Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

articles signed by experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:SYNTH violation

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

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

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

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

The other NOR can easily be resolved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested tweak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PSTS relative to subject

A common concern is explaining that these categories are relative to the subject, so that a primary source in one context can be a secondary source elswhere. To point this out at the outset I've extended the introductory sentence to explain this: "Sources may be divided into three basic categories of how they relate to the subject being written about" This replaces a more extended example which was added earlier, and ties in with an edit which usefully clarifies the use of secondary and tertiary sources[1] which I welcome. .. dave souza, talk 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal: moving PSTS to WP:V?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Challenge the Following

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes the conclusion is obvious only after it is stated. "Haydn very rarely wrote string quartets in the minor key." Is that original research? I have never seen it stated in a published analysis of Haydn's quartets, but it is definitely true. Many familiar with the corpus of Haydn's quartets will say, "Aha, never thought of that."

It is, in fact, in the area of music, that I have had the most trouble with this policy. The article on the Grosse Fuge, for example, contains a superficial analysis of the work. The piece opens with a 27-measure Overtura. How do I know? I counted the measures. Is that original research?

These are trivial examples. But here is one that is a bit trickier. "In the wake of decades of conflict with the Arabs, the themes of war and peace have become an integral part of Israeli music." Anyone with even the most passing acquaintance with Israeli music will know that this is true, without quoting any source. And here is an even trickier one: "Extremely militaristic songs that glorify triumph over the enemy are not the standard in the Israeli repertoire. Rather, most songs dealing with war are melancholy in tone." People familiar with Israeli music might not have thought of that, but, when they read that, they will suddenly realize that they cannot think of a single militaristic Israeli song (well, actually there is one, but only one).

Is listening to the music and writing what one hears original research? Regardless of the policy, I think not. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Your interpretation of what you hear may be very different from the interpretation of what someone else hears. What may sound "melancholy" to you may not sound "melancholy" to someone else. Thus, stating your interpretation in an article is clearly Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I think the important distinction here is drawing the line between observations of fact, and interpretations. To state the emotional implications of the music and such may be OR, but some of the things mentioned above, such as "Haydn very rarely wrote string quartets in the minor key." May not be, as it is simply stating a numerical fact, requiring only a count of the number of those written in minor and major. The problem with it may be the phrase "very rarely" as it may wind up falling under weasel words, but that could easily be remedied by providing the numerical count to define it. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oni has stated it pretty precisely. Writing about your subjective response to music could certainly be OR. I was refering to facts about the music. And, certainly when the universe is clearly bounded, avoiding words like "very rarely" is possible (of 88 string quartets, only six are min minor keys). When the universe is not so clearly bounded, the case is different. I could write that "In a representative songbook of Israeli folksongs, including more than 1000 songs, 32 percent dealt with matters of war and peace, and only one is a military march." That is merely a count - does that make it okay?

If you adopt this approach, the result is that OR turns out to be precisely the opposite of its intuitive meaning. "A study of six Mozart quintets reveals 25 instances of use of the first viola in passages of major-minor modulations." That is merely counting incidents so by our definition it is not original research. "Mozart uses the viola in the quintets to emphasize particularly poignant moments." That - actually a rather mundane and obvious statement to students of the quintets - is OR.

Even matters of subjective response to music are not necessarily OR in my mind, as Blueboar suggests. The slow movement of the Schumann piano quintet is a funeral march. It is funereal in nature, and uses many compositional techniques - dotted rhythms in a slow march, minor key, low registers, and so on - that are associated with this genre. Is stating this - again, something that is obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of music theory - OR? --Ravpapa (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's find Waldo

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

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

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

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

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

What's going on here?

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

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

No need to be puzzled: I was not advocating anything (I was, quite consciously, reserving my opinion on the change of local standards I perceive). In fact (as you are rightly, though superfluously, telling us), I had already copied the behavior. And where you did not see a consensus "on the talk page" I had already moved on to the new style of policy editing and saw a clear consensus by noting who added what and who removed what (a style I heartily recommend for non-controversial edits anywhere in the encyclopedia anyway).

On reflection I do not think the new behavior helps us build an encyclopedia so I've already returned to my personal standard (1RR except for vandalism, BLP violations and the like; keeping policies and asking others to do the same). This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Enough about me -- on to more important things! My two What's going on here? questions remain unanswered:

1. What happened to the standard that we shouldn't make large changes to policies without wide discussion or smaller changes to policies without talk page discussion, and can only make non-controversial changes when using only edit summaries? Why is the current behavior acceptable? It's denounced in the very policy, right at the top. A small group is dominating change by out-editing a larger group of regulars without achieving consensus on the talk page first. It's a mess.
2. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that several recent proposals have no basis in current practice. An explanation might be that the current proposals seem to reflect editing practice in a very different subset of the encyclopedia than the more controversial areas I've been working in. This happens more often than most editors seem to realize. If anything, it asks for deepening the discussion and decelerating changes. And being very cautious when wanting to delete or change policy language perceived as superfluous. It may be crucial in other areas. Avb 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what's happening here is that this page does not, as advertised, "have wide acceptance among editors". Most of the article reflects consensus, but this one section doesn't, and therefore has the status, effectively, of an essay. Thus, it's not a surprise that it is edited and reverted so frequently. COGDEN 18:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll about interpretive primary sources.

