, then what you want to be doing is write your own book or article. Nu? Feel free! Go right ahead! Write a book and submit it to a press. Write an article and submit it to a journal! If that is what you want to do, you are free to do it. There are many venues for publishing your own original research, and nothing is stopping you from submitting your own work to a publisher. It is just that, Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for editor's own original research. Do it anywhere you like, just not here. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? I can quote any secondary source to "fill in a gap" and you're content.  But if I go to a primary source and do no more than quote it to "fill in a gap" then I'm doing "original research"?  That's absurd.  Either way I'm quoting a source.  If there was "original research" done then it was the author of the primary source who did it, not I.  If all secondary sources (or all secondary sources quoted in a particular article) overlook something it is incomprehensible how anyone could call retrieving that something from a primary source "original research."


 * There's a noxious "mission creep" occurring. The policy against "original research" is justified on the basis of a desire to forestall patently incorrect "original research" of the flat-earth, perpetual-motion, etc. variety.  Now you (and others) claim that --Minasbeede 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)quoting a primary source falls into the same category as flat-earthism.  (Oh, yeah, you allow such quotation so long as it neither contradicts nor augments material from secondary sources.)   Physician, heal thyself.  It is you (plural) who are attempting to co-opt Wikipedia to put forth your own views. --Minasbeede 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not mission-creep. It is based on the realization that there are topics where what one editor believes is a "flat-earth theory" another editor believes is a "flat-earth" theory. Maybe this is why we disagree: I am not a fundamentalist. i do not think that a text means just what it says it means. Texts are read and reading is interpretation. When a fundamentalist says "The Bible says the world was created in six days" I know that there are Bible scholars who, using comparative philology, reference to other works of ancient Near Eastern literature, and other techniques, have strong arguments that that is not the point the Biblical author was making. I think the Fundamentalist is really projecting his or her own belief into a document written by people of another culture a long, long time ago. But the Fundamentalist insists that the text means just what it says. The fundamentalist and I will never agree. And I have discovered that there are people who read speeches by Hitler or Moussolini, and articles on genetic research, that are in effect fundamentalists too. If this does not make sense to you, well, I am sorry, I have tried in good faith to explain my view to you as best I could. We will just have to agree to disagree - and hope Wikipedia has policies that can enable us to work together on an article without getting into a revert war. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we are in very good agreement about fundamentalists: they claim to put "the Bible" (or something) first but what they really do is use the Bible (or something) to support their own views. Do we agree that just because some editor sincerely believes something Wikipedia does not need to give equal coverage to that something?   Do we believe the same, even if there's a vocal minority (not merely a single editor) who believe (or claim to believe) in that something?   Obviously I use "flat-Earth" as a stand-in for other disputes.  I do mean to indicate an essential similarity between "flat-Earth" belief and some other beliefs.


 * I probably was overboard in my wording ("noxious mission creep.") What I'm saying is that sources are sources, be they primary or secondary, and that it's counter-productive to assert as policy that secondary sources are superior to primary sources.  That assertion can't be proven (because it isn't true.)  Isn't it counter-productive and a waste of time and effort to argue over an untruth?  Perhaps one or more of the advocates of the superiority of secondary sources would like to claim and even attempt to prove that secondary sources are superior in 20%, 50%, 80%, or whatever% of the time.  To base a policy on that assertion would mean that the policy is flat out wrong in 80%, 50%, 20% or (100-whatever)% of cases and provides improper guidance.  That's detrimental, and such a policy is unneeded.  The policy should simple be to make appropriate use of appropriate sources.  There is no single general rule that can be used to distinguish appropriate sources from inappropriate sources.


 * I'm not at all convinced that scientists who read (and accept) genetic research articles are fundamentalists just because they are scientists and operate and think as scientists. That they don't allow creationists to force non-science into science (nor allow science to be made subordinate to sophistic reasoning) doesn't make them fundamentalists. --Minasbeede 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR is stupid
it's been thrown around in both afd's for streisand effect and i'm tired of it. WP:NOR is stupid. the examples provided in that article are examples of the streisand effect and you don't need to cite an article that mentions the words "streisand effect" to see that - what you need is common sense. all you should need for any article is common sense. for that reason, this page should be redirected to WP:UCS and people should not nominate streisand effect for deletion every 2 months. 209.209.214.5 05:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the NOR policy concept is sound, but some editors engage in a corollary of NOR by going beyond the policy consensus, and labeling things OR that most reasonable editors would not. Specifically they take "No original research" literally, forgetting that "original research" is a defined term on WP and cut it down to "no research". The article you cite is an excellent example, because it has survived two AfD's with a strong consensus for keep each time, so we have a fairly reliable indicator of the community consensus. Despite this, a small minority of editors object to the content because they think it's OR, even though the content is sourced. The objection seems to be related to an extreme interpretation of OR which holds that grouping things that are synonymous is OR if the references do not use the exact same terminology. But that is not OR, it is making an obvious conclusion that should be apparent to any educated person, which is specifically allowed. So the policy is not stupid, but that does not mean that stupid people can't use it stupidly. Dhaluza 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree. Some concepts are clearly grouped as a single subject, but have widely varying terminology. Talk:Dharmic religion is having a discussion about such a subject currently. The best way to head off such problems, I tend to think, is a well sourced section describing the problem. Taoic religion is a decent example. (Of course, a dose of common sense doesn't hurt either.) Vassyana 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

After looking through Streisand effect, I have to agree it's a mixture of original research and premature article writing. This is very common in "neologism articles", and one of the reason that we generally disfavor articles on neologisms. I checked several of the "examples" and the sources don't use the word "Streisand" at all. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I just clicked the last reference in the article, "The Streisand Effect", and not only is that the title of the article, but it also mentions the word "Streisand" several times. wbfergus 14:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is that article. The references for many of the purported examples of this effect, however, don't use the term (perhaps that's to be expected, as the term is a neologism). This sort of article is what results when we take a clever turn of phrase and blow it out of proportion. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

End-runs around WP:NPOV?
I find that many religious articles are hopelessly biased. It is quite common for works which present and defend one theology to characterize certain opponents as "false prophets," "heresiarchs," "heretics," etc. but it is quite inappropriate for Wikipedia to do the same thing (recognizing that what is biased as the "voice of Wikipedia" may be unbiased as the "voice of x tradition," so attribution can avoid bias).

I have encountered two arguments which I see as efforts, deliberate or not, to use WP:NOR in an end-run around WP:NPOV; the most common simply adds citations and removes the neutrality disputed tag as though it were a citation needed tag; another argues that secondary sources much state the person was NOT an X to remove the description as X. Jacob Haller 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly POV statements like "false prophets" need to be explicitly associated with a specific source/author. However, they should not be excluded. NPOV is not about presenting an objectively "neutral" article per se, but rather about reporting all relevant POVs. If the reference is a fringe work or representative of an extreme minority, the reference is not suited for Wikipedia in most cases. In a contradiction between sources, the article should present both views, without an attempt to reconcile the sources (unless a third reference happens to do so). Also, recalling examples you raised before, remember that people are not permitted to take a dictionary definition and employ an analysis/synthesis to say "the dictionary says X is Y, since Z is not X, Z is not Y". Such tactics have a number of flaws. If a historical figure is being discussed, does that word still have the same connotations and meanings? Does the dictionary encompass all legitimate applications and meanings of the word? Questions like that are best left to reliable third-party sources, or else original research is nearly unavoidable. Vassyana 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if they are calling one side "heretical" then they are taking sides - they are not third-party sources in that sense. It doesn't mean they aren't useful sources. I've used quite a few of them myself, it's just that people need to follow both NOR and NPOV. I'm also not averse to write-hangon-fix. I've written stuff with fact tags in the original text to cite, and possibly correct, it later. Jacob Haller 20:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists of People?
Not long ago the Auxentius article was utterly screwed up. There were two fourth-century Auxentii in question (plus various other Auxentii), both of whom were "Arian" bishops of Milan. One source used Auxentius to refer to the earlier and Junior Auxentius to refer to the later bishop, but most other sources did not, and editors, including myself, unfamiliar with the arrangement included information on both Auxentii in the same article. I separated out the info and turned Auxentius into a disambiguation page.

This convinced me we needed some lists to keep track of the participants (and events) in the Arian controversy. (I started with the "Arian" ones on the Arianism page but later moved them onto the new page and started adding "Orthodox" ones as well) (note that both terms are imprecise in this context as well as slightly POV).

The problem, however, was that the secondary sources I had immediately available had very short, selective lists. The earlier Auxentius (of Milan) was mainly relevant to western Church history, and the later Auxentius (of Durostorum and Milan) was mainly relevant to Gothic history (being Ulfilas' adopted son, and the author of a short bio of his father), so that many sources referred to one without referencing the other.

I decided to use the older church histories, starting with Philostorgius and Socrates Scholasticus, to build the lists. I am nowhere near done with this, and plan to get back to this project at some point. All these are partisan and, in most senses, primary sources. I think that this is useful, in that it can help detect and avoid screw-ups like the one with the two Auxentii, and it is source-based research, but I'm not sure how to do this without violating WP:NOR. Also, the article is lopsided and list-heavy, but that can be fixed by working on the rest of the stuff.

So what are, or should be, the appropriate practices for creating such lists? Jacob Haller 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an incredibly broadly discussed topic in reliable secondary sources. If the sources you have available provide short and partisan lists, invite other editors to help find better references or hit up a library. The older church histories are not suitable sources, as since you mention they are both partisan and primary (as well as historical). We need to rely on modern third party sources to interpret and analyze such sources for us. Vassyana 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the primary sources provide the raw data; the secondary sources can provide basic categories, chronology, etc., if we wish to divide them by faction or order them by time. In this case the primary sources include names, often cities or regions, who they taught or followed, etc. If one of the sources states that "Basil supported the homoiousios" and "Basil proceeded to depose the opponents of the homoiousios," it doesn't take much interpretation to move Basil from an "unclassified" list to a "factional" list, unless another source contradicts this. If there is ambiguity or uncertainty, it can be noted in the entry in the list.
 * Further, this was not just an issue with the secondary sources I had available, this was an issue with the secondary sources others were using too, or someone would have caught the problem with the two Auxentii long before.
 * I'm perfectly happy to use secondary sources in areas which involve synthesis and/or interpretation (as in defining factions), or where the primary sources get messy (as in tracking time), but it seems excessive to use them for simple facts. Jacob Haller 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But such attributions are not just "simple facts". Were other opponents inappropriate labeled in those lists? Were neutral parties punished for their neutrality by being lumped in with the "opposition"? These and related questions are ones that can only be answered by reliable secondary sources. It would even be sufficient if reliable references supporting the accuracy of the lists were cited. "Simple facts" are rarely so simple, especially when dealing with biased and historical sources. Vassyana 22:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was quite concerned with these possibilities, as well as the possibility that partisan sources might list prestigious neutral or non-aligned individuals among their own supporters. I started with primary sources from two opposing sides, as well as an unclassified section, to minimize this problem. I could double-check some entries against secondary sources as well.
 * One possibility is to introduce labels (see Amory's People and Identify in Ostrogothic Italy, if it is available; he uses an approach for very different issues) which indicate what justifies their inclusion in this list, and what might justify their inclusion in another list. In this case, one label for the generally-acknowledged leaders or founders of one faction (requiring secondary sources), one for those who taught these people; one for those who were taught by these people, one for those who were ordained by these people, one for those who hold such-and-such doctrines, using unambiguous formulae, in their own works, another for quoted fragments of their own works, one for those who subscribed to such-and-such in a synod, one for those who were deposed for holding such-and-such views - a much weaker case than the above - and so on.
 * All things considered, secondary sources might work better for this encyclopedia than extensive tags for different reasons. I'll need to think about this some more. Jacob Haller 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The actual use of the primary sources agrees with most of the last several policies and commentaries: I use them to source specific facts ("anyone —without specialist knowledge— who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.") The only issue is that the lists don't rely on secondary sources, because the lists have no reason to, though other parts of the article, including list headers, do. Jacob Haller 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was my earlier edit before the above one. That's still my goal. I'm planning to use more secondary sources, and double-check things too. Jacob Haller 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recommend explicitly attributing the source in most such usages of primary sources. It helps avoid the pitfall of implicitly (or even explicitly) endorsing the source as accurate and reliable (which a secondary source should do). Just a thought. Vassyana 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think the page should provide more guidance on such things. I've gone over one section in detail, and yes, I needed to cut some claims and qualify others. If I'm going to continue with the primary-source approach, I need to check two more for that short section, and going with secondary sources first would at least have helped to identify the appropriate primary sources. Jacob Haller 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Word Etymologies
Over at the Harry Potter WikiProject the Spells in Harry Potter article has just survived its third AfD nomination, where it took a battering for including etymologies for most of the incantations, which are almost invariably derived from latin or greek. There was much debate as to whether including "Etymology: The Latin avis means "bird"." in the spell Avis (which conjures a flock of birds from the caster's wand) constituted original research or simple common sense. I'd be very interested to hear the opinions of a wider spread of Wikipedia editors. Do word etymologies, especially when they are utterly self-evident, constitute original research? Happy-melon 09:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is similar to the issue in Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research above. I have also seen other examples of extreme interpretations of WP:NOR argued at AfD, which may be evidence of a larger problem. As for this specific example, while in some sense calling the association an "Etymology" could be considered OR because etymologies are usually found in published sources, juxtaposing the two obviously related facts is not OR. So simply saying "in Latin avis means 'bird' " in the explanation of the spell "avis" is an obvious conclusion, and should not be considered OR, but calling it an "Etymology" may not be supportable. Dhaluza 09:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be OK to mention that "Avis" means "bird" in Latin. You cannot guess that's why the author chose the word "avis", but you can say "bird" as long as you don't make any inferences from it. Squidfryerchef 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to write any more until someone breaks up the last section
In other words, please, somebody else, do that. --Minasbeede 23:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Issues at hand, part 2: The Revenge (Arbitrary Break)
There you go, Minas. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Minasbeede 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * }

