Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 55

Using sources: redundant passage?
I'd like to remove this, as it's not clear what it's saying over and above what the policy says elsewhere. And it's not clear what the "passages open to ..." sentence means.

"Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."

SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to me a description of an obvious abuse. If I were editing it, I might revise precisely, but the meaning of the sentence seems clear enough: when dealing with ambiguous source material, either don't cite it at all, or indicate exactly what passage you are relying on, and how you read it; the reader is then free to think otherwise.


 * Whether that section is what we want to say is another question. Language unconditionally forbidding citation of anything anybody may claim to be ambiguous gives too much power to our activists; advice against such passages is probably better in a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was repetitive, and I would like to remove it for that reason. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We're going to start removing stuff from these pages because it's repetitive? Now that would be progress ;) When can we start? I'll bring a scythe.--Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to list the stuff here that's repetitive, I would strongly support it being removed. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

dubious
Kotniski marked a section dubious, and this was reverted. .

Though discussion prior to inserting the tag is preferable, it's not required. However, discussion, or at least an attempt to discuss, is required, prior to removing the tag. So, I'm restoring it, but you guys do need to talk about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the text in question:
 * Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

This is Kotniski's comment about it from his edit summary adding the dubious tag:
 * "is this right? can't we say "X later wrote in his memoirs that his decision had been wrong" ?"

It seems clear to me that he's saying that an evaluative claim, say a correction of some sort, that one writes in his own memoirs ("you know, I guess I did have sex with that woman"), is something that is allowed, even though it's not published in a secondary source. So the statement, as it now stands stated absolutely, is incorrect. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the sort of situation I had in mind. Obviuosly it's ideal if we can report that a secondary source said that the primary source said X, but I would have thought everyday wikipractice would accept reports of what primary sources say (even evaluations or analysis), as long as we make it clear that we are just reporting the fact of the statements and not "making" the statements ourselves. (I don't understand the edit summary by the person who reverted the "dubious" tag - the words "primarily" and "always" do not appear here.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Hmmm...I was thinking of his tagging as an addition, since tagging a policy isn't really the same as tagging an article, and therefore it needed justification to stay in...but that's not really important. In any event, my rationale for removing the tag relied primarily upon the use of the word "usually" in the first sentence, which I was thinking for some reason governed the whole thing (that is, that the second sentence is just an explanation of the first.  This analysis would make the whole thing just like most of our policies, which are "Well, usually this is true, but sometimes it depends..."  In that way, even if Kotniski is correct that the policy applies to the sentence in question, it is still fine, because that type of situation (where we report that a primary source has retracted an earlier statement) falls under the exception.
 * But even if you don't read it that way, I think the policy is still fine, because I don't think that's an "evaluative claim"--it's a simple reporting of facts. The sequence in the article would be something like "In his 20s, Person X claimed A, B, and C.  Later, on xyr deathbed, Person X recanted and stated that he was wrong about B and C, and not sure about A."  There's no evaluation there--in both cases, we are simply stating a fact about what X claimed about xyrself. It would be evaluative if we said "Later, this was proven untry as Person X recanted on xyr deathbed."  That would not only be evaluative, but POV (because we'd be putting an opinion into the words of Wikipedia instead of properly attributing it).  Thus, in fact, the policy as written doesn't prevent us from doing what Kotniski accurately claims we should do.
 * Finally, I'd just like to state that I don't think tagging this was proper in the first place. I certainly go and throw maintenance templates on articles, including "dubious."  But WP:NOR is one of our 5 pillars...I think it reflects badly to have a template there.  Instead, even if Kotniski is right (that the statement is dubious), it would have been much better to come here and hash that out first. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What reflects badly is the fact that we have dubious statements in these core policies in the first place (this is by no means the only one). Anyway, it needs to be rewritten so that it clearly means what it's presumably supposed to mean, instead of implying something rather different. --Kotniski (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Situations like the one described are why we have WP:IAR. And why we say "usually" in this particular passage of the policy.  None of our policies can cover every conceivable situation...  We have to think about the spirit and intent of the policy... rather than limit ourselves to a literal, "legalistic" reading of it.  The fact is, we can cite primary sources... and reporting that an author has changed is mind about something he said previously is a perfect example of when doing so is appropriate.  We don't need to spell this out in the policy. Situations like the one described are rare enough that to try to spell out a clarification in the policy just adds verbiage that will confuse editors and encourage wikilawyers looking for loopholes in the policy.
 * As to the issue of tagging policies... I don't think tagging is a bad as some people seem to feel. A tag does not mean "don't follow this policy"... tagging simply an alert that the policy statement is being discussed.  That said, I agree that the fact that one or two people have an issue with something in a policy is not enough to maintain a tag on a policy page.  Once it is clear that consensus continues to favor the policy statement, the tag should be removed.  In this case, I agree that the choice of the  tag was wrong (the "dubious" tag is for questionable article information, not for policy disagreements).  An "under discussion" tag would have been more appropriate.  Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So if someone knows what this sentence is trying to say, can they say what it is? It seems to me it would be better if it weren't there at all. --Kotniski (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I would not have reacted as strongly or even reverted had Kotniski used "under discussion". As for a possible rewording, it's getting near my bedtime, so I think I better hold off for now.  Qwyrxian (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What it is trying to say is that we should not base analytical, interpretive, or conclusionary statements on primary sources (we should use secondary sources for that). It is fine to include a descriptive statement as to what is stated in a primary source. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Is that really a word? Conclusionary?) So this is about statements made "in Wikipedia's voice" (i.e. not of the "Jones said..." form), right? --Kotniski (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the strictest views on NOR, the only analytic or interpretive claims we can include are ones that already literally appear word-for-word in a source. Given that we can already "describe" what's in a primary source, if a primary source makes a claim we can cite that. I don't see what would actually be allowed from a secondary source that wouldn't be allowed from a primary source based solely on the type of source. There are many claims by primary sources that are completely authoritative, and claims by secondary sources that are not. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Word for word" is a bit much... but you do have a point.
 * What bothers me about all this is that no one is considering the alternatives... if we have used a particular source (Jones) to cite fact X, and Jones subsequently says "you know, I made a mistake there"... we should probably search for another source for fact X (and if we can not find it, we should question whether we should mention the fact at all). After all, Jones himself is calling into question the reliability of his previous work.  How to deal with this is obviously a bit of a judgment call... and a lot depends on the nature of the article we are talking about.  While we could say "Jones advocated X , but later said he made a mistake  ", we should at least consider the argument for simply omitting all reference to Jones completely. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would usually be better to just leave it out, unless the point was to track Jones' opinions over time, like in a biography. I think that was the original question, since it mentioned a memoir. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would not call "X says in his memoirs that he did have sex with that woman" an evaluative claim; it's what the memoirs, a primary source, say. "X tells several different stories in his later accounts" is much closer to needing a secondary source. Is there an actual problem which suggests this could use clarification? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I just noticed the sentence in passing, and it seemed overly categorical. The case to consider would be more like where X says in his memoirs that he had sex with Y (non-evaluative, so OK to include) but goes on to say that "this was a bad thing to do" (evaluative, so according to the policy not OK to include). Of course I'm not saying that Wikipedia should state directly that X's having sex with Y was a bad thing to do (but it wouldn't do that anyway, even if that evaluation came from a secondary source - per WP:NPOV), but I don't think it would be against our norms to write that "X said in his memoirs that he had sex with Y and that it was a bad thing to do", citing the memoirs themselves as the source.--Kotniski (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is where there's confusion--to me, the claim you're stating isn't at all evaluative. It's a properly attributed statement of opinion; which is to say that it is a statement of fact.  "Ice cream is good" is an opinion, an evaluation, but "X said ice cream is good" is a statement of fact.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but if an article states that "X said ice cream is good", then the article includes the claim that "ice cream is good". Perhaps it's the word "includes" in the sentence that's causing the possible misunderstanding.--Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinction is who is doing the evaluation... WP:NOR is about evaluations done by Wikipedia editors, not evaluations done by outside sources. We can report on the opinions of others (keeping in mind WP:UNDUE), we should not state our own opinions (in Wikipedia's voice).  We can describe what a primary source says... we may not analyze, interpret or draw our own conclusions from what the primary source says (Of course we are not supposed to do this with a secondary source either). Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think there's any doubt about any of that... but how does it relate to the sentence we're discussing?--Kotniski (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If X says "Ice cream is good", we can we can say "X is of the opinion that ice cream is good" (as this is a blunt description of what X says... we are not evaluating what X says), however we can not go beyond X and say "Therefore everyone should eat ice cream". Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The PSTS section is, in part, addressing a common error that some editors (especially POV warriors) make in writing articles... too often editors try to "prove a point" using primary sources (ie they analyze and draw a conclusion based upon primary sources... a conclusion not explicitly made by the primary sources). The section is trying to tell them not to do this... instead they need to look for a source that analyzes the primary sources and explicitly draws the desired conclusion.  The assumption is that sources that do this are by definition "secondary".  The question you are asking is: Is this an accurate assumption?  Can't primary sources contain analysis and conclusions?   I think the answer to that is, Yes... and we can use them as long as we do so carefully.  With attribution. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But there's the other danger, where the editor searches for opinions matching his POV, ignoring the (usually larger, or why is he here?) body of opinions which don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
 * True... but that is a WP:NPOV issue and not a WP:NOR issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (left)Primary sources usually contain analysis and conclusion, quite often of the genre "Really, I didn't do it, officer". This is so predictable, it is rarely notable; the first question any historian will ask of a primary source is why was it written? What case is it pushing?
 * Can we answer Kotniski's reservation by some language like "Articles may not assert analyses and conclusions unless they are cited to reliable secondary sources"? "X wrote that Y had done wrong in sleeping with Z" does not assert that Y had done anything, but rather that X said so; the potential for abuse here can be checked by mentioning WP:UNDUE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Interpretation is "when writing about her father's love of his pipes, the author was really talking about her love of his penis and desire to have sex with him." That's the kind of thing that needs a secondary source. There is some analysis that's so obvious it's close to simply being a description—part of the synopsis—and that's where common sense has to kick in, making sure we don't deploy an interpretation of NOR that's too strict. Kotniski's example of the writer later saying "I was wrong," would be fine sourced to him alone by any common sense interpretation of the policy, though we could add a footnote to emphasize it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or indeed, by the proposed change above. We agree, even Kotniski, that we ought to allow the example of the writer saying later, "I was wrong," to be sourced to him alone. The questions are:
 * Does the policy actually allow that, as phrased?
 * Can we phrase the policy so that less allowance of common sense is needed, without making it cumbersome? Every time we appeal to common sense, we offer an opportunity for an editor without any to be obnoxious.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors without common sense are going to be obnoxious no matter what we write... trying to forstall every possible opportunity for obnoxiousness just creates more opportunities. That said, I have long thought this section could be improved (although not at all sure how), and thus I am willing to consider suggestions.  Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as the sentence under discussion is concerned, I would just combine it with the previous sentence and say something like (improve the wording if you can), "Reliable secondary sources are the preferred type of sources for the content of Wikipedia articles, in particular for analysis and interpretation of primary sources."--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That takes away the cluebat. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What cluebat? And is that a good or a bad thing?--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, the whole policy is saying over and over again that you can't do original analysis - we don't need to say it yet again at this particular point, and in a way that implies that analysis can only come from secondary sources while other information needn't (except in as much as, by definition, sources that contain analysis are most times going to be secondary sources anyway). I think I can see now the slightly muddled thinking that led to this sentence - someone probably had in mind a concept of "secondary source" that covered all sources containing analysis, not noticing that this was not entirely consistent with the given definitions of source types. (Why is all this here anyway, and not on the "reliable sources" page - the quality of a source depends on many other things much more than on whether it's primary/secondary/tertiary, so why does this particular distinction get so much emphasis in the policy?)  --Kotniski (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To some extent, this brings us back to a concern I raised about a year or so ago... I am of the belief that the entire PSTS section incorrectly focuses the reader on the nature of the source, rather than on what they are writing based on the source. Inserting your own analysis of a source, interpreting a source, or drawing your own conclusions from a source is OR... This can be done using primary, secondary or tertiary sources.  The flaw is not in the classification of the source, it's in what we do with the source.  It in what we write, not what we read.
 * I think we all agree that it is very very easy to improperly analyze, interpret or conclude when drawing your information from primary sources... and yes, the vast majority of OR violations involve people improperly analyzing, interpreting or drawing conclusions from primary sources. For this reason, it is worth pointing out the difficulty of using primary sources and cautioning people against that difficulty... but we need to do so in a way that focuses the reader more on the act of analysis, interpretation or conclusion, and less on the nature of the source.
 * What I think we want say here is... Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources because they contain analysis, interpretation and conclusions that we can report on without engaging in our own OR. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I agree with all of that. These pages are poorly organized anyway, fundamentally because WP:NOR is logically a fork of WP:V, so every point ends up being made at least twice. If it's felt to be too "revolutionary" to merge the two pages into one, can we at least decide which points belong on which page? --Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we want to cite Grant's (or Maclellan's or Lee's or Wellington's) analysis of his own campaigns as a source? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For a statement as to how Grant viewed his own campaigns, sure... Why wouldn't we? Assuming that the analysis in question has been published, it isn't OR to report on what he thinks. Especially if we attribute to make it clear that it is his self-analysis we are reporting on.    What we don't want is an editor drawing or implying a conclusion based on that self-analysis (or to put it another way, we don't want editors performing their own analysis based on what Grant says, or interpreting Grant's analysis themselves). That would be OR. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Grant's Memoirs are famous; but they are not exactly reliable. A statement on how he viewed his own campaigns would be fine - although often off topic - but it is permitted by the present policy. "Grant said X about the Wilderness" isn't an interpretation; it's a statement of fact, provided he did say it. To say X by itself is COI. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (left)Grant's reliability is a different issue... one that has nothing to do with NOR. What we are talking about is the difference between writing "Wellington later stated that the battle of Watterloo was 'a close run thing'  " (not OR) and saying "The French could easily have won the battle of Watterloo  " (which is OR, because it is an editor's own analysis of Wellington's famous statement.) Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But the reliability of Grant or Wellington has much to do with whether to cite them or not; it's why secondary sources must treat primary sources with care.
 * I don't disagree... but this isn't a general WP:Can I cite this source? policy... its a policy that is specific to the concept of WP:No original research. We muddy the water if we start discussing things that do not directly relate to the concept of OR.
 * There are three statements of interest:
 * "Wellington later stated that the battle of Waterloo was 'a close run thing'  " (which I agree is not OR)
 * "The French could easily have won the battle of Waterloo  " (which I agree is OR)
 * "The battle of Waterloo was a close run thing.  only " (which is still OR until a secondary source is added; the rephrasing in #2 does not amount to a change of meaning)  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree on #2... and I agree that #3 is problematic, but for a different reason. In the case of #3 I don't think the flaw is that it involves OR, I think the flaw is that it involves a statement of opinion... and I think all statements of opinion (ie analysis) should be phrased as being statements of opinion... ie they need to be attributed (whether they are taken from primary, secondary or tertiary source).  If an eminent scholar of the Napoleonic Wars stated the same opinion, I would still say it should be attributed.  Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would make an exception, which will contain much of our actual prose. Statements of opinion which represent the consensus of secondary sources (for example,  A late start, uncertainty about the direction the Prussians had taken, and the vagueness of the orders given to him meant that Grouchy was too late to prevent the Prussian army reaching Wavre, from where it could march to support Wellington from our article) are reasonable and unavoidable. (A shorter example would be "Japan was overmatched in the Pacific War"; it's opinion and synthesis, but who disagrees with it?) In such cases, ascribing the consensus opinion to a specific authority creastes the impression of a scholarly disagreement when there isn't one (but citation of many sources, or of a source which asserts consensus, is called for). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that... there does come a point where an opinion is so widely held, that it becomes accepted fact (actually, this may be the case with Wellington's famous statement). My point was to say that the need for attribution for statements of opinion is not limited to primary sources.  And it is not always OR to state the opinion expressed in a primary source.  Essentially, my concern is that the current language and structure focuses the editor on the question "what type of source is this?" rather than asking the more relevant question "does this source appropriately support what I have written in the article".  The first question can actually be a distraction from understanding the concept of OR... the second is central to understanding the concept of OR. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Asking whether it's a primary or secondary source is one way to determine whether it's appropriately supportive and reliable. The misuse of primary sources is one of the keys to understanding what constitutes OR. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then can we agree that one problem with #3 is that citing Wellington alone gives no sound reason for the reader to conclude that his opinion was consensus? If so, this is also a problem with #2. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, #2 and #3 above would clearly be an inappropriate use of a primary source.


 * The problem with the sourcing policies has always been that they describe historical methodology—necessarily so, because what we're doing when we write articles is writing history, no matter how modestly. To do that well requires an understanding of how to use sources, and that requires at least a basic understanding of how historians use sources. That in turn requires some study, if it's not already known.


 * Perhaps what we should do is add some academic reading to a footnote for people who want to know more about it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Slim, the problem is that you can't determine whether a source is appropriately supportive and reliable by asking whether the source is the Primary or Secondary. Primary sources can be used appropriately without engaging in OR, and Secondary sources can be used inappropriately, in ways that constitute OR.  NOR applies to what we, as editors, write... it isn't something that is inherent in the type of source.  Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, you most certainly can determine whether you're using a source properly by asking what kind of source it is. History students, even in high school, are taught that, as Oscar Handlin has put it, "every source is primary with respect to the moment at which it was made or written; and none is reliable except for matters of which it provides the record." It's an important distinction, a very useful one, and it's used quite happily on Wikipedia. It's only on this page that people gather who dislike it for various reasons. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers

 * SlimVirgin, you have previously argued quite vehemently that the way that historians approach sources is not the way that we should approach them. Are you changing your position on that now? According to the quote you just gave contemporary newspapers are primary sources for the current events; that is certainly how academic historians treat newspapers (e.g. ), but you have argued against that viewpoint before. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever said that, Carl, and the link you gave talked about newspapers "published at the time." Whether a newspaper article is a primary or secondary source depends on the context, as has been explained many times. I think we ought to stop linking to websites as sources on this, because you won't find historiography carefully explained on such pages. If there are people who really don't understand the difference and its importance, we could draw up a list of academic reading about it, and add it to a footnote. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (&larr;) I chose that page because it includes this quote:
 * "A primary source is a document, image, or artifact that provides evidence about the past. It is an original document created contemporaneously with the event under discussion. A direct quote from such a document is classified as a primary source. A secondary source is a book, article, film, or museum that displays primary sources selectively in order to interpret the past." Robert C. Williams, The Historian's Toolbox: A Student's Guide to the Theory and Craft of History, p.58
 * Historians treat newspaper articles that report on current events (current when the articles were published) as primary sources. I think you have argued that we should not do so here.