Question (True or false):

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

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

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

• It is OR to quote an explanatory claim in a PS, since that implies we have correctly identified the thrust of the PS. Relata refero (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions about fictional facts are still conclusions, so unless we qualify the terms "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative", the present version of WP:PSTS would still apply to prevent you from citing the novel itself for something the novel invented and probably only exists in the novel. Bad policy, and not reflective of what Wikipedians actually do. COGDEN 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There's no reason to say that Einstein's published comments on his own theory are not reliable. Nobody is better qualified to comment on Einstein's theories than Einstein, particularly if those comments are contained within the original publication. It makes no sense to cite Einstein's raw data or calculations but leave out the "bottom line": what Einstein concluded. That conclusion is the most important part of his paper, and Einstein, as the primary source for that conclusion, can and should be cited. COGDEN 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sounds like you believe that there can never be a primary source for conclusions. But that's not how the term primary source is used in academia. If you are discussing Karl Marx's or Albert Einstein's conclusions, they are the primary source of those conclusions. COGDEN 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

If it's not controversial, you can cite it even if there is only one source, and in fact, even if there are no sources, as per WP:V. If it is controversial, then WP:NPOV governs. COGDEN 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's an interesting parsing of the policy, but putting aside the fact that policies should be clear, and not require a PhD in linguistics to parse, I don't see any fundamental difference between an "interpretation of a primary source" and an "interpretation of what the primary source says". Whether it's one or the other is just a matter of formality. Take the example of Einstein analyzing and explaining the calculations in his paper. Is he explaining the calculations, or is he explaining the portion of the paper containing the calculations? The difference seems almost metaphysical. Should that fine distinction govern a fundamental Wikipedia policy?

See the examples I give in the section below called #How to use primary sources without original research--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientific articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see how using a non-standard definition of primary source is going to help here. If we use the words "primary source", we ought to use standard, verifiable definitions, not just make up a new definition whose only applicability is in Wikipedia. COGDEN 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Once a topic is notable, any citation on that topic is fine. Every single citation or bullet-point doesn't have to be notable in its own right. See WP:Notability. COGDEN 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

COGDEN 01:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm fine with NPOV being called a policy, because it is so fundamental to Wikipedia. I'm not fine with some ill-defined anti-primary source bias being called a policy. COGDEN 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

COGDEN 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Response:

1. If a dispute were to ensue over whether or not that's Behe's official definition of irreducible complexity, or whether or not his definition is adopted by ID movement, other sources would be needed. Also if it were disputed whether or not he is the originator of the idea--that probably shouldn't be self-sourced either. Obvious analogy would be Darwin's On the OoS which went through numerous revisions, and at some points his text even reverted to pre-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Also if there was a dispute over the claim, Darwin can't be used to verify: "Darwin was the first to propose a theory of natural selection". (Professor marginalia)

These considerations are WP:NPOV considerations, and have nothing to do with original research. We don't need to replicate WP:NPOV on the NOR page. That would be redundant and possibly lead to forking. COGDEN 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Dembski's a secondary source on Jesus, not a primary source. Where is this claim made in WP btw? (Professor marginalia)

He's not repeating what Jesus said. He's discussing what Jesus is, and carefully trying to do this without reference to the Bible or any other primary source. COGDEN 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Assertions sourced directly from Johnson texts could need verification in secondary sources - it completely depends on how the primary text is used in support of a particular claim. In many cases there is a dispute over whether or not claims from primary sources extend into conclusions which are not given in the source itself. PSTS is not a guideline for choosing one of several consistently confirmational references for the bibliography--it's a guideline for making good assessments whether or not a conclusion, interpretation, or assessment claim is faithfully and directly sourced or whether it's used to synthesize, originate, or stage the set for broader conclusions.

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

Unfortunately, COGDEN has failed to read the paragraphs in the context of the sections in which they appear.

1. Behe's arguments (primary source) are set in the context of statements by Ken Miller (secondary source) (dave souza)

I don't see any citation to Ken Miller for the definition of "irreducible complexity". The analytic/synthetic/interpretive/explanatory/evaluative claim to be verified "from another source" is the explanation of what irreducible complexity is. Miller does not back up everything that Behe says. COGDEN 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The statements by Dembski (primary source) are set in the context of statements by Barbara Walker (secondary source). His argument is not that that Jesus is an "alien life force", but that the "designer" might be, which he contradicts elsewhere by saying that "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory....ID is part of God's general revelation". No statements there that Jesus is an "alien life force".