Quality vs type
Unindent - I see part of the problem is that the emphasis should first be on quality of source, then the viewpoint. As it stands, it feels more like my secondary source, warts and all, can trump your primary source. Secondary sources may not contradict the primary source, but they may be a superficial interpretation, which in turn can be misread. It is then difficult to use the primary source to correct the misinterpretations in the face of this policy (especially as this may require some obvious synthesis to align the original wording to the secondary interpretation). So I want wording that puts the primacy of quality sources first. Spenny 14:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I view those as two separate issues. Quality of a source is different than the type of source (primary, secondary or tertiary).  I don't think you can put one in front of the other, they need to be looked at in parallel, and not in isolation from one another.  – Dreadstar  †  19:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Where would you put a BBC solid news item vs. the report it was based upon? For example, say we have a Government White Paper (a primary source) which is summarised and commented on by the BBC news item (secondary source). Having read both, we find that there is an element of over-simplification which distorts what is actually said. Clearly the primary source is of the highest quality, it is what is being discussed, and the facts of its statement must outrank the summarisation of the reporter, even if this is done by the simple expedient of the direct quote for the reader to interpret by themselves. Obvious as this may be, it appears that is not accepted as reasonable by some, and is undermined by this statement of policy. You may see this as a discussion on real research vs. articles in New Scientist where I would be far more accepting of your position, but often this debate is about a much lower test of qualities. I agree with that the concepts need to be considered in parallel, but that is not what policy appears to say, it appears to say it is right to disregard primary sources, regardless of quality. Spenny 22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the example you provide, you should not use a primary source in that fashion, even in the version "lenient" in relation to primary sources. It is fundamentally a violation of this policy, since you would be employing an "unpublished analysis ... of published material that appears to advance a position". We cannot put forth our own interpretation or analysis of primary sources without violating the most basic principle this policy is based upon. Particularly in regards to government matters, what you find to be an oversimplification, another may find to be a perfectly fine overview. Secondary sources are advantageous because they generally include analysis and commentary, avoiding the pitfalls of trying to employ primary sources without giving an analysis (explicit or implied) and advancing a position, which is a very difficult task to be generous. The policy reflects those issues. Vassyana 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That misrepresents my point. My point was that I could quote a primary source without an analysis to show that a secondary source was flawed, if needs be leaving it to the reader to make that analysis. The problem with the primacy of secondary sources approach is that it leaves the door open to quoting news items, which may be giving a controversial aspect undue prominence. In the context of verifiability vs. truth, if I can verify that a secondary source is misleading, or unreliable, then I can have both. We are not talking about hard stuff here, we are talking about statements of fact. Yes, on a Government paper, we can see that what is said is not always what is meant, but we should not assume that a third party interpretation outside the notable journals is necessarily any more accurate than the original words.
 * I have a particular example in mind (not that it is in Wikipedia as far as I am aware). During the floods in the UK last month, someone leaked an about to be published white paper on changes to planning policy. One short paragraph discussed the fact that it was inappropriate to stop building on flood plains as in fact a lot of areas that have been built on for centuries fell into this definition, including the centre of London, where it is considered that the Thames Barrier is a suitable solution to the problem. Someone tried to make a story that the Government was reckless as they were making policy to ignore the flooding risk (which also ignored the fact that the flooding affected areas that were not even considered flood plains). Some of the news media ran with that slant, making the story by selective quoting and taking the comments out of context. We could write an article based on the newspaper reporting, and find a number of articles taking that line, thus asserting the correctness of publishing the distortion as verifiable. We can correct this by simply quoting the original short paragraph in context which requires no analysis. Spenny 11:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it misrepresents the point at all. If the obvious point of the edit is to put forth the claim that the newspaper was wrong, at the very least that is highly questionable. There's far more harm potential in that kind of example (particularly of cherrypicking quotes and POV pushing, two very common inappropriate uses for primary sources), than for gain. notability and NPOV require multiple third party sources. In general, if there are enough third party reliable sources to establish notability, present a balanced view and write a complete encyclopedic article, primary sources should not be necessary except in rare cases, as reflected by the current policy formulation. Vassyana 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whilst I understand this viewpoint as a statement of principles, it is a great way to give credibility to urban myths. Someone who is knowledgeable in their subject area will understand the misrepresentation of the media and can readily correct it without unreasonable synthesis. I still think you misrepresent what I am saying to justify your position: "quoting the original short paragraph in context" is quite different from "particularly of cherrypicking quotes and POV pushing" and whilst I understand what you are afraid of, it should not be used to justify the inclusion of the misrepresentations of the media. You seem to have been lucky and not had that sort of editing used against you. Unfortunately, the media has a tendency to use press releases, the same news agencies, pundit of the day and so on, so giving the impression of wide consensus, whereas it may well be just the blind reproduction of one particular press officer's summary. Secondary source does not mean disengage critical faculties.
 * The other effect I have been subjected to is the one line summary in a general news article used to assert a viewpoint, the headline quote used where we cannot see behind this source to understand the context to validate this secondary source itself. Often, that one line quote will be out of context. Much as you fear primary sources cherry picking and POV pushing, this happens just as much in secondary sources of the media, where so often these are a collection of cherry-picked items of interest. It is leaving Wikipedia open to just the same sort of spin-doctoring that the press rails against in the UK, when they were party to the culture that begot it. If you have ever been party to an incident where the media is involved, you will know that even the most innocuous of happenings can get incredibly distorted, even to the point where they will contradict the pictures being shown.
 * Policy that fits well with scientific credibility does not transfer well onto topics of general interest where even the so-called reliable sources need to be tested for veracity. Spenny 22:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement "I could quote a primary source without an analysis to show that a secondary source was flawed" is the very definition of Original Research. Dreadstar  †  23:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What on earth do you mean? In any case, checking the secondary sources against the primary sources improves the articles. At times secondary sources misquote primary sources, contradict the primary sources, etc. If the secondary source says "the author said A" and the author says "not A," and does not say "A," then the secondary source is ... wrong. Jacob Haller 00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I explained it in more detail in this posting. Dreadstar †  00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, what is research? In Wikipedia, there appears to be a distinction between research: as in inventing things, histories etc. and publishing that work; and research: looking things up. Looking things up is not banned - a news article mentions a statement, it appears fishy, we go to the primary text and see it is wrong. We do not research, we simply observe that the article in question is of questionable validity. If the citation is not of sufficient quality, then the statement it supports needs to be challenged. There is nothing inappropriate in that. Spenny 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my position above (1) quality is important (2) most claims can use either primary or secondary sources (3) some types of claims require certain types of sources (we could describe these in more detail). Jacob Haller 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree. Let's say you have Anna Frank diary or De Bellum Gallicum. So we should trow them in WC because are 'primary sources'? Then let's say that we have Mein Kampf or a diary written by a mad reclused in a neuropsichiatric hospital that thinks to be Napoleon. Are these latter sources, still primary, as the same level of 'reliability' of the firts two? What about 'The second world war' written by Churchill, that awarded even, if i remember well, with a Nobel?? And what about the immense lies that we can read in 'secondary sources' in wich, expecially if politic-ecomic interests are involved, Wiki should pose exclusive faith?