 * Also, it seems to me that website made by university libraries for the explicit purpose of educating students on use of sources are perfectly reasonable things to consult, and they will make every effort to explain things carefully. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "I think you have argued that we should not do so here." Can you provide examples of her doing so? I recall SV doing the exact opposite. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jayjg, good to see you. I'd be glad to point some out.
 * Here's one example:
 * Jossi, a newspaper story is a secondary source, unless it's an old one, in which case it acts as a primary source about the period. Regarding recent stories, an eyewitness's statement about a traffic accident is a primary source. A newspaper's report about that eyewitness's statement, and about the accident in general, is a secondary one. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is a more recent example related to the article Death of Michael Jackson:
 * Those newspaper reports aren't primary sources for us. They will be in 100 years' time, but for us, now, they're secondary sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The position that SlimVirgin has advocated before is that contemporary news reporting on contemporary events is a secondary source. That's a fine argument, but it's completely at odds with the way that academic historians treat sources.


 * For historians, news reporting about events that were contemporary at the time of publication is a primary source, period; there's nothing special about events last year vs. events 100 years ago. To a historian, a newspaper story simply reporting an eyewitness account of an accident is a primary source, because the newspaper article is not intended "interpret" the event, they are simply reporting news. Note the quote above: the intention of providing a selective interpretation of primary sources is a key aspect of secondary sources in history. News reporting is intended, to the greatest extent possible, to simply report facts, not to provide a novel interpretation of primary sources. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Robert Chadwell Williams quote you produced doesn't support what you're saying. Please find an historian who explicitly makes the point you do, though I have to say I'm disappointed to see you raise this again. You said last March that you would stop.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The source I quoted does, explicitly, support what I said: "A primary source is a document created contemporaneously with the event under discussion." For example, a newspaper story about the death of Michael Jackson published shortly thereafter. The webpage I linked to says, "Some examples of primary sources include:   * Books, magazine and newspaper articles published at the time". That was produced by the U of Oregon library, presumably they know what's up.


 * My point here is that you seem to have turned 180 degrees here. You could argue that news reporting is a secondary source, or that we should follow the usage of academic historians, but not both, because those are contradictory positions. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're quoting both your source and me out of context, which doesn't inspire confidence in a discussion about how to use sources. :) Williams is talking about using newspapers in historical research, not about today's Times.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't even know why I asked that previous question; why on earth are you discussing SV here at all? Please desist, this page is for discussing policy, not editors. As for "academic historians", Robert Chadwell Williams doesn't explicitly mention newspapers, so it's not clear what his stance is on this. Do you have any examples of "academic historians" explicitly discussing newspapers? Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Re SlimVirgin: regarding historical research, you said above,
 * "The problem with the sourcing policies has always been that they describe historical methodology—necessarily so, because what we're doing when we write articles is writing history, no matter how modestly. ... SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)"
 * That is the issue here. If we are using historical methodology, then we are, and if we aren't, then we aren't.
 * Re Jayjg: see the U Oregon page I linked to. Here is another source:
 * "Primary sources are the forms of evidence contemporary to the event or process described. ... These traditionally included diaries, official records, private correspondence, newspapers, memoirs, ..." Doing History: Research and Writing in the Digital Age by Michael J. Galgano, J. Christopher Arndt, Raymond M. Hyser,p. 6, google books.
 * There is no lack at all of sources where historians explain that newspapers are primary sources. The key point is for historians is contemporaneousness with the event being studied (e.g. Death of Michael Jackson). The issue of clarifying the classification of sources in this policy is quite relevant. If I don't understand someone's argument, or it seems internally contradictory, I have the prerogative to ask about it - that's part of the consensus-building process. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk)
 * Williams is not discussing current newspapers though. Anyway, as requested besides Robert Chadwell Williams on this website, do you have any examples of "academic historians" explicitly discussing newspapers? Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Encyclopaedists and Historians are different professions, even if both use variants on the method of hermeneutic analysis of texts. When Encyclopaedists write regarding History, they transclude some assumptions from the discipline of history.  When Encyclopaedists write regarding News and Current Events, they transclude some assumptions from sociology, cultural studies, journalism, etc.  When Wikipedians write regarding Historical events, they need to write in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policy on Primary Sources, which means, understanding what material is primary in relation to writing historical encyclopaedia articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the modest beginnings of this discussion
This discussion seems to be developing in various interesting directions, but on the original matter of the dubious sentence, I'm just going to edit it so that is isn't obviously wrong any more. (Done using PMA's suggestion, a long way above, of using "assert" instead of "include".)--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Kotniski, please stop changing the policy over objections. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The changes you inserted were very odd; why would you add "original" to the sentence "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."? Assuming one could even parse what it means, why on earth would we want "un-original" analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source? Aside from adding a word, what value is there in changing the word "are" to "may be" in the sentence "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others"? They are essentially semantically equivalent, but your change makes the sentence longer and more weaselly. And why is "assert" better than "include" in "Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source."? Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, "un-original" claims are precisely the ones we do want. "Are" is better than "may be", because they are (if I changed it in the other direction, which I don't think I did, then I disagree with myself). Re "assert" rather than "include", see rest of discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, adding that some secondary sources are more reliable than others was odd too. If it was intended to copy what's written in the tertiary section, someone added the latter because there are problems with using tertiary sources, many of which are very poor, so the point is to make sure high-quality ones are used. If that wording needs to be improved, please suggest something, but it makes no sense to add something meaningless to the section about secondary sources. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not meaningless, what are you talking about? We want high-quality sources, whether secondary or tertiary - both classes contain reliable and unreliable ones, so what we say about one applies equally to the other.--Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what's going on here. Pmanderson has partially reverted again, though he can see there are objections. And adding "assert" is just odd writing. What is the problem with "include," and why are these changes being made even though there are multiple objections? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You make it sound as if it was a matter of style, when the question is obviously one of what the policy is meant to say:
 * "Articles may assert analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source."
 * "Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source."
 * "Assert" is much stronger than "include". It means that we say something in the voice of the article. Let's take the claim "Clearly, quantum gravity is in [some] respect an archetypal postmodernist science", taken from a scholarly paper by a famous physicist. I don't know if this claim has been repeated or quoted in secondary sources. For the sake of the argument, let's assume not.
 * Under the first version, an editor is not allowed to make our article quantum gravity claim that quantum gravity has postmodernist aspects. That's the kind of thing the NOR (= no crackpot theories) policy is meant to prevent. Under the second version, it would be forbidden to use the sentence in our article Sokal affair as an example for a point about that article which has been made by numerous reliable sources, though always using different examples, if any. That's the kind of editorial discretion that we should not give up without reason.
 * SlimVirgin, you are for the second version: Why does it make sense to restrict editorial freedom in this way? Hans Adler 23:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand your post. Also, it isn't correct that we can always assert things in the voice of the article just because there's a source. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you don't understand my post. Perhaps someone else can translate it for you.
 * Perhaps you missed that the passage talks about necessary conditions rather than sufficient conditions? Of course we can't always assert things just because there's a [secondary] source. What the sentence says is that we cannot possibly assert a certain category of things when there is no secondary source.
 * This is what the relevant part of this policy said 3 years ago: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." There is no problem with that. (Or rather, the sentence is also slightly ambiguous, but in different ways.) But two years ago we already had the misleading formulation with "include", and I don't know why the change was made. My best guess is that the change was intended to be purely a matter of style. "Include" can be interpreted to mean "assert". But it is slightly more natural to interpret it more liberally, so that it also includes merely mentioning or quoting something. That's an unnecessary problem with the current text and should be fixed. Hans Adler 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's the length that's introducing confusion. Could you say very briefly why you think "assert" should replace "include"? I can't see any difference in meaning between the three-year-old sentence you cited and the current one. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also fail to understand the difference, except that "assert" seems to open more loopholes. Under that wording, we could include "analytic or evaluative claims not published by a reliable secondary source", so long as we did not assert them. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can include such opinions; or do you dispute that we may say The Duke of Wellington said that Waterloo was "a close-run thing? I am perfectly willing to clarify that the way to include something, but not assert it, is to attribute it; which says that somebody else asserts it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So the argument is that one should be allowed to include analytic etc. claims if they're in primary sources? Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the argument is that we do include analytic claims correctly attributed to primary sources, and nobody calls it Original Research - because it isn't. Quoting Wellington (or Jellicoe) is not original. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would one include an analytic claim from a primary source even though no secondary sources had taken note of it? It seems that this wording would, on top of being a loophole, invite WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE etc. Also, why would one want to include this specific example in policy? Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So we have two editors who don't see any difference in meaning; and at least two editors who do. This is, I think, because the reverters assume that this policy will always be read as saying what it does not explicitly say; this seems rash.

But those who see no difference in meaning whatever have no grounds to revert; if the meaning is not changed, what is the legitimate ground for reversion? Because you like the wording? We have a guideline on that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review the phrase it seems to open more loopholes above. Let's discuss only content here, not editors. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will cease discussing conduct when the conduct ceases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you'll cease discussing anything but the content of the policy, so we don't have to open up yet another Pmanderson AN/I thread or RFC/U. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, it's VERY VERY simple, and I'm very disappointed that there are people who take such a proprietary attitude to this page that they force obvious and uncontroversial improvements to go through reams of discussion. We CAN "include" analytic claims from primary (or tertiary) sources (as multiple hypothetical examples have shown), so it's simply NOT TRUE to say that "analytic claims... can be included only if they come from secondary sources". The sentence simply uses the wrong word - "include" instead of something else like "assert" or "make" (such claims). There's no reason for this to be controversial - nothing anyone has said in any of the discussions goes against this change. The other reverts are equally infuriating - if you object to something, please say WHY. --Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But I've clearly stated why I object to each change, including the word "assert", in more than one post (see, for example, my post of 21:17, 25 January 2011). It's hard for me to have a discussion with people who apparently aren't reading my posts. As for the word "assert", I've also clearly explained why "include" is better, particularly for primary sources. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been explained at tortuous length why "include" is simply wrong. (And you accuse us of not reading your posts...) "Assert" would have been OK; I think "make" (or even better - leave out the sentence altogether) should satisfy everyone. --Kotniski (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me, however, where in all that "tortuous length" the issue of encouraging WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR violations by using primary sources was addressed. And if you say that people can abuse secondary sources in the same way, well, any source can be abused, but in my experience primary sources are much easier to–and far more likely to be–abused in this way. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't care how this is fixed, as long as this page stops saying what is not consensus. We have proposed five or six different fixes now; none of them have been met with the slightest cooperation from two editors (who do not - it appears - disagree on substance, only on wording.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop discussing other editors. Discuss article content. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that we have a consensus that "includes" should be replaced. What we don't have is a consensus on what to replace it with. If "assert" is not acceptable, can someone suggest another word? Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

First, are we talking about the part of the policy that currently says
 * Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

If so, I think the proplem with this is that primary sources may properly make analytic or evaluative claims about events the author was involved with. For example, one might find a source by an astronaut stating the astronaut saw moving specks of light outside a spacecraft, and interpreting them as debris from an explosion. Deciding the specks were debris is an anylitical claim, but could be put in an article if properly attributed. Of course, the inclusion could be contested on the basis of better sources with contrary claims. So I would make the statement focus on analysis and evaluation of sources, like this:
 * Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. All analysis or evaluation of sources must have been published by a reliable secondary source.

Jc3s5h (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine for something like the example you gave, but what about an author analyzing their own book in a foreward? This would prohibit that because the author might be seen as the primary source, unless we say that the book is primary. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a point, because the term primary and secondary are not orthogonal. A source can be close to an event or issue, and so be a primary source, despite the fact that it is based on other sources rather than direct recording and analysis of events and artifacts. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The text you quoted seems fixed, actually. What you quoted said "articles may not make" certain claims without secondary sources. The faulty previous text, which clearly didn't have consensus and didn't reflect what is actually going on in this project said that articles may not even include such claims. Obviously if some primary source makes an analytic or evaluative claim there is rarely a good reason to include it even in the sense of mentioning it, and typically there is any number of good reasons (especially WP:UNDUE) not to include it. However, that has nothing to do with the fact it's an analytic or evaluative claim. There is no reason to legislate about this. There is a huge difference between taking claims from a primary source and presenting them as true in the voice of the article, and reporting that a primary source has made a claim. The latter is occasionally perfectly fine when done to explain a point that is not original research and is made differently in reliable sources. We need this kind of editorial freedom so that we can stay comfortably clear of plagiarism and write to high standards. Contrary to a common misconception, competent writing for Wikipedia is not just copying various pieces from various reliable sources and pasting them together.
 * But it appears that this particular dispute is over. Hans Adler 23:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors making changes to policy
Since January 20, Kotniski and Pmanderson have been making unclear changes, and reverting when the edits were removed and objections were raised on this page. Can they explain why they're doing this, and what they're hoping to achieve? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we have been making clear and copiously discussed changes to make the text of policy actually say what everybody has agreed policy is and ought to be. We have been reverted on cries of "I don't understand" and exact reversion; such disagreements on substance as there have been have invariably been fixable by counter-tweaks.


 * On the current matter, for example, everybody seems to agree that, in the absence of (at least) a citation of a reliable secondary source, but sourced only to the Iron Duke,
 * The Battle of Waterloo was a close-run thing is OR;
 * The Duke of Wellington said that the Battle of Waterloo was a close-run thing is not OR; what is being asserted is that he said it, and citing him is enough to show that.


 * The present wording, taken literally, proscribes both; both include the same opinion, expressed in the same words. The difference is the meaning; the first asserts the opinion; the second asserts only that the Duke said it. I adhere to the view that policies should say what they mean, not something else; it's the difference between the lightning and the lightning-bug. If SV thinks otherwise, it is not this page that should deal with her. The profound carelessness and ambiguity of our policy pages is one of their worst features; and preventing the wiki-process of progressive refinement as various minds go back and forth, seeing different sides of a question, is how they have gotten this way.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you continue to revert like this I'm going to ask for admin assistance. Gain consensus for any substantive change, and organize your talk page input so that people can see if there's consensus, and can see what they appear to be agreeing to. The editors who don't live on this talk page have to know when they refer to policy that it's going to say roughly what it said when they last checked. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two editors agreeing on something is really not enough to establish consensus for changing fundamental content policies. Also, how can something that has been longstanding policy for suddenly become disputed? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. You two are writing in a policy which disagrees profoundly with practice (the true measure of policy) and with you yourself admit to be the intent of this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the top of this page, "Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus." I'm not saying it doesn't need to be changed, but that for the very reason SlimVirgin points out, it seems far better (to me, at least), to get consensus first before making changes...I guess what I'm saying is that WP:BRD doesn't seem to be a very appropriate way to make any substantive change to a policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't written this policy. In fact, I've made just two edits to it in the past 14 months. Please make more accurate Talk: page comments. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These are not substantial changes (except for one obviously wrong word that has been explained at excessive length above), just clarifications, and we're still waiting to hear any actual arguments as to why the attempted improvements were wrong in any way. (Sorry, I've just noticed there were such arguments higher up the page, but I don't think they carry any weight.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to just say "oh, just noticed you actually made arguments, but they don't carry any weight anyway". You actually have to discuss things here; that is, respond to the objections with more than just a hand-wave. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have discussed at great length - and been responded to only with threats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, as is obvious from above, the responses have been about the policy changes you are proposing, not "only with threats". Please make more accurate Talk: page comments. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quoting in citations to help readers quickly check source content
I propose adding to MOS and/or RS and/or WP:OR the following – "“Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and is often viewed with mistrust. Wikipedia responds to this by requiring reliable sources. Users can then always check the content of an article by reading the source provided in the reference list.  It is helpful to the reader to include a very brief quote from the source in the ref, so the reader can quickly find where the content came from in the source.”"