I don't really care what Dembsky says. Whatever he says, it's not backed up by Barbara Walker (I think you mean Forrest). Barbara is cited for other points. COGDEN 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The statements by Johnson (primary source) are set in the context of statements by Barbara Walker (secondary source). (dave souza)

Once again, the PSTS policy does not say that information from primary sources have to be "set in the context of" secondary sources. They say that "claims" from primary sources have to be verifiable from another source. COGDEN 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No breach of PSTS there. ... dave souza, talk 08:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good arguments by PM and DS. In addition, this may be a good time to reread WP:SPS and once again realize how important it is that the three content policies "complement each other" and "should not be interpreted in isolation from one another." Having said that, I see the attempt to draw examples from the ID article as a step in the right direction; realizing that we may be coming from different perspectives due to different editing areas may help us find common ground. Avb 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree with the fundamental point that the appropriateness of using primary sources varies substantially from field to field, in no small part because the nature and definition of primary sources varies. What historians and others call primary sources scientists call data; published articles, which scientists call primary sources, are perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia. For this reason there is danger in developing a one-size-fits-all approach and settings these matters in stone as hard-and-fast policy rules. If the intent is for Wikipedia to its own classification system that the community defines itself, it might be best to start fresh with entirely new terms rather than using terms that have established (but different) meanings in other fields. There should be at least some acknowledgment that the meaning of these terms varies and the meaning particular editors happen to be accustomed to is far from universal. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Shirahadasha here. PSTS can't be applied consistently between the fields of history, philosophy, and science, because the definitions are different. In fact it's not even apparent that it can be applied consistent within those fields, because even in those limited contexts the definitions vary. And editors will always be biased to their favorite definition, which only leadss to unnecessary arguments over the definitions of PSTS, instead of the application of NOR. Dhaluza (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is completely and utterly unnecessary. As I say above, "There's no need for special pleading or added sections: actually its easier than that. When the subject of the article is the phenomenon that the experiment is trying to explain, then we should treat the experiment description as a PS and the discussion of the phenomenon as explicated by the experiment as a SS. This falls neatly within the system already drawn up. When the subject is, as it sometimes can be, the experiment itself, then the whole paper is a primary source." Relata refero (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That system is a non-standard one, and is itself original research. If we are going to use the terms primary source and secondary source, we need to use verifiable definitions as used by academia. COGDEN 19:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that edits to WP policy pages need to follow WP policies such as NOR? Avb 19:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To the extent possible, absolutely yes. Policy pages are not rule-free zones. COGDEN 23:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a "primary source"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's nothing right about this. Policies and guidelines generally apply to policy pages. Getting around WP:NOR in this way is gaming the system. COGDEN 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Every organization, including Wikipedia, is entitled to create its own policies. Unless Wikipedia decides to copy its policies from some other source, they will necessarily be original. Wikipedia has every right to create original policies. The No Original Researcy policy certainly does not apply to policy pages. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Avb, you seem to have a conviction that Wikipedia should have a firm hierarchical policy structure, a conviction that I think is not commonly supported. Policy should be informed by past practice, and guide future practice. It’s a dynamic relationship. I disagree that we should use idiosyncratic definitions and I doubt that they are ever the best way to describe current editing practice, let alone guide towards better editing practice. As for PSTS, the point has been made, conclusively in my opinion, that what PSTS has said in the past has been ignored by the vast majority of wikipedians. I suggest that the reason for this is that PSTS has not been easily understood in a relevant way. I do not share your fear that fixing PSTS will upset the structure of anything. Instead, a relevant PSTS will help editors choose suitable sources (choices that underlie whether the editor is straying into original research). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your entire response seems to miss my point by a mile. Your guesses about my "convictions" and my "fears" couldn't be further from the truth. I do not find your line of reasoning conducive to working together with you. Avb 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If I've missed your point, and my guesses are incorrect, then obviously I do not understand your argument. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

See my response to Dhaluza below. Maybe it helps if I rephrase we can't simply adopt more generic definitions without upsetting the entire structure as follows: We can adopt more generic definitions. But it won't be as simple as the edit I reverted, because it will necessitate many changes to policies, guidelines (as well as essays and wording of commonly used arguments). One example would be the language in WP:BLP which I've already mentioned in another context. As such the edit initiated a major operation that can't be done without major community support. Reverting it was a no-brainer and the content reason spelled out here was just an example. Note that the edit summary gave two process reasons (no consensus to remove existing language; no consensus to insert language from article space) which should be convincing even without any content arguments. Avb 13:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