 * The problem is clear; but it don't lies on 'primary or secondary sources' but in the manners of guys like Vassyana, that are acting with only one fixes idea: i am right, you not. This is problematic for me; the reverting to the changes made, (not without reasons) to this (quite absurd itself) policy. That's a problem.--Stefanomencarelli 14:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Gallic War is a masterpiece of propaganda, so probably a poor choice even if it is the main historical reference for the events. It is up to scholars to determine what is propaganda, what is likely true and what is likely false. Thus, we should be citing reliable secondary sources regarding the reliability of such sources, at the very least. The Diary of Anne Frank is a first person/eyewitness account, which as a whole are notoriously unreliable. For both of those examples there are a plethora of reliable secondary and tertiary sources that are easily available, including in-depth analysis of the sources themselves, so more likely we should avoid the primary sources all together except as referenced in reliable third party sources. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. There's no reason this conversation cannot be polite. Vassyana 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is hypocrisy. As long as the Gallic War can be cited it would appear it fully meets all Wikipedia criteria, which, let me remind you, specifically exclude considerations of truth. --Minasbeede 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "... which as a whole are notoriously unreliable." You got a source for that?  Among other things it is humorous to see such flagrant use of personal opinion and OR (and worse) in defense of policies supposedly designed to prevent the use of personal opinion and OR.  Some first-person accounts are unreliable in some ways, some aren't.  If you're including material in an encyclopedia (or in anything that attempts to be accurate and fair) you have to use judgment.  --Minasbeede 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of these appear to be straw man arguments, the policy does not prohibit the use of Primary sources, it clearly establishes that great care must be taken when using them becuase they can be easily misused: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them".  A good example of misuse is the above statement about using a primary source to show that a secondary source is wrong - that's an unpublished analysis. If a primary source is misrepresented by a secondary source, then - if it's important - another secondary source should have reported the discrepancy.  It's not our job to provide such an analysis.  Dreadstar  †  23:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * More jaw-dropping absurdity ("A good example of misuse...")  A (primary) says X.  B (secondary) says A said Y (which is materially different from X.)  According to the above it is "original research" to point out that A said X, not Y.  That makes Wikipedia in favor of propagating lies.  What is going on here?  This seems to say that if a creationist misquotes Darwin it is forbidden to show that he is lying because actually checking what Darwin did say is so-called "original research": B's lie has, by policy, greater weight than A's original statement and cannot be refuted by pointing out that what B says is unsupported by and contrary to the (primary source) facts.  --Minasbeede 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I now see where I am wrong. If B misquotes A and we can see that by referring to A's words in A's primary source the refutation would take the form of removing the reference to what B has said that misquotes A.  What A said surely takes precedence over what B erroneously claims A said.  If what A said fits in whatever article it was that used B's words then A's statement can replace B's misstatement about what A said.  It is not our job to provide an analysis but it is our job to do an analysis of the material incorporated into Wikipedia and surely it is correct to remove or replace something in error if it can clearly be seen that the something is in error.  Possibly there could be a discussion about whether any of this would be appropriate in an article that for some reason touched on B's accuracy but there's no immediate need I see for that to be discussed (and further complicating an already complicated talk page.)  Specifically, I agree that it is not our job to point out B's apparent inaccuracy where B has been used a source and that use includes an inaccuracy.  Just undo it. --Minasbeede 17:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Minasbeede is mischaracterizing this example. We do not know whether it is true that A said Y and to claim so would be wrong, which is why our policy prohibits it. What we do know is that according to B, A said Y, to say so would be to identify the POV (B's pov) and the source (B) and so we can most definitely add that to an article, complying with both NPOV and V. Minasbeede is upset at something if her jaw is dropping, but I fail to see what and I fail to see any reasonable meaningful argument for abandoning our policies. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (it's his jaw.) The example given is "using a primary source to show that a secondary source is wrong."  A says X, that's in the primary source.  B says A said Y.  According to the claim that makes my jaw drop it is against Wikipedia policy to go to the primary source where A said X and use that to show that what B claims (that A said Y) is forbidden.  I guess it should have been made more clear that Y is incompatible with X.  If A says X and B claims that A said Y, where Y is incompatible with X, I see no flaw in using the primary source to refute B's claim.  It is absurd to require that C has to quote A to refute B  before what A actually said can be referenced in Wikipedia to refute B's false statement.  A said what A said.  If B claims otherwise then A's original (primary source) words surely can be used to refute B.  --Minasbeede 19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A recurring problem. Suppose A said "labor notes will never work" and B said "A proposed a system of labor notes." Later, B became an influence on several political parties and governments; academics devoted intensive study to B's work, and not to A's, and used A-ism as a shorthand for labor notes. Jacob Haller 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources proposal
I have worked on a draft fleshing out the idea of what we're trying to address in this policy. There is a variety of sometimes conflicting definitions for primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Our concern should be what sources articles should rely upon, and which sources should be used with caution. This line of thought was spurred by BirgitteSB's comments about such a distinction. I've taken some time to read over the talk page archives here and review what everyone has been saying, to try and take many of the opinions expressed into account. I think I have encapsulated the intent in a more direct fashion, with less confusion between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I also believe the proposal draft better addresses the circumstances that are most appropriate for the use of historical, primary and similar sources, at least from what people have seemed to express. The draft proposal is intended to replace WP:NOR. Please take a look over the draft and express your opinion. Please tell me if this approach is workable, in your view, and why or why not. If it is workable, but the draft is flawed (as drafts tend to be), please share your criticism and concerns. I figured it was a thought worth fleshing out and discussing. Vassyana 16:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is too biased against primary sources. I do like the concept of "auxiliary" sources, but to me that would be for something like a blog which you wouldn't solely rely on, but might link to for informational purposes. Squidfryerchef 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it too biased against primary sources? What specific problems do you think it would run into? Vassyana 10:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, to cite the aviation example, it would prohibit basing an article on manufacturer data on an aircraft, such as gross weight, size, range, etc. which are critical to understanding these types of subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 12:36, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this kind of concern is already addressed. I worked on language specifically to acknowledge such exceptions. (from the draft) "Some of these sources may be particularly reliable and helpful in presenting a complete encyclopedic article, such as census data. Some auxiliary references may also be useful for providing supporting facts, figures or limited quotations to accompany claims and analysis from reliable secondary sources." Does that address your concerns? If not, what needs to be added/changed to address those concerns? Vassyana 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On the whole, I like your draft a lot better than the current policy page. It is more concise and contains far better explanations and examples. However one point I saw on my quick "look-over" is the last section on auxillary sources, with the sentence "Article claims that rely on an auxiliary source should (1) only report what the source states, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". It's probably the very rare occasion, but I think that there would be times when something like an eyewitness claim could enhance an article with an explanation that is missing in other published or secondary sources, since those are usually "space limited" (especially articles), and the additional explanation may not have been worthy enough to keep in the article with the wealth of information on that subject and space restrictions. I do agree that these "additions" should somehow be appropriately referenced, perhaps with a special "reference template" (for lack of a better term) that helps distinguish these rare occasions from the more acceptable secondary sources, but not to inhibit (or prohibit) them in their entirety. I think that the draft should elaborate a tad more on this so that some people don't read it literally as "the law", but instead will understand that it should be taken figuratively and that there are exceptions to every rule. I guess, maybe something as well that these are general guidelines for most articles, and that exceptions can and do occur. I doubt if this could be "categorized" into something along the lines of "these types of articles (science, physics, etc.) should never use auxillary sources, but these types of articles (modern history, current events, etc.) may use auxillary sources on rare occasions when a further explanation only available from the auxillary source would further enhance the article without adding conclusions or other inferences". Just my opion on one point, I'll have to re-read the entire several times and think a bit more on it. Thanks for the effort so far though, it's very good. wbfergus 13:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Using auxiliary sources" specifically refers to WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONSENSUS in an attempt to emphasize there are exceptions. Is there something I could do to help make that more clear? Vassyana 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (Why is it too biased against primary sources?) It implies that primary sources can only be used in very, very limited circumstances. In certain types of articles, such as the aforementioned example of aircraft, the primary sources usually have the best information, and you might have only one secondary source to establish notability.  I'm of the opinion that, once notability is established, an article should cite as many primary sources as can be found, and we should encourage that. Squidfryerchef 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This should not be a rule with exceptions, it should not be a rule at all. As has been discussed ad-nauseum above, there is no consensus for limiting the use of primary vs. secondary sources. All sources can be misused regardless of arbitrary classifications. Singling out a particular type of source is just inviting a crusade against articles using these types of sources by a misguided cabal of editors with an authoritarian personality preclusion. This is why we make policy descriptive, rather than prescriptive. To "make it more clear", address the real issue with OR, rather than trying to promulgate simplistic prescriptive guidelines that fit most but not all cases. The real issue with OR is editors confusing and conflating articles and sources by trying to make WP a source of new published information, rather than a repository of information already published in WP:RS, regardless of whether those sources can be classified as primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary or what-have-you, including auxiliary. Dhaluza 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. Generally speaking, a single secondary source is not enough to establish notability. Also, as emphasized in the draft, this is specifically focusing on concerns related to original research. The current policy version is more restrictive on primary sources and arose from the tendency of primary sources to be abused for original research. I do not think a policy that's wildly permissive, and especially encouraging, of primary sources is at all in the interests of the project, which focuses on reflecting current knowledge. Permitting a heavy reliance on primary sources is contrary to that focus and an invitation to a wide variety of content abuse, notably including original research. Most people who object to the current formulation are concerned that the policy will prohibit people from using primary sources in some select circumstances. I tried incorporating that (apparently) consensus concern. Two such "exceptions" that seem to be brought up frequently (which I took into account in the draft) are using particularly reliable data, such as aviation figures and census reports, and using primary sources to complement/illustrate secondary sources. Additionally, it explicitly encourages people to employ WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONSENSUS to identify specific exceptions. Vassyana 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "generally speaking" you mean in most cases, then yes, multiple secondary sources are usually used to establish notability. However there are many articles where one or no secondary sources are cited, needed, or even available. To take something that is mostly true and make it a requirement is not only unnecessary, it is contrary to the whole idea of what a policy on WP is supposed to be. Regardless of how sound an argument may seem, or how convincing a case you may make, WP policy is supposed to represent actual good practice, not what people wish good practice would be. To some extent WP:NOR is an exception as a core policy, as it expresses a basic tenant that all articles must meet. But taking this and shaping the definition of OR so narrowly that it only allows secondary sourcing except in the most extreme cases would create a bias against producing good articles in a host of subject areas where hard facts are more important than opinion. Dhaluza 21:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are no reliable secondary sources available, it is impossible to make an encyclopedic article without original research and therefore is an inappropriate topic for Wikipedia. I have yet to hear any convincing case where primary sources are needed, only convenient. Even census statistics, aviation data and the other examples the draft would explicitly permit are not needed since there are copious secondary sources that include such information. However, it is good practice (and convenient) to source the figures directly. The proposal is nowhere near as restrictive as you'd try to make it sound. The draft explicitly allows auxiliary sources, including primary sources, to be used in a broader context than the current formulation would allow or imply, in line with "actual" good practice and a review of this talk page's archives. I'd also direct you towards some of BirgetteSB's insightful and eloquent comments, which may help further clarify the issue.] Vassyana 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True, if there are no secondary sources, the subject is possibly not notable. However, once the threshold of notability is passed, there's no good reason for a general rule requiring verifiability only to secondary sources except in "rare cases". There are pros and cons for using both primary and secondary sources: primary sources are generally more accurate and less filtered, but sometimes lack context. Secondary sources are generally less accurate and more biased, but sometimes provide context, although that context is sometimes biased. It's all case-dependent, and a general rule that primary sources should be "rare" and secondary sources "primarily relied upon" is neither good practice, nor a good description of current Wikipedia practice. CO GDEN  19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (Answering points raised since) A single secondary source can be enough to establish notability. Secondary sources aren't required for articles that are inherently notable, such as many geographic topics.  It is very easy to use primary sources without slipping into OR.  I don't understand where all this is coming from.  We're not here to rewrite WP:RS. Squidfryerchef 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing I've said here is contradictory to WP:RS or WP:V (on the contrary, I think the proposal would bring the policies into better harmony), so I'm not sure why you get the impression we're revisiting reliable sources. Regardless, it's nearly impossible to build an encyclopedic article based entirely on primary sources without liberally engaging in original research. We absolute need secondary (including tertiary) sources to provide the context, analysis and interpretation of those source necessary, so a proper article can be built. Otherwise, the article either violates this policy or it's just a collection of facts. Either way, sole reliance on primary sources in highly inappropriate. Vassyana 23:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that you can't write a good encyclopedic article based entirely on primary sources. It is true that you can't usually write an article without at least some secondary sources, but the reason you include the secondary sources is for the primary source material found within them. For example, if you're writing an article about the Mountain Meadows massacre, you will certainly cite secondary sources such as 20th century books by historians such as Juanita Brooks. However, the main reason you cite Brooks is to present her personal views, analyses, and conclusions concerning the massacre, which is primary source material—her original research. Sure, you can also cite Brooks when she acts as a pure secondary source by describing the contents of people's diaries, etc., but you could just as easily quote the diary itself, if it's published. And if Brooks' reading or paraphrasing of the diary is controversial, you almost have to quote the unfiltered language of the original published diary. CO GDEN  19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:RS is what should define the various classes of sources, not WP:NOR. We should give editors a wide berth to include the kinds of sources they feel appropriate.  Please remember that an article about a mass transit system can use primary sources to a greater extent than an article about religion.  Squidfryerchef 23:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * RS does indeed address sourcing, along with V#Sources, but sourcing in relation to original research is indeed relevant here. RS is even built using WP:PSTS, imported from this policy. You left the remainder, and main thrust, of my reply unanswered however. Vassyana 00:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Squidfryerchef: we don't need to define the different types of sources here. All we need to say is, whatever kind of source you're using, don't add your own interpretation. --Coppertwig 00:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an operative difference between the types of sources, particularly in relation to this policy. If the use of a certain class of sources tends toward original research, or that such abuse reached such an acute level that it required a policy change (both true), there's obviously a need for the policy to address those distinctions. Vassyana 00:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep beating the primary sources inevitably lead to OR drum, but that simply is not supported by a broad consensus, nor is it true as you assert. It is possible to write a completely factual article using only primary source facts. There are thousands of examples created by a bot using census data. In some subject areas, editors may use primary sources to push their POV, but editors can use secondary sources to push POV too. The problem is POV pushing, not sourcing. Focus on the problem. Dhaluza 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Please explain how my assertions here are incorrect. Also, those bot created "articles" are not encyclopedic articles and if left untouched are suited for Wikisource, but not for Wikipedia. Vassyana 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Vassyana, your proposed changes are very appropriate for articles about ideas ( religion, humanities, scientific theories ), but I would not like to see them applied to articles about things ( including organizations ). Suppose I begin a stub about Yoyodyne, Incorporated.  I cite the company's web page that says it was founded in Pittsburgh in 1947.  That's a primary source, but there is no O.R. Squidfryerchef 01:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Supporting facts are explicitly acknowledged and permitted in the draft proposal. ("Some auxiliary references may also be useful for providing supporting facts, figures or limited quotations to accompany claims and analysis from reliable secondary sources.") However, such an article could not principally rely on such sources without conflicting with NPOV and potentially Wikipedia's fundamental nature. Is there some adjustment that could be made to better accommodate your concerns, or more clearly express the permissibility of supporting facts from auxiliary sources? Vassyana 01:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also note that the proposal specifically takes into account WP:SELFPUB. Vassyana 01:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Vassyana, you seem to assume that the date the company is founded is not a principal fact and that an article consisting of that sort of fact is not "encyclopedic". I disagree. --Coppertwig 13:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a fairly acute distortion of what I'm saying. Of course, it is a basic fact (though probably not a principal one) and such facts should be in Wikipedia articles. However, Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of such facts. Third-party sources are required to provide context and analysis. Vassyana 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would the company's own website necessarily be a primary source for the company's founding date? The primary source for the actual date of founding might be the court papers filed when registering the company with the government.  The company's website might be a secondary source for that particular information.
 * This is besides the fact that some information from primary sources is allowed, that's not even a question. The question is how many articles rely solely on primary sources.  I'd say very, very rarely.  The examples provided so far on airports, runway sizes, etc, don't rely solely on primary sources - but they can use primary sources for that information if necessary.  It's all covered by policy.  We want to make it very clear that articles should not rely solely on primary sources.   Dreadstar  †  17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you just described almost all the "episode pages" for a TV show.  Corpx 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly true. Even worse, there's no need for it. TV Guide and similar publications, as well as the huge number of industry periodicals, pop culture magazines and related references, render any "need" for the watch-and-write approach null and void. Vassyana 19:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think some people need to be reminded that the policy in no way forbids the use of primary sources, it only forbids the use of primary sources to make original interpretive, explanatory, or synthetic claims or generalizations. For example, if you use the IBM website to say that IBM was incorporated in 1911 - well, this in no way violates the policy. But if you say that it was because IBM was incorporated in 1911 that Sun Yat Sen was elected president of China .... well, you better have a secondary source for that!! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the proposal is really does nothing substantial other than re-label primary source as auxiliary source. I also disagree with some of these statements:
 * "secondary sources are preferable because they generally provide analysis, offer a more independent view and provide a broader context for the subject". I don't think this is a valid statement across all sub-communities of Wikipedia. First, in political, historical, and religious contexts, secondary sources are more likely to be biased than primary sources, because the writer is citing the primary source to prove a point, and will interpret the primary source in a way that favors the point. In such cases it is imperative, if one is to follow WP:NPOV, to cite the unvarnished language of the primary source. Second, although some secondary sources provide context to primary sources, they also shape the context in a way that supports their point of view.
 * The definition of reliable secondary source is not compatible with general usage outside of Wikipedia. Particularly, journal articles containing original research are generally considered primary sources, unless they are an overview of prior research by people other than the author.
 * "Reliable secondary sources should be the principle reference material for Wikipedia articles." While this may be justifiable for some Wikipedia articles, this statement is not generally applicable Wikipedia-wide. For many articles (perhaps even most, for some fields such as celebrity articles and articles about cutting edge science) articles, the principle reference material should be primary (aka "auxiliary") sources. For example, the following excellent articles, among countless others, rely primarily on primary sources, and are much the better for it: Sunshine (2007 film), Deinonychus, Baby Gender Mentor, Same-sex marriage in Spain, Mendip Hills, and Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. Featured articles are actually more likely than non-featured articles to rely primarily on primary (auxiliary) sources, which has to tell you something.
 * Classification of "Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum" as an "auxiliary" (aka primary) source doesn't make sense. It's actually, for most purposes, a secondary source. Like many secondary sources, it's not in most experts' opinions a particularly accurate or objective one, but it's still a secondary source, and it's a "reliable source" according to the definitions of WP:Reliable sources found in the guideline until very recently.
 * The "rule" for using "auxiliary" (aka primary) sources is applicable to secondary sources as well.
 * CO GDEN  20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the differences are much more significant and plainly articulated. The distinction between secondary and tertiary sources is rejected. The category of auxiliary sources is significantly more broad than primary sources.
 * This is a gross misrepresentation of what the draft says and what NPOV is about. The proposal simply asserts they are more independent, not necessarily less biased. NPOV requires a presentation of all notable points of view, not some mythical objective neutrality.
 * The proposal specifically addresses that differing fields have differing approaches to source classification and clearly provides a definition for usage.
 * Your examples do nothing to contradict the position of the proposal draft. Sunshine (2007 film) and Deinonychus clearly show a dependence on reliable secondary sources as defined by the proposal, and generally defined by the Wikipedia community.
 * This shows a deep misunderstanding of how primary sources are defined and used in real world academia. Bede is a primary source, much like Tacitus (who I demonstrated above is treated as a primary source). Historical sources are generally considered primary sources by historians. Also, claiming that experts say Bede's history is not accurate or objective while stating that it is a reliable source (and therefore suited for direct referencing) is an utter contradiction.
 * Vassyana 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a misunderstanding. It's true that sources like Bede are cited mainly as a primary source, but that doesn't change the fact that it's also a secondary source. Nobody cites it as a secondary source anymore, because it isn't accurate. But it does give insights into the medieval mind and culture, and in that sense it's a primary source. It's clearly a reliabile primary source, as well, because it's cited as a primary source by peer-reviewed scholars. Basically, it's a somewhat unreliable secondary source, but a reliable primary source. CO GDEN  19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's clearly some misunderstanding going on, as evidenced by the points you did not address. Part of your misunderstanding seems to derive from a divergence from the practical definition of sources, while obsessed with the "dictionary definitions" taken out of context. Bede is not a secondary source except in a strictly semantic sense. Also, your comments have solidified my opinion that you have a grossly distorted understanding of what "reliable" means, both for Wikipedia's purposes and as a plain definition. Source material, even in peer-reviewed articles, is not necessarily reliable. There are entire books and articles written about the reliability, or lack thereof, of individual historical sources. Again, even Caesar's Gallic War, seen as a pinnacle of ancient reporting, is also acknowledged as a masterpiece of propaganda and noted as containing inaccurate hearsay. Simply drawing upon the source material makes no judgment of its reliability or accuracy, and to assert otherwise is either dishonest or ignorant. Vassyana 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The meaning of "secondary source" doesn't have to be so complicated. Bede is a secondary source to the extent he reviews and incorporates other pre-existing material. His editorializations and his fictional quotations, of course, are primary material. Bede was essentially peer reviewed during his time, but he's not viewed by modern historians as an entirely reliable secondary source. But he's a great primary source, and a completely reliable source as to his own opinions and insights. He can be cited as a reliable primary source, but a questionably-reliable secondary source. CO GDEN  21:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no way to distinguish between the reliability of various points in his material in the absence of reliable third-party references without engaging in original research. Vassyana 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is no absence of reliable third-party references on Bede's credibility. If you said that Bede is not entirely reliable, that would not be original research, because it's not an original unpublished idea. It's not even really a controversial issue, and since Bede's looseness with historical facts isn't likely to be disputed, a primary source saying "My conclusion is that Bede was loose with history" or a secondary source saying "Scholarly consensus is that Bede was loose with history" is probably optional under WP:V. CO GDEN  22:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You just expressed exactly why articles need to rely on reliable third-party publications. Vassyana 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "rely on" you mean "cite", that's not true. If "rely on" means "they exist", then maybe you have a point, but that's not a standard meaning of "rely on". CO GDEN  19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, here is another example of an encyclopedic article written almost entirely from a single primary source, an NTSB factual report: Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-4. With the exception of one sentence on probable cause for one accident, the whole article quotes primary source data transcluded from a reliable public domain source (the probable cause represents the only interpretation of facts, and is therefore secondary source). This source is hardly "auxilary" it is the basis for establishing the detailed facts on the design and construction of the aircraft. Dhaluza 10:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That report is not a primary source. It compiles numerous eyewitness accounts and compares and analyzes them.  It also compares the accident with other accidents involving the same sort of aircraft.  One entire section is labeled "Analyis" and there is a probable cause finding.  This is not raw data.  It is a secondary source.-- Birgitte  SB  14:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Like many sources it contains both primary and secondary source material as you point out. But as I said in my comment above, all but one sentence came from the primary source material, and that one sentence is not the basis of the article by any stretch. The NTSB report does compile a list of other accidents, but I would not say it compares them in the sense of a critical review that would qualify as a secondary source. It simply lists the other accidents on record with a summary in the part of the report used in the article. So this article is based on a single primary source as I said. Dhaluza 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Beyond what was said about the mislabeling of the source, this article is a perfect example of why multiple reliable secondary sources are needed. Such an article is contradictory to numerous policies and guidelines. The first half of the article is a bombardment of facts without context or explanation. It then sharply and immediately shifts gears to report the accident history. However, it does nothing to explain why the information is notable or of interest. It gives no explanation as to why the investigation was undertaken in the first place. (It mentions the accident. But, was the investigation launched because there were suspicions about the manufacturing of the craft? Was it launched because there was a public outcry? Was it launched because the engineering of the craft was believed to be potentially flawed? Why was the investigation started? What spurred the start of the investigation?) The article additionally makes no assertion of notability, which is a central requirement. The lack of context and lack of notability assertion qualify such articles under two speedy deletion criteria. (WP:CSD and WP:CSD). As a collection of blunt facts without context, the article also is an example of what articles should not be. How is NPOV being served here, since it requires an overview of all notable points of view? Does the bulk of reliable secondary sources support such an emphasis on the accident report, or is this undue weight? In the absence of such sources, that article matches negative criteria under the criteria for speedy deletion and "what Wikipedia is not", and NPOV cannot be fulfilled. Vassyana 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The source material used in the article meets the definition of primary source (but for one sentence) as explained above. As for your assertion that since the article does not anticipate all of your questions, and provide ready answers for them, it should be deleted, may I refer you to WP:IMPERFECT, and of course WP:NOR. We are not supposed to go beyond the sources, so explanatory claims, or speculating on the reason the NTSB took on this investigation to answer your inquiries would be OR (but, if you want my opinion, the unusually detailed investigation was done in this case because a former FAA Chairman was killed, but that's not relevant to an aircraft type article anyway). The facts are indeed blunt, but without context? Are you serious? They describe the design and construction of the aircraft, including how different materials are used differently on different parts. This is relevant in the context of what the aircraft is. It is of interest not only to someone interested in this type of aircraft, it is also relevant to composite aircraft in general, and the application of composites in industry. As for the rest of your laundry list of complaints, what points of view are relevant to an aircraft? It is what it is. The emphasis is not on the accident report--that document is much longer and discusses many topics. Just the topics relevant to the subject of the aircraft type have been transcluded, and yes the accident history is relevant. As for notability, first the article clearly states that this aircraft was certified to JAR 22 by the LBA, entered serial production, and was produced in significant numbers. Besides that, there is the obvious fact that it was involved in a notable accident. Also if you dig a little deeper, in the what links here, you will find that the world distance record for gliding of 3,008.8 km was set in this aircraft type. So while your suggestions for improvement are valid as far as that goes, you take it much too far by suggesting that since the article does not meet your high standards, it should not exist. And your assertion that it qualifies for speedy deletion is not even close to being supportable. By taking this example to these extremes, you undermine your repeated arguments favoring devaluing primary sources. Dhaluza 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say those questions had to be answered for the article to be sufficient. They were examples of what kinds of questions would provide context. Of course, trying to answer questions that sources do not address is original research, and contrary to your implication, I did not even imply that OR should be engaged in. Quite the opposite, I explicitly said more reliable secondary sources were needed. The case was unusually detailed because a former FAA chairman died and there's no reliable source that covers that? That seems more than a little unlikely. Yep, the facts are completely without context. Technical details (raw facts) do not provide context, no matter how detailed. You claim it's relevant to related topics, but the article presents no such explanation. Why is it important to know this information? How does it compare with crafts of its type? In other words, what makes this information suited for a Wikipedia article, instead of Wikisource? You claim it's relevant to related topics, but the article makes no such explanation and presents no evidence to that point. Plenty of points of view are relevant to aircraft. What audience uses them and why? What are seen as the positive points of the design and production? The negative points? Just a few questions to start fleshing out the views required by NPOV. The questions regarding context are also relevant, since they present points of view. You can claim the emphasis is not on the accident report, but it accounts for half the article. I realize a certain amount of space is necessary to discuss that subtopic, but is it that much a part of the coverage that it should occupy roughly half the article? Being simply certified as a worthy craft and produced does not equal notability. Is it a notable accident? According to what reliable sources? Where's the substantial coverage? If it set a world record for gliding distance, why is this not in the article and cited? It certainly would be an assertion of notability. If even a small bit of context were provided, along with that notability assertion, it would be well outside the bounds of WP:CSD (A1 and A7), but as the article currently stands, it clearly qualifies. Also, without context and commentary (that is, just a shotgun blast of raw facts), the article clearly violates WP:NOT. Vassyana 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So what is your point? That the article could be improved with additional secondary sources? No argument there. That these sources are necessary? No, the article is fine as far as it goes, and removing it would not improve the encyclopedia as a whole. Dhaluza 00:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is you held it up as an encyclopedic article, which it's plainly not. It's not compliant with Wikipedia policies and principles, as elaborated above. It's a terribly poor example if you intended to defend a primary source friendly position, since it is so problematic in its current form that it qualifies for speedy deletion. Is deletion the answer? Probably not, in this case. If your claims about the record and the relevance of the details to related topics are true, certainly not. Though, if you are aware of this information and sources for those facts, you should add that information with references. If you're aware of the information, but not the sources, it would probably be wise to tag the article as needing expert attention or (better yet) leave a message on the aviation project's talk page asking for help in finding sources. Regardless, this will be my last reply on this, as we're getting far off-topic here. If you so disagree with Wikipedia policy (such as WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:CSD and the requirements of WP:NPOV), as seems to be the case here, I would suggest you address those issues at the appropriate talk pages. Vassyana 01:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree with those policies, but I do object to your dismissal of my arguments by assuming I do. And your continued assertion that it qualifies for speedy is clearly not consistent with that policy as written and applied. Dhaluza 10:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)It's only rated as a start-class article, quite appropriately. It lacks context for the facts, contrary to WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:CSD. It lacks an assertion of notability, contrary to WP:N and WP:CSD. It's sourcing is quite inadequate, contrary to WP:V and WP:NPOV. By insisting such an article is "encyclopedic" and an example of how a good article can rely on primary sources, while shrugging off those failures, it certainly gives the impression you disagree with general policy, or would like them to say something quite different than they do currently. Vassyana 18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"in political, historical, and religious contexts, secondary sources are more likely to be biased than primary sources" So? You miss the point. Let's say alll primary sources are unbiased - the problem that this policy addresses is that if an editor uses a primary source to make a novel interpretive, explanatory or synthetic statement, it is the editor's bias that enters the article which is strictly forbidden by NPOV. NPOV does not insist that we use unbiased sources, indeed, NPOV is based on the principle of "verifiability, not truth." Of course our sources are biased. So what? All the better! Let them be biased! NPOV means representing multiple, diverse, even opposing views. We just need to identify the view and put it in its context, but all this is in our NPOV policy. NOR is about keeping our views out, and to do that we have to prohibit editors from using primary sources to forward their (editors) own arguments. period. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but my point was that source bias is not an argument in favor of officially discouraging the use of primary sources. This is one of the main reasons put forward for the proposed decree against primary sources: that some editors have been using primary sources to promote an agenda or bias. CO GDEN  19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As for scientific and historical sources, I think it would help to encourage the use of review articles (not book reviews, but general overviews of the recent research) and similar sections in the more specialized reference books, but not require it. Jacob Haller 22:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be an appropriate subject for an essay, or eventually a guideline, but not really a main Wikipedia official policy. CO GDEN  19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that primary sources are generally/always/usually more liable to have Wikipedian interpretations added to them than secondary sources, especially if peer-reviewed scientific articles are considered to be primary sources, but also in any case. I think Vassyana is using a definition of "encyclopedic" which doesn't agree with either my dictionary or my idea of what Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) is or should be. The Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-4 article seems to me (at a glance) to be a good, encyclopedic article. Maybe we need to create a new category for ordinary peer-reviewed scientific articles, or get consensus on whether they're primary, secondary or a combination of the two, before carrying on much discussion using the terms "primary" and "secondary" when it's not clear what's covered under each. Similarly, clarification is needed as to whether a journalist's report of a traffic accident, for example, is a secondary source as stated on this page. --Coppertwig 16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the proposal I drafted, I treat peer-reviewed/academic articles as secondary sources, based on WP:V and WP:RS, which emphasize the reliability of such sources and treats them as "third party". The draft also notes that some auxiliary sources may be considered especially reliable and useful. It additionally reminds people to use common sense and do what's necessary for the best of the encyclopedia. WP:V and WP:RS would indicate that reputable newspapers would be considered a secondary, or "third party", reliable source. Also, the dictionary definition of encyclopedic is "broad" (as in encyclopedic knowledge), or "of encyclopedia quality" (or similar self-referential variation). Outside of very technical or specialist encyclopedias (and even rarely then), articles are usually presented in context with narrative flow, not as a raw blast of facts lacking those features. Vassyana 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My long held belief has been that we should dispose of the terms "primary" and "secondary" completely because of the lack of clarity you mention. An attempt at doing just that was short-lived due to objections, and do not believe the idea is anywhere near achieving consensus now.  I watch for this topic to come up and try to contribute productively to making the issue clearer when it does.  I don't know the ultimate answer, or if we will find this round or in the round six months from now.  But please, please do not let yourself believe there not real reason for this discussion.  That so many different people have for so long put effort into describing this problem, should be evidence enough that there is an underlying issue with certain types of sources being more liable o have Wikipedian interpretations added to them than other types.  I make a real effort to explain these issues to the new people who show up around this topic instead of insisting they read the archives themselves.  But it ridiculous at this stage of the recent discussion to still be "debating" whether the problem even exists.  Anyone who is still "not convinced that primary sources are generally/always/usually more liable to have Wikipedian interpretations added to them than secondary sources" needs to read the archives and see for yourselves the variety of problems that have been outlined on this issue. Here is a good start and work forward in time.  Also when done with that time period there is more in the regular archive of this page and in archive of the talk page at WP:ATT-- Birgitte  SB  20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm gradually beginning to agree with you on just disposing of the terms "primary" and "secondary" sources completely. I don't think it adds much here, and everybody has a different view on what the terms mean. Really, original research is original research, regardless of the type of source, and that's the main point of this policy. CO GDEN  19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems clear that there has always been a belief that secondary sources, however defined, should be the basic building blocks of articles. Let us assume that consensus on this issue existed in the past, even if there were disagreements on the definitions of these sources and the degree of their suitability, and move on. Hornplease 21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there has ever been such a consensus. If "secondary sources" does not include things like peer-reviewed journal articles, interviews, novels, movies, autobiographies, press releases, or government reports, then your statement above would require revolutionary changes to the entire Wikipedia culture, and a dramatic revision of a vast number of Wikipedia articles, including most featured articles. CO GDEN  19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would make some, admittedly major, changes: I would also consider treating this as a guideline, not as policy, as you had suggested for the current text. Jacob Haller 22:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there is general agreement that peer-reviewed scientific research papers are reliable sources, but that some are often considered primary sources.
 * I personally think there should be a special note including peer-reviewed review articles, i.e. overviews of recent research in the field, as reliable secondary sources.
 * I think most other peer-reviewed research papers can be considered "reliable primary sources"
 * I would add another category describing limited sets of "reliable primary sources," not regarding them as either secondary or auxiliary sources:
 * Most peer-reviewed research papers (in both science and the humanities).
 * In biography articles, an author's own works are suitable sources for his/her beliefs.
 * In political articles, a movement's foundational works and its internal commentaries are suitable sources for its beliefs.
 * In religious articles, a movement's internal commentaries are suitable sources for its own beliefs, but its sacred texts are not (because sacred texts often have multiple interpretations).
 * (In historical events, there is ongoing debate over how often to use eyewitness accounts.)
 * I would add a third category discussing misuse of otherwise-reliable sources, e.g.:
 * Reading too much into passing comments
 * Reading too much into statements which go against the grain of the argument
 * Drawing analytic conclusions from definitions