Please comment. HkFnsNGA (talk)


 * That belongs in WP:No Original Research, where it may actually be a useful condensation; this is the Manual of Style, where we argue over hyphens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It probably belongs in citations (although I think MOS should take over citations). On the content, I had to deal with this at an FA and have a slight tweak desired. I often use quotes in citation, they are very punchy sometimes.  they give extra info.  they give a flavor.  They drive home the proof.  But I don't do it to help locate info.  I do it for extra effect.  I had a reviewer want me to add "See sentence starting at..." before all my quotes, but my intention was pretty far from locational. I believe the citation was sufficient.  Plus the quote was the most important part but not the "starting part".  Plus I had a couple that started mid sentence.  So I love the practice.  But I don't do it for location.  See Painted turtle.  TCO (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will start a talk page section at WP:RS And WP:OR, per your suggestions. (What does "FA" abbreviate? Is there a dictionary of WP:abbreviations for relative newbies to them?) I had similar experiences to yours, which is why I thought of it, and with your additional "punch" motivations, beyond just to be helpful. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Were this proposed in a relevant policy (and I oppose MOS taking over anything actually important), I would comment that a brief quotation is often misleading, and this provision would certainly be abused; often a sentence in WP summarizes a page; also, anything that makes citation more difficult had better be clearly worth the slower citation rate it will produce. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a possibility for non-WP:GoodFaith abusing this, but it is also helpful in finding information in large sources, and for detecting such abuse. I agree this discussion could also take place in other talk pages, and I will start it there. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added elsewhere - and this (or WT:V) seems the best place for this discussion - that page numbers (already required) solve much of this, and making a universal requirement for the few sources which are long, unpaginated, and unsearchable seems overkill. A note that this can be useful would be unexceptionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually disapprove of including quotes in sources. Perhaps this is due to the topic areas where I tend to edit... but my experience has been that when a quote is included in a citation, someone is probably selectively quoting, taking the quoted words out of context. I see quoting in the citation as a red flag for potential POV pushing. Context often requires reading long passages of a source... more than just the phrase or sentence that we have room for in a citation.  Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very often so, yes. Usually from a set of selective quotations kept as ammunition for the True Cause, whatever it may be. Qualify unexceptionable accordingly; I meant a note approving this for the sort of webpages which run on for miles. Saying search on [phrase] would be better, though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

HKFns has also added this to the Mos and is discussing it there, where it's not really appropriate. If you want to discuss it, the place is V or CITE, though I'd oppose it for the reasons I just gave on the MoS talk page. But it definitely doesn't belong here, and bringing it up on multiple pages at once is confusing. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He started at MOS. I agree V would be better, but since this is here, I would redirect all three of his conversations here. I don't see any wave of enthusiasm for this anywhere, so it may not matter much where it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care where we discuss it... but I have lost track of all the places where it is being discussed. Let's centralize the discussion so we are discussing it in only one place.  Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Translations and transcriptions
Regarding No original research:
 * it doesn't make mention of transcriptions from audio or video recordings. I would figure that is acceptable by analogy, but should transcriptions perhaps be explicitly mentioned there?
 * Also, how (if at all) should one identify the translation or transcription as having been done by Wikipedian(s)? There's an essay These_are_not_original_research that states in relevant part "The credit for any new translation should be (tr:WP). The translation must, of course, be editable."  I'm not sure what kind of consensus there might be for the (tr:WP).  Additionally, unless wikilinked, its meaning is a little obscure.  Possibly "(translation by Wikipedia)" should be next to the translated text, or appended to the citation in the footnotes or references. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would seem to make sense to me to treat transcriptions the same as translations (and to mention that in the policy).--Kotniski (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A situation when primary sources can be considered secondary or tertiary sources
An issue regarding MEDRS has come up in the specific context of acupuncture, which may need a more generalized MEDRS guidance. In medically peer reviewed primary source articles studying efficacy of acupuncture for something, it was incidentally mentioned that acupuncture can be a “painful treatment”, or that “Japanese acupuncture is ‘far less painful’ than Chinese acupuncture”. The peer reviewers allowed the incidental remark, apparently because it was not disputable, as it is not disputable that setting a bone is painful. So the primary source for the study is actually a secondary or tertiary source for its peer reviewed incidental comments, which sum up scientific consensus. Any suggestions for having NOR deal with this kind of stuff? PPdd (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems more like a WP:Undue Weight issue than it is a WP:OR issue... It isn't OR to note that a source says acupuncture can be painful. However, because the context is that a source says it as a passing remark, it is UNDUE for us to note that the source says this. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Medieval annals are to be treated as secondary sources
It is claimed here that medieval Irish annals are secondary sources. The user adding them appears to be a genealogy enthusiast or something, but he is not competent at judging the value and reliability of difficult sources such as annals. As a result Wikipedia has a bit of a problem in Viking Age Irish Sea history as the user in question habitually uses such primary sources. It is pointless for me to talk to him, as he hates me for blocking him months ago. So can someone else explain how Wikipedia works when it comes to such sources? Be very cautious as he has a bit of a temper (I'm not kidding). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Annals are routinely classified as Primary sources by historians... Wikipedia agrees. Annals are valuable historical records (indeed sometimes the only historical records) but, as primary sources, they have recognized limitations.  When writing articles on historical events or people, it is often informative to discuss what the annals have to say about the event or person... but, when doing so, it is important to present what the annals say in a purely descriptive fashion, and avoid making any interpretive, analytical or conclusionary statements based upon what the Annals say.  When it doubt, attribute and quote. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, that's what I thought. Trouble will be convincing User:DinDraithous, who thinks tagging such references as potential original research to be 'vandalism' and 'hounding' (per links above). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(I've posted the identical to the NOR noticedboard) This editor, Deacon, has been following me for months and is now officially hounding me, by targeting articles I have created and leaving them full of OR tags. He has been around Wikipedia for some years, even being an administrator, and has been exposed to countless similar articles full of the identical practice of citing the Irish annals and has done nothing. Examples of articles full of this practice: Sigtrygg Silkbeard (good article), Battle of Glenmama (good article). Wait for many, many more. They're coming. DinDraithou (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think tagging these references is such a great idea - there's nothing wrong with using primary sources per se, it's just a question of making it clear to the reader what source the information comes from (not stating the "facts" from those sources in Wikipedia's voice). A more constructive approach would be to try to reword the statements in question to make their status clearer.--Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, there are massive and fundamental problems with the use of these primary sources. The editors involved are encyclopaedists when they are editing wikipedia.  They are not historians.  There is a profession who's occupation is the generation of factive material from primary sources (such as medieval annals), the name of that profession is historian. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is what I mean - don't generate new "facts" from these sources; but it's quite within Wikipedia's remit to report the fact that a particular source contains particular words.--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, because reporting that a source contains text is a claim that this is
 * Meaningful
 * Implicitly containing facticity
 * A genuine transmission of the original text
 * All three of which require professional verification. Historical articles should be exclusively sourced to scholarly secondary sources, or sources which have gone through equivalent review.  Primary sources ought to be used like pictures, only for illustrative content where the factual elements have been verified against scholarly secondary sources already. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Annals are not secondary sources, but that doesn't mean they can't be used at all. I generally agree with Kotniski here. WP:PRIMARY says that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." For a specific example, have a look at talk:Ottir Iarla, where I have questioned OR-tagging of sentences on the formula "[Primary source] describes him as...", referenced to a edited/translated academic (even if dated) publication of the source in question. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Large sections of the text of these articles are clearly based on nothing but primary source readings. It isn't even debatable if this is acceptable, Finn & Kotniski. Even if it is permitted to report that a primary source says something, that does not means using the primary sources as the major sources for an article's narrative. As Finn knows, I am happy to overlook safe examples or to consider references individually, but the editor refuses to discuss anything when I bring messages to his talk page and revert wars to keep tags out. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So it sounds as if the problem you're identifying isn't one of "original research" per se, but of overuse of primary sources in the article generally. If you find it useful in some way to tag this problem, then I would suggest one single tag at the top of the article (or maybe on the talk page), rather than lots of OR tags all through the article. --Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, not at all.The problem is articles being written based on primary sources, as I've already said. I have been using the top tags for articles too, but using the text specific tags too to assist the editor(s) involved. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what I said? (And if the editors don't feel the tags assist them, isn't that a good reason to stop putting them back?)--Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Kotniski ... the problem isn't mentioning what the Primary sources say (if done descriptively, this isn't OR) ... the problem is the overuse and over reliance of those primary sources. That problem is resolved doing by additional research - finding more secondary sources on the subject and discussing what they say. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, was thrown off by Kotniski's false distinction between OR and overuse of primary sources. So yes, these articles are written based on [the user's interpretation of] primary sources, but consist of individual reference problems too. @Kotniski, I don't think your other point is very relevant and is a bit distracting. The user reverts everything and he is not the only one who should be reviewing. As I was saying, there is no mutual exclusivity between general article OR violations and ones that can be particularised to particular references. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that we are also discussing this at WP:NORN (the NOR noticeboard)... I suggest that we end discussion here (which is really supposed to be for discussing edits to the policy itself, and not for article issues) and continue discussion at the noticeboard. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Confused
It says that primary sources cannot be "interpreted." But a check with the dictionary says that "interpret" means "to explain or tell the meaning of," i.e. to create a summary. So how, exactly, are primary sources to be used in ways that do not involve explaining or telling the meaning of them. Straightforward description of what a source says is an interpretation. 96.39.62.90 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Source says: "John Smith was born 12 April 1826."   That is precisely the extent of information which can be ascribed to the source. We cannot say "six months after his parents married" nor "in a log cabin" as that is not in the exact source used.  Collect (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but in that case, it seems like the wording should be changed a bit. As it stands, the guideline currently basically says "primary sources can be used, but you can't actually make any claims about what they say." 71.88.35.24 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We can make claims about what they say, we try to avoid making claims about what they mean (unless we can properly source those claims). That seems quite consistent with my understanding of "cannot be interpreted".--Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski is correct... but "claims" is such a loaded and confusing word... to rephrase... we can create blunt descriptive statements as to what a primary source explicitly says... but we must avoid creating statements (either overtly or through implication) as to what the primary source means. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that talk of "making claims" is not the best way of phrasing this sort of thing (and the parts of the policies that use that phrase should probably be reworded). --Kotniski (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the larger problem is that "what a source says" and "what a source means" are not really distinct concepts. In fact, I suspect that to many (perhaps even most) people, the two terms are interchangable. Certainly I don't intuitively understand a distinction, and I doubt it's because I'm thick. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So how about "the words a source contains" versus "the meaning of those words"?--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that a source "says" is a direct quote. Anything else is to some degree an interpretation, or a selective distillation which also changes it. So the situation isn't as "cut and dried" as this policy pretends that it is.  When the  article situation is amicable, it gets worked out by common sense and consensus and it works.  When there is a battle going on, then such issues make this policy a failure; it's gets used as POV and warfare weapon, e.g. to selectively knock out material that one doesn't agree with via saying it's "OR". North8000 (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To interpret does not mean to create a summary. Look it up in the OED and a good thesaurus.  NOR states "summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context" and not to "advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source"; "that article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided." and not to "Draw[] conclusions not evident in the reference". Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC on citing oneself
In its section about citing oneself, should the No original research policy incorporate the following language from the Conflict of interest guideline?

"Citing material you have written yourself and had independently published is allowed within reason, so long as it is relevant and complies with our neutrality and conflict of interest policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. You should not place undue emphasis on your own work, and should include the work of others as appropriate. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."

Addition on February 6: Alternatively, as several below have suggested, we could remove this section entirely from NOR and leave it to the COI guideline.

SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments
(no threaded replies here, please)
 * Support. The section on citing oneself in NOR has lagged behind best practice. People citing their own material is not viewed favourably as a rule, unless the work is clearly notable and would have been added by someone else at some stage. I think the policy should adopt the language from COI of strong discouragement regarding excessive self-citation and undue emphasis. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or remove entirely. As several below are suggesting removing this section entirely from NOR, I'd be in favour of that too. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, let's keep stuff in one place (in this case, the COI guideline). We don't even need a separate section on this page about "citing yourself" - just say that it is allowed, but with a few caveats, which appear to be: write in third person (obvious), be neutral (link to NPOV), and avoid conflicts of interest (link to relevant section of COI). That needs just one or two sentences, and will avoid the inevitable inconsistencies that arise when we try to document the same practices in two places.--Kotniski (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Once the work has been published by a reliable publisher, it no longer meets our idea of original research. If there is some other reason to object to its presence in Wikipedia that should be ruled upon in some other guideline or policy. In addition, creating a clear explanation of a topic isn't easy and our technical articles are often criticized for being inaccessible to people who are not already expert in the topic; we shouldn't discourage textbook authors from drawing on their experience of what approaches to introducing the topic to newcomers work, and which approaches fail. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support In fact I would add, both here & at COI, something like: "Where you have more standard academic sources than your own works available, these should be used in preference to your own works to reference matter covered as fully by them." I see Kotniski's point, but at the least there should be links to the COI section. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Citing published research is not OR. If might be a conflict of interest, but this is not the guideline on conflict of interest. Better explanations were already provided in the lengthy discussion above, which I include here by mention. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As long as the research is published, there's no need for this page to object to it. Consider the citation at Edgewater Park Site — it's based on an article published in a major archaeological journal by several authors, including Dr. William Whittaker.  Are we going to object to the fact that this source was added and the article written by User:Billwhittaker, a professional archaeologist?  I agree that COI can be a problem (although I don't think it is with the Edgewater Park article), but that's a matter that should be discussed at the COI page, not here.  Nyttend (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is clearly best practise. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What part of this is Original Research? And why should we suggest that excessive citation of a single work and POV is acceptable if the author is not the editor - or doesn't admit to being the editor? That's a penalty for editing under your own name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I support the text (of course), and Johnbod's suggested expansion (although "academic" is probably not the best choice of words; perhaps "authoritative"?), but IMO this is not the right page to put it on.  Spamming your own (properly published) publications into Wikipedia is not a NOR problem.  It's a COI/bookspam problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support what it says... Oppose saying it in this policy. This has nothing to do with the concept of NOR, and thus belongs elsewhere.  Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose putting it in wp:nor. Support what it says.  This has nothing to do with wp:NOR. North8000 (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it is only tangentially related to OR. Other stuff in this policy is only tangentially related to OR, but lets not make it worse.  Yaris678 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support removing entirely. WP:COI is clear enough, and easy enough to find at WP:COI.  Paraphrasing here complicates the guidance for first time readers, and so it counter-productive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Can we have just a little on the pros and cons of this? Presumably there is a history to this proposal.  Looks sensible, but could be creep?  I think I read somewhere long ago that to cite yourself, you should propose it on the talk page and leave it to someone else.  I thought that was a very good idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no history that I'm aware of. I just think the current wording doesn't stress enough that self-citation is frowned upon. We have a big problem with people using Wikipedia to promote themselves, and this policy currently suggests that that's okay, without warning people that they may run into problems if they try it. I think the wording in the COI guideline makes clearer that, while it's sometimes okay, if it gets to be excessive or violates UNDUE, it's not allowed. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 09:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object a cross-reference to COI provided we make it clear it is a cross-reference and does not describe what original research is. If we call anything and everything original research, the definition of original research becomes "anything that the regulars at WT:NOR and the NOR noticeboard catch and don't like". Jc3s5h (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We should not go back to "propose on the talk page" except for major additions. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, do not make rules that can be used to throw the baby out with the bathwater. No matter how many rules you make, people who want to avoid intent will do so. Rules that are too stringent will just drive out the authors who are reasonable. There are situations I have described where substantive material that supports mention of many other people will just not be written if self-citation has to go into talk page first. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Michael, the issues we have to balance are wanting good sources, on the one hand, against people using Wikipedia to promote their own work, on the other. This proposal won't stop people from contributing their own work, but it asks that they not violate UNDUE (e.g. by making their work appear more significant within the literature than their peers might say it is), and that they don't add their own material excessively. That seems to be a reasonable compromise. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Very reasonable. Thanks! Michael P. Barnett (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Slim... WP:UNDUE is a NPOV provision and not an NOR provision. My objection to your proposal isn't that we should not say this... my objection is that we should say it here. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD discussion from within the past month involved probable self-citation. (Its circumstances may be addressed through the proposal qualifiers anyhow.) Throwing this out there in case I don't get time to make more substantive comments, and in case it might be useful/illustrative. –Whitehorse1 20:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Several people above imply that the "citing oneself" section ought not to be in NOR at all. I agree. I may put up a second option in the RfC about removal so people can choose that if they want. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support that. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree / support that. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the general view, then, so I've removed the section from this page (and changed the shortcuts to go to the COI section). I suggest that further proposals as to what we write about self-citing be made at WT:COI. I've started a thread on that talk page, where I've noted the text that was here (some of it might be incorporated into that guideline). --Kotniski (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Slim Virgin put it back. 75.47.132.215 (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though she apparently agrees with taking it out. Page ownership can go to extreme lengths at times... --Kotniski (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So can we finish this...
It seems that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" doesn't apply to this page, so here goes... Does anyone disagree with the assessment of the above discussion, that there is consensus to remove the section (on citing oneself) from this policy, and replace it with a link to the relevant section of the conflict of interest guideline?--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that assessment, this edit, this edit and changing the shortcuts to redirect to the COI page, as you did. I am generally against bureaucracy but waiting to the end of and RfC is quite an important convention.  That said, if no one objects to it fairly soon I think you can call WP:SNOW.  Yaris678 (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to wait longer... the comments were very one sided in support of removal. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RfCs are usually left open for 30 days. I don't mind closing this one after 14 days if comments have dried up, but there's no reason to close it before that, and people are still commenting. This was in the policy for years, so it's worth waiting a bit longer. Why the rush? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one was commenting until you reignited the debate by reverting the implementation of the decision. There's no rush, but on the other hand, why keep dead discussions open? It distracts people's attention from many other useful things they could be discussing or doing. (And there's no rule that just because someone puts an RfC template on a discussion, consensus can't be implemented for some number of days - think how that would be gamed. It's just that the bot needs a number of days after which it automatically removes the template. Since page deletion discussions are generally closed after 7 days, it would be perverse to insist that the deletion of just a small and redundant section of a page be discussed for several times longer than that.) --Kotniski (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This passage has been here for years, and I know it was important to some people, so the least we can do is allow two weeks for comment. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why two weeks? Articles are deleted in 7 days, and this is a far lesser step. --Kotniski (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By further delaying, there is the real risk that editors who formed the consensus will get tired and leave the discussion, if they haven't already. There is potential for abuse of the consensus process. 75.47.155.210 (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking over the number and quality of comments above, it is highly unlikely that the outcome will change, no matter how long the RFC stays open. If anything, the responses are likely to become slightly more lopsided.
 * RFCs should normally be kept open until the problem is solved, which could be ten minutes or ten months. The 30-day timer on the bot is purely arbitrary, designed primarily for making sure that the central lists aren't cluttered with year-old forgotten discussions.
 * However, those who perceive themselves to be on the "winning" side should avoid rushing to close the discussion when the minority view hasn't yet despaired of support. There is no deadline, and there is no pressing need to discourage people from commenting, especially when you have every reason to think that future comments are more likely to support your view than not.  Ideally, the "winners" will adopt a posture of deep interest in ascertaining the community's true views, regardless of how long it takes for that view to appear, and behave with both confidence in the outcome and generosity towards the other side's hopes.
 * (The policy could be changed now, to reflect the current perception of consensus, but that need not stop the RFC, and any changes could be reversed later, if the RFC unexpectedly swings the other direction.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can even make the argument that since this is not really a policy change that an RFC is overkill, doubly so for a lengthy RFC. I've had some concern about ownership issues on core policy pages that are played out via. a double standard where the degree of review / consensus "required" varies depending on who is making the change. Not saying that such is the case here, but removal of material which is a duplicate of material in another policy, (and where the other policy is obviously it's proper home) which has had zero dissent after a substantial discussion IMHO makes this clearly time to roll on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I support the removal, but I'm puzzled as to why people can't wait for the RfC to close. There's been a manic quality to some of the talk on this page recently. The only reason I opened the RfC in the first place was that edits I made to bring this passage in line with COI were reverted. Therefore, the way to move forward is with an RfC. Now there's a rush to close the RfC quickly, accompanied by abuse on my talk page. Why the pressing need for such speed? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't any need, just as there was no need (or even point) in your reverting the closing action and causing yet another round of pointless arguing. As I've pointed out before, we could make much easier and pleasanter progress on this page if people (well specifically you) didn't keep undoing anything they see anyone else do, almost as a knee-jerk reaction, without having any real reason to disagree with it. That way (I mean if people making reverts had substantial reasons for disagreeing with the edits and explained those reasons clearly) we could avoid wasting time discussing matters needlessly, and focus on the matters which genuinely are in need of discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel the forest fire of discussion is a waste of time—and I agree—the solution is not to start it. The community has processes in place for a reason, and while it's not good to follow them blindly, it's also not good to thwart them pointlessly. In this case, I made a bold edit. I was reverted. I therefore opened an RfC. These are left open up to 30 days, and closed earlier—usually by the person who opened them or by someone uninvolved—if comments have dried up and no one objects. You are involved, you closed it early while people were still commenting, and there was an objection. It's not the end of the world. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But there was no objection, that's the point - at least, not a substantial one, just a procedural one, even though the procedure is not fixed, and seems to exist largely in your imagination (and even where we do have procedure, we don't have to follow it pointlessly as if we were some kind of bureaucracy).--Kotniski (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that there is consensus to remove the section on citing oneself from this policy, and replace it with a link to COI. That wasn't really proposed until Feb. 6. Most of the discussion was about incorporating language from COI in this policy. For someone who doesn't follow discussion here closely, it's far from clear that this RfC is about removing the citing oneself section.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone else seems to have got it - I proposed it on Jan 28, the same day as the RfC. Do you actually object to removing the section from this policy? Can you say why? --Kotniski (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that replacing the first sentence of this section with a link to the citing oneself section of COI is an improvement. I think the "If you are able to discover something new..." sentence is about OR and should be kept and either moved somewhere else or in this section with a new title.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Feb 6 proposal for removal was put in by Slim Virgin after restoring the section when consensus was previously reached for removal. There is definitely a problem with editing WP:NOR. 75.47.131.51 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's well over 14 days now, discussion has stopped and consensus is clear, so it's time to put this into effect (I'm about to do so). If someone can find a place to put the "If you are able to discover something new..." sentence, then feel free to re-add it, though for me it just repeats what's already said over and over again in this policy.--Kotniski (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Slim, you seem to have missed the end of this discussion. I don't think that sentence is repetitive. Mostly the policy discusses what OR is not (ie already published). This sentence addresses what OR is.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