My point is that a definition from article space cannot replace longstanding policy language without a clear consensus on the talk page. Articles reflect knowledge in the world outside of Wikipedia. Policies reflect Wikipedia community standards. Resetting shifting terms and instruction creep can be a good goal but it should not be done lightly and without making sure they are in keeping with the other policies. Avb 13:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how Consensus works. It works the same on policy pages as on mainspace pages, and in either case, if a passage of an article does not obey some policy, such as NPOV, V, or in this case, CON, it is never a problem for an editor to make bold changes to correct the problem. Also, if a passage does not, at present, reflect Wikipedia consensus, no prior consensus is needed prior to making a bold change. In other words, you don't need a consensus to fix a non-consensus section (even if it has been around for a long time). If that were true, non-consensus sections would always be permanent, since a faction would always support it. COGDEN 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cogden's revert

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

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

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

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

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

COGDEN 19:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't describe the PSTS section as "live policy language". Until we reach a consensus, it essentially has the status of an essay. Hopefully we'll get to the point where the section describes actual Wikipedia consensus practices. COGDEN 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict addressing SmokeyJoe's comment above)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe I said such a move would be premature at this stage in time. The audio presentation of WP:NOR was just published in January, and it includes language that is quite similar to the current language including PSTS. Such a move should be made cautiously and slowly with broad community participation in a way as to avoid another WP:A fiasco. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said "suggested" and linked to your exact words. But you're right to point this out again. Let me point out that I am by no means convinced that such a move would be wise or even feasible. (On a side note, I've been watching the dismantling of WP:RS, and even helped a bit -- JzG joked about it on the list, but I think he had a point: reducing RS to a redirect to a subsection of V, however much we all think it's warranted, will turn out to be a waste of time if Jimbo wants a WP:RS page.) Avb 11:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The audio version of this page is not the definitive one. We shouldn't worry about errors in the audio version. Our job is to make the policy page conform to widespread Wikipedia practices, as soon as possible. COGDEN 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

(←)Re Dhaluza's change of the description of "primary source" here: There is, IMO, some merit to mentioning information and data, but it neglects original sources of philosophical concepts, original fictional works, original theological works, original political or scientific theories, etc. May I suggest consideration of something like the following?

"*A primary source is a document or person that is an original source of the particular information, data or concept that is being written about." ... Kenosis (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the simpler alternative: "direct, unmediated information"? Doesn't that cover all bases? Dhaluza (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

@Avb: "a secondary source needs to have commented on a primary source before we can even use the primary source..."

This is a perfectly reasonable requirement. A text is non-RS until acknowledged by a reliable source. This is wikipedia's way of distinguishing fringe from non-fringe. It has nothing specifically to do with "primary" or "secondary". The text to be acknowledged can be any type of source.

@Dhaluza: I just reiterated the challenge you refer to in my comment above. The silence is deafening. ;)

@Kenosis: A "primary source" is a source that came first, where "first" is relative to "second."

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I think what Dhaluza was trying to get at was something a bit more specific than "very close to the situation being written about", to which I have no objection in principle, so long as it's done carefully and accounts for the range of topics across the wiki. "Original" certainly implies that the source of a given topic, concept, theme, idea or point being written about came "first". ... Kenosis (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree this is a perfectly reasonable requirement, although I beg to differ about equating it with "A text is non-RS until acknowledged by a reliable source". What we see here is a good illustration of the problem. The WP:BLP policy uses "primary source" in the non-generic meaning understood and used by experienced editors in the areas of Wikipedia I've been editing. The disputed NOR policy language reflects my editing experience, including what I learned from watching and talking to other editors, the more experienced and prolific, the better, and stints at ANI, BLPN, e-mail list discussions, etc. I have used the language extensively in explaining to new editors "what makes Wikipedia tick". But is not surprising to encounter different insights. I do not believe this can be settled by two sides asserting "their" language should be used. This requires a good discussion, e.g. to find out how widely accepted the current language actually is, and in which areas. Avb 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"As I've stated many times, I still have not seen a solid argument for why PSTS is essential to NOR." Well, I have tried to do so. I have seen situations repeatedly where editors themselves are conducting original research with primary sources, and defending it as a claim verified by the primary source, while arguing that this otherwise unpublished interpretation is superior to even the weight of evidence to the contrary found in secondary sources. Scholars and academics do work with primary sources and their views are vetted to some degree to be published. WP editors often presume they're asked to use the methods of scholars and academics--but we are not scholars or academics. We are editors of a general encyclopedia. And when published secondary sources say one thing, and an editor looking to the primary source says "see here on page such-and-such why those secondary sources are wrong, and my idea is right," we have an WP:NOR problem on our hands which results from a lack of clarity about our role and the role the various sources play in the work we do. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well stated, IMO. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree, but the base problem is that the editor's claim is unpublished, not that they used a primary source to justify it. Why can't we just stick to that, rather than parsing sources? Dhaluza (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically it's this: because it is a primary source its "authority" so to speak makes it much more of a target of this kind of thing by an OR editor who genuinely doesn't think what they are "putting forth" is really original research. The fact that the claim is not verified by secondary sources is a caution sign right there. Is it unique because nobody agrees that's what it means? Is it unique because it's not suitably noteworthy (or undue weight)? Is it unique because the claim was subsequently debunked, rejected, or abandoned in some fashion and qualified scholars, etc, all know it? If there's nothing extraordinary about the claim and other reasonable editors easily agree the meaning is sufficiently obvious, primary alone is fine. But there are fringe interpretations of primary sources and it's important to prevent editors from using primary sources to craft some fringe interpretation of the subject. Oftentimes these "fringe interpretations" are original research which are camouflaged by the authority of quoting a primary source. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, the PSTS construct is obviously useful in contentious situations, but my experience on WP is that most of our 2 million articles are non-contentious. And this expression of policy tends to cause arguments over what is primary vs. secondary. I think in most cases, primary sources (by whatever definition) are fine as far as they go. The problem is when editors go beyond the sources and can't separate their opinions from their sources. But why isn't educating editors on the error of their ways more productive than creating arbitrary definitions and rigid rules that are not universally applicable or even generally necessary? Dhaluza (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, there's no need for most of the language in the WP:NPOV policy either. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Any novel interpretation, of any kind, from any source, is "original research." Since such novel interpretation - by definition - cannot be verified, it also fails WP:V. If something can be verified, it is not novel and thus not "original" and thus not "original research." A differentiation of P/S/Ts is not relevant.