 * Very sensibly laid out: I disagree only with one aspect: most peer-reviewed research papers in the social sciences - political science, in particular, economics to a degree, development economics most certainly - are in effect peer-reviewed survey articles, in that they frequently serve to synthesise other sources; thus should they be considered reliable secondary sources. I'm not sure I would be comfortable with any categorisation that did not recognise that. Hornplease 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * These articles are indeed secondary sources to the extent they review prior source material. However, as to their original conclusions and ideas based on these prior sources, they are primary sources. Anyone who is an original source of some new idea is the primary source as to that idea. CO GDEN  19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Jacob Haller's comments are a good starting-point for an essay, which might eventually become a guideline. CO GDEN  19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we describe good Wikipedia research practice on another page?
I suggest supplementing this page (instructions on what not to do) with another page, possibly Source-based research on what to do, providing guidance for common situations: what sources to look for, etc., etc. Jacob Haller 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. Were you thinking it should be an essay, or a guideline? Were you looking to have WP:PSTS (or my proposal, or some other replacement) moved or placed there? I'd also add it might not be a bad idea, if we take this approach, to specifically solicit input from the WP:V and WP:MOS talk pages. Cheers! Vassyana 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really sure. I suppose it should start as an essay, but try to achieve enough consensus that it could later be upped to a guideline, and start with links from here to there as well. But my own thoughts on the subject are very disorganized, a matter of one question at a time. Jacob Haller 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * personally, I think it should be a personal essay. Wikipedia has always been rule averse in part because there are perhaps an infinite number of ways to do someting right and also because of the quasi-anarchic ideals of a wiki-community. Se we have always strived to have as few policies about content as poissible - NPOV, V, and NOR have worked for a long time and while I feel passionately about these policies I would really be loathe to add much more to them. Plus, we have peer review, and Good or Featured articles, that can act as community-agreed models of what we should be striving for (maybe what you want to do is write an essay on "How to write an article that will become FA" or something like that?). If anyone cares I explain my view in greater detail here The role of policies in collaborative anarchy. hee is another possibility: there are some superb books precisely on how to do research, that are used all the time in college and graduate school courses. perhaps a series of articles on these books might help provide editors unused to high-level research with some useful tools. We have lots of article on various books, so why not collaborate on some articles calling attention to books on research? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about deprecating WP:PSTS (or an appropriate replacement) to a guideline? This could potentially resolve some objections voiced and allow the topic to be more fully addressed, while avoiding policy bloat. It could also more appropriately represent a consensus where there are known exceptions and examples provided. Just chewing some thoughts. Vassyana 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Guidelines (as distinguished from policies) are fine and surely would be useful. The problem I see is that for no good reason primary sources are being deprecated, with much of the deprecation being of the form "this kind of abuse can be committed when primary sources are used" with no recognition of the equally possible abuse that could arise if a secondary source is used nor of the possibility that the secondary source itself has made a misrepresentation.  It's fake rationality: all the good points of secondary sources are listed, all the possible bad points of primary sources are listed (or asserted as true), and then the forced conclusion is reached that secondary sources are better.  It's selective application of stringency: primary sources are regarded with distrust and suspicion and have to be frisked, metal-detected and X-rayed, secondary sources get through the security gate with a nod.  That's further compounded by assertions that editors cannot use a primary source to correct an  assertion made by a secondary source that misrepresents that primary source: the primary source is permanently on a no-fly list.  I'm doing some simple genealogical research.  I can see where ancestors lived in census reports: primary sources.  I can't see that where they lived would ever be notable in Wikipedia but where someone else lived (Willard Gibbs lived in New Haven - no surprise) might be notable.  If the census record says person X lived in New Haven and a secondary source says the person lived in Miami why is the secondary source given favored treatment?  (Yes, I know that something can be composed that adds a lot of additional things to the question and thereby puts the secondary source in a favored light.  The problem is that the policy in effect assumes that there is always something or might be something that makes the secondary source more reliable.  I can see no justification for that assumption.)


 * All of this discussion is unnecessary, but while there is a move to have policies that favor one class of source over another then there will and should be conflict. If, however, there were simply guidelines on how to use sources and on constructs to avoid when any source is used that would be fine.  If there's notable features to different kinds of source go ahead, note them. --Minasbeede 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like Vassyana's suggestion. One way to do it would be to merge Classification of sources with WP:PSTS to form a guideline.  --Coppertwig 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a move towards that, it's a well-established principle. Look over Verifiability and take note of how third-party reliable sources are discussed. Vassyana 23:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll to test for consensus to remove edit protection
This policy was edit protected because edit warring over language restricting the use of primary sources. This subject has been discussed extensively on this talk page, and was also the subject of a previous straw poll. The question posed by this straw poll asks a very specific question intended to see if the edit war can be ended and edit protection can be removed to allow normal editing again:


 * Do you agree or disagree that language added to this guideline during the past year or so, replacing language treating primary and secondary sources equally with language devaluing primary sources in favor of secondary sources, regardless of the merits of the arguments or your personal views on it: 
 * a) did not represent a consensus view of the Wikipedia community as a whole,
 * b) is unlikely to gain broad consensus in the near term, and
 * c) any such language added to this policy without first obtaining consensus should be removed.
 * -- Dhaluza 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Comment. This is another biased poll, if better than the last one. The default implied position is that the change was made without consensus, an issue that has been repeatedly addressed and refuted. (Particularly the ludicrous assertion it was "snuck" in.) Most objections (by far) to primary source limitations originate in a rejection of the fundamental principle of no original research, rejection of other fundamental policies (such as NPOV), rejection of the requirements of reliable sourcing (such as WP:V) or outright distortion of how the policy reads (as it does not prohibit primary sources). Also, primary sources have been deprecated since before the most recent version established approximately a year ago. (Note that even in that earlier version, primary source reliance was still considered an exception.) The use of primary sources was simply tightened in response to gross abuse of the more permissive (but still highly restrictive) language. So long as the above misrepresentations and misunderstandings persist, it will be exceedingly difficult to achieve a consensus. Vassyana 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no assertion in the question that it was "snuck" in (over a year's time, no less), it only asks if the language was developed through a consensus process, and that it reflects (or can attract) consensus. Dhaluza 10:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The editor who crafted the last poll insisted it was snuck in, or otherwise inserted through dubious means. My refutation of that claim occured in the context of refuting his claim that there was no consensus/real discussion for the change. I apologize for the lack of clarity. Vassyana 15:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue wasn't that it was "snuck in" by improper means. The issue was that it wasn't looked at carefully by the broader Wikipedia community, much like the WP:ATT proposal, which initially had a narrow "consensus" by a few editors, but failed after it was subject to broader discussion. Because of their importance and potential to harm the entire Wikipedia, policy articles, unlike content-domain articles, aren't subject to "inertia", and must always reflect widespread practice and consensus. CO GDEN  18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to you, the change "was inserted into the policy in late 2006 without much comment or notice". I can't believe you continue to insist the issue was not broadly and vigorously discussed. Please stop repeating variations of the same disproved claim. Vassyana 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad material is bad material and if it arises through any method or pathway it is bad. That it is bad or a misuse of something (here the "something" is "primary sources") does not poison the entire well.  It's as though you are claiming that secondary sources inherently cannot be in themselves an example of misuse nor the grist for misuse, or that they somehow mysteriously possess qualities that make them superior to primary sources.


 * The issue is (or should be) good over bad. When some editors seem absolutely dead set on tarring an entire class of potential source material it's hard to not think that those editors have some scheme in mind. --Minasbeede 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason nor justification for a priori denigrating primary sources. Were I to speculate on what the consensus here is I think I'd violate all sorts of policies - and be doing something useless. If you want Wikipedia to be good you want it to be based on good sources. Those may be primary, may be secondary. I see no useful purpose served by instituting a policy that denigrates one type of source. What that would most likely accomplish would be to give more ammunition to "Wiki Lawyers." Someone relies on a primary source, the "Wiki lawyer" removes the material and then both insists that the use of that source be justified AND repeatedly rejects all such justification using arguments the "Wiki lawyer" would never use against secondary sources, even though that argument (or an even better one) might be even better applied to some other material that is or is said to be from secondary sources. Why add another hoop through which editors (when challenged, and challenges may most often occur for material for which there are editors trying to favor their own POV) must jump? If it's good material from a good source and is used appropriately that would seem to be enough. If it turns out that overall Wiki sources are 10% primary and 90% secondary or the other way around what does it matter? What you want is good material from good sources. You can't honestly make any kind of blanket statement about the reliability or utility of primary sources nor of secondary sources. (You can make sophistic arguments. That's always possible.  It would seem that Wikipedia would intentionally shun sophism, everywhere.)  The negative claims made about primary sources are themselves unsourced, they're just claims. They smack of OR - and of the worst kind. --Minasbeede 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A, B, and C, and I'd like to take it a step further and get rid of the Smith/Jones example. Squidfryerchef 02:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, I agree with Vassyana on the quality of this straw poll. My position is that the policy needs to be returned to its pre-edit-war state, and the changes proposed by Cogden and the others need to have consensus before they are implemented.  The edit-war has specifically targeted removing or changing the following two sentences, which previously had consensus and have been included in the policy for almost a year prior to the edit-war:
 * "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources."
 * "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources.'