ATTENTION Admins, let's have a name change...
The name of this particular guideline should be changed to "No unresearched material." I say this because information not derived either from primary/secondary literature or from a controlled experiment one then has peer-reviewed is not research. Calling it "original research" implies otherwise even if it is meant to have a negative connotation. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I'm pretty sure what I do in the lab every day counts as research, but I can't write about it on Wikipedia because it's original. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "No unpublished material" might be closer to the mark, but that will just result in people saying that the material most certainly was published—by themselves, right on Wikipedia. I don't think that a name change is a productive use of time.  If you run into problems, try pointing your fellow disputants to the explanations at WP:MEDRS, which deals with this in the context of medicine ("But this herb killed cells in the petri dish, so it must be the cure for cancer!").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not make analytic...claims about material found in a primary source
The policy contained the sentence "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." It seems obvious to me that this is about original/novel/unpublished claims (it doesn't include all claims - I interpret "claims" here as meaning statements - since we'e quite happy to make claims that we can cite to a good secondary source), but when I added the word "original" or "novel" to the sentence, it kept getting reverted. Can anyone explain this?--Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review my comment above of 21:17, 25 January 2011, which specifically addresses this issue. Please also review my comment above of 15:21, 26 January 2011, where I write "It's hard for me to have a discussion with people who apparently aren't reading my posts." Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain again, then? Your comment above doesn't make much sense. This whole page is about "no original research", now it seems you have some objection to un-original research as well?--Kotniski (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain which specific parts you didn't understand? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your words: "Why on earth would we want "un-original" analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source?" "Un-original" claims are exactly the kind we want, surely? that's what this whole page (including its title) is essentially about.--Kotniski (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do we want editors to make "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims" of any sort? Shouldn't that be the prerogative of reliable secondary sources? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And if reliable secondary sources make such a claim, are we not permitted to make it also? Paul August &#9742; 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. We're allowed to reproduce the claims, attributed to the reliable secondary sources. We're not permitted to make them ourselves. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between "reproducing" and "making" them? If an article says "A is true", citing a reliable source, isn't that "making" a claim? Paul August &#9742; 02:46, 28 January 2011
 * So this is just about semantics, clearly. Some people read "making" a claim as implying the originality of that claim, others don't. But in any case, this seems to justify the addition of a word like "original" or "novel", to clarify to both groups which reading is intended. --Kotniski (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the policy explicitly allows reproducing claims that are already in primary sources, because that is just a descriptive use of the primary source. In other words, if a primary source X say Y, we can reproduce this as "X says Y" and there is no original research issue. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk)

OK, the sentence is back in place, with "unsourced" this time (though it could equally well be "original", "novel", or other word to that effect, per the above discussion).--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be novel; WPV requires that hings can be sourced, not that they literally are sourced. There is no blanket policy against inserting unsourced material provided the material can be sourced in principle. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If every person takes it upon himself to make one small substantive change, the policy will soon be derailed. Four or five people have made a plea here for consensus to be obtained before anything of substance is changed. Please abide by that. If you can't gain consensus here, open an RfC. But however you do it, once multiple objections have been lodged, it has to be via discussion, compromise and consensus, because the policy has to remain stable. "Stable" doesn't mean unchanging, but it does mean not bouncing all over the place. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 13:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, this is a tiny matter and it's been resolved in the discussion above. Matters of importance need discussion; insisting that every little change go through some sort of constitutional approval process is going to take everyone's time away from those matters of importance. --Kotniski (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you started this section, so I don't think you should complain about it taking your time away, and I don't really see that the issue has been resolved. I really wish you had waited to add your choice of word to the policy. -- Donald Albury 14:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (to Kotniski) You say these are tiny matters, but others disagree. This change, for example, would cause confusion, and it alters wording that has been in the policy for years.


 * I've been in the same position—where I've assumed something is completely uncontentious and I've added it, only to be told I had changed the meaning in the view of some people. When it's experienced editors who say that, we have to take it seriously. I realized it's frustrating, and I also realize it can mean less-than-ideal writing might remain in the policy longer than it should. But the default position has to be stability for the sake of all the editors who rely on this policy, but who never join in discussions about it.


 * When you change a policy, you have to think of all the situations in which your words will be used and misused—not only situations you personally have in mind. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But look at the discussion above - this one has been resolved (unless you're seriously contesting my conclusion about different semantic interpretations - no-one else is). At least, that some word is needed here is hopefully clear to everyone now - we can try some different word, I don't care which one, but the sentence as you restored it to the policy is just wrong (if it's read in the way that many people would read it). This continual arguing about stupid and obvious things is a real waste of time, and I can only assume it's intended to drive people away from the task of editing this page.--Kotniski (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't follow what you're talking about anymore, because it's too much at once. Which are the stupid and obvious things? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, it's obvious from the discussion above that there has to be a word like "novel" or whatever in that place so that everyone will read it right; and it's stupid to drag out discussions unnecessarily when the issue has to all intents and purposes been decided. Don't you see how incnosistent you're being - on one hand you're making us discuss every detail, and on the other you're complaining that the discussion is growing out of control. THIS IS NOT THE WIKI WAY.--Kotniski (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, not only did you re-add the word novel, which is currently contested, you made 2 other changes that, while I honestly believe you think are better, have subtle ramifications that absolutely need to be discussed first. You say above that this arguing is "intended to drive people away from the task of editing this page." In fact, I think that's exactly what we're trying to do. Policy pages are policy for a good reason--because they've survived a lot of long term work. Policy pages should be harder to change than articles. I could make points as to why each of the small changes you just introduced are problematic, but the bigger message that I think needs to come across here is that you shouldn't be making anything other than trivial changes (spelling, actual grammar errors, etc.) without consensus. Even if you think the change is right, and you do boldly make it, as soon as someone reverts you, it's got to come here until consensus is reached.Qwyrxian (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Novel" is not contested, what are you talking about. And once again, you haven't provided any arguments for reverting my changes, even though they were explained in edit summaries, you've just made a blind revert on the grounds that all change must be bad. Well, since you admit that you're trying to drive people away from editing this page (did you really mean that?), I'm going. It's clear improvements are not wanted and that the owners of this page want to bask in the false illusion that it's somehow close to perfection. Have it to yourselves, well done, another dangerous progressive successfully got rid of. Removing from watchlist and GOODBYE. Extremely disgusted,--Kotniski (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is everyone agreed on what "novel" means? What we want to do here is make sure it is clear that any interpretation presented is (dare I say "completely") supported by reliable published sources. In any case, I think you should have proposed "novel" here and waited for consensus before adding it. -- Donald Albury 16:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Any interpretation has to be supported by secondary sources, as that passage already makes clear. So it's not clear what's meant by adding "novel" in that context. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Interpretation that is already in the primary source can just be sourced to the primary source, because all that we are doing in that case is making a descriptive claim (e.g. if we write "X says Y"). On the other hand, interpretation that is not already in a secondary source can't be cited to the source that doesn't contain it. So on the one hand, we can cite "non-novel" facts to the sources that contain them, and on the other hand we can't cite "novel" facts anywhere, by definition. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The examples we've seen here of interpretation from a primary source aren't really interpretation (Wellington saying Waterloo was a close thing); as you say, covered by "description." I can't understand anything after your first sentence, I'm afraid. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My point was that if the interpretation is already in a source then we can use it regardless of the type of source, and if it is not in any source then we can't use it in the first place. So there is nothing special about secondary sources making interpretations vs. primary sources making them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As the policy says in several places, secondary sources are needed for interpretation/analysis. If you want to change that, you'd need very strong consensus, and not only on this page, because this is an idea that has strong support, one that Wikipedians rely on. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You just said that we can include Wellington's interpretation. Change your mind often? What exact sort of interpretation could we use from a secondary source that we could not use from a primary source? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We can report what Wellington said about Waterloo as a fact. But whether he was right about it being a near thing, or how near of a thing, is something we want from secondary sources. -- Donald Albury 18:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we had a primary source that said Wellington was right, we could cite that, too. We can make descriptive claims about the contents of primary sources without violating the NOR policy, even if the contents we are describing are analysis or interpretation. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wellington can't analyse himself. What he says about himself and things he did is just a description. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wellington is not analyzing himself, he is analyzing a battle. So can we cite Wellington's primary source for the interpretive claim he is making about the battle, or can't we? I put a different example below of an interpretive claim that we would routinely cite to primary literature. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That has already been explained: secondary sources offer an overview of primary sources. That's where we go for analysis. The IDIDNTHEARTHAT has made this page unreadable, so I'm not going to continue posting unless someone raises a new concern. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Aaargh... I was going to stay away but it irks me to see intelligent Wikipedians wasting their valuable editing time on such an idiotic conversation about such a trifling matter. The sentence in question says (simplifying the language, so no-one can pretend they don't get it): DO NOT INCLUDE ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY SOURCES. This is WRONG (and we all know it's wrong), because we CAN include analysis of primary sources, if that analysis is well-sourced. So to make the sentence a true statement of our practice, the word "analysis" must be qualified with something. With a word like "novel", "original", "unsourced" or something - take your pick - but the version with no qualifier at all is just wrong, however long it may have lurked unnoticed in the policy. Someone missed a word out when they wrote it, that's all.--Kotniski (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and IDIDN'THEARTHAT as an accusation by Slim against others? That takes the cake.--Kotniski (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop the personal attacks. You're going too far with it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, now that takes even more cake. You can accuse others of something, but no-one else can accuse you of it?--Kotniski (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's just be clear about something here; the insertion of the word "novel" adds confusion to the policy, and encourages editors to include their own analysis etc. It is not a "tiny matter", it is not just a "different semantic interpretation", and it has not "been resolved in the discussion above". There is no consensus that it is a useful addition; on the contrary, it is obviously an unhelpful change. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the issue Kotniski is raising is that the NOR policy permits us to use primary sources for claims that are actually in the source (and thus not "novel"). For example, Wellington's analysis of the battle of Waterloo can be cited to Wellington, and so is not original research. I have written a more concrete example below. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's far more trivial than that. It's that the sentence as written can reasonably be read as meaning "no analysis whatever", even if found in a secondary source, which is clearly absurd. I'm just flabbergasted that there are people who are so defensive about this policy that they turn a simple correction like this into a huge, unpleasant and time-wasting argument.--Kotniski (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a blind spot of some kind here. "Hitler said: 'I have black hair'" is the same kind of statement as: "Hitler said: 'I nearly won the war'". Both are fine in articles about Hitler and what he said. But we don't add his analysis (as a primary source, an involved source) to articles about the Second World War, alongside the analysis of modern historians (secondary sources, uninvolved sources). This is accepted everywhere on Wikipedia. I can't understand why a small number of editors on this page suddenly object to it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a blind spot, certainly, probably several, since we all seem to be talking past each other and making absolutely no sense. But I really don't see how I can be expected to explain any more clearly about this missing word (and I don't see what either your or Carl's examples have remotely to do with it).--Kotniski (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We could certainly cite statements by Richard Nixon in the article on Watergate, and in fact we do at the moment, even statements that make interpretive claims. If Hitler thought he had almost won the war, we could quote him as saying that without violating the OR policy. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's on topic for this thread, but for the record, I agree with you. I don't think a quote from Hitler (analytic or otherwise) would necessarily be out of place in a WWII article. It might or might not be an effective way of conveying relevant information to the reader, but I can't see how it offends against our basic principles, as long as it's made clear that we are just quoting him and not agreeing with him.--Kotniski (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, possible light bulb flashing... Some people are interpreting the sentence to mean not "(claims about) material found in primary sources)", but "claims (about material) found in primary sources". I somehow doubt it, since no-one objected to the word "novel" by saying "how can it be novel if it's in a primary source?", but that interpretation would at least explain the direction this discussion has taken. Is anyone in fact reading it like that?--Kotniski (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Kotinski, I find your remarks consistently difficult to understand because you insist on using phrases such as "the sentence". With the policy in constant flux and the volume of this discussion, it is impossible to determine the antecedent of "the sentence". Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The one quoted at the very start of this thread. Sorry for being the only one to be on topic.--Kotniski (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jc3s5h here. Regarding the issue, the problem is that the proposed change encourages editors to include their own interpretation/analysis, because it suddenly opens the loophole of the "un-original" interpretation/analysis being acceptable. Editors should not be adding their own interpretation/analysis, of any kind, "original", "un-original", etc. Instead, they should cite interpretation/analysis found in reliable secondary sources. If it's a notable "un-original" or "non-novel" interpretation/analysis, then it will be found in reliable secondary sources. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We are also permitted to cite interpretation or analysis contained in primary sources, without violating NOR. There is nothing special about secondary sources in that regard, all that matters is that the interpretation or analysis is in some source. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree the sentence at the beginning of the section is not acceptable, in part because if I place a claim (with supporting footnote referring to source A) in an article using Wikipedia's voice, then Wikipedia makes the claim.


 * You might say that if the claim is interpreting a "primary source", then the supporting source A must inherently be a secondary source, at least for this particular purpose. Not so. If the supporting source A is close to the event, then it is a primary source even when it is interpreting primary sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think you're all (especially Jayjg) looking for difficulties and complications that aren't there. The sentence in question doesn't even mention secondary sources. We can argue about whether interpretations found in primary sources can be included, but that's a different topic - the sentence as written (and as most of us are interpreting the words) would forbid us from reporting claims EVEN IN THE UNCONTROVERSIAL CASE where they come from secondary sources. Can you all take a step back and see if you see that now? Or if not, at least see how I'm reading the sentence to reach that conclusion, and explain how you're reading it differently? (I thought we'd already cleared that up when we identified the different interpretations of "make (claims)", above, but since at least one person is still arguing about it, perhaps there's something else.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. The sentence is "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." If that is saying articles cannot make sourced interpretive claims, it's wrong. So it must be saying that articles can only make sourced interpretive claims. That makes sense to me. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah... there is a difference between making an analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source (OR and thus Not Allowed)... and discussing an analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claim that is contained in a primary source (Not OR if done right... so Allowed, but with strong caution and limitations).
 * The thing is... I think the same distinction applies to Secondary sources... It is just as much a violation of NOR to make such statements about secondary sources as it is to make such statements about primary sources. The difference between Primary and Secondary sources (as far as the concept of OR is concerned) is that there is more flexibility and there are fewer limitations and cautions that apply when describing such statements contained in secondary sources.  Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I think this is all just about semantics, as I said a long way above. You (and others) apparently interpret "making a claim" as meaning "stating something that hasn't been stated before", while I (and others) interpret it as meaning simply "stating something". But if the first interpretation holds, it would be enough for the sentence to read "Don't make claims (full stop)". And if the second interpretation holds, then (as I keep saying) the statement as quoted right at the start of this thread needs qualification with a word or phrase with the force of "original", "unsourced", "novel" or whatever, otherwise it would be expressly forbidding the inclusion of certain kinds of statements even if they are perfectly well sourced to multiple reliable secondary sources.--Kotniski (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question is giving direction to editors, not advice about article content. There's a world of difference between "do not make" and "articles should not contain". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia's policy page is telling people not to make claims about primary sources as they go about their everyday lives?? That would be even more absurd - but it presumably isn't what you mean - what is it you mean?--Kotniski (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinction here is between a claim made by an editor and a claim made by a reliable secondary source. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So we're back to the same place again, I think. You think that an editor who repeats a claim from a reliable secondary source is not "making" that claim; others understand the word ("making") differently. Do you see now why the word "novel", "unsourced" or some such is needed? It's to make the sentence true for those who read it with the second interpretation of "making". (In fact the whole sentence is redundant and could happily be omitted without weakening the policy in any way, if you feel the wording is problematic.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that novel or unsourced would help, seems to me it would cloud the issue. Jayjg is spot on, and an editor referencing a claim made in a primary source is not "making a claim". --Nuujinn (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. When an editor inserts into an article a claim taken from a reliable secondary source, that editor is "referencing" or "citing" or "reproducing" the claim, not "making" it. Positing that policy readers will understand the word "making" here in an inexact and unusual way, and then trying to "solve" that problem by adding the word "novel", makes the policy less clear and more open to abuse. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But, if that's the logic, we also cannot "make" claims about material in secondary sources, we can only "cite" claims about material in secondary sources. In other words, if "make" means stating claims that are not in sources, then we cannot "make" any claims whatsoever. But we are also free to "cite" claims from primary sources, as long as it's clear that we are accurately describing what's in those primary sources. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that primary sources should rarely be cited, because of the other issues with them (particularly around the relative ease with which they can be used for WP:NOR.) Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Well most people in this discussion read it that way, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that other people reading the policy will read it that way. Can we agree just to remove this sentence - whatever it's trying to say is already said countless times in the policy already. Or to rephrase it so that it doesn't use the apparently ambiguous expression "make...claims". --Kotniski (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What to do with the sentence?
So, what are we doing with this sentence: removing or clarifying? (I note it could pretty much be combined with the sentence before it, which is perfectly OK as it does say "unless found in a secondary source").--Kotniski (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The phrase "unless found in a secondary source" does not appear in the policy nor does it appear in this thread, save for this post and Kotinksi's pose of 14:35 UTC. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the actual words are "any interpretation needs a secondary source". We could expand that to say "any analysis, interpretation (blah blah) needs a secondary source, and then drop the sentence that has caused all this confusion. Or we could simply go back to the entirely unobjectionable solution of adding a word like "original" or "unsourced" to the "Do not make claims..." sentence.--Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think it would be infrequent, but there might be occasions to cite a primary source for interpretation of another primary source. For example, "President Jones stated that the bumbling character President Peters in Jack Smith's novel Some of the President's Men is a transparent allusion to himself and as such is totally false."&lt;ref>Cite to White House web site &lt;/ref>. In this case the cited source would be secondary, since it is analyzing another work, except that it was created by a person close to the events. Of course someone will come along and say it would be better to cite a secondary source, and maybe it would, but it wouldn't be original research to cite the hypothetical president. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the detailed and specific objections above, how on earth can you claim that there is an entirely unobjectionable solution of adding a word like "original" or "unsourced"? Your comment does not appear to be made in good faith. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all the original objections have now been answered. Do you think there are any outstanding? Surely you see now what the problem is - how do you propose solving it? Would you be OK with the suggestion of combining the two sentences, as made above?--Kotniski (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. See my comments in the example section below. -- PBS (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, you continue to do this; people raise objections to your proposed changes, you explain to your own satisfaction why you think your proposals are valid anyway, and then insist the "objections have been answered". Responded to, perhaps, but not resolved in any way. Again to be clear, you have not demonstrated any problem with the current wording, but your proposals create problems. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What??????????????? I've demonstrated the problem with the current wording over and over again - it would forbid the reporting even of sourced claims, which is absurd and not what anyone wants. And I really think that all objections have been answered by this simple, basic and uncontestable observation. Can we now end this absolutely absurdly long and contrived discussion, simply add the word "unsourced" which was undoubtedly supposed to be there all along, and move on to other matters? For the last time, is there any reasoned objection to this clarification of the wording?--Kotniski (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've stated there is a problem, but not "demonstrated" it. The current wording doesn't do what you say it does. And no matter what you "really think", merely declaring that "all objections have been answered by this simple, basic and uncontestable observation" doesn't make it so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Or if it makes it any clearer to those who still claim not to get it, I've added a more explicit parenthetical to the sentence in question: "(unless those claims are supported by secondary sources)". It would be neater to do it with just one word, but at least I hope with this version no-one can conceivably misunderstand or claim that the qualification is not needed.--Kotniski (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the problem now is that you've created so many forest fires about this that no one really knows what you're saying anymore. I'd have agreed with you a couple of weeks ago about adding something about secondary sources (though not the way you want to word it), but now people are so confused that others are turning up to say that would be wrong. I therefore think the sentence is best left as it is for now. In all the years it's been there I've never seen it (here or on other pages) cause a problem.