>>Oftentimes these "fringe interpretations" are original research which are camouflaged by the authority of quoting a primary source.

Any text that has not been treated by multiple reliable sources is itself not a reliable source. Reliability is something that is bequeathed by other reliable sources. A statement from an unacknowledged text is also an implicit acknowledgment of that text before this has been done by anyone else, and thus OR. This again has nothing to do with any differentiation of P/S/Ts.

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference is that if it has been published in an unreliable source, it's not original, but it's still not usable. It's a two-step process as I outlined below.

Also this discussion of using sources to vet text is way over the line. We generally just require that the publisher be reliable to accept the text, not that the text itself is commented on directly. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If we accept that "Any text that has not been treated by multiple reliable sources is itself not a reliable source," Fullstop, and if we also accept that the number of possible sources is a finite number and that sources only discuss sources with publication dates earlier than their own, then it can easily be shown by induction that there do not exist any reliable sources -- which should simplify talk-page discussions considerably. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this sort of logical positivist approach simply doesn't work very well in practice when analyzing editorial policy. In fact, all three of the content polices involve discussion, negotiation and some degree of flexibility in interpretation that is dependent on context. WP:NPOV must be negotiated among users so as to arrive, ideally, at a consensus about it; yet, there are many articles in which NPOV simply doesn't apply. WP:V must be negotiated among users (note that it says "verifiability" not "verified", so users must negotiate this). And WP:NOR must be negotiated among users, so as to arrive at a consensus about where the "line" is between original prose and original research. PSTS is part of the negotiation. And in fact, all three content policies have overlap and interaction with the other two in a number of areas.

I do admit, and have previously admitted, that PSTS also has implications into WP:V and WP:NPOV. But it's been placed in WP:NOR for four years now (originally as PSS, later as PSTS). It's a useful and important policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I must take issue with your assertion that PSS has been part of NOR for four years now. As posted in another thread, this edit from 2.5 years ago introduced the first definition of primary source, so the elements of PSS were not even included in the policy until then, and it was not broken out as a separate section until later. And the definitions and applications have continued to evolve over time. You are basically making the "It's been here for a really long time" argument, which is not only trivial, it's demonstrably false. Dhaluza (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. This talk page is about NOR, not about V or NPOV, and those other policies are not under discussion.
2. As I have already noted before, PSS/PSTS has not been in NOR for four years. The single mention of a type of source (introduced on February 13, 2004) neither constituted a PSS/PSTS section, nor did it any way assert that it was necessary to know what P/S/Ts meant, nor did it dilute the meaning of OR, the policy for which back then actually understood what "original research" is.
3. NOR has no business redefining/quantifying/qualifying "sources", and it has no business infringing upon or otherwise undermining any existing definition of WP:RS or WP:V. Together, RS, V, NOR are the hinge upon which the image of reliability of Wikipedia as a whole turns, and although all three are all about "sources," their spheres are as discrete as "ordering a meal," "eating" and "throwing up." RS is about choice, NOR is about interpretation, V is about ensuring that choice and interpretation are good.

-- Fullstop (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken about the length of time it's been in place. I stand reminded of how rapidly WP has grown over the past several years. For instance, less than four years ago the entire WP:NOR page looked like this. Nonetheless, as seen in the links at the bottom of the WP:NOR page, J.Wales provided the basis of PSS (later PSTS) over four years ago. At present, however, it's clear that some of the discussion about it has lost perspective.