 * Those two sentences, and the rest of the policy that I linked to above, should remain in place until consensus is reached for changing or removing them. This is the process according to Wikipeida policy and guideline.  Dreadstar  †  04:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should they remain? They embody an unfounded blanket denigration of the quality of primary sources.  That they were added at some point in time does not remove the fact that the basic premise for them is not supported by fact.  According to the policy embodied in those two sentences, for example, one can't quote anyone, one can only repeat a secondary source's quotation of someone.  Unless B says A said X A didn't say X. That is ludicrous.  It has not been shown that favoring secondary sources over primary sources in any way enhances the quality of Wikipedia.  Anecdotal or isolated examples in which it is claimed that reliance on primary sources has led to lower quality don't suffice to justify a blanket condemnation of primary sources.  I can't really even understand why anyone is eager to reject use of primary sources: they are, just as the name implies, primary sources and considerable weight should attach both to "primary" and to "sources."  I certainly do make objection to the extreme nature of the NOR policy (which rejects logic, rejects perfectly valid synthesis) but that's separate from my objection to the denigration of the use of primary sources.  It would be false to characterize my objections to denigration of primary sources as being linked to disagreement with the NOR policy.--Minasbeede 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe this is misstatement of how WP:Consensus works, specifically "policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." The question properly asks whether these changes document existing consensus or try to create a new one. Like verifiability, it is the burden of those wishing to include the language to show it represents consensus, not the other way around. Dhaluza 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And Cogden's proposed wording does not reflect current consensus, so it should be removed until a new consensus is found to change the pre-edit-war wording. There is proof that the previous wording that stood for almost a year had consensus.  We don't remove or reword standing policy just because someone comes along and disputes it and claims no consensus for the current wording.  It would be chaos to do so.  A new consensus has to be reached to change the wording. Dreadstar  †  16:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus (which appears evident already), the simple solution is just to delete the controversial language entirely, replacing it with nothing. Essentially, there would be no official policy regarding primary or secondary sources, until some consensus is reached for some positive language. CO GDEN  18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly backwards, there was consensus for the pre-edit war wording. You need consensus to change the wording. Dreadstar  †  20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if there "was" a perceived consensus at one point. There's clearly no consensus on the controversial language now. Wikipedia policies, because of their importance and their potential to do damage to the Wikipedia institution, must reflect present consensus and must describe current practice. The whole WP:ATT promotion issue showed that sometimes, a perceived policy consensus among a group of editors isn't an actual consensus within the Wikipedia community. CO GDEN  18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is also a misrepresentation of the policy. As written, there is nothing in the policy that prevents an editor from adding "A said X" as long as there is a verifiable source (e.g. A's autobiography, a published transcript of a speech or whatever) The NOR policy does not reject the use of primary sources.  The NOR does not reject logic or synthesis either, it just rejects an editor's logic or synthesis - whether the editor is me or Minasbeede.  That is because Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a forum for advancing one's own views.  If that is what you want to do the world wide web has LOTS of opportunities for you.  This is just not one of them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding of logic may be flawed. If "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" doesn't include by logic that "Socrates is mortal" then I'm really confused.  Concluding that "Socrates is mortal" does not seem to me to be my "personal" logic or synthesis: that conclusion flows from the laws of logic.  If an editor takes information from source A and other information from source B and combines these sourced, verifiable pieces of information to synthesize C, C being factual and correct, it's very hard to understand why that is forbidden, other than that "it's the policy (dogma)."  To me the test should be whether or not all reasonable people could synthesize A and B to reach C, making C verifiable as not being "an editor's logic or synthesis" since it can be seen that the synthesis is valid.  I don't anticipate that the policy will soon be changed and this response isn't concerned with such change.  My point is that it seems deceptive and extreme to blithely characterize all synthesis as representing an attempt to use Wikipedia as "a soapbox or a forum for advancing one's own views."  If the view advanced is clearly inherent in the source material by the application of valid synthetic logic then to me that removes it from being "one's own views."   I'd certainly agree if the synthetic logic is strained or non-obvious or if the sources are dubious or stretched beyond what the material properly indicates then the material is inappropriate and ought (a) to never have been edited in to begin with and (b) should be promptly removed.  It isn't NOR as a whole that rejects primary sources, it's the two disputed sentences.  My interpretation of those two sentences is perfectly valid: they do imply that a misquotation of a person's words has priority and prominence over the person's words themselves. Nor did I state that an editor could not, under the control of those two words, report that A said X.  What I said was that, according to the policy, an editor is forbidden to refute a secondary source misquotation by referring to the primary source.  That is the tenor of the two sentences: secondary trumps primary.  The effect is that Wikipedia becomes a soapbox for the views of the secondary source which misquotes the primary source and the policy (the two sentences) favor the editors/accomplices of the dishonest secondary source who wish to misrepresent the primary source to favor their non-neutral POV. --Minasbeede 14:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the problem: in my opinion, there are many editors here who are unreasonable and who make utterly unreasonable inferences from primary source material - and no doubt they think the same of me. We will never reach agreement.  But Wikipedia asks us to take each other at good faith.  How then can we work together on an article and produce something half-way decent (or even better!) that satisfies us both?  Only - I argue - because we have policies that provide a framework for making enabling not just editors with opposing views but editors with opposing views of what is a strained or non-obvious inference.  You can say I am just soap-boxing and I will say no I am not, this is obviously what the primary source means (or vice versa).  This policy protects us from that.  You are right that there are bad (unsophisticated or ill-willed) secondary sources out there.  But for every topic I know of there are good sources and it is not hard to find them, and to edit an article that makes it clear which sources represent the mainstream opinion ... and I do not necessarily mean mainstream opinion of all human beings, which would sink the evolution article. In the evolution article, we favor secondary sources and a standard of what is mainstream in terms of biologists; the article on the planets relies on the dominant views of astronomers.  NPOV may require us to say that some people still believe the sun orbits the earth, or that creationists reject evolution.  The evolution article has a brief summary acknowleding these other views, and links to articles that address them in full.  There are ways of representing scholarly debates accurately without relying on OR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[I dispute that creationism falls within scholarly debate (and in particular within scientific debate) but that's an aside. I'll accept that Wikipedia handles that appropriately, or at least adequately.] I can see no way that any OR I might attempt would ever be useful or necessary in establishing that the theory of evolution is valid: there's a plethora of existing evidence that is tremendously over-adequate for that task. I do not think that it is in any way valid to characterize using an accurate quotation from Darwin to refute an inaccurate quotation from Darwin as "original research." As I read the two sentences at issue the exact implication of those sentences is that using primary source material to refute dishonest/incorrect/misleading secondary material is deprecated/forbidden. --Minasbeede 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I didn't follow the debate at the time, and don't know what happened. However, I see no general agreement on (1) what the present policy involves (2) what good practice involves or (3) whether the present policy describes good practice. Jacob Haller 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that I could fairly vote in this poll, as this has (evidently) been going on for longer than I've been looking at the policy, even though I've tried to read and understand what all has been argued back and forth. Anyway, I had a thought that may help some, though it seems like it would be a pain to implement, especially with the dearth of existing articles. How about something that distinguishes between the types of sources cites, either different "reference" sections like "primary source", "secondary source", etc., or a different "template" that may accomplish that, where the reference is cited as "ref=primary" or "ref=secondary". This way, on those rare occasions where a primary source is used, it becomes more evident which "piece" of the article is using the primary source vs. a secondary or tertiary source. Just an idea while trying to find a way out of the quagmire. Personally, I think there are occasions where primary source information is just as good (if not better, see the section/question below) than most secondary sources, and any policy regarding primary sources should be worded so that it explicitly states something along the lines of "primary sources can be used in special occasions...blah, blah, blah" with a few "good examples". There are to many "wiki-lawyers" on here who are abusing the policy as it is currently written. I tend to agree with User:Minasbeede wbfergus 13:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put a few proposals out there defining primary and secondary sources, and I've concluded that there is not even a consensus as to what those terms actually mean. So I don't think any policy that distinguishes primary sources from secondary sources, and treats them differently, is going to be successful. There will always be disputes as to what source fits into what category. For example, I might argue that Darwin's Origin of Species is a primary source because it is where the idea of evolution originates, but some other editors would apparently argue that it is actually a secondary source, because the book analyzes, interprets, and comments on raw data. If we can't agree on that, we shouldn't have a policy that distinguishes between primary and secondary sources. CO GDEN  18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that the easiest way to finally garner concensus on these issues is to simply prolong any arguments either way until so many people are burned out on the subject the the few reaining people can finally push through whatever definition they want at that time. It seems prety sad that with all of educated, intelligent people on here, that they can't agree to how to properly word a "policy" that is misused to dictate how articles are written or what should (or could) be in them. This is starting to remind me of watching little kids on a playground arguing about how to play tetherball. Admittedly, it's a broad policy open to many different interpretations, and User:Vassyana seems to be the only person so far who has made an effort to get something written out for people to comment on (right or wrong). Instead all that happens is incesstant bickering back and forth, one camp wants to rely solely on interpreted secondary sources, with the occasional tertiary source, and the other camp wants to allow primary sources as viable input to an article, and neither side wants to back down or compromise. wbfergus 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think any side wants to "rely solely on interpreted secondary sources with the occasional tertiary source." No one has said that, have they?  Both sides want to allow primary sources as input, it's the extent to which those primary sources can be relied upon.  That's what I understand the discussion to be about.  On side wants some limits on Primary sources, the other wants unrestricted utilization of primary soruces, some even to the point of including our own opinions on what primary sources say.  I believe use of primary sources in integral to the 'pedia, but not in a completely unrestricted manner.  Dreadstar  †  20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You must have missed my multiple language proposals, which failed because we can't agree on the definition of primary and secondary sources. That tells me that consensus isn't in the works right now for any policy distinction based on the difference between primary and secondary sources. What we need to do is just delete the controversial sentences, and work on the Classification of sources essay or some other place where we can hammer out a consensus definition of primary and secondary sources. Since WP:NOR is already a policy, and a core policy at that, we should be very conservative about what is allowed to remain there. CO GDEN  18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Dreadstar, in his judgment of the relative positions. I specifically attempted to incorporate most of the concerns expressed about primary source restriction, such as peer-reviewed articles, particularly reliable primary sources and their use for citing supporting or illustrating facts and quotes. On the other side, I incorporated the emphasis on reliable secondary sources and specifically defined such sources based on existing consensus (extant policy) and concerns expressed about primary and dubious sources. While I have a clear position, the draft was an attempt to find some compromise between the two opposing views, based on current policy overall and the concerns expressed on both sides in the history of this talk page. To be blunt, some opposing responses are based on misunderstandings and/or distortions. Also, some opposing responses are exactly the kind of concerns I've already considered and integrated into the proposal. If only one side is willing to compromise, compromise is impossible. Vassyana 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you've found a consensus in the definition of primary and secondary sources. I've seen on this talk page numerous conceptions of what primary and secondary sources are, and people have strong opinions. Unless and until we get broad consensus on definitions, it will be impossible to reach consensus on policy distinctions based on those definitions. For example, many editors here (myself included) think that peer-reviewed journal articles, novels, movies, interviews, and autobiographies are almost always primary sources. If that's so, the a policy that they should be "rare" or not "primarily relied upon" would de-legitimize most of Wikipedia's best featured articles. Simply defining everything that's an acceptable source as "secondary" doesn't help either: we shouldn't confuse people by using terms like "secondary sources" in non-standard ways. CO GDEN  18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this OR?
Okay, I assume that my Army buddies from Korea and myself are primary sources. The pictures themselves are secondary sources, as they have been published in numerous articles and web sites. As can been seen, Lt. Barrett is white. The person labeled in the photograph as Lt. Barrett is black. The incorrectly labeled person is in actuallity, Sp/4 Eugene (Gene) Bickley. Others and myself have tried for years to get the US Army to correct the labeling on the photo, to no avail. The US Army does not like to admit to mistakes, especially of historical documents (as the photo is).

So, would the inclusion of the photographs in an article with a sentence saying "As can been seen, Lt. Barrett was white, the person identified as Lt. Barrett in the fight photograph is black, so is mis-labeled" be original research and prohibited from an article? I really don't think any reasonable person could construe otherwise (that the picture was mis-labeled), but the US Army has for years, even after being given picture of Barrett and Bickley to compare, and numerous eyewitness statements, so I imagine that there are more than a few "wiki-lawyers" on here who would likewise object.

In this case, is the "secondary source" preferred over the unpublished "primary sources", even though it obviously is incorrect? Wikipedia's policy should be to easily allow the inclusion of factually (and very obviously) incorrect material over "primary sources"?

I could see claims of OR possibly being raised if I also include in the article that at the time of this picture, Lt. Barrett had already jumped the low wall where the label is for Capt. Bonifas, because he saw one of his men get chased there by several KPA guards and went to assist, since that has never been published either. Most of what has been published about about this incident are various "regurgitations" of the US Army's original 3 or 4 paragraph statement. Most of the "regurgitations" have been other peoples versions of what they thought they had just read, blended with their own opinions and bias. Some examples include the accounts of numerous individuals of the 2nd Infantry Division who were only with the followup operation three days later, Operation Paul Bunyan, as even then they were in a support role several miles or more away, not as part of the spearhead forces who were actually there. Only around 45 men (the 16 engineers and a platoon of infantry) of the 2nd Div were part of the spearhead forces in OPB, all the others were at least half a mile away, though 2nd Div likes to claim this as their operation.

I could even say that within seconds of the mis-labeled photo being taken, Bickley was grabbed by the two KPA guards approaching his rear and held, while the other KPA guard with the ax visible in his hands, took a downward swing towards Bickley's head, but for some reason he raised his head at the last second, and only the visor of his helmet was split, instead of his head. It adds more information to the story, but has never been published. Heck, I could expand the article iteslf to around twice its size (or more) with various first-hand accounts of others and myself, but none of us have ever had a book published with the events. The best published work of the events is General Stilwell's book, but it is written his from position at the highest levels of command. The most widely quoted book of the events is from a former artillery officer who was over 2 miles away during his closest proximity to the events.

Opinions anybody on how this falls into OR and Wiki's current policies and interpretations? wbfergus 11:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to correct historic wrongs. If the Army refuses to acknowledge a mistake, it's up to the media to report on it, not us. This is especially the case if the Army has been contacted about the mistake and refuses to change their mind. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)If current accounts are so wrong, find a reputable publisher. Wikipedia is not the place to "Right Great Wrongs". Vassyana 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call this a "soapbox", but even when there is a good cause it still is not our role to interpret primary sources in contradiction to published interpretations. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so forgetting everything else, and concentrating soley on the issue of the two pictures, since it has never been published that Barrett was white and the person in the pictures is black, current Wiki policy prevents me (or anybody else) from pointing out the difference and making the logical assumption (that any reasonable person would make), that the label is wrong? I somehow fail to see how distinguishing from black and white (literally) is an "interpretation". wbfergus 16:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an interpretation because several assumptions need to be made to come to the conclusion that the label is wrong. For example, in my opinion it's actually difficult to tell whether the person in the second picture is black or white. Several people in the picture appear to wearing white helmets, possibly with black visors. Perhaps there are shadows in the picture causing "Barrett" to appear darker. Maybe I'm completely wrong about these things, but the fact is that picture is low-resolution and certainly not conclusive proof. In any case, it's not up to us as editors to come to conclusions based on two photos. However, if a reliable source reported that an expert on photographic analysis concluded that Barrett is misidentified in the picture, that could be included. Chaz Beckett 16:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, you mentioned that the US Army does not consider the two pictures to be sufficient proof, so editors coming to a different conclusion would certainly be considered OR. As I pointed out above, what really needs to occur is for the Army to correct the photo or for a reliable source to publish some sort of analysis. Chaz Beckett 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not obvious that the person in the allegedly mislabelled photograph is black. (Maybe their arm is deeply tanned or stained and the lighting in the photograph is odd.)  From what's been presented here, even if it's clear that that person is black, it's not at all clear which of the two photographs is mislabelled or whether there's more than one person named Lt. Barrett.  (I'm not encouraging you to present more evidence on this talk page, though.)  An easy solution, if other editors of that page will agree to it, is to simply not use the mislabelled photograph in a Wikipedia article.  I wonder whether it might be possible to do something like this:  show the picture of Lt. Barrett, and show the army picture with words like "A picture, including someone labelled by the army as Lt. Barrett" or "A picture including an apparently black person labelled by the army as Lt. Barrett".  This is not quite the same as claiming that it's mislabelled.  ("An apparently black person" would allow the possibility that the person's arm was stained or something, or that it's the other picture which is mislabelled.) I'm not sure whether the fact that it's the army that did the labelling is indisputable, and I'm not sure whether the wording I suggested would be allowed under NOR or not.
 * You may be primary sources, but Wikipedia uses only reliable, published primary (and secondary) sources. If you're quoted in a book, newspaper etc. that may be usable.  There may also be WP:COI issues. --Coppertwig 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how anybody can claim that Bickley is white. Look at the photograph again. The two guys wearing the white helmets near the top right of the truck are white. Notice the color of their arms. Then look again at Bickley. His arms show no sign of white. Also, all of them are in full sunlight, so shadows don't come into play. I know Bickley, I knew Lt. Barrett, I've seen (though I don't have them) all of the pictures in the series (this was actually about the 25th one), and in the earlier pictures you can clearly see first one UNC soldier jumping the wall, then 3 KPA guards going after him, then Lt. Barrett jumping the wall. Lt. Barrett was never at that location that day, as signified in the mislabeled picture. Also, I didn't say that the US Army doesn't consider it as enough proof. They've just ignored any and all comments over the last 31 years. After all, the Army has a long standing tradition of always protecting it's officers, and they can't admit that an officer made a mistake. None of this is sufficient to be deemed "newsworthy" by any media outlet, but for just a second, imagine that Lt. Barrett was your father. Seeing the picture, wouldn't you be wondering how your dad died when he was right out there in the open but he wasn't "recovered" for over 90 minutes? Wouldn't you feel better knowing that he died helping a fellow soldier and that he wasn't left "in the open" to die, but was instead hidden in about a 15-20 foot depression for those 90 minutes?