 * In future if you want to achieve policy change, the best approach is to propose one change and just let it sink in for a bit, rather than trying to force in multiple changes on several pages at once. That's the kind of thing the policies have to be protected against, so it causes people to move into defensive mode. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The other problem is that you keep proposing policy changes, then when people explain why they object to them, you explain to your own satisfaction why you think your proposals are valid anyway, and then insist the "objections have been answered". Responded to, perhaps, but not resolved in any way. Then, after declaring that you are correct, you make all sorts of policy changes that you've never even proposed here! Do you really wonder why people object to that? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is NOT POLICY CHANGE, it's just a trivial correction to a sentence that's worded wrongly. Of course it isn't policy that "you can't make interpretative [...] claims"; we all know that isn't what the page is supposed to say, there's simply a missing word or phrase in that sentence. That's all; and THAT MUCH no-one is disputing or objecting to. It's not me who's creating "forest fires", whatever that's supposed to mean - the excessive amount of talk-page discussion is caused by people like you who just obstinately refuse to get the point however clearly and however many times it's made.--Kotniski (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Um - hate to say this but why not simplify the morass to Primary sources can only be used to make statements explicitly made in the primary source. for everything after "for that interpretation" up to the "Use extra caution ..."? Collect (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with simplifying - though I don't think that wording is quite right - mostly we don't make statements that are explicitly made in the primary source. If the primary source contains a statement like "Jesus was laid in a manger", then the statement we make is not "Jesus was laid in a manger" but "XXX says that Jesus was laid in a manger". --Kotniski (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Example
Here is a more concrete example. This paper was published as Notre Dame J. Formal Logic Volume 51, Number 4 (2010), 475-484. Presumably it counts as a primary source in the classification of this policy.

In the first paragraph, the authors make this interpretive claim:
 * "The multiverse axioms express a certain degree of richness for the set-theoretic multiverse, flowing from a perspective that denies an absolute set-theoretic background."

If we wrote about this topic in our article on set theory, we certainly could use this source to cite that interpretation. So I'm not sure what the claim "secondary sources are needed for interpretation/analysis" is supposed to mean here. There is nothing in policy or practice that prevents us from using this source for that particular interpretation and analysis. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm! That paper has a list of references about a page long. To the extent that the paper is summarizing, analyzing and interpreting the sources listed as references, it is a secondary source. Only the parts, if any, of the paper that present new work not based on the cited references should be treated as primary. Things aren't always clear cut. Best case would be if it is a review article. -- Donald Albury 18:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a review article, and those two authors are the ones who have developed the very idea of "multiverse axiom" that they are describing (this is one of the first papers about that topic). The sentence I quoted is not analyzing the references, it is giving the authors' original interpretation of the topic that they are studying. Nevertheless we can use the paper as a source for that claim. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes... that is because sources are allowed to contain original research... NOR is about what we say in our articles, not what our sources say. It all goes back to the original concept behind the NOR policy... "Wikipedia should not be the first place of publication for any fact... or for any analytic, interpretive or conclusionary statement about a fact". Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Take another example: "According to Wellington, the battle of Waterloo was 'the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life'." That quoted analysis of the battle is acceptable, but to concatenate an an editorial analysis of what he wrote: "... but he of course did not know what he was talking about." is not unless it is backed up with a secondary source.

That of course is an extreme example which I doubt anyone would disagree with. But to take a more subtle example. The Russian Foreign Ministry has said "declaration of tragic events of that time as act of genocide of the Ukrainian nation is unilateral misinterpretation of history in favour of modern conformist political-and-ideological principles". That can be summarised in a number of ways here are two "The Russian Foreign Ministry has denied that the Holodomor was a genocide." and "The Holodomor genocide has been denied by the Russian Foreign Ministry.". The former is an acceptable summary but the latter draws on external evidence not presented in the quote, that the Holodomor was a genocide. The latter is not acceptable under this policy, because the sentence is not supported by the quote (the primary sources). However there is nothing novel in that analysis, I can find dozens of articles that draw that conclusion, which is why I do not think that novel should not be added to the sentence "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."

In Gumby Theatre there is the line spoken by a Python "Come in" followed by a crashing noise, to which the Python says "Open the door and come in". I had assumed, given the content of the rest of the paragraph, that the sentence obviously referred to analysis by editors of primary sources unsupported by secondary sources and given the context and so in my opinion there is no need to add anything to the sentence about secondary sources.

I think we need to step back and look at the raison d'être of this paragraph. The whole point of the paragraph is to stop someone doing original research--something that is very easy to do with primary sources (particularly if it involves a statistical analysis of the data in primary sources, or synthesising a position from the information contained in several of them). It is usually more difficult to do that sort of OR with secondary sources (unless they themselves are used as primary sources). So this is primarily a warning to editors editing in good faith to be careful because it is easy to do OR with primary sources. -- PBS (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The first confusing thing in the sentence "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source", for me, is whether it means:
 * Articles may not include interpretive claims about primary sources
 * Wikipedians should not make interpretive claims about primary sources in their daily lives
 * The first of those is false: our articles can, and do, make interpretive claims about material in primary sources. The second is irrelevant to Wikipedia. So it doesn't mean either of those.


 * At the risk of of putting a bean up you nose give an example. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What the sentence is trying to keep out are interpretations for which a source cannot be given. But then the type of the source isn't important: if we can source the interpretation to a primary source, that's still a source we can use without having any original research. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It it is an interpretation from a published primary source and the interpretation of that primary source follows this policy then I do not see what the problem is that you are trying to show. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. A much better example is provided by the 30-year scheduled declassification of the analysis and official policy decisions contained in the "Documents on foreign policy-series" published by the US, UK and other governments. In many instances, those documents reveal in-depth analyses and political agendas that are at odds with earlier accounts or assumptions contained in a host of published secondary sources. Wikipedia obviously cannot adopt a policy of only allowing those secondary sources to speak about the official policies of a government. So long as the analysis comes from an existing reliably published primary, secondary, or tertiary source, it does not originate from Wikipedia and cannot be considered original research. harlan (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is an interpretation from a published primary source and the in-depth analyses and political agendas are used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." I don't see what the problem is. I can see however that one might want to use such as source as a secondary source in which case that is a matter for discussion on the talk page of an article. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that use of a source would be unproblematic. The question is how this interacts with the sentence ""Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source". In the example Harlan gave, we would be making an interpretive claim about a primary source, using information found in a primary source, but we would not be violating the OR policy. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, we would be doing both. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that we would violate the NOR policy by doing that? If so, you need to explain. The NOR policy directly allows using primary sources in that way; we may need to add "According to", but we are still free to use the source without violating NOR. For example, we could say, "According to Cable X [1], Cuba was of key strategic interest to the United States in the 1960s." That would not violate NOR, provided that the cable did say Cuba was of key strategic interest. NOR is not NPOV. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you have to take the sentence in the context of the paragraph it is located, (and read our polices with the foreknowledge that they are camels (horses designed by committees)). To misunderstand it (and to give it the twist that is given here) is to read it out of context. Providing the interpretation of the primary source is sourced with a cited source. (see my example above about the Holodomor). But as soon as a cited source is used the focus changes from the initial primary source to the source used to give the "analytic, synthetic ...". If I were writing a parser to check if the logic was being followed correctly then it seems to me obvious that recursion would handle it. -- PBS (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying here. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone does. But I don't understand why you just removed the qualification "unless supported by secondary sources" from the sentence in question. Your edit summary "a source is a source" doesn't make much sense - can you elucidate?--Kotniski (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Under the NOR policy, there is no requirement that we can never use primary sources for interpretive claims. As long as anyone can verify that the primary source literally makes the interpretive claim that is sourced to it, there is no NOR issue with using a primary source in that way. So it is not true that we have to have a secondary source for any interpretive claim; we can use a primary, secondary, or tertiary source. That's what I meant by "a source is a source". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, here is an interpretive claim sourced to a primary source:
 * According to, geometric frustration was "particularly well studied" in the 1990s and 2000s, but not for ferroelectric materials.

There is no NOR issue with using the source in that way: anyone can verify that the claim being made is literally made by the source. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we are not making that claim, only reporting it (because of the words "According to..."). So this doesn't falsify the statement that you objected to. And even if it did, it would then necessarily still falsify the form of the statement that you restored, since the statement you restored is stronger. Do you see this now?--Kotniski (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. Are you saying that if we just reworded the sentence to
 * Geometric frustration was "particularly well studied" in the 1990s and 2000s, but not for ferroelectric materials.
 * Then it would violate the original research policy? I would also argue that the rephrased sentence is a perfectly fine example of using a primary source to make a claim that anyone can verify from the primary source, and is not a violation of NOR either. I wholeheartedly agree that the sentence I restored is worded poorly, but I thought your change was not an improvement. What we should do it just remove the sentence entirely, because it's wrong. If we source an interpretation to a primary source that literally gives that interpretation, that's not original research, it's source-based research. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect your view on this would be contested. If the quotes you put round "particularly well studied" are not intended as scare quotes with meaning equivalent to "it has been stated that..." or some such phrase, and if the source you give is indeed considered to be a primary source in this context, then I think people would indeed say that it violated the policy. (Though I suspect it wouldn't actually be regarded as a primary source.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So, about the original sentence, can we just put in the word "unsourced", as proposed a long time ago? The sentence is certainly wrong without such an addition; and exactly what "unsourced" means is discussed elsewhere in the policies.--Kotniski (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes? OK? No objections?--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We'd wan't "unsourceable" to match WP:V. We don't want to add another category to the list of things that are supposed to always have a source literally provided: "direct quotations, challenged, or likely to be challenged". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, agreed; "unsourceable" better than "unsourced".--Kotniski (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Transcripts
I don't understand what this is saying that's new:

"Similar considerations apply to transcriptions of audio and video sources (although obviously without the requirement to post the original – unless the transcription requires translation as well)."

Also, similar considerations to what? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Similar considerations to those that apply to translations. (I.e. if we don't have a transcription available, then editors can supply their own, etc.) I'm sure it's redundant to something that's said somewhere else, but that applies to almost everything on this page.--Kotniski (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be good not to add more redundancy in that case, and this is clearly redundant, especially in NOR. I'm not seeing how it's connected to OR at all in fact, so I'm going to remove it. If you want to argue for its addition, please do that without reverting again. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed a long time ago, no-one objected. Surely you can see the connection though - some people might claim that transcribing spoken words into written words constitutes "original research", just as they might claim that changing French words into English words constitutes "original research" - while we're explaining that they're wrong in the second case, we might just as well explain that they're wrong in the first case. I don't see why you say this is "clearly redundant", or (even if it is) why you think that's a reason to delete anything - if we were to delete everything that's redundant on this page, then there would be nothing left. (I think it would be good to think seriously about doing that, in fact.) --Kotniski (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: diff "Where English translations of non-English material are unavailable, editors may supply their own" doesn't necessarily imply transcription - I had made the addition because while one might argue transcriptions are a form of translation and thus implied in that way, "English translations of non-English material" excludes English translations (transcriptions into text) of English material (in audio/visual form). The reason I had brought it up before on the talk page was I recalled a past discussion where someone had argued that transcription is OR because NOR doesn't allow for it. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kotniski has removed the section entirely from the policy, and I don't want to revert him again today, so I'll restore it tomorrow. I see what you're saying now, and yes, you're right that people keep raising that, and the translation issue, on this page. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean the section was removed, it still looks to be there to me; Kotniski just reworded it. People might argue about transliteration of foreign scripts into English letters as well (and have in the past on other pages, at least occasionally), which is something I think is also entirely analogous and doesn't constitute original research. I don't know if that need be added as well for clarification or not. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He removed the non-English issue, which people keep raising here. If you want to word something, we can try to make it fit with the non-English and transcription issue, and why it's relevant to the NOR policy. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Still haven't quite grasped what you're saying. "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, does not count as original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources." seems to address non-English sources into English. I did meant to bring up another issue, though, as to how (if at all) a translation or transliteration by Wikipedia should be identified.  A username couldn't be in the article, obviously, but (translation by Wikipedia) would seem fine.  Otherwise I think an English quote with a footnoted foreign language reference would imply that the English was in that foreign language reference. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is what it said before: "Where English translations of non-English material are unavailable, editors may supply their own, subject to consensus, with the original posted alongside or in a footnote. Copyright restrictions permitting, translations published by reliable sources are preferred to those provided by Wikipedians."


 * It would be good to add your concerns about transcription to that text in a way that signals it's an NOR issue. How to identify/cite the translator is more an issue for CITE. When I've added a translation, I either don't identify the translator, or I write "translation by a Wikipedian." But I've never edited an article where there has been a contentious translation issue, so I don't know what best practice is when that happens. But WT:CITE would be the best place to discuss it. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So what exactly is the problem with the text as it stands now? The translation issue is well covered at WP:V and still mentioned here with a link; the transcription issue is mentioned here now too; don't we have all our bases covered? (Slim, if you want to restore it, just do so - I'm not going to report anyone for 3RR - but please explain WHY you want to restore it - why you think the version you're restoring is better than the version that you're reverting away from.)-Kotniski (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Other things
PLEASE STOP MOVING THE POSTS IN THIS SECTION TO THE PLACE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PREVIOUS THREAD WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG - note that Blueboar's post was placed directly under mine originally - it got removed by accident, but it should still be there.--Kotniski (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You have to stop reverting when new material is added. If there's an objection, discuss it on talk. Do not keep restoring it. There's a lot that's on more than two pages, but copied elsewhere to other policies too, because relevant there.


 * If you start up the disruption here again, or at V, I'm going to request admin action. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Slim, it's you who makes editing this page into a nightmare, by your frankly obsessive reverting of anything anyone else does, even if (as in this case) it was discussed at talk a long time ago and isn't the least bit controversial. Obviously there will be knee-jerk reactionaries and POV pushers who will try to block progress in improving these pages - we really need the good guys (and gals) like yourself to be on the side of reason, not acting like the worst sort of page owners. I really hoped you were over this by now.--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some issues are repeated because people have repeatedly inquired about them on this and other policy pages. But the point is: if there's an objection to something new on a policy page—something that changes meaning—you don't restore it. The idea is BRD, not BRRRRD. And even the bold isn't a good idea on policies. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kotniski has taken to repeatedly removing my posts from this page.    I really strongly object to this kind of behavior.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And is now moving them elsewhere on the page. I placed them in response to your posts, not in response to some other. Please leave them in place. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This thread doesn't relate to my post which you put it under. Blueboar's response does, so this thread should be moved out from thew wrong place.--Kotniski (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

See the lead to WP:Refactoring "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted". It is a simple rule to stop this sort of thing. Reverting reverts on the talk page by an involved editor is worse in my opinion for the stability of the project than reverting in article space. We have to have stability on the talk pages if we are going to be able to discuss our differences, and such reversals are both very annoying to the person who's text is altered and total distraction for other editors, as is proven here with debates about altered debates on a talk page of a policy page (so we are now 4 steps away from the coal face (actually producing articles)). It is now a real mess because if the text is refactored what happens to the later comments such as this? In future Kotniski if an editor objects to your refactoring their comments on a talk page please undo your edit, and if you feel strongly about it you can appeal on WP:ANI for an uninvolved editor to refactor the comments off the talk page or place them in a collapse box. -- PBS (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might like to check the facts (like who was doing the refactoring) before you start lecturing people - anyway, this matter is (hopefully) closed, and if it were removed from the talk page (or hidden) like I proposed, then we wouldn't still be wasting our time with people coming by commenting on it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

NOR again
[moved from SV talk]

Hmm, somehow we don't seem able to see eye to eye on that page. I understand the point about not putting something back if there's an objection (and I wasn't doing that, I was trying to find different wording that would be acceptable) - but my objection to your behaviour is that you revert things without even having an objection (or at least, with no objection of any substance) - when people do that, the whole system falls down, and the discussion quickly inevitably gets away from matters of substance onto personal quarreling. There are enough people who will revert changes thoughtlessly at sight without good editors like you getting onto their side.--Kotniski (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please keep the discussions here; the forest fires aren't helpful. An objection is an objection, and I don't make them for no reason, but because I have institutional memory. I can recall what happened last time something similar was added or removed, or I know how it will impact on other policies, or I know who else will turn up to complain, or I know that it conflicts with something else, or I can see that it's poorly written and will cause confusion. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So explain which of these things it is! You said poorly written, so I tried to write it better. Are you at least happy with the wording that's in place now? If so, LEAVE IT and if someone else objects, they'll come along, explain why they object, and we'll be able to have an on-topic discussion. Or if you have a specific objection, tell us! All these complaints about moving posts and not reverting are not contributing to resolving the issue one bit.--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, personal discussions belong on user talk pages, not on policy talk pages. WP:TALK says, "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." So please stop copying your personal discussions here. Users are entitled to post to your user talk page if they want to discuss your edits or have personal comments for you, and doing so is not a "forest fire". You are entitled to remove (archive) posts from your user talk page without responding. But copying personal comments here isn't appropriate. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kotniski has deleted my posts, or moved them, about seven or eight times in the last hour or less. If you want to discuss inappropriate refactoring, please discuss it with him. I don't think I've experienced behavior like this in six years of editing. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, neither have I - and you behaviour (and that of others who have intervened without any understanding of what's going on) has been absolutely bizarre. All I've been doing is putting comments in the appropriate places. Meanwhile you and others have kept putting them back in the wrong places, deleting other people's on-topic comments in the meantime. YOU moved MY post from your talk page to here - and you then complain when others move your posts just within the same page, out of threads where they don't belong at all. It seems there's a hidden agenda here to produce needless disruption on this page so as to prevent discussion of real issues.--Kotniski (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You removed some of my posts entirely. You moved others out of sequence. You moved responses to a different position so that they're no longer responses. You must have violated 3RR more than once.