As to the very farfetched notion that this discussion is strictly about this editorial policy and not about any other editorial policy, note carefully that the editorial policies are all very much interactive with one another, something that is even explicitly stated in the policy page. And within this interaction, PSTS is an important part of the editorial policy. And it has at least as much to do with WP:NOR as it does with WP:V and WP:NPOV. As I said, all these are editorial policies that run across the extremely large and diverse set of content across the wiki, not mathematical forumulas that can be plugged in and work precisely on every occasion. PSTS, NOR, V and NPOV all require discussion among users as may be necessary on an article-by-article basis. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is broad consensus that the policies must work together, and that is what is expressed at the lead of these policy pages. I also think the consensus holds that policies should be broadly applicable, and things that only apply in some cases or require case-by-case interpretation are better addressed in guidelines, and this is addressed in the different text of their header templates. This discussion should be strictly about this policy, and how it interacts with other policies--that is not a farfetched notion, it is a practical reality. When the discussion ostensibly about this policy is actually about another policy, that should raise a red-flag. It means that we are not discussing the interworking of the policies, but that we have discovered that they have become intertwined. In that case, it is appropriate to discuss how to untangle them. Dhaluza (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Such overlap, and some degree of confusion, has been characteristic of all three of the core content policies. For example, an attempt to reconcile cognitive dissonance among some users is what led to the WP:A fiasco, where an attempt was made to roll WP:V and WP:NOR into one policy called WP:Attribution. It didn't work, in part because it significantly interrupted the continuity of earlier established editorial policy across the wiki. Similarly, certain aspects of WP:NPOV such as undue weight are tightly interwoven with aspects of WP:NOR and WP:V. Where a list or a straightforward recitation of, say, Nobel Prize laureates is involved, NPOV might not apply at all. Where an article about 101st_meridian_west is involved, WP:V becomes essentially indistinguishable from WP:NOR. Etc., etc. These, again, are editorial policies that co-exist, interact with each other, and inevitably will often exert a "creative tension" that must be negotiated as the context may demand of a given article. Each of the three inevitably has aspects that are confusing to some users, and each of the three has aspects that do not necessarily apply to every article across the wiki. And each of the three, and the combination of the three, inevitably must be dealt with in context of the particular content that is under discussion. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Naturally there will always be overlap and a tension between the separate policies. But we should continue to work to reduce the unnecessary overlap and resulting conflict and contradiction. That it exists is not reason to blindly accept it. Dhaluza (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Maybe there should be an all-inclusive editorial policy summit conference ;-) I'm suddenly somewhat reminded of the Camp David Accords#Consequences, where the participants walked out of the meetings and announced "hey, we have an agreement!", to which many others responded "um, no, not so fast". Anyway, I agree it can be useful to seek clarifications and improvements w.r.t. all policy matters, so long as their continuity isn't radically interrupted without a compelling and widely agreed reason to do so. IMO, the current text of WP:NOR does seem to reflect that additional thought went into it in the past several months. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll to narrow dispute more

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

Should this clause adopt

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

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

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

D) none of the above (please specify)

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

D) There is no consistent definition of PSTS across academic disciplines, and any arbitrary WP only definition is going to cause conflicts with editor's prior understanding, per the law of primacy. We should simply use plain language to explain the key points so everyone can understand them clearly. Dhaluza (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A). Refer to the mainspace articles Primary source and Secondary Source and their main references, as I pasted above, but, as per Dhaluza, keep the language plain. There is no need to reiterate the definitions in full. Note that the definitions are not rigorous, and that compliance with WP:NOR does not require the ascribing of source type to every reference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything but B), and preferably C) or D). To adopt our own idiosyncratic definitions of commonly-used terms is to invite confusion and endless debate; we've already got enough of both, thank you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

not A the definitions used by the academic disciplines are used for their own purposes and do not necessarily have much applicability to problems hereDGG (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a reason not to use the terms at all, not to re-make them in our own original-research Bizarro World version of the terms. COGDEN 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

D) Since different disciplines have different definitions of what the types of sources are, it is inherently flawed to have a 'policy' define these terms only as one discipline defines them. If they are going to be defined, they need to defined per discipline, so that there is a strong, consistent definition which can be policy. However, I also don't feel that Wikipedia needs a policy to simply define types of sources, a guideline is much more appropriate. This page helps show how some of the various disciplines define the terms. It may be better (easier?) to adopt these various discipline based definitions into the appropriate 'source' article (Primary source, Secondary source, etc.) and then elevate those to 'guideline' status. This would require several distinct and separate steps, but allow each 'policy' to refer to common definitions. Right now, each policy (the 'main three' anyway), has its own definitions about sources. If each policy could safely remove parts of those definitions to a 'central' definition, much debate and confusion could be avoided. wbfergus ^Talk 11:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

B) Stipulative definitions can be quite functional, if it's made explicit that that's what they are; plus, Wikipedians are now familiar with these particular stipulative definitions. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