 * I'm starting to see why Ward Churchill would love Wikipedia, it truly seems to cater to his "style", verifiability (which in Wiki-ese means being published) before truth, no matter how obvious and blatant the published lie is. It's no wonder there are all the media articles blasting Wikipedia for false information with policies such as these and the "policy nazis" (or wiki-lawyers) who can't tell common sense from incense. And here this last year and a half I was thinking that Wikipedia could really turn out into something useful, instead of just a place where everything's repeated from someplace else. wbfergus 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where the entire purpose is to be "...a place where everything's repeated from someplace else." It's just not ideal for what you're looking to accomplish, which is to correct a mistake. Chaz Beckett 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Repeating things from someplace else is an effective method and a policy; I disagree about it being the "entire purpose" of Wikipedia.
 * When a family member dies, especially an untimely or violent death, it affects us deeply. Getting some information about how the death occurred can provide a small degree of comfort.  However, tens of thousands of people die every day and it's not Wikipedia's place to document the circumstances of all of them.  Maybe you can contact the family members directly and give them the information. --Coppertwig 21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wikipedia is not the place to document all of them, but in this particular case it meets the notability criteria, hence can be recorded. A problem with this though, is all that has been (hardcopy) published is that he died, not the manner of death. The manner of death has been on numerous web sites and blogs, but those really don't meet the reliability standards. This kind of leads into your other point about the "entire purpose" of Wikipedia, which in turn leads to a couple of the various points others have been arguing back forth for a while now about OR. The page/section About specifically states the way things are, and probably always will be on Wikipedia, not an unattainable utopia, regardless of "policies" or "guidleines". wbfergus 15:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

<<<(outdent) I read the discussion above today for the first time, and as fascinating as the subject may be, Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, such as correcting a mistake made by the army reporting on a specific individual, his rank, race, manner of death, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:BLP
Please see WP:BLP/N, particularly: WP:BLP/N, which pertain to questions pertaining to verifiability and reliability of sources of material about living persons (not only biographies but other articles concerning living persons as well), including questions pertaining to sources being linked via "external links" in Wikipedia space (WP:EL), whether it be in source citations, or in References and/or External links sections. Some of the issues being debated in the talk page of that Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons) also pertain to WP:NOR. Thank you. --NYScholar 17:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable citation from reliable sources
I think that unreliable citation from reliable sources represents more of a problem than the wrong mix of primary and secondary sources. I'm sure we've all drawn some unjustified conclusions from good sources in the past.

I suggest downgrading:
 * Passing references
 * Unclear statements
 * Statements which open themselves to another interpretation
 * Historical examples in literary, polemical, etc. works

And upgrading:
 * Statements concerning the main topic of the work
 * Statements within an extended argument, consistent with the overall conclusion of the argument

I'm sure we can work out better phrasing for this, but it may help. Jacob Haller 18:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. For example, using something from the "abstract" or "conclusions" section of a scientific paper may often be more appropriate than something from another part -- though I wouldn't want to make hard and fast rules about any of that -- just advice or guidelines. --Coppertwig 23:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends on what you're trying to do. What I recall hearing, more than once, was that for scientific papers it was fairly safe to rely on the data presented but it was riskier to rely on the conclusions and interpretations.  (This is in chemistry, a physical science.)  The "conclusions" section may be the least reliable part of the paper: subsequent research or subsequent analysis can show the conclusions to have been invalid, even though they were reasonable at the time.


 * Jacob Haller's suggestion does seem productive and useful. --Minasbeede 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right! The data presented in a scientific paper is what's important.  The authors often go on to speculate about what the results mean, but that's just their opinion.  --Coppertwig 23:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends greatly on the subject. You'll find it hard to break a mathematics paper into "data" and "conclusions". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Of course their desire and goal is that "just their opinion" turns out to be correct enough to be accepted and adopted by their peers.  The speculations in a 2007 paper may need to be viewed with caution.  The speculations in a 1987 (or 1927) paper most likely have been accepted or rejected or may have simply faded away.  That a scientist very early made a speculation that turned out to be correct should make that early speculation very worthy of citation, primary though it is: the scientist was right, and the first to see (speculate) something important.  In some contexts the citation of speculations that turned out to be entirely wrong could be appropriate.  The explanation in the 1st edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica for why plants couldn't have sex is a wonderful example of how well-intentioned people can be dead wrong.  (While an Encyclopedia is in general a secondary or tertiary source that particular item is a primary source.)


 * I'm against the blanket deprecation of primary sources. It appears that perhaps some of the advocates of making the distinction see me as advocating automatic, no-questions-asked validation of such sources.  I'm not.  I'm against the automatic deprecation of such sources, against treating the citation of primary sources as an exception, something to be done only when it is unavoidable - and even then under a cloud.  --Minasbeede 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems, therefore, that you argue that primary sources can be cited when secondary sources are citable that the primary source remains relevant? Hornplease 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would hope each author would use care in selecting sources and would choose to use the ones that are most appropriate. It's superfluous (also impossible) for me (or anyone) to make an a priori declaration about the suitability of different types of source material when an article on some topic is being edited.   If an author has access to both types of source then the author could select from the sources available the material best suited for inclusion.  An author (not a Wikipedia author) who wants to write a paragraph or a page on a particular topic is probably going to want to pare down the original material whereas the original author would both want and probably need to do a far more complete presentation.  Is it really beneficial to automatically exclude use of the possibly broader material?  Turning your question around, are you prepared to demonstrate that in every case a secondary source is better than a primary source?  Are you prepared to demonstrate that writing articles using only a subset of the available material is going to produce a superior product?


 * In the example I gave (Jahn-Teller theorem) it's probably acceptable to cite secondary sources when the theorem alone is being discussed but there is more to the original paper than the final statement of the theorem: the tables built to use in performing the proof have utility beyond that proof and that material is relevant to many of those who would be learning the Jahn-Teller theorem. As far as I know there is no secondary source that gives even a hint of that bonus material.  It is not by any stretch of the imagination necessarily true that a secondary source provides a complete or even accurate picture of the content of a primary source.  Perhaps the additional content in the original primary source is relevant to what is being edited (this time it is a Wikipedia editor), perhaps not.  I can't declare it to be one way or the other.  I see no need at all to make such a declaration: let the editor choose the best material when that editor is editing. --Minasbeede 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The editor cannot always be relied on to choose the appropriate content; that, in fact, is original research. In the case of the theorem, if it is a particular editor's judgment that bonus material is useful, then I do not think that policy should disadvantage those that do not trust that editor's judgment. Hornplease 01:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not original research.


 * Every article in Wikipedia is the product of one more editors, all exercising judgment, often interacting with each other. To pick out one particular instance in which the judgment of an editor is not to be trusted is strange (actually, I found it hard to select an adjective here.)  We assume the editing is done in good faith.  In my response I assumed that editors would, in good faith, choose the best sources for what they choose to include.  That choice can be made from all available good sources.  I see no merit in any blanket a priori deprecation of primary sources with respect to secondary sources.


 * The Jahn-Teller articles and theorem may not be the best example, but it's an example I have at hand. Secondary sources very often pare down the material being cited/quoted.  That may be a good or even wonderful thing, at least for some purposes, but that doesn't guarantee that such paring down is always desirable.  It surely means that in many cases the secondary source will present condensed material, and "condensed" can mean that something useful has been discarded for any of a number of reasons, most of which reasons are not ones that are based on any inherent flaw in what was discarded.  Very often the reason is simply one of needing or wanting to condense the material down to what is essential for the secondary source author's particular purpose.  (I don't mean to imply that the purpose is improper nor that the author is improper, I'm only saying the author's purpose is not always going to be the presentation of the material in its most complete or most general form.)  I think Wikipedia editors have the option of using any or all relevant material that can be properly cited.  That is not meant to assert or to imply that the editors have no responsibility to edit in a manner that justifies the assumption of good faith granted them.  I don't oppose the promotion of secondary sources over primary sources to give improper license to editors, I oppose it to protect them from unnecessary interference - and to ward off on their behalf potential future Wiki-lawyering. --Minasbeede 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's what I was hoping you would say, as it explains your position, and nicely outlines where we disagree. When editing, we must assume good faith; when making policy, we should assume bad faith. I am really not alone here, however unpleasant that may sound. In order for policy to be an effective constraint - for it is no longer a guide, but, indeed, a constraint - we must look carefully at what requires restraint. Most of the editors on this page believe that what needs restraint is individuals choosing unrepresentative or out-of-context bits of primary sources in order to bolster their belief. In the worst, "ABF" situation, this person is a subtle, tendentious editor. We empower this editor by disenfranchising your hypothetical editor above. Here's the tradeoff: nobody is likely to disagree with your AGF editor above adding material that is relevant and properly cited, even if from a primary source. If he is, and all are acting in good faith, the overwhelming probability is that it will be sorted out quietly. But the off chance that he is "unnecessarily interfered with" is the price that we must pay to ensure that vast stretches of the encyclopaedia are not hijacked by that minority of users that we know exist who are tendentious. Hornplease 05:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And who will police the policemen? The policy makers assume bad faith on the part of editors.  What guarantees that the policy makers operate in good faith?   If the policy says that editors should rely on good sources I'm happy.  If the policy modifies "sources" into "secondary sources" I'm not happy.  I'm glad for the policy to spell out how editors should not go beyond the sources, I'm glad for any guidelines that indicate how to select sources and to use them, I'm not glad to see an a priori blanket condemnation of one type of source.  It's obvious that I have not been paying close enough attention: I honestly do not know what abuses have been committed by improper use of primary sources.  (I also continue to shake my head in wonder at the desire to assign the fault to the use of primary sources and not to to the improper use.  It looks like the "Sauce Bearnaise" phenomenon applied to Wikipedia.  That's the tendency to avoid eating something that was consumed just before a violent illness occurred whether or not that something had any part in causing the illness.)


 * Of course, properly, the policy makers and the editors for Wikipedia should be the same people. I'd say that a subset of the community wants to denigrate primary sources (so the policy makers who are opposed to according primary sources equal status with secondary sources are trying to force their will on the whole body of editors.)  I'd think that the entire community could agree on the need for proper use of good sources (without making any policy statement that attempts to indicate that one class of source is inherently better than another) but so far it appears those who want to denigrate primary sources won't budge. --Minasbeede 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What means ”not truth” in Wikipedia policy statement?
What means ”not truth” in Wikipedia policy statement? Quote from @INTERNET Wikipedia Truth 2007-08-30 The semantic field of the word truth extends from "honesty, good faith, sincerity" in general to "agreement with fact or reality" in particular. The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree. Various theories of truth, usually involving different definitions, continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.

The article lists, and describes, ten (10) leading propositions of the meaning, or definition, of ”truth”.

The word ”truth” is however, apparently as I know, used in Wikipedia policy AS IF the word ”truth” WOULD have some unambiguous meaning. Question is: what meaning? AS QUOTED ABOVE, a general meaning seems not to exist.

So, what is meant then or aimed at in Wikipedia’s ”…verifiability, not truth”? Is it

not "honesty, good faith, sincerity, agreement with fact or reality" ?

(That would indeed seem strange …). Or what?

Perhaps the well respected eminence of Birgitte (or other), who seems acquainted with the Wikipedia philosophy and policy, could please explain, or try with synonyms to clarify the Wikipedia meaning of ”not truth” in ”…verifiability, not truth ”. Thank you, in advance, for taking your time.

--BMJ 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This generally means that we report things that we can verifiably show to have been reported by reliable sources without specific regard as to whether they are true, as in "correct", in any absolute/ontological sense. If media reports of certain events are wrong, that's not our problem, although if other media sources make that allegation then we report it. Just because something is "true" (as in correct), doesn't mean it can be in wikipedia, and even if something's "false" (as in incorrect) doesn't mean it shouldn't be in wikipedia. It probably shouldn't, but we ignore that, instead basing what wikipedia contains on what has been reported in reliable sources. Does that clear it up? SamBC(talk) 01:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

--BMJ 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the fast response SamBC. I do not intend to argue with you, ever, I just wanted a clarification. Would you approve if I make this reference (?): According to Wikipedia sources, the meaning of ”not true” in the Wikipedia policy statement (”The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth”), ”generally means that we report things that we can verifiably show to have been reported by reliable sources without specific regard as to whether they are true, as in "correct", in any absolute/ontological sense.”, your statement. Is that a correct apprehension by me of your contributed clarification?

It means that if you can find a published source, say USA Today, that claims "Asian lady beetles taste good" (with "to humans" implied) you can put that in Wikipedia. But please, don't ever try tasting one. --Minasbeede 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Advice
The policy page is protected - the talk page is a mess: there are many different suggestions/proposals, and also different argumnts, that are spread through a variety of sections and discussion is still going on in many different sections. I respectfully suggest to those people most active in these arguments - people on all sides - to pause and sort out (1) the major points of contention and (2) the major proposals, and then to archive the curretn talk, and start the talk anew with specific sections fot the major points of contention and proposals. I am not asking for a straw poll or any decisions, I am just suggesting a way to clean up the talk page. It will make it much easier for new people entering the discussion to follow it, and it might actually make it easier for people here to work through one argument, one proposal, at a time and make progress. This suggestion is not about deprecating anyone's position, just laying out the conflicts more clearly. I see people making the same points in three or four different sections on the same day. That is not good. The points may be fine, but scattering them in several sections doesn't do anyone any good. At this point people who have been active for the past week should not find it hard to refactor the debate in a way that includes all sides but in a clearer, more orderly fashion. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone asked me to comment on these issues, but I can't work out who is saying what either. For my own part, I preferred the wording of the previous version to the current one: Dreadstar's version in this diff.  That is, as a rule, articles must rely predominantly on secondary sources. This reflects best practice.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this edit change the only issue under debate? If so, let's have just one section to debate it. But if there are other issues, let's sort them out and line them up neatly so we can keep different arguments straight, before continuing the debates. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur - this page is so convoluted it is difficult to tell who is arguing for what. Dreadstar's version looks good to me, if nothing else for a starting point. What objection(s) might there be to that? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, it seems like the three main points of contention are the following:
 * 1. Should the sentence be Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. or should it be Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.?
 * 2. Should the (second following) paragraph start with Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources.? (I think this would depend on #1 above)
 * 3. In the same paragraph as #2 above, which version of the sentence should be included, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. or and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims. (explnatory is missing from the second version).
 * wbfergus 13:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion: on 1 and 2, I think it is better just to delete from the policy any statement of preference. Instead of urging people to favor one kind of source over the other, it should be sufficient to say that primary sources can be used as long as they are verifiable, and are not being used to .....  On 3, I think it is crucial to keep the word "explanatory" in.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I have been mostly follow all this and believe we really have only half a point of contention. Those that wish to change the policy, believe that the policy needs to be changed to sopport the current practice of using primary in Feature Articles etc. The opposing parties support the current practice of using primary in Feature Articles etc., but believe it is already supported by pre-dispute policy. So there is not disagreement of any real merit regarding practice of this policy, but simply a disagreement over what the wording in the policy means.-- Birgitte SB  13:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but the half-point is a source of contention. As Hornplease indicates above there are those who believe the polices are and should be restrictive.  That may be so but the restrictions should be uniform and not imposed and enunciated just for some types of source.  Those relying on secondary sources surely should "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims"  (of their own.)  Why single out those who use primary sources as the recipients of this injunction and exempt those who use secondary sources?  I think you do believe that the injunction is uniform for users of all sources.  Why not have the policy reflect that uniformity?  The existing policy may permit use of primary sources but it puts such use under a cloud by targeting only users of such sources with specific restrictive injunctions.  The restrictions are for all editors using all sources. Why not have a policy that says so?   --Minasbeede 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Minasbeede, that the restriction applies to secondary sources as well. The last time I worked on this page was a year ago. At that time, the section that introduced "secondary sources" ended with this statement: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present accounts of views and arguments of reliable, verifiable scholars, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read the primary source material for themselves." In other words, there was a time, not too long ago, when the policy page had precisely the uniformity you see lacking. I personally would not object to restoring the passage that had been removed, but I wonder if this is all that is holding up unprotecting the page? I have to defer to those of you who have been active on this page from the time it was protected, for an account of the issues holding things up. I know what a few of you think, now, and I appreciate that. I wish you, Birgitte, wbfergus, and whoever else has another view, could summarize the issues concisely in one place - and I wonder if you could all agree as to which is the core problem, or prioritize the issues, or do something to put these points in some logical order Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I still don't see the need to single out primary sources and those who use them. Personal opinions and interpretations are forbidden, period.  The prohibition only hits those who violate it.  Whether that's 1% of the users of primary sources or 99% of them they're hit if they do it.  Why doesn't that suffice?  It's the behavior (personal opinions, interpretations) that's at fault, not the type of source.


 * There could be a long, exhaustive (or an attempt at such) essay on all the possible misuses that could occur for the users of different types of source. There is a prohibition on OR.  Isn't that prohibition fully adequate without singling out particular types of source or trying to list all the possible misuses?