 * You've insulted people who disagree with you going back several weeks, saying explicitly that you're the only person who understands anything. You've started forest fires on user talk pages, and other policy and guideline talk pages to the point where no one can follow what you want. You want to remove all repetition from the policies, and even merge NPOV, NOR, and V. Well, good luck, but don't be so surprised and aggressive when you're opposed.


 * And don't post on my talk page again, please. I think you now have the dubious honour of being the only person I've actually banned from it entirely. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Calm down, really I haven't done anything wrong except revert war with you for a bit too long (and by definition, we're both equally guilty in that regard). All of what I did was perfectly reasonable - just moving posts to the right places. Hope that on analysis you'll see that, and not bear any grudges (I respect you very much as an editor, but think you have an ownership complex over this page, that's all.) --Kotniski (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to let you distort what you did. You removed my posts four times; removed, not moved — 15:41 Feb 22, 15:44 Feb 22, and 15:48, Feb 22, 15:52 Feb 22 — then after I restored them, you started moving them out of sequence, so the discussion now on this page is not the discussion that actually took place. You can't reasonably accuse anyone else of OWN after that behavior.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did remove your (and my) posts - for reasons that were explained a long time ago - I could have moved them to the correct venue (my talk page) and then deleted them, but never mind, you want them here, let them stay here. But about the sequence - please look at the history and you'll see it was you who was disrupting the sequence, by moving your off-topic posts between my post and Blueboar's original response to it (which you had accidentally deleted). The sequence we now have (at least logically, maybe not strictly chronologically, but that's how it should be) is correct.--Kotniski (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And to avoid polluting this talk page any more with our personal issues, do you (or anyone) object if we now move this whole thread to my talk page? (I promise not to delete or tamper with it until it gets naturally archived.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I object, because it's not personal. I have no personal issues with you. It's about your editing of this policy (and now this talk page), and the constant reverting over objections, something that's been going on for a few weeks, on and off. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So it is about me. And equally about you, of course, since it's your constant reverting that I object to. So if it's about our behaviour, then it really isn't about the content of this policy, and I would have thought off-topic. Anyway, if no-one else objects to having this stuff cram up this talk page, I suppose it can stay. (But if anyone does object, then for my part, feel free to hide it, move it to my talk page, or wherever. In any case, discussions like this quickly become a waste of time, so I'm not going to contribute to it any more. Wishing everyone a good night:-) ) --Kotniski (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As a neutral party here... Both of you have valid points, but both of you are also exhibiting signs of an Ownership attitude towards this page. May I suggest that you both take a break ... and come back when you are willing to reach a compromise ... find the middle ground. Blueboar (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken... but I don't think there's really a substantial disagreement on anything major about the content that we would need to compromise on, it just turned into handbags over the talk page refactoring yesterday - hopefully when Slim drops by she'll come back to the discussion above about the the Translation section, and suitable wording can be worked out. And of course her views on the NOR/V split/merger/scope issue would also be eagerly awaited.--Kotniski (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kotniski was protecting a section that started 15:20, 22 February 2011, from disruption  that started 15:34, 22 February 2011. 75.47.138.39 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Use "explicit" instead of "direct"
"Explicit" (meaning fully stated, without anything implied) seems a better choice than the "Wikilawyerable" "direct" which can be, and has been, used to make fairly large leaps from the original cite to the WP claim in an article. Feel free to demur. Collect (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Collect; I understand the concerns that motivated your edit, and I have some sympathy for those concerns, but you've introduced too marked a deviation from long-established policy, and I've reverted your change. You'll note that at the top of this talk page there's a notice that says, in part, "Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus." We're at the "D" stage in WP:BRD at this point; if you find a great majority of editors strongly support your desired change that's one thing, but right now it's just you. You'll need pretty broadly-based support before your changes can become policy. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of BRD is that the person who reverts gives some reason as to why they disagree with the edit. If you actually agreed with it, could you not have left it in place until someone who did disagree with it, and could present some argument against it, came along? Reverting just because you suspect other people might disagree with something is counterproductive, as it leads to energies being expended on something that might turn out not to be controversial at all. On this issue, is there really any difference between "explicit" and "direct" here? Can someone come up with a case (even if only hypothetical) where it might matter which of the two words we use? --Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't just about the single word, although that's relevant, too. See following section. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reasoning against the use of "explcicit" which is a very explicit word. Collect (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it might be argued that if a source advancs a position "implicitly" (e.g. by putting two facts together but not stating explicitly the conclusion that those two facts together suggest), then Wikipedia can also advance that position implicitly in exactly the same way, so it's not necessarily true that "[we can't] advance a position not explicitly advanced by the sources". "Directly" doesn't really mean anything in this context, so it's harder to know whether it's appropriate or not.--Kotniski (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Last I looked, combining "implicit" claims to reach a result was not favoured by WP policy. Collect (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that "implicit" claims are not acceptable on WP. And I prefer "explicit" over "direct". Blueboar (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But if we're quoting, or faithfully paraphrasing, something that makes an implicit claim, we end up making the same implicit claim, again implicitly - that seems perfectly OK to me. It's original synthesis that we want to prohibit - nothing wrong with unoriginal synthesis. (But I also don't like "directly", since no-one will have any idea what it's supposed to mean.)--Kotniski (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) "Implicit" means "implied" and "not clearly expressed" which is, quite clearly, not "directly stated." Therefore an "implicit claim" is one which is not directly expressed. Editors are not supposed to claim anything not clearly in the source. "Implicit claims" are barred by WP in the first place. Collect (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What's barred is (a) making a claim (explicit or implicit) that isn't made in the source; (b) making an explicit claim that is only implicit in the source. I don't think we have anything against making an implicit claim that's similarly implicit in the source. (Or if we do, then it manifestly doesn't come under the topic "original research").--Kotniski (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Implicit" specifically means "not stated." I would hope that such material (presumably arrived at by reading between the lines of a source?) is barred by WP. Collect (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Something can be stated without being explicitly stated. For example, saying someone weighs 9.5 stones is saying they weigh 133 pounds, but arguably it's not explicitly saying they eight 133 pounds. "Implicitly stated" has a connotation different than "Not explicitly stated". The current language, "directly stated", is in between. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, although I don't think "directly stated" means anything at all - at least, nothing that people reading it could be expected to understand. But Collect, surely you see my point about implicit material - reading between the lines of a source to produce an explicit claim out of an implicit one would be frowned on (except in trivial cases of the type Carl refers to), but making the same implication as the source does (i.e. allowing people to read between Wikipedia's lines exactly the same as they could read between the source's lines) is prima facie OK. (But what this means, if anything, for the wording of the policy isn't entirely clear to me either.) --Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why we have two pages saying much the same things
Can someone explain why we should keep two pages, WP:V and WP:NOR, which make effectively the same points, and have material divided or duplicated between them in what seems to be fairly random fashion? Can we not combine them into one? Or if we are to keep two pages, can we try to define the scope of each in some logical way, so we know what should be said here, and what should be said there?--Kotniski (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple answer... consensus. We tried to merge the two pages several years ago (see the talk page archives for: WP:ATT and related pages), and after a huge debate, the idea did not gain consensus.  People were used to having two separate pages and could not agree to merge them.  Now, consensus can change... perhaps the time has come to try again (I for one would support it).
 * If you do try again, I can offer one piece of advice... one of the things that a lot of people complained about when we attempted to go live with the ATT merger was that the entire idea took them by surprise. The policy-wonks like us knew about it, and had worked on it for months... but the average editors (who don't pay much attention to policy page discussions) did not.  If it does seem like there is consensus among the policy wonks to try again... Advertise it!  Repeatedly. In multiple venues. (and let Jimbo and the foundation know it is in the works).  Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably best to get consensus for the concept before starting work on the details. (It's a shame that people have developed such an attachment to the exact form of these pages - they seem to equate the importance of the pages themselves with the importance of the principles behind them.) So - let's hear from someone who's opposed to the merger - what's the rationale for keeping them separate (and what would be the ideal division of scope)?--Kotniski (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict/ answering original post. ::They overlap about 80%. The last effort to merge them ran out of gas. Probably the only realistic way to fix it is to slowly pare the 80% from wp:nor. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It didn't run out of gas: as I remember, it ran into a brick wall of stubbornness. they really ought to be either merged or clearly distinguished from each other, however.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there just should be language at each article linking it to the other. The principles are certainly related, but I think the approaches are quite different. The linking of the two pages to one another should be emphasized, perhaps. I sense that each approach has a distinctly different sensibility associated with it. If one approach has more resonance with one personality type than another—perhaps they should be left as separate but very much linked pages. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems like the best approach to me as well, and I also have a gut reaction that the two topics are very different in approach. Being conservative in policy changes is not a bad thing, and it seems to me that teasing out the overlaps would be helpful in revealing the differences. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the "brick wall" was farther back. The most recent "run out of gas was at [] and the rationale page which it links to.


 * IMHO duplication is never a good idea. Not a crisis, but it should be fixed. Also looks like the proposer is now inactive.    North8000 (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing that really bugs me about it, truth be told, is that it's evident that NOR was written as what I can only describe as a policy POV-fork - some editors decided that V wasn't sufficiently strongly-worded for their tastes, couldn't get consensus to modify V the way they wanted, and so basically subverted V by writing an overlapping policy. fairly skanky, if you ask me.  granting that there are two interrelated issues here, it's really not a good idea to have vastly overlapping (and hence possibly mutually contradictory) policies on project.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting theory, given that WP:NOR predates WP:V by almost 3 months. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is possible to produce OR by SYNTH of RS. They're different. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Similarly, it is possible for non-original research to be unverifiable by RS. For instance, 'stuff my professor taught me in class'. Although I believe OR and verifiability can be distinguished, I agree with comments above that currently the pages don't do a good job about distinguishing the two. LK (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind duplication if it helps readers understand the policy... Sometimes mentioning something that is spelled out more completely in one policy can help readers understand what is stated in another.  But, when we discuss what is said in another policy, we should note which policy we are referring to... along the lines of: "According to WP:Verifiability..." or "As is stated in WP:Neutral point of view..." Blueboar (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do mind duplication, actually, since it almost invariably leads to confusion rather than clarification. So long as there are people on project who treat policy in a 'law-like' manner, then it's bad news to have two 'laws' covering the same material, at least not without some very clear understandings about which is used when, to preserve consistency.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (as pointed out) that OR and UNV(erifiable things) don't cover exactly the same ground, but there's a very great overlap (most of the time they're the same). So if people want to split the two pages for that reason, then where should we be addressing the great bulk of the issues that relate to both OR and UNV? At the moment I don't see much rhyme or reason in what's dealt with here, what's dealt with there, what's dealt with in both places in slightly different ways. (There are also very closely related things about proper use of sources that are covered at NPOV.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we split the material in the two articles strictly by topic. NOR should cover, what is original research, and V should cover what needs verification, and what is a reliable source. Discussion about what needs sources, and what is a reliable source (and what isn't), should be in V. NOR should define and describe original research and synthesis, and describe how to identify OR. Discussion about topics that are mainly discussed on another page should be prefaced by something like, "As discussed in WP:V, ...".
 * This actually would not involve much reorganization, as the two articles are already organized largely along these lines. LK (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the question of "how to identify OR" is going to boil down to pretty much the same (for the most part) as the questions about sources, isn't it?--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The other gorilla in the living room is that (for better or for worse, and I think it's more "worse")  wp:nor created and defines one of the main Wikiwords. When asserting that something violates wp:ver, people  don't say "It violates wp:ver" they say "it's OR"   North8000 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that too, and I agree it's for the worse (though I don't think there's much we can do about it except use the VER meme ourselves where appropriate and hope it slowly catches on).--Kotniski (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing that WP:NOR does uniquely do is expand on the concept that WP is not a place for creating new knowledge, or putting forth new ideas and hypothesises.  I think that that's a part of the 20% that should be kept even if we "de-duplicate". North8000 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, as I've said before, the problem here is not really about verifiability or original research. the problem is that we have two competing visions of what wikipedia does as an encyclopedia, with respect to how we approach information.  to whit:
 * some editors see verification as a check on article accuracy
 * some editors verification as the determinant of article veracity
 * Editors who follow the second vision go well beyond simple verifiability: they are much more concerned with the 'reliability' of sources (I put that in scare-quotes because it's really a code word for 'sources that speak the Truth'), and consider any use of 'unreliable' sources a form of original research; whereas editors of the first vision don't worry so much about the 'reliability' of a source except as needed to keep articles in proper focus, because they are mostly interested in describing topics rather than evaluating them


 * granting that I'm solidly in the first camp, I'll note that this is an issue that needs to be resolved formally at some point, otherwise we are never going to get V & NOR stabilized, and will constantly have on-project wars over the use of these policies. -- Ludwigs 2  19:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit I'm not strongly aware of any such philosophical tension (but perhaps I don't inhabit those subject areas) - I thought the actual substance of these policies was pretty much consensus - can you give an example of some wording in either of the policies that one or other of the two "camps" would change if it got its way? (I agree, though, that it makes no sense to apply the "original research" meme to all inappropriate uses of sources, as some people do - if we're going to do that, then it can't possibly make any sense to have two separate pages.) --Kotniski (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming back to the topic at hand, does anyone have a serious objection to a reorganization along these lines: As I pointed out earlier, the articles are already largely organized along these lines, and it would take minimal editing to get them in shape. LK (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR:
 * Describes what we mean by original research, how to identify original research (essentially not directly verified by RS).
 * Describe Synthesis.
 * Discuss use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources, how to use them properly, and how to avoid synthesis.
 * Other issues (routine calculations, translations, tagging, etc)
 * Relationship to other policies, especially V
 * WP:V:
 * Discuss why and when reliable sources are needed, burden of proof.
 * Describes what is and what isn't a reliable source,
 * Describes questionable sources and the situations when they can be used.
 * Other issues regarding sources (preference for english sources, accessibility, tagging, etc).
 * Relationship to other policies, especially NOR.
 * I think everything about sources should be in one place - so I would move the section on primary/secondary/tertiary sources to V, possibly shortening it and moving the detail to IRS. And what you call "other issues" is, for me, not another issue - it's part of the question of what we mean by original research (what we mean by it includes what we DON'T mean by it - and so the fact that it doesn't include routine calculations, translations etc. is part of the explanation, not something extra tagged on to the end. I envisage two lists: these things are original research:...; these things are not original research:... .)--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with the change suggested by Kotinski. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I'm not sure we'll ever get consensus on the dividing line between OR and V, but this seems like a sensible move in the right direction.  Yaris678 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with what Kotniski has suggested. Should we draft a proposal and start a RfC about this? LK (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In the great WP:ATT debate I was neither for or against a merge of the two pages. What I did object to and have done so on other mergers (such as several guidelines into WP:W2W) is a cabal of "policy-wonks like us" © BB, setting up a new page, discussing among themselves what to merge and how, and then presenting it as a "here is the new page there is a consensus for the content take it or leave it". Because the cabal of "policy-wonks like us" have spent months working on the merge project together they understandably have an emotional attachment to the new wording and have little tolerance for people who may favour a merger but do not agree to the new wording. The problem is that there are four parties to merger done this way The groups who oppose the merger tend to be disunited because they have different objection to the merger and so the opposition tends to be split, while the group who have worked on the merger tend to circle round and support the new page whatever the criticisms. This I think leads to the groups who loose the debate (and in both those mergers there were winners and losers) either feeling unappreciated for the work that they have put into merging the articles (ATT) or frustrated because their objections have not been accommodated (W2W).
 * those who want the merger and approve of the wording,
 * those who approve the merger but find that the new wording is unacceptable,
 * those who do not want the merger, and
 * probably the largest group of all, those who do not participate because they have little interest (or don't know about it) and are busy writing articles.

The debates over the content of a single phrase in a policy page or guideline can run to many man hours of discussion with nuances discussed every which way, with many people contributing. What was very frustrating for someone not involved in a merger -- but is understandable human nature was the cabal of editors who had worked for months on a merger -- is to revert to the old wording for a paragraph for it to be reverted by a number of the cabal members with the comment there is no consensus for the "new" wording (which in fact is the old wording pre-merger for which there is years of discussion and consensus), with the comments "this has already been discussed and there is a consensus see the talk section xyz" (a section that shows the consensus among the cabal dated pre-merge and possibly agreed before the most recent conversations about the issue on the old talk page and edits to the old policy or guideline page). The mergers done the way that ATT and W2W) left me feeling as if I had been mugged.