C)/D) would be my preference, but only slightly so. Language is always shifting, faster within a subgroup of peers. The WP community is growing and changing all the time. If we do it right now, a similar discussion is bound to arise sooner or later anyway. And it's not a straightforward task; this would require a lot of work adapting the entire structure of policies and guidelines, together with a time-consuming community-wide discussion and consensus. Also, our current language is mostly B) which is another reason why changing it will not be easy, people being people. It may be worth it though, e.g. in terms of time spent bringing new editors up to speed. Avb 14:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A is the only choice. Anything else will be original research, and if any page should avoid the trappings of OR whenever possible, it should be WP:NOR. It will also be confusing, because we will be using terms like primary source in ways seemingly designed t cause misinterpretation. Bad, bad policy. COGDEN 04:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Would it make more sense to keep the NOR relevant portions of PSTS in summary style in this policy, and split off the definitions of primary secondary and tertiary sources to a separate linked guideline with expanded definitions?

• Yes. This would allow the different usages in different fields to be explained separately, and would avoid the need to adopt an arbitrary one-size fits none definition as in A and B above. It would also allow the various case studies of application to contentious cases to be covered. This additional detail would be out of context in this policy, and would unnecessarily further obfuscate the basic premise of NOR. Dhaluza (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. But, this also would entail a lot of work and coordination with the other relevant policies. Perhaps though, if this was done here first, the other policies would be more amenable to similar modifications. wbfergus ^Talk 17:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. PSTS is important, but it comes with subtlety and and interpretation that maybe should be expanded in a guideline instead of a core policy. Much of the subtlety and interpretation is tangential to the purpose of WP:NOR. An appreciation of the importance of secondary sources is important in this policy, but a definitive all-encompassing rule for distinguishing primary sources vs secondary sources is beyond the scope of this policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Already done. It's called primary source, secondary source, and tertiary source. No need to re-invent the wheel. COGDEN 04:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the "Original" in "No original research" mean anything anymore?

One thing that has been revealed in the discussion lately, and a review of the policy history, is that the scope of this policy has experienced significant WP:CREEP. Originally intended to stop physics cranks from publishing their pet theories, it has morphed into a complex mix of different ideas. For example, the simple statement in an earlier version that OR makes WP into a primary source has been replaced with a complex taxonomy of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and detailed requirements on how they are used. This has caused significant overlap with other policies and guidelines, especially WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.

I think the various policies need to be complimentary, not contradictory. One of the oft repeated arguments for keeping the added content in this policy is that it is needed to weed out dubious claims (where claims could be either facts or interpretation). When dealing with dubious claims, each policy should have a clear, distinct and stand-alone role as follows:

1. Is the claim directly attributable to at least one published source (or is it an obvious conclusion from the published sources)?
   • If not, then reject it per WP:NOR as original research; stop.
   • If so, then it is not original to the editor, and NOR is not applicable; proceed to the next step.
2. Can at least one source be used as a reliable source for the claim?
   • If not, then reject as unverifiable per WP:V and/or WP:RS; stop.
   • If so, then it is verifiable; proceed to the next step.
3. Is the claim excluded by other inclusion criteria, such as WP:NOT?
   • If the objective criteria show that it should be excluded, then reject it; stop.
   • If it is not excluded, proceed to the next step.
4. Is the inclusion of the claim consistent with a neutral point of view?
   • If not, then edit the article as appropriate to restore NPOV.
   • If NPOV is achieved, then stop.

I think this simple and straightforward application of policy will actually make it easier to weed out dubious claims, as opposed to the current complex, overlapping, and IMHO overreaching policy expression here. In this construct, NOR is only concerned with determining if the material added by editors is original to that editor. Once it is established that the material was previously published, NOR should become moot, because it is not original, which is obviously required for it to be "original research".