 * Looks like I have but one active point: don't single out one kind of source in the policy for special prohibitions (particularly when those prohibitions are blanket prohibitions anyway.) I have an inactive point, but since it's inactive it needn't be mentioned. Keep it simple. --Minasbeede 15:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there are other people who have been very active here. I urge you all to narrow it down to no more than four points of contention, create new sections to discuss each one and consider proposals, and archive the current talk which is all over the place and confusing.  As I said, my aim is not to stifle any view, but to bring some order to the page so that every view can be clearly grasped. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what you are attempting. I outlined the issue that caused the protection. Whatever side-threads have coincidentally taken place at the same time are unimportant.  It is silly to seriously discuss whether or not we should allow original research because some one suggested that while other parties involved themselves in an edit war.  I don't have four points of contention.  I think the version supported by SV above has consensus and while not all the edits to the policy the past week have been harmful, none have been a significant improvement over that version.  My only contention is that I have not seen any significant improvement in the policy edits.  If I had I would have supported the change.  As I have not I have not supported the changes.  It is that simple.-- Birgitte  SB  13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to move the discussion towards a resolution of the conflicts. I have watched this talk page for the past several days and do not see that happening.  I agree with you that it is silly to discuss whether or not we should allow original research, which is why I never suggested such a thing.  But it appears that you have taken my comment personally when I was not addressing it to you personally but to all active editors involved in debates on this page.  I understand that you believe there is only one issue.  I never said you personally have four points of contention.  Indeed, I never said there were four points of contention.  But reading over this talk page I see many more than four threads and conflicts, and I was simply suggesting that editors on this page try not to tackle more than four at a time.  That is a general point and I think it reasonable.  Now, if most people here agree that there is only one issue, then lets just focus on that one issue.  But another editor listed three issues.  If many editors here disagree with you, Brigitte, over how many major points of contention there are, then unprotecting the page right now would be imprudent.  I'd like to see it unprotected, and that means sorting out disputes on this page.  You ask what i am attempting and I repeat for the third time: I am suggesting that editors agree on the major point or points of contention and deal with them systematically and seek resolution, rather than have thirty threads on the page going in different directions. Why is this a bad idea? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought your comment was addressed directly to me.-- Birgitte SB  14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad to clear this up. I know you are one of the most active and important participants on this page, but it seems to me that there is a lot of contention here that involves many people other than you.  Generally, in my recent posts on this page, when I say "you" I mean youse guys" i.e. second person plural (above I said "you all" but am now reverting to my native dialect) - I am assuming that whatever the impasse is - whether it is simply what you described, or what wbfergus described, or other issues - I assume that before the page can be unprotected a significant majority have to be in agreement, so I was addressing however many editors on this page could consitute that significant majority.  SlimVirgin and KillerChihuahua agree with me that if you look at the sections above, it is very confusing.  I though that my suggestion to sort out the confusion and streamline the discussion as a way of moving closer to a resolution would be uncontroversial. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about somebody archiving this entire page, then on the newer "clean page", state at the top that this "Discussion page" will be kept to only these 4 subjects (an arbitrary number, I'm only using it as an example). Then, create sub-pages for each of the additional subjects being bantered about, and have them hard-coded into a TOC at the top as well. So, when somebody comes to this page, it's easier to see and tell what this page is for and about, and for the other points of discussion or questions, there's a specific place associated for those. I could almost do all that, but it would take me a while to do. Also, I really don't feel "comfortable" enough doing it, being a relative newbie to this "article". wbfergus 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If Birgitta and others who have been most active in the past ten days agree, then go for it. But enough people have to agree, in principle and concerning the threads or the approach you will take to sort things out, otherwise it won't work. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Archiving and starting fresh would be fine. For my part I will commit to conciseness (I've already deleted several lines of what I was going to say here) and sticking to the listed topics on the new page.  After resolution I'd assume the page could again develop/perform in the normal manner. --Minasbeede 15:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with archiving active discussions. I don't want to cut off anyone's lines of thought or discussions prematurely. This talk page is no more convoluted than any Yahoo group, and all of us in the 21st century are used to this. Let's not cut short discussion. CO GDEN  19:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
By my count, we are fairly evenly split on keeping the current version in place or reverting back to the version I've pointed out. Since there is no consensus for keeping the disputed recent changes, I think we should revert back to the version I've suggested and move forward with discussion from there. At that point we can archive most of this talk page, unprotect the article and have a fruitful discussion as to changes. Right now, we're still in an edit-war state which is totally unacceptable. Edit warring is not the right method for making changes to any article, much less policy.

I'd like to clear all this up, so we can possibly set up an RfC to draw other eyes, and this page is entirely too convoluted and argumentative - mainly due to the method used to make the changes, edit-warring. That needs to be stopped.

I propose we unprotect the article, revert back to the pre-edit-war version, archive this talk page and then discuss the changes proposed, as is the standard and best practice for dispute resolution. Anyone disagree? Dreadstar †  16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone disagrees, but the concern seems to be how to "organize" this discussion page so it doesn't get as convoluted again with 2 or 3 more days. If that can be organized and presented in a fashion acceptable to others, then I think that everybody would go along with it. But just reverting the main policy page and allowing this page to remain as is is just asking for more confusion and trouble. wbfergus 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's been clearly shown that the previous version that stood for several months had consensus, so it is a good starting point. However, it's also clear that people on both sides of the debate have varying issues with the current formulation, though these concerns are not mutually exclusive. I feel the willingness to compromise has been very one-sided. Unprotecting the page will not be problematic unless people continue to insist on pushing through major changes without discussion and consensus. Vassyana 17:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are treating this policy article as if it were a Wikipedia content article. It's not, and there is no policy "inertia" for statements that at one point seemed to have consensus, but clearly do not after wider exposure (see WP:ATT for case in point). Policies must describe, not lead, Wikipedia practice WP:Policies and guidelines. There is no place in a policy for controversial statements, and the fact that things are "evenly split" means that there is no consensus and the controversial statements must be removed. OR is one of the pillar policies of Wikipedia, with the potential to do wide-spread damage to the Wikipedia institution if we get it wrong. If any part of OR is clearly shown not to have a present consensus, or not to describe Wikipedia practice, it should be removed immediately. CO GDEN  20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, the proposal fails, since it seems the edit war would only be continued if the previous version were to be put back into place. Further warring is an unacceptable outcome.Dreadstar  †  22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

COGDEN is quite wrong about inertia. For obvious reasons, articles change several times a day. For equally obvious reasons, policies should change at a much slower rate. And discussion on this talk page should be about ways to improve the text of the policy. Anyone who wants to change the policy need to present a proposal to the whole community by creating a new proposal page and publicizing it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Issues at hand
I believe most of those supporting the emphasis on reliable sources want to see:
 * A clear emphasis on relevant sources (i.e. specifically written about the topic at hand)
 * A clear requirement for up-to-date sources (e.g. sources that reflect current knowledge and views about a topic)
 * A retention and clarification of the focus on reliable secondary sources.
 * Deemphasis or deprecation of the distinction between secondary and tertiary sources.

I believe most of those opposing tight restriction on primary sources want to see:
 * A clear allowance for peer-reviewed articles.
 * A clear exception for especially reliable primary sources (i.e. census data)
 * A common sense permission for using primary sources to provide illustrating or supporting facts and quotes.
 * Acknowledgment that reliable secondary sources may be used in an unreliable fashion.

Some advocates of primary sources want to see:
 * An allowance permitting primary sources to be used to counter secondary sources.
 * Deprecation of source type distinction.
 * Deprecation of no original research.

(Caveat) This may or may not be an accurate recounting of positions and issues, as I am subjective and biased.

I believe the first two groups of concerns are completely reconcilable and compatible, and in combination could represent a broad practical consensus. The third group of concerns is most problematic. Allowing editors to use primary sources to counter secondary sources would violate no original research, and is part of the abuse that lead towards policy reform in regards to source types. That would plainly permitting the advancement of unpublished positions and allowing Wikipedia to be used to "right great wrongs". Deprecation of the source type distinction would require a very broad revision of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, since the reliance on "reliable secondary sources" and "reliable third-party publications" is very well-ingrained throughout Wikipedia (and as such, such a discussion cannot be resolved here in a single policy). Additionally, since the distinction was further elaborated and discussed (in this policy) due to widespread abuse, removing such distinctions without a replacement to address the underlying issues would be little more than an invitation to acute abuse. Deprecation of NOR is not practical since it's one of the "non-negotiable three", so to speak. That last point is especially of concern to me, as while we should assume the best, efforts to weaken the policy from such a POV are (at the least) suspicious. Vassyana 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I may be inclined to consider engaging in discussions about fine-tuning the policy by discussing group 1 and 2. Regarding group 3, I do not see these proposals having any chance of gathering momentum. The policy of NOR is one of the core policies and it is well established. We can fine tune, sure, but it would be a waste of time to challenge the principles upon which this policy was crafted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Jossi. In effect, people who would fall under group 3 are opposed to NOR - not just the text as it exists or existed a week or a month ago, but the core idea.  Those people should not be involved in this discussion, as talk pages are for discussing improvements.  Of course they have a right to express themselves, but - if you are right that there are people who fall into group three - the thing to do is create a new policy proposal page which is in effect a proposal to abolosh the NOR policy, and they can have a full discussion on that page.  It is a different kind of discussion and should be kept separate from this one.  Also, it is the kind of discussion that would require the input of hundreds of Wikipedians - abolishing a policy, even if it involves replacing it with something new (in fact, all the moreso) requires the active consideration of a huge chunk of the wikipedia community.  (A discussion of how to improve the wording of a policy without changing the policy itself of course does not require the same scale of involvement and support). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I also concur with Jossi. Group 3 goes to the heart of the policy, a policy that is well established and should not be challenged in those regards, since it is critical to the content of Wikipedia.  Dreadstar  †  18:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't there only two issues: (a) promoting secondary sources over primary sources and (b) the over-zealous application of NOR? I'm quite content to focus on (a) alone even though (b) is an issue with me.  These aren't linked in my mind.  I don't want primary sources put under a cloud and beyond that I don't think it's even proper for a policy page to ever do such a thing.  The policy forbids certain types of editing.  While I could argue with that I don't and won't, at least not now (possibly never.)  The part of the policy that forbids OR in all its various aspects is sufficient.  There is no need, in the policy, to single out any class of source for particular attention.  I'll assume that there's been some rash of bad edits, all of which involved misuse of primary sources (that seems to be the claim.)  The raw policy, without any mention of the class of source, is fully adequate to cover those.  That there has been this (assumed) rash of events does not mean that the next person who uses a primary source will commit any wrong.  I think it is improper to put that next person under a cloud.  It also has to be obvious to all that Wiki lawyers will over-apply anything in the policy.  It would put an unfair burden on those who use primary sources properly for the policy to single out primary sources, thus giving Wiki lawyers another club.  Those who use primary sources improperly are hit by the general non-source-type-specific policy rules.  That's enough.  If guidance on the use of different types of sources is needed provide that outside the policy.


 * "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France


 * Here it seems that some want "the law" to single out one class for the prohibition of certain behaviors. --Minasbeede 18:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will have to disagree with you. Primary sources are inherently problematic in most, if not all instances when the subject is controversial. The potential for abuse of such sources is way to great to dilute the currently wording or the spirit of the policy. If you use a primary source such as Census data, in an article that is not controversial, no one will challenge that source on the basis of NOR... so there is no need to dilute the policy to "allow" these uses. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, in some cases they are problematic. Do the non-source-type-specific rules cover the problems or do they not?


 * You do not actually have the power to declare what will or won't be challenged, do you? At best can't you just identify what it is that you won't challenge?


 * I'm not talking about any "dilution" of the policy, I'm talking about making it uniform. If some parts of the policy hit use of primary sources harder let it happen: we're both content. In reality I don't see anything useful about the current source-targeting language: it's like "if you drive a Corvette then you really, really, need to observe the speed limit."   Perhaps some Corvette drivers do tend to speed more than other drivers.  The speed limit is the speed limit and the law specifying the speed limit doesn't need to mention Corvette drivers.  Attempting that makes writing the law harder: do you then also have to mention Mercedes drivers, Volvo drivers, etc.?  --Minasbeede 18:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Policies and not "laws" per se. They are designed to foster an understanding, and that understanding is related to what WP is and what WP is not. The current formulation of this page captures that understanding quite well, and yes, it can be fine-tuned, but not at the expense of making is easier to introduce OR via the improper use of sources, in particular primary ones. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the difference between Wiki policies and actual laws. I think my meaning was clear enough, and it should be obvious to all reasonable persons that I was not trying to force a complete equation of Wiki policies with laws, I was just giving an example and using that example to illustrate, outside the current issue, my impression of source-specific language in policies.


 * It is apparently your claim that what I propose (removing source-type-specific language) somehow makes it "easier" to introduce OR, "in particular primary ones." There's no issue at all (it's not a straw man, it's a vapor man) about the introduction of anything, since almost anyone in the entire world can at any time introduce whatever that person desires (I've reverted a few pages to remove garbage myself.)  I have said, many times, that the policies, applied to all sources, can remain just as they are (or as they develop.)  I'm not opening any door to anything and given the actual nature of Wikipedia there's no door at all anyway.  The policies come in when they're used to justify removal of material that came in through that 1000-semi-wide entryway.  I again assert: apply the policies.  I continue to object to any blanket policy statements about any type of source.  Let the policies be applied uniformly, let improper material of whatever sort be promptly dealt with (probably removed.)


 * In practice the policies aren't used in any sense that involves understanding, they're used as justification for removing material. --Minasbeede 19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, if you want to deprecate the emphasis on reliable secondary/third-party sources, that is a issue much larger than this single policy. That preference is well-ingrained throughout Wikipedia policy. Continuing to discuss that issue here will only distract from the issue we need to address for this policy. If you wish to make changes overall to that emphasis that is endemic to Wikipedia, you will need to address that on a community wide basis and get consensus to change multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Vassyana 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Jossi, I have a different response to Minasbeede, which I think expands on Vassyanha's point: yes, some cars are more dangerous to drive than others, and it makes sense to act appropriately. This is not something the founders of Wikipedia gave much thought to, it is something we learned by experience. At first NPOV was a short statement, and there were few if any other policies. Over the years, experience has taught us that that short version of NPOV was not enough. NPOV itself became longer, more developed. And V and NOR were created. It is crucial to recognize that all of them not only have to be consistent with NPOV, they really are the offspring of NPOV. But we realized that inherent in NPOV was a distinct idea and that became NOR. And part of the experience that led to the development of NOR was the recognition that the vast majoriuty of NPOV violations involved the use of primary sources, and that encouraging the use of secondary sources could help protect NPOV. Now, does this mean there is a flat out ban on primary sources? No! Several years ago NOR had this clause, and I would not object if it or something like it were put back in the policy: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events)." But you are right that there is a difference between primary sources and secondary, and that the former are riskier and therefore require greater care. Now, what is the best way to express this in a policy? I concede this is an open question and maybe we can improve the text of the policy in this regard. But this remains at the heart of the policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You overlook the point: the speed limit is the same for all cars. The standards actually are the same for all editing, the source-type-language in the policy is superfluous, inoperative, and unnecessary. But the language does create a huge opportunity for "Wiki lawyers" to annoy those who happen to use primary sources in a fully appropriate way. Maybe some feel very strongly about abuses that have occurred by the improper use of primary sources. That's not a reason to clog the policy.