I think a better approach is to advertise a proposed merge widely, get agreement for the merge, write a new lead and then copy the text of the bodies of the old pages complete with no alterations into their own sections, and then and only then start, the merge process in the full light of day and with the consensus of all who took part in the merge debate (and bother to hang around to agree the details). The practical advantage of this method is that it is exactly the same process as usually goes on to improve a policy page or a guideline and everyone is working on and discussing the same page (as opposed to several pages simultaneously the old pages and the proposed new page as happened with ATT and W2W)

If the merge is a good idea then it should be possible to break it into two steps like I have suggested that rather than going for a bang approach. I think the two step approach would reduce conflict and would better fit the consensus model we use for developing both policy and articles. -- PBS (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So, as a potential first step, what would be the issues with moving the section on primary/secondary/tertiary sources off this page and onto WP:V, or possibly WP:IRS? --Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but I move one sentence from V to OR: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic..." in 2008 it was reverted on V and retained OR so now we have it on both! -- PBS (talk)

Should this policy be made more restrictive?
This edit gave the summary: "using 'explicit' as being stronger than 'directly' which can be Wikilawyered". Well, "stronger" is one description, "much more restrictive" would be mine, and it's not up to just one user to decide whether the policy should be made more restrictive; he'd need a broadly-based consensus for that.

But the problem is more than just that single word; the editor's other changes also represent quite a deviation from long-established policy. I don't think anyone really thinks that we have to cite "Paris is the capital of France", for example, just because one single editor thinks we should. If policy actually said that, and we took it seriously, it would open us up to a whole new level of disruption. If we're going to make this policy more restrictive that requires a lot more input than has been offered so far. Do other editors want this policy to be made more restrictive or not? – OhioStandard  (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the changes were meant to change the substance of the policy, but we'll doubtless hear from the person who made them on that point. Personally I think (as mentioned in the above thread about scope) the question of what and how we cite ought to be dealt with in the appropriate place, namely WP:V, and this policy should not try to duplicate that. --Kotniski (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read that discussion, and generally approved. I also think it would be hard to gain consensus to consolidate all the information about citing sources into one page, but I think it's a great idea. It would certainly make it much easier on newcomers, to name just one of the points in its favor. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The changes were intended to make the policy as clear as possible. The use of "directly" can be, and has, been used to use paraphrases of a source quite far removed from what the source actually states. As long as the editor says "but it is 'direct' enough as it is a paraphrase" the argy-bargy will continue. Buy using the word "explicit" incorrect paraphrasing is ruled out completely. And the discussions above all seem to indicate that such is a general consensus of editos on this page. I have seen far to9o many editors assert that they "know" something to be true, and thus need not verify claims. The harm done to WP by such "knowledge" is high compared with the damage of an editor finding it onerous to give a reference for what the other editor asserts is "well known fact" or the like. Collect (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually do think that if someone challenges "Paris is the capital of France" we are (and should be) required to cite it. Challenges of this sort may be annoying, but they are not disruptive.  Such statements are extremely easy to cite (that's why we say you don't have to bother citing them unless challenged.) ... two minutes on Google and you are done. Performing a quick search and slapping in a citation is certainly far less disruptive than spending two hours on the article talk page arguing about the issue.  And you can always go back and remove the citation later (once the pesky idiot has moved on to other things) if its inclusion really bothers you.  Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think such a challenge very definitely would be disruptive, though I can't say I remember ever in practice experiencing any challenge that seemed definitely disruptive (well maybe once or twice, though remembered only vaguely). Still, this issue would be best dealt with as far as this page is concerned by simply removing all but the briefest mention of it, and deferring to WP:V, which is the relevant policy for this sort of thing.--Kotniski (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For that sort of thing, I give a citation on the talk page and simultaneously point out it's a completely standard fact. That almost always satisfies them. The deeper problem is that "sourcing" something by searching on Google until you find it is a sophomoric method of article writing that is unfortunately reinforced by the "cite anything that's challenged" mentality. Everyone does it, but that doesn't mean it's a reasonable way to write articles. Someone interested in an article is reasonably expected to have looked at a few of the main sources in depth (assuming some are), and have an idea what's going on, before they start challenging the sourcing. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me see, a 2 minute Google search, 2 minute edit verses 2 A4 pages sized page of discussion on how many angels on a pin head with someone who clearly is a pin head. Yes we all do it! -- PBS (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that the "explicitly" wording tends to imply that we can't rephrase what the source says, which makes us vulnerable to charges of plagiarism. Editors have caused lots of plagiarism drama by essentially basically just copying what the sources say, because those editors were trying not to violate NOR. So we need to be able to read the source and then create an accurate restatement of what it says. Otherwise, we're left with articles that are essentially series of direct quotations. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Explicit" does not mean anything of the sort.  A source which says "John Gnarph was born in a humble log cabin on the banks of the Gnarph River on March 23, 1705 on a sultry winter day" would not be in any way misinterpreted by "John Gnarph was born on March 23, 1705."   The claim "John Gnarph was born in a one room cabin on the Gnarph River" is, however, making a claim not explicitly stated. Plagiarism has naught to do with any of this. Collect (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as we come up with wording that doesn't mislead newcomers - I guess some people might understand "explicit" to mean "worded identically". (As a general point, I think the lead of the policy, in particular, should be human-friendly - imagine you're new to Wikipedia and try to fathom out what it's saying - if we have to descend into wikilawyerese then let it be in the body of the text.)
 * I would read "explicit" to mean "worded the same". For example, if a source said "He ate an orange" and we said "He ate fruit", we would not be saying what the source explicitly said. The difficulty is that while there are things we can't infer from the text (that a humble cabin has one room) there are also things that we can infer from the text. For example when there are two common sorts of terminology we can switch between them, and when there are unit differences we can convert units. If a source says you weigh 9.5 stones, we can change that to 133 pounds for exposition, but we're no longer saying what the source explicitly said. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A little background might help other editors understand some of my concerns over this. If you take a look at this permalink to a now-stale discussion about a church whose pastor resigned after allegations of homosexual molestation, you'll see part of the reason I reverted Collect's change to the policy. With all due respect, I'm concerned the "stronger" version he desires could be a sort of private bill to allow just the kind of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" debates that I've seen previously. If you don't want to follow the link, here's the gist of it. We had a source that said :


 * Those men and others have accused Moorehead of hypocrisy in light of his longstanding condemnations of homosexuality, a major theme in his conservative Christian preaching.

Collect had previously objected to a version that said condemnation of homosexuality had been a major theme in the pastors "sermons", so we changed our wording to say, "As a conservative Christian, condemnation of homosexuality had been a major theme of his preaching." This wasn't acceptable to him either, and Collect changed it to:


 * As a conservative Christian, his preaching had homosexuality as a major theme of his preaching.

I reverted that as being very stilted. Collect objected, and a wrangle ensued. Eventually ( yes, it went this far ) I got the following suggested wording from the language reference desk :


 * As a conservative Christian, he had made condemnation of homosexuality a major theme of his preaching.

I came back to the talk page and proposed this wording to Collect to address his objection to the dangling modifier in the original, thinking he'd be pleased. He wasn't. He objected as follows, "It is not up to us to know what characterizes the beliefs of a 'conservative Christian' - I relied, as nearly as possible, on what the sources stated", and then continued to advocate for the version he ( Collect ) had proposed earlier :


 * He, as a conservative Christian, preached condemnation of homosexuality.

Although still rather stilted, this might have been more excruciatingly correct if it hadn't entirely excluded the source's statement that anti-homosexual rhetoric had been a "major theme" of the minister's preaching. I'm not doubting Collect's good intentions in any of this, but the whole conflict seemed like a monumental waste of time to me, and I'd frankly prefer not to give any more policy ammunition to editors who consider this sort of hair-splitting to be a productive or entertaining pastime. – OhioStandard  (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Aha - when in doubt, go to ad hom? It would be better if you actually referred to the full context of discussion where I made a specific statement:  Will will aver that I am not a rubber stamp for his views. He is, moreover, spot on with regard to what is appropriate in this article -- that is, requiring that we use what has been reported and not what editors surmise. No article touching on living people should be held to anything less than the strict enforcement of the tenets of WP:BLP. I would likely also consider proper weight to be the issue - trying to refer to "fundamental evangelical Christian opinion" would require substantially better sourcing than has been presented. Collect (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC) where I support Will Beback.  Perhaps my wording was not clear enough? Any claims must conform precisely with WP:BLP requirements. As for making asides about me personally - I trust you know that such are not proper on article talk pages. And I trust you will redact anything approaching a personal attack forthwith. Is there an actual reason you chose to attack me rather than simply accept my post as it was intended? Collect (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC) in responose to Hiostandard casting personal aspersions on me.   I found He, as a conservative Christian, preached condemnation of homosexuality.  to be a concise claim well-sourced.  OS pushed for  During the nearly 30 years of his tenure, Moorehead built the church from a congregation of about 75 members to a weekly attendance of over 6,000 in early 1998. He resigned in June of that year, amid allegations of serious misconduct, mostly relating to the 1970s. The church's board of elders hired a private investigator to explore the allegations, and at least 17 men gave evidence before them, all claiming to have been victimized by the pastor. In a decision that was widely criticized by other area ministers, the elders dismissed their claims and exonerated Moorehead. During the year following his departure, the elders continued to defend the former pastor, but in May, 1999, they reversed their earlier decision in a letter to church members, saying new evidence had arisen that convinced them of his guilt. The letter included an apology to members and a request for their forgiveness, but no corresponding language addressed to the former pastor's accusers, who had been disbelieved, and then treated with contempt by some members of the board and much of the congregation after they gave evidence in the matter. The impact this scandal had on the church was particularly severe because, as a conservative Christian, Moorehead had made condemnation of homosexuality a major theme of his preaching, and had likewise spoken publicly to condemn gay rights. The former pastor has consistently asserted his innocence of what he called the "horrible, perverted, reprehensible accusations" made against him. which does not require rocket science to see the BLP issues.  Now are we done with attacking me personally? Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Aha - when in doubt, obfuscate with a tldr BLP-ish wall of text that has nothing to do with the point raised: That Collect often engages in tortuous and drawn out arguments over negligible differences in wording, and the policy change he wants would support that activity . If he really believes illustrating that fact in this context constitutes a personal attack then all I can say is that everyone's entitled to an opinion.  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The personal aspect of it, whether or not it's an "attack", is certainly off-topic. We can discuss whether the policy change would encourage activity of the type you mention - but for that purpose, we need to be shown the alleged relationship between the changed wording and some case (real or hypothetical) of the activity. That the change is being proposed by someone who (you claim) has engaged in such activity himself is not a valid argument.--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't intend a personal aspect, I intended to provide a relevant example. But I can see how it could seem otherwise, and I'll admit that I'm still annoyed at having had to spend literally hours over so finicky a demand as I've briefly outlined in the above, so Collect is welcome to my apology for whatever part of that may have come through here. To address your specific request, though, Kotniski, and to cite just one very small part of this, Collect refused the language reference desk's suggestion of,


 * "As a conservative Christian, he had made condemnation of homosexuality a major theme of his preaching."


 * saying, "It is not up to us to know what characterizes the beliefs of a 'conservative Christian'" ( Recall that the original source said, "Those men and others have accused Moorehead of hypocrisy in light of his longstanding condemnations of homosexuality, a major theme in his conservative Christian preaching." ) He'd also objected previously to the use of the word "sermons" as a stand-in for "preaching". It got to the point where I was racking my brain between trying to fulfill his (imo) way over-the-top demand that we say nothing that wasn't explicitly said by the source on the one hand, and avoiding plagiarizing the original source by using its exact wording on the other.


 * As someone observed above, there are only so many ways to say something; it's literally impossible not to change the meaning of a phrase in at least some small way when you use different words to try to express the same idea: There's no such thing as an identically-meaning synonym, in other words; we just come the closest we reasonably can, using alternate words, to the intended meaning of a source.


 * The tie-back that you, Kotinski, asked for between Collect's desired change to the policy and this small example, is obvious, isn't it? He objected that the fourth or fifth alternate phrasing we'd tried claimed something not explicitly stated by the source, that condemnation of homosexuality is characteristic of conservative Christianity.


 * At a stretch it's fair to say that Collect was excruciatingly correct: "Sermons" and "preaching" aren't exactly the same thing, and the source didn't explicitly say that repudiation of homosexuality is characteristic of conservative Christianity in the United States. But what a stretch! I value rigor and exactitude in language more than most people do, I believe, probably even more than Collect does, because it's so crucial for my enjoyment of mathematics and mathematical philosophy. But it's also crucial to know when its costs exceed its benefits in a given context, and the policy change Collect is advocating leaves no room for any of us to know that, or to let it inform our judgment.


 * Now I have some of my own fingers pointing back at me re "tldr", so I'm going to leave this off for a while to let others have their say, but I did think your objection, Kotniski, merited a careful reply. Cheers, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Could we please refocus on discussing the proposed edit, instead of discussing the editors. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fifty lines on this talk page about another eduitor does seem to be far beyong reasonable attempts to discuss the issue at hand. Collect (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's unfair, Blueboar. The foregoing wasn't a discussion of an editor, it was a discussion of his edits as an example of the problems the change would expose us to. Kotniski had asked for that, and since it's necessary to discuss examples if we're going to discuss this at all, it seems reasonable to take the proposer's own edits as instructive, especially since these, in particular, stem directly from his "no more than what the source says explicitly" concept. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the issue here is roughly what I alluded to in the preceding thread - it needs to be understood that, while it's bad to make explicit claims that are only implicit in the source, and it's bad to make implicit claims that are not present in the source, it can't be wrong (at least, it can't plausibly be considered original research) to make implicit claims that are made implicitly in the source. (Otherwise we would have the absurd result that quoting a source directly - assuming that it contains non-explicit implications, which most natural language does - would be categorized as "original".) --Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That is one beautifully acute summary, Kotniski, and I agree entirely. I've rarely seen a complex issue stated half so well here, nor anything like so concisely. I wish I'd written it. Thank you. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know... can someone give an example of an existing article that quotes a reliable source making an implicit claim? (if not, could you give an example of an implicit claim made by a reliable source that we might want to quote in an article? Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By definition, you can't "quote an implicit claim", but you can quote the words that contain the implicit claim (or paraphrase them in such a way as to still make the same implicit claim). I think Ohio's example is already a pretty good one (unless there's issue with it that I haven't understood) - the paraphrase seems not to carry any implications that weren't already implied in the source, so it can no more be called "original research" than if we'd reproduced the source's exact words (which certainly wouldn't have been original).--Kotniski (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For reference, Kotniski is referring to the prospect of supporting this sentence proposed for our own article,


 * "As a conservative Christian, he had made condemnation of homosexuality a major theme of his preaching." by relying on the news source's sentence:


 * "Those men and others have accused Moorehead of hypocrisy in light of his longstanding condemnations of homosexuality, a major theme in his conservative Christian preaching."


 * The only issue or objection that was raised was that the source doesn't explicity say that condemnation of homosexuality is typical of conservative Christians or of conservative Christianity. I think it's implicit in the source, myself, but ( as I understand it ) another editor would disallow that, even if he agreed it was. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that we're discussing this, I'll also observe that the source doesn't explicitly say that the pastor was a conservative Christian, and the sentence the language reference desk proposed (the first one, just above) pretty much says he was. As I understand it, this, too, could be disallowed or objected to, with a cite demanded, under the proposed policy change. I suppose it's possible, based strictly on what the source says explicitly, that the minister could also have had a liberal congregation on the other side of town that he preached to in a liberation theology, anti-conservative vein. Or that he alternated preaching at his home church between "conservative" and "liberal" modes, perhaps on alternate Sundays, but I think based on what the source implies, that we can rule out those possibilities with a satisfactory degree of assurance. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the issue I see with the "explicitly" language: it opens us up to all sorts of overly legalistic readings. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, Carl; that's my concern exactly. This example also illustrates the related problem quite well, I think: Changing even a single word by which an idea is conveyed inevitably allows some possible alternate construals; that's just inherent to the nature of language. But if the wording of the paraphrase or article-sentence is chosen carefully, as it should be, it'll be exceedingly unlikely that any of those alternates will be seized upon by the reader, and so give him any false impression at all. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that we have some specifics... The problem that I have with the the two statements quoted above is the unreferenced phrases: "As a conservative Christian", and "his conservative Christian preaching". We need a source that ties this particular preacher's views directly to "conservative Christianity" (whatever that means).  Without such a source, the two sentences are indeed synthetic conclusions. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the first sentence is the one proposed for our article, and the second sentence is a quote from the source. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Carl's correct; sorry for any ambiguity. I've just made a small "late edit" to clarify. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the tie-in is certainly provided by the source - of course it might be claimed that he could have preached conservative Christianity while not actually believing what he was saying (so he might not actually be a conservative Christian), though there comes a point where the hairs have to stop being split - the only way to avoid making any possible additional inference is to quote the source's exact words (and even that might technically breach the policy if we word it carelessly).--Kotniski (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just in passing: "conservative Christian preaching" means different things in different national religious discourses. For example its use in America does not mean Anglican (which it can be see to be in Britain as reflected in the old British joke about the CoE being "the Tory party at prayer" For example where is the section on antidisestablishmentarianism -- a Conservative conservative position if ever there was one). Indeed I think the article Conservative Christian should either be refocused or be renamed because it is an WP:ENGVAR issues, for example like to guess what "conservative Christian" would mean in Northern Ireland? -- PBS (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for alerting us to this, Philip (PBS); it's very helpful information. I feel considerable concern that so much of what we write here has a U.S.-centric bias in both its implicit conceptual framework and in the assumptions we Yanks make about terminology, and am always pleased to be corrected in that regard. I agree with you entirely re our Conservative Christian article, btw. Let me know if you ever decide to address the corrections you correctly identify as being needed in that article. Your mention of Northern Ireland nicely illustrates your point re that article's U.S.-centric lacuna, as well.


 * May I ask for your perspective on the descriptive phrase "fundamentalist Christian", and whether that phrase as defined in the lead of the corresponding article ( viz. "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism" ) would work better than "conservative Christian" for our international audience?
 * And if it would, may I also take the opportunity to bring this back to the question we've been considering in this thread concerning explicit versus implied content, and to solicit opinions from other editors on a possible revision to the example sentence we've been discussing? Specifically, in order to avoid presenting a U.S.-centric meaning of "conservative Christian" ( which doesn't even rule out doctrinally-conservative Roman Catholics, note ) would we be justified instead to write, in our article, the sentence,


 * "As a fundamentalist Christian, he had made condemnation of homosexuality a major theme of his preaching." by relying, as before, on the news source's sentence:


 * "Those men and others have accused Moorehead of hypocrisy in light of his longstanding condemnations of homosexuality, a major theme in his conservative Christian preaching." ?