The answer to the question "Now, what is the best way to express this in a policy?" is: You don't. It's not necessary. --Minasbeede 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with how this section started. I'm going to think on it tonight and post something tomorrow, as maybe I have a different perspective on this, being a relative "newbie". The way I'm currently thinking, all of this makes perfect sense to all of you who have been involved in this "policy" for quite awhile, but it is awfully confusing for someone such as myself, and probably others. And then when we (newbie's) get hammered by the "wiki-lawyers" who take NOR to the extreme, we get even more confused and defensive. I noticed a part on the policy page that is confusing in itself (to me at least), especially when taken in the context of About and other spots on the same page. wbfergus 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is another reason for treating primary sources differently that I want to mention, and, to keep the metaphor, this has to do with the kind of driver as much as the kind of car. Above (in threads that really ought to be archived, when this discussion is refactored so conversations are not going on simultanously in in thirty sections) COGDEN says correctly that one can write an encyclopedia based on primary sources. But those encyclopedias, e.g. Encyclopedia Brittanica, are written by PhDs or MAs supervised by PhDs, meaning, people who are specifically trained to do original research using primary sources. Anyone who wants to work with primary sources can do so, and do what others who do so do: submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal or to a project like Encyclopedia Brittanica, where a panel of PhDs ensures it is up to their standards. Wikipedia does not propose to abolish EB. But it does present itself as a radical alternative to EB in that it is not written by people trained to do original research, and articles do not have to be approved by a panel of experts trained in original research. Wikipedia is open to all. And the price we pay is certain content policies that you won't find explained in EB. This makes perfect sense to me: if Wikipedia is to say to the world, there is another way to write an encyclopedia, not by PhDs and not edited and supervised by PhDs, there ought to be something to compensate for the lack of credentials. What compensates is our policies. When someone says "How can you trust an article written by people who don't have the proper credentials and .. what?... there is not even any editorial board or peer-review?" our response is, instead we have our policies. And in this particular matter, NOR is essential. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So you simple equate using a primary source with OR. Apparently you also claim that using secondary sources forestalls OR.  I agree with neither.  (In doing so I feel I must point out that I am not defending OR, even though very clearly my words here in no way defend OR.) --Minasbeede 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly! We do not have our own stable of experts, so we must rely on outside experts (by relying on reliable third-party references). Vassyana 20:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Using primary sources clearly lends itself to original research. Caesar's Gallic War is considered an example of the heights of ancient reporting. However, it is also known as a masterwork of propaganda and known to contain inaccurate hearsay. Without modern reliable references to tell us what is accurate, what is propaganda and what is hearsay, we engage in original research by evaluating such claims for ourselves (and therefore using our own theories/judgments, instead of those of outside experts). If that is the case for a particularly notable, reliable and well-regarded historical source, how much more so for less reliable source material? Nearly all examples of truly (or exceedingly) reliable primary sources (such as census data) are widely regarded and noted as accurate in reliable third-party publications (in fact, that's how we know they're so reliable). Even then, such sources lack the context needed to craft an encyclopedic article, and are therefore best used in a supplementary fashion, rather than being relied upon for the article. Vassyana 20:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Minasbeede, I think you are acting in good faith, but I think you are oversimplifying my position. I am making analogies and pointsl not simple equations. I admit, a beter analogy would have been the difference between a car and a truck (meaning, semi) (rather than say comparing a volvo to an SUV). I was trying to give you some insight into what motivated the creation of the NOR policy, I wish you would take it in that spirit. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't need to do original research to use primary sources, or even to base an entire article on primary sources. If a lay person can understand the technical conclusions of a peer-reviewed journal article, then there's no reason not to cite the author's relevant conclusions directly from the primary source. There's no need to wait for those same conclusions to appear in Discover magazine or USA Today. There's also no reason not to quote—directly from the primary source—the words of some celebrity in a newspaper interview, or a novel, or a movie, or a non-technical government report, or an autobiography. You don't need a PhD for any of that. Of course, if you do need a PhD to understand any source—primary or secondary—there's a danger that by "dumbing-down" the source you are introducing original research. CO GDEN  20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Vassyanna's description accidently misstates my position and may misstate others' positions as well, but I think this may be the first step to a broader agreement. To borrow his/her phrasing with minimal changes, I would like to see: As you can see, this includes elements of all three groups, as well as other concerns. I think all of us want better source-based research, but we disagree about which are the most common or most dangerous types of OR. Jacob Haller 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A global warning about adding interpretations, etc., etc. but allowing explanations if needed and recommending citation of any explanations
 * A clear emphasis on relevant sources
 * A clear emphasis on up-to-date sources among secondary sources
 * A clear allowance for peer-reviewed articles
 * A common sense permission for using primary sources to provide illustrating or supporting facts and quotes
 * Acknowledgment that reliable secondary sources may be used in an unreliable fashion.
 * An allowance permitting the use of certain primary sources for certain topics. This may include:
 * peer-reviewed articles (as above)
 * especially reliable primary sources (e.g. census data)
 * the use of an individual or movement's own works (but not sacred texts) to describe an individual or movement's beliefs
 * An allowance permitting these types of primary sources to be used to counter secondary sources
 * Either use more widespread definitions of primary/secondary, or use other terms than primary/secondary, or deprecate the source type distinction
 * We seem to be more or less on the same page. I've been putting some thought into your previous suggestions, as well as the primary/secondary distinction mess. Vassyana 20:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if I misrepresented your position, that was not my intention. I only meant to draw together the broad points that editors have expressed. Vassyana 20:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant that your description didn't match my main concerns, or, I suspect, Minasbeede's or COGDEN's. Once we know that we have been talking past each other, and missing certain concerns, then we can address these concerns.
 * I often run across differences between how one movement describes its beliefs, how its opponents describe its beliefs, and how secondary sources describe its beliefs. In general, I'd prefer to rely on the movements' descriptions and avoid their opponents' descriptions; the secondary sources may support the movement, oppose the movement, be nonbiased, be nonbiased but depend on one side's sources, etc. so the primary sources are still useful.
 * I think that "primary countering secondary" should be allowed for (and only for) exceptionally reliable primary sources, special cases like authors and movements on their beliefs (for movements it may reduce statements about "all x" to "some x"), and misquotes, and requires absolute clarity in the primary source. Jacob Haller 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We have an exception available to accommodate self-published sources (which are by default primary sources), in our verifiability policy. See WP:SELFPUB. This will address your specific concern about movements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-publication, movement ties, and primary/secondariness are three different issues; the first two depend on the source, and the last on both the source and its use. Certain edit wars have come up regarding the use of anarchist writings on the anarchism page and related pages. But the same issues affect any political philosophy.
 * Proudhon's General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century is a multiply-published, (anarchist) movement, mostly-primary source, as are Bakunin's God and the State, Tucker's State Socialism and Anarchism, etc.
 * Kropotkin's article on anarchism in the Encyclopedia Brittanica was a non-self-published, (anarchist) movement, largely-secondary source.
 * Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy is a self-published, (anarchist) movement, largely-secondary source.
 * Most encyclopedia articles are non-self-published, non-movement, secondary sources.
 * One edit war had concerned the intro, and rival definitions, and this edit war had been repeated several times in the past couple years. I rechecked my sources, and tried to reach a compromise which the sources would support, and the minority objected to my use of primary sources, without disputing the content or relevance of the sources.
 * There were two concerns raised. One was the use of primary sources, which one or two editors insisted was absolutely forbidden, with most editors ignoring this. I had found several primary sources which contradicted the contested definition; I tried to craft an explanation of the primary sources' objections, which could fit in the intro without interrupting its flow, and the second objection was that this amounted to OR and/or IS. I asked people to list their concerns, and to propose various solutions, figuring that with a half-dozen major sources making similar arguments, we could reach something which summed up the arguments and which had as little OR and/or IS as possible.
 * I concede that cramping several essays into a couple words did involve interpretation. Still, it would have been better to work everything out than to have one side insisting that "primary sources are forbidden, therefore, we won't discuss ways to minimize interpretation," (without anyone else agreeing on their interpretation of NOR). That's how I wound up here. I had regarded my position as common sense and consensus until then; I still regard it is common sense and widespread practice.
 * Of course, this is how I remember the debate; not how the other parties may remember it. Jacob Haller 00:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that using specific content disputes to drive policy, is a bad idea. I have seen this again and again in policy discussions, and it does not work. Policy pages need to provide a framework that editors can use to collaborate and find common ground: How to apply policy is something that editors need to work out within the context of specific articles. Note that there is no mention on NOR about primary sources being forbidden. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A good effort, but I still see problems. Books aren't peer-reviewed.  Is "Origin of Species" excluded?  Other scientific books?  Columns in "Scientific American"?  Also, what is happening here?  Supposedly Wikipedia doesn't care about truth, only about citability.  Why limit articles to those that are peer-reviewed?   That's a limit placed on primary sources but not on secondary sources.  When did the magic fairy tap every secondary source author with her wand and make them all reliable?


 * Part of the motive seems to be to avoid getting in to deep. The shore is in the opposite direction from how you are headed. --Minasbeede 20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are some good ideas floating, but they should be hammered out in an essay first (maybe Classification of sources), and then maybe promoted to a guideline. CO GDEN  21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Does the policy actually limit articles to those that have been peer-reviewed? I didn't think it did, and I would agree it shouldn't. There is or should be a diffefrence too between NOR and V, which are policies, and RS, which is a guideline. In many wikipedia articles we ought to favor peer-reviewed articles, but certainly not exclusively. The difference between a primary source and a secondary source is not that one is peer-reviewed and the other is not. It is that they are used different ways. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, how would you identify reliable sources? Jacob Haller 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is not about reliable sources; that is a separate guideline with its own talk page. We will never resolve any disputes if we keep bringing up separate discussions. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WHAT? There's ALREADY a guideline page for "reliable sources"?  Why, then, clutter up this policy at all with any discussion of sources? --Minasbeede 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the rationale is that some people think that primary sources pose more of a "danger" to original research than secondary sources, and that it belongs here. I think the issue of whether a source is "reliable" is different from the question of whether new or non-obvious conclusions are drawn from the source. Unfortunately, the proposed reasons for treating primary and secondary sources differently have more to do with WP:NPOV and WP:Notability than they do with WP:OR. CO GDEN  22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's what they think then that smacks of OR, doesn't it? In any case, that they think it and are well-intentioned doesn't make the language work.  Does the language work?


 * I see below that "primary" and "secondary" here don't mean what they mean in the real world and that that may be the source of the problem. While the proposed archiving of the whole thing hasn't been done I'll leave off commenting on that last in adherence to my pledge of brevity. --Minasbeede 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is just a gesture at levity, it is not that funny. And if you are serious I would have to question your good faith as you seem to wilfully ignore good faith attempts to explain the policy to you. "Reliable Sources" is one thing. "NOR," which depends on a distinction between primary and secondary sources which are different concepts from that of reliable sources, is another thing. If you truly do not understand that, you do not understand the policy and should request mentoring rather than engage in editing the policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer either question, and they were serious questions, if not asked in an utterly serious way. I have NEVER edited the policy and have no intention of ever doing so. Go look. I'm discussing, not editing.

I repeat: is there already such a guideline page? I repeat: if there is such a guideline page why clutter up the NOR policy page with any discussion of sources (because there already is a guideline page)?

"I don't care" may seem like a flippant answer but it does represent my view. If the language doesn't belong in the policy page then the motivations for putting it there, no matter how well-intentioned, make no difference. There is the NOR policy: this is the discussion page for that policy. I assert that the policy should be applied, I assert that it should be applied to material that arises from all types of sources. (I have removed my own edits because I realized they were OR.) I rather imagine that what I assert should be done is actually, most of the time, exactly what is done. (Perhaps I should have said that sooner. I apologize for the delay.)  Even if primary sources are what is most often abused when the NOR policy is violated (for which my request for evidence remains unanswered: that claim continues to be blatantly unsourced: it's apparently OR, or worse) I don't think that any language in the NOR policy page is going to help the situation or make any difference - again, no matter how well-intentioned the advocates of such language are. Such language will, I think, cause grief for those who properly use reliable, published, primary sources. For that reason I oppose the language.

I am not trying to dilute anything, I'm not trying to open a back door for OR. Not mine, not that of anyone else. I'm trying to make the policy settle back and just be policy. If I wanted to use a primary source (let's say "Origin of Species," just for an example) I'd go ahead and do it. I'd attempt to use a reliable part of that source, I'd attempt to follow all policies.

Could I at least have an answer to my two questions? Is there any possibility that I might have a bonus: some actual examples of how primary sources have been abused? --Minasbeede 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein answered the questions on my talk page, for which I thank him.


 * Answer (1): see Wikipedia:Reliable sources


 * There is a Wikipedia page on reliable sources, it is a guideline, not a policy. Shouldn't a great deal of the primary-secondary material be there (and only there)?  --Minasbeede 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, saved too soon.


 * ""NOR," which depends on a distinction between primary and secondary sources which are different concepts from that of reliable sources, is another thing."


 * I dispute that statement. I don't see that NOR in any way depends on any such distinction.  The test for NOR is whether or not it's the editors own work.  The test does not and can not extend to the sources the editor uses (except for the trivial case where the source is the work of the editor.  There's some further quibble language, but it doesn't affect what I say.) Original research is forbidden, citation is both allowed and demanded.  Citing a primary source is not OR.  (Again, with quibbles, but I assert all such quibbles are fully covered by NOR without any source-type-specific language.)


 * Another request: if there's ever been any case in which the source-type-specific language was essential to the enforcement of NOR please show it to me. --Minasbeede 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You may not agree with that, but NOR depends primarily on such distinctions between primary and secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can say that, unless you define primary source as anything which, when cited, produces original research. Using traditional distinctions between primary and secondary sources, either one can lead to original research if interpreted in a way that nobody has ever done before. It's not the type of source that matters, it's how you use it. If I cite Discover magazine as a secondary source summarizing the Theory of Relativity, and then use that citation to support my personal theory of antigravity, I've committed the act of original research. It can happen just as surely with a secondary source as it can with a primary—sometimes even more easily. CO GDEN  23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that someone can do OR with secondary sources. The emphasis is on the fact WP:OR has specific language to address the necessary caution needed when using primary sources, in particular when secondary sources are available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding peer reviewed articles, my understanding is that such sources are not considered primary sources in Wikipedia, and are well accepted as sources for articles providing that claims made are attributed to the scholar/author, and providing that WP:NPOV is not breached. New editors sometimes forget to appreciate that our co0re content policies do not stand-alone. We seek compliance with V, NOR, NPOV simultaneously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are taking the fact that peer-reviewed articles are acceptable, and inferring that "therefore, they must not be primary sources". But you are assuming that primary sources are, by definition, unacceptable. The fact is, journal articles are almost always primary sources under traditional usages of the term (because they are the first published source of new ideas and original research). They happen to be primary sources that Wikipedia accepts and encourages, and which aren't "rare". CO GDEN  23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia we do not use the "traditional" usage of these terms, and that may be the core of the problem in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on 9/20 draft (minor update) proposal
I "think" these minor changes were agreed upon. If not, feel free to delete or strikeout. wbfergus undefinedTalk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They were agreed on... good catch... on reading them in print, I don't think we need to "suppose" any thing ... we may not know what was the exact illness (polio or something else), but we do know he had an illness. BTW... I think very minor changes such as this can be made without creating a new draft.  I only meant to say that if anyone wanted to change things significantly they should post a new version. Blueboar 16:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This new formulation is more concise, and thus more likely to be read, that the versions that mentioned primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Also, since the sources are not classified, there is no need to mention that facts may be found in both primary and secondary sources, which saves words.--Gerry Ashton 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We can split the old PSTS into its own page and/or merge it woth other sections as needed and improve it there. As for concerns about where to use "close" sources and "distant" sources, does that belong here, on RS, or somewhere else? Jacob Haller 17:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Classification of sources is an attempt to address PSTS separately from this policy. Vassyana 20:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I couldn't recall the place. I suggest redirecting PSTS to CoS. Jacob Haller 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, WP:SCLASS needs fixing up a bit first, I think. Last I checked, it still claimed that secondary sources couldn't contain 'new' analytical material without them being a primary source for that, which rather misses the point. SamBC(talk) 10:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer using "suppose" anyway (e.g. in case other details arise) but I don't feel strongly about it, so go ahead. I'm quite pleased with how this is progressing. --Coppertwig 17:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of the example is that we have two fact statements that are obvious and uncontrovercial... if the FDR example does not fit, let's find another.
 * I have no problem spliting the old PSTS (and similar issues) to some other page... but I think we do need to keep the focus of this page on type of statement and avoid any discussion of type of source. It isn't the type of source used that makes something OR... it is the way you use it.  Or to put it more succincltly: Sources are not OR... statements can be. Blueboar 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "born in Hyde park" example is better. That works well. I also like "Sticking to the Sources" as a section title. It sums up the issue pretty well. Do we want to have more than one example? There are a few different ways in which sources can be used for original research, so maybe we should have an example for each, such as where:
 * an editor makes novel analytical conclusions based on two verifiable facts (like the FDR example above);
 * an editor makes a novel factual inference based on two verifiable facts (e.g., source A says John did not eat meat, source B says John disliked leather, editor writes that John was a vegan).
 * an editor elaborates on an author's published analytical conclusions in an original way (source says that Joe liked to drink and swear, editor writes that Joe wasn't religious);
 * CO GDEN  21:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've been noting, the primary / secondary material clarification of how sources are used covers issues that this proposal doesn't mention. My opinion is that it should be possible to subordinate this classification to the sort of fact / interpretation split that this proposal emphasises, but the primary and secondary idea has a simplicity and clarity that has to be fully matched for this proposed change to be acceptable. .. dave souza, talk 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem was that primary and secondary did not have simplicity and clarity. Quite the contrary, there was a clear amount of complexity and confusion. A look through the archives at the discussion that occurred over the past month will make the confusion and (more importantly) the lack of consensus clear. Vassyana 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It has a misleading simplicity that allows people to stop actually thinking about whether there's OR, and just say "ah, primary source, OR!!". SamBC(talk) 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been slow to join in here because having looked over the archives there seems to be a lot of incoherence and no clear statement of just what the problems are with the primary / secondary descriptions. Could you please point to a summary of this, providing diffs, or add a concise statement here. After all, I don't want to do OR in interpreting all those archives ;) ... dave souza, talk 09:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I sympathise. I'll attempt a summary below. Spenny 10:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the example was changed, the new sentence didn't make sense, so I appended "its effect" into the sentence. wbfergus undefinedTalk 12:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)