 * My interest in posing this question is to wring more relevant value from the example we've been talking about here, of course, not because I'm advocating any particular change to the Overlake Christian Church article it applies to. ( I don't believe that article's current content needs more than a few quite minor adjustments, and don't feel any strong attachment to it, if anyone happens to care. )
 * Considering the question, my first-glance opinion of this possible revision is that if the substitution of "fundamentalist" for "conservative" were admitted, it would probably introduce a small net loss of precision in what we present to U.S. audiences.


 * But it's also my opinion that the loss would be more than outweighed by what we'd gain in the meaning we present to international audiences, that the loss would be more than compensated for by employing a phrasing that wouldn't confuse or annoy our non-U.S. readers, that is. Or do other editors think we'd be taking too great a liberty in terms of the "explicit" versus the "implied" meaning of the news source, in this example, to allow the substitution? –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If the second sentence, ("Those men and others have accused Moorehead of hypocrisy in light of his longstanding condemnations of homosexuality, a major theme in his conservative Christian preaching.") is from the source, then it should be made clear... through attribution ("According to <Name of Author>, those men and others have accused ... Christian preaching." As for the first sentence, ("As a conservative Christian, he had made condemnation of homosexuality a major theme of his preaching."), why not just say "He made condemnation ... his preaching" and omit the potentially synthetic (and POV) opening clause. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If it were already mentioned in the article that he's a conservative Christian, that would probably be OK. But omitting the information entirely would seem to be precisely the result we want to avoid - the information is in the source in that context, doesn't seem particularly subjective (it's not saying he's a good or evil Christian), so there shouldn't be any problem with our delivering it onward to our readers - provided we don't make artificial problems by wording the policy in an over-restrictive way.--Kotniski (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am missing some context here... but, to me, the important part of the source is the accusation of hypocrisy due to his preaching against homosexuality. Isn't this enough?  Why is there a need to attach a controversial and potentially POV label to his preaching?  I am concerned that this could be seen as a "guilt by association" attack on all conservative/fundamentalist Christians. That is the implied synthesis. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I haven't looked at the context, but I don't see anything "POV" or controversial about describing someone or his preaching as conservative and Christian, if that's sourced information. I don't read anything out of the proposed sentence that would the least bit imply that all conservative Christians are hypocritical. --Kotniski (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we take a statement of opinion (that Moorhead's condemnation of homosexuality is a "conservative Christian" theme) and re-state it as blunt fact (with the implication that all conservative Christians share Moorhead's condemnation). It should be enough to simply state that a) Moorehead has condemned homosexuality in his preaching, and b) some see this as being hypocritical given the accusations of homosexual acts against him.  The phrase, "As a conservative Christian" is gratuitous and besides the point. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well maybe, I haven't looked into the context, but it seems to me that as a reader I'd be interested in knowing that the guy's a conservative Christian and that sources have related that fact to his anti-homosexual preaching (after all, plenty of people are anti-homosexual for reasons that have nothing to do with conservative Christianity) - I'm just not seeing anything controversial in any of this. In any case, what it's proposed saying doesn't imply anything that the source doesn't imply, so if there is a problem, it can hardly be one of original research.--Kotniski (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I can't tell if it's the sole source of disagreement over this or not, but my impression is that much of the apparent dispute between you and Kotniski might stem from a simple misunderstanding. In reading the above, it looks to me like I should have labeled the two sentences much more clearly. I say so because I'm not sure if you understand that the sentence called out by the first bullet-point is the only one proposed for inclusion in the article . The sentence called out by the second bullet-point is merely the specific content in the original news source that the proposed sentence is claimed to appropriately rely upon. It was never under contemplation to include the second sentence, the one that mentions hypocrisy, in our own article at all . I've reproduced it here only to illustrate what that first sentence draws upon for its claim. That second sentence could be included in the "quote" field of the cite news template used to support the first sentence, I suppose, but even that was never under contemplation. Putting this differently, and somewhat less precisely, the question at hand is whether the first sentence is an acceptable (partial) paraphrase of the second?  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourceable
Sorry, this is the absolutely most ridiculous thing I can remember encountering on policy pages, but let's get it settled once and for all - there's a statement in the policy that says "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." This is clearly wrong, as explained ad nauseam in past discussions - it's not all such claims that are disallowed, but only original or unsourced or unsourceable such claims (we don't have anything against people saying things about primary sources or anything else as long as they can source it correctly). So if this sentence is to be retained, it needs to be modified - the conclusion of the last discussion was that "unsourceable" should be added between "make" and "analytic". Now people are unilaterally reverting this, and in the worst traditions of this page, are not making the slightest attempt to say why. PLEASE - ANYBODY - WHY??? If you don't have any concrete objections, you really must accept the result of the last discussion and stop this pointless reverting of what is really (once you've thought about it for a minute) the most obvious and uncontroversial change.--Kotniski (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You've been asked by multiple editors over a period of several weeks to stop changing the policy without clear consensus, and if it's anything substantive, you need consensus beyond the small number of people who regularly comment here. Consider opening an RfC to ask for fresh eyes. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not substantive - this kind of obvious correction doesn't need an RfC. Let's just remove the sentence that we all know to be wrong. Assumiung no-one can defend it - can they?--Kotniski (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And you've even removed the tag telling people this is under discussion? This gets more and more bizarre. You know a sentence in the policy is wrong, yet you care more for defending the image of the policy (pretending it's perfect) than allowing it to be corrected, or even allowing people to be informed of the clear and uncontrovertible fact that the wording is under discussion?--Kotniski (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The same discussion is taking place here on WT:V, so you're aware that people are asking that this stop. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that what stop? I don't see anyone defending this sentence that you keep restoring (and that you presumably know to be wrong). I don't see anyone saying that we can't even mark a clearly wrong sentence as being under discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict...responding only to the first paragraph in this section. Until maybe now, this thread is so huge and wide-ranging that it would take a lot of time for anybody to figure it out in order to participate. Even now, your new section seems to be talking about one change but it looks like you were putting in two. The result is that it looks unclear and with few people involved for such a big change.


 * I think that the proposed change described in your new section makes the sentence, for the normal reader, conflict with itself.  The essence of this part in this respect says "don't get there via synthesis".  And  "get there via sourcability".    You basically want to change the "don't get there via synthesis" part to "don't get there by synthesis, unless you can also get there by sourcability".  If the latter is true, simply get there by sourcability !


 * I believe that you are using logic, but the error is that you are applying it to the status of the insertion (e.g. "if it's sourcable, it's OK) whereas this statement talks about forbidding a certain ROUTE to insertion. If you view it in terms of the latter, I think you see that your proposed change undermines or is in conflict with the intended statement.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I want to change doesn't mention synthesis. It says "don't make [interpretative] claims", I want to say "don't make unsourceable (or original, or something) interpretative claims". There is nothing in that sentence about routes or synthesis, so I'm afraid I simply don't understand what you're saying. But thanks for at last trying to present an argument.--Kotniski (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In this section you yourself quoted the word "synthetic".  For brevity in my condensation, I was using  "synthesis......"  as an abbreviation for  "via analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative".   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I see - but "a synthetic claim" isn't necessarily the editor's own synthesis - if it's a reliable source's synthesis, then of course it's OK. So we need to qualify "synthesis" with a word like "original" or "unsourced", just like we do in similar situations everywhere else in the policy. That's the only point I'm trying to make - it's really so simple that people have tried to find complications in it that aren't actually there. (Well, I know it's possible to read the sentence in different ways, some of which might be reasonable - we reached that point in the discussion before - but we shouldn't retain wording that we know is going to be read by many reasonable people as saying something we certainly don't mean.)--Kotniski (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, another way of phrasing it (there are many possibilities) would be to say "Do not make your own analysis, synthesis, interpretation or evaluation of...." That would also have the advantage of being in more straightforward language. Would people be happy with that?--Kotniski (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict...responding only to your previous post) IMHO the meaning of "synthetic....claim" in this passage is "synthesized by the WP editor", and that wp could call syntheses by a source "sourced material".  We've entered a parallel universe here.  :-)   Sincerely,


 * Yes, that's the intended meaning (probably), but as previous discussion showed, people generally don't interpret it like that (even people on this page who know what it's supposed to say; so presumably outside readers would be even more likely to interpret it another way). So we must certainly rephrase it somehow. Anyway, I'm going to bed, so feel free to comment on my suggestions at leisure with no more fear of edit conflicts :) --Kotniski (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kotniski's reasoning, but not with his execution. So... I have been bold and tried to re-write the entire sentence to better reflect what I think we mean to say: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.  Feel free to revert or tweak. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent; works fine for me.--Kotniski (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done, Blueboar. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another reason why this is an improvement is that it moves away from the "making claims" language, which as we've seen and discussed before, is often misleading. This is a direction that ought to continue. --Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Further issues with the primary/secondary/tertiary sources section
Of course, resolving one issue can sometimes raise others ... From my understanding of the policy, it is also wrong to analyze (etc.) material found in a secondary (or tertiary) source yourself. Should we include a similar prohibition in the paragraphs on secondary and tertiary sources? Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this (and other) statements about primary/... sources often seem to suffer from slight muddledness of thought. I think it will be easier to state these things clearly when we move the 1/2/3-ary sources section to WP:V, as was generally agreed before. To a large extent, what it's appropriate to do with "primary sources" is just the same as what it's appropriate to do with less-than-reliable secondary sources (i.e. say what they contain, but not restate their statements as fact). And as you say, original analysis etc. of any kind of source is generally frowned on (I think, though perhaps we give a bit more leeway when we're analysing reliable sources, like when we say "most authors consider..."). By removing this unnecessary split of source-related information over two pages, it will be easier to set out clearly what uses of sources are acceptable and what aren't. --Kotniski (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa... you are taking my question to a level that I did not intend.  For now, let's assume that PSTS will remain in this policy more or less as is...  my question is much more limited in scope... should we include a similar statement about not analyzing (etc.) yourself, as applied to material found secondary and tertiary sources? Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I have in mind is something along the lines of: "Do not go beyond the source. While it is appropriate to report on the analysis, synthesis, interpretations, or evaluations contained in secondary or tertiary sources, do not perform your own analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of material found in a secondary or tertiary source." Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it wouldn't be wrong, though it would mostly serve to show up the poor division of the material we have - if you put things in three categories, explain how to use things in those categories, and end up saying the same thing about all of them, it shows that making the distinction was a bit muddle-headed in the first place. (So I suppose my answer would be - yes, why not, but mainly as a temporary measure until we can get all this properly sorted out.) --Kotniski (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support such an addition. That this has been focussed on primary sources so far is because many primary sources require analysis to make any sense in articles; and such analysis (synthesis etc) should be done outside Wikipedia. However, analysis and synthesis of secondary or tertiary sources is just as bad as that of primary sources. Arnoutf (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK... with this initial support, I have been bold... and have edited the paragraphs on secondary and tertiary sources accordingly. Again, revert (or tweak) if you object and we can discuss further. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That's all OK with me; but coming back to the wider issue, maybe I would suggest moving the PRIMARY section not to WP:V (although the issue of primary vs. secondary sources should probably be addressed there in some more detail when discussing reliable sources - it certainly belongs there more than it does so here), but to WP:IRS, where it could go basically in place of the summary section currently entitled Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Are people still supportive of this plan? (Though the "Policy" bits in particular need some rewording.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop, Blueboar and Kotniski. Four hours discussion among three editors is no basis for any significant change to a longstanding policy. I know your intentions are good, of course, but I'm actually pretty shocked at the idea that anyone would think it could be. In articles, proposals for potentially disputed changes normally stay up on the talk page for at least a week. Give others a chance to weigh in before changing things so quickly, please. I've reverted the changes Blueboar made, for now, to await others comments. – OhioStandard  (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we need to be very careful of unintended consequences in considering this proposal. The following is from our essay on close paraphrasing.


 * The right way to use this source would be to read it, read other sources about cats, internalize the information, and then write original content without looking at the structure of the sources.


 * I'm concerned that if we try to get any more specifically legalistic in our wording of this policy that this kind of appropriate editing will become impossible, and we'll be right back to our "only what the source says explicitly" difficulty that was discussed above. I don't think it's feasible or desirable to try to nail down the language so definitely to prevent every last risk of original research. If we do that we'll give the impression that only direct quotations from sources are allowed, and then we're stuck with the effect of encouraging plagiarism again, which is what the close paraphrasing essay is trying to prevent. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK... I have no problem slowing down... (I did say that I was being bold after all).
 * Ohio, my intent was definitely not to get specifically legalistic or disallow paraphrasing. So lets clarify... First, am I correct in assuming that my first edit (to the paragraph about Primary sources) is OK with you?  (you did not revert that, but I want to make sure.)
 * Second, assuming we are just talking about my second change (to the paragraph on Secondary sources)... do you object to the language or intent of what I added? Do you think that it is OK for an editor to perform his/her own analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of material found in a secondary or tertiary source? if so, how?  Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the 30,000 view is that wp:nor says "don't do that (in articles)" period, without trying to enumerate all of the scenarios when not to do it (don't do it with secondary sources, don't do on Sunday etc. :-) )   And then it sort of writes it in bigger letters for primary sources (along with saying to minimize/narrow their use).  North8000 (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Blueboar. I appreciate that. Some of us are naturally slow, and can't keep up when things change so fast, you know. ;-) Do I object to your intent? I'm sure you know that no experienced editor could answer the question as you've phrased it with anything other than a resounding, "No". It may even be that I ( and other editors ) will end up agreeing that your wording is perfect; I just want to be sure we don't solve one problem and create another one in the process... But to reverse myself for a moment, I actually do think ( cue gasp! ) that some very limited kinds of original research are okay, even desirable. If we have a reliable source that says "All men are mortal", and another that says "Socrates was a man", is the encyclopedia really going to fall to ruin if an editor observes that "Socrates was mortal", without citing a source that says so explicitly?
 * That's mostly just a playful (and also rhetorical) question, Blueboar; my larger, more generally stated concern is that by pushing so hard to try to prevent original research, by trying to lock that language down so tightly, that we'll be giving others grounds to argue that anything that's not a direct quote is "original research". As we saw in the above section, anytime you change the wording or word-order of a sentence at all you inevitably change its possible meanings, and I can just see people seizing on the wording you propose to bully other editors into a place where all they can do is quote directly. It seems kind of like pushing on a balloon to me: Try to avoid all possibility of original research and you bump into plagiarism. Try to eliminate any possibility of plagiarism and you bump into original research. I'll have to be offline for most of the rest of the day now, but may I ask whether you see the dilemma at all? –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the somewhat abbreviated answer, Blueboar, re your just-now update; but I'll be late for something important if I don't log off now. Will come back to this at my earliest opportunity. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What??!!! An editor who thinks something is more important than Wikipedia? Heresy! (quick, let's call in five or six other editors so we can "form a consensus" before Ohio gets back!  that'll teach him.)  OK, seriously... no rush.
 * As food for thought until Ohio gets back.... we seem to be focusing on the negative "do not" side of my proposed addition. I think we also need to focus on the positive "it is appropriate" side of it.  There is obviously a balance between allowing editors freedom to write about the topic in their own words, and allowing them to do so in ways that constitute OR. We just need to find how to word that balance. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely speaking, anything except a direct quote is "analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation". The two most common accepted forms of this are summarization/paraphrasing, and (although nobody wants to admit this) writing from a multi-year integrations of 100's of sources (this is called "knowledge") and then providing cites/sources to support it. We leave it to common sense to know the obvious cases of the OK/not OK stuff per the INTENT of this policy, and consensus to sort out the borderline ones.  We have to be careful that further "locking down" type wording could shift the guidance received from this policy. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to join the other voices to ask again that people stop being bold with the policy. The more words you add, the more you risk making things unclear. The current wording "Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source" is clear. There's no need to add extra words that have no function. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But if they're redundant words in the secondary sources section, why are they not similarly redundant words when we say exactly the same thing in the primary sources section? The same goes for when I tried to add that "some secondary sources are more reliable than others". You removed it as unnecessary extra baggage; and yet the policy still says "some tertiary sources are more reliable than others". Why one and not the other, when both are equally true? The structuring of this whole section is such as to imply to the genuinely interested reader that there are some kinds of distinction between these kinds of sources which really don't exist - we've just selected different random things to say about each of the three kinds of sources. As I say, I think this whole section needs reworking, and certainly moved to a more appropriate page (I suggest WP:IRS for the detail about which sources are n-ary).--Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Blueboar - Yes, sorry about that. This friend had been nagging me to visit this place she called "outside". We don't have an article about it, so I figured it couldn't be very important, but I'd agreed to try it with her. Turned out it was kind of interesting, even though there's nowhere to plug in your laptop... I've thought more about the changes you had in mind though, and although I know your intentions are none but the best, of course, I think I have to side with SlimVirgin, in what she wrote just above.
 * Moreover, I don't see that it's necessarily beneficial that our wording re secondary and tertiary sources should precisely echo the wording you (Blueboar) helpfully (imo) introduced for primary sources. I think undesirable original research is much more likely to be a problem with respect to primary sources than with secondary or tertiary ones, and that, for that reason, we don't need to clamp down as hard on those latter two in order to achieve the end we all want here. I say "undesirable" original research, btw, because I fully concur with North8000's points, above, which begin, "Precisely speaking, anything except a direct quote is 'analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation'", and which mention common sense and the need to rely on consensus in borderline cases. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely concur that it is more likely that undesirable OR will occur when using primary sources, but undesirable OR can (and does) also occur when using secondary sources. And it is just as wrong to form OR using secondary sources as forming OR with primary sources. I don't think this is made clear enough in the policy.  While the current language implies that it can, I think it is better to state it clearly rather than though implication.  Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Blueboar - by saying (effectively) "these are primary sources; our policy on primary sources is not to do unsourced analysis of them; these are secondary sources; these are tertiary sources", we give the impression (to someone trying to make head and tail of this page) that it's perfectly OK to do unsourced analysis of secondary of tertiary sources. What we should do is separate all the "policy" paragraphs out from in between the definitions, and then... oh, it all doesn't belong here in any case, it should be together with the other stuff about sources at IRS. Strictly for the purposes of OR, there's little to be said about the differences between sources - material is "original" if it's not found directly in any source (if it's found directly in a source but it's the wrong sort of source, it might still be inappropriate, but outside the scope of NOR - if we're assuming that NOR has some kind of scope distinct from that of V).--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)