Does anyone see a problem with this approach? Dhaluza (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the approach. Its very fine and hits the nail on the head. Minor thing in #4 though (does not disqualify the approach): I think you've confused NPOV policy with something else. WP:UNDUE perhaps? -- Fullstop (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV. I phrased it differently because the solution to NPOV can be to add material for balance, rather than simply removing the claim. Dhaluza (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was: the first three have to do with legitimacy/reliability. The fourth doesn't. Don't worry about it. I'm just tired. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, but NPOV is one of the "Big three" inclusion criteria. So it must also be addressed too. Dhaluza (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
        • A minor point, but the way some people are, perhaps it needs to be stated. If editing (at any time/step), care must be taken not to re-introduce OR. So basically, at each editing step, the checklist needs to re-start again. wbfergus ^Talk 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I have a problem with this approach. It seems to be equating NOR with CS or V - that if one can provide a source, one is not violating OR. If this is what is being suggested, i am strongly opposed. I strongly feel NOR is about how sources are used. I also object to the straw-man argument about "creep." It is true that the examples of violations of NOR originally came from physics. So what? To characterize the later elaboration of NOR as "creep" is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation. First of all, the examples from physics were just examples; the spirit of the original statements was that Wikipedia editors shouldn't use WP to forward their own theories (theories can mean many different things; the catalogue of "analysis, synthesis, generalizations, explanations, interpretations" I think pretty much covers all the variations of "theories"). Second, the so-called original policy was a comment from jimbo on the list-serve; this is not "the policy," it is one point of origin for developing a policy - but the policy has other origins, including various editors' experiences with POV pushers, bad research, and content-trolls on a variety of articles that had nothing to do with physics. I am frankly baffled by the insinuation that it is wrong to develop policies based on these experiences. On the contrary, this is precisely what we should be doing. Now, I acknowledge that people can have reasonable concerns that this process can be abused. I think there are two checks on abuse: first, the elaboration of the policy should be consistent with the spirit of the policy (I think this has generally been the case); second, the elaboration of the policy should be done in public (this was definitely the case; over the past couple of years changes were made to the policy based on discussions on the talk page). I hope that this process continues and would be glad if this discussion led to a more effective policy - an NOR policy that would complement and reenforce the principles in NPOV and V, and which would help compensate for the principal points of vulnerability of the project (anyone can edit and articles do not go through a rigorous review process for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Of the many thousands of Wikipedia editors I have known of a small handful have rejected the basic distinction between primary and secondary sources, and in most (NOT ALL) cases it is evident to me that they actually want to engage in original research and don't like being constrained from doing that. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Another minor point. I'm sure it slipped your mind, but I have previously (around a month or so ago, maybe two), listed a specific 'case' where something like 26 different edits were made to the policy in one day without any discussion on the talk page. The only discussion was one person asking if anybody had noticed it, and nobody replied back. As to the approach towards editing articles or resolving disputes about article content, what is wrong with the above approach? If something has been published in a reliable source that has been verified, it doesn't matter if it is primary or secondary, it plainly is not original as it pertains to the Wikipedia editor. If an editor changes the sourced 'statement' (whatever that is, sentence, table, graph, paragraph, etc.), and that change is not in any reliable publication, then that is original research, not what is being cited, per other policies. An editor can find a passage from a reputable author in a reliable publication, cite it, and misconstrue (intentionally or accidentally) it's context or meaning to introduce OR. It simply doesn't matter what the type of source is. Someone could easily cite the Bible (or numerous other secondary texts), where it says (paraphrased) God gave Israel to the Jews, and that he told them to kill everyone presently living there, and since they didn't, that displeased God, so therefore all of the current problems in the Middle East can be directly attributed to the Jews. That would clearly be original research (and hogwash), even though the basis for the conclusion is in numerous texts besides the Bible (both primary and secondary). Isn't that what NOR is supposed to prevent? Or would it be perfectly acceptable to make that conclusion in an article if only secondary sources from reliable sources were used? Sorry for bringing religion and race into the discussion, but it was the best example of something wrong and outrageous I could think of to illustrate the point that any source type can be misused if somebody wanted to. wbfergus ^Talk 14:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
            • The WP:CREEP I am referring to is the loss of the original meaning of "original research". It was originally intended to prevent editors from publishing their original ideas making WP a primary source, and has morphed into a complex set of rules on how to use primary sources in WP. Thus the the current policy has departed from the original "spirit". It has nothing to do with the experience of moving from dealing with physic cranks to religious zealots or whatever else. The point is that if there is a published source for a claim, it is no longer original. It may be totally inappropriate for inclusion, but not because it is OR. Dhaluza (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Dhaluza's approach. It's the only sensible one, and the one that is presently in use in Wikipedia. We don't need all the baggage that has been introduced by the anti-primary-source lobby. I think Jimbo would be horrified if he saw how people were attempting to morph his simple and easy-to-understand NOR policy into a source-classification nightmare. Lets get back to our roots in a Wikipedia that anyone can edit. COGDEN 05:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

<<< I am growing tired of repeating these arguments again and again. Nothing has departed fronm the original spirit of this policy. Primary sources havealways been problematic and NOR does its job to alert users not to use these sources inappropriately. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, shouldn't the policy page say that? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It can't say that, because it would be false. Primary sources have never been any more problematic than secondary sources. I have yet to see any proof of User:Jossi's claim. Maybe that's why he has to keep repeating it. COGDEN 05:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How to use primary sources without original research

Since there seems to be some confusion about this, I've added a statement based on my understanding as discussed above:

• Where the primary source itself makes analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, assert facts about the claims, but do not assert the claims themselves. Attribute the claim to someone and discuss the fact that they make this claim.

See #Scientific articles above for discussion of this procedure in relation to the intelligent design article. This option is clear from NPOV, but has not been spelt out in this policy so maybe an explicit statement is needed for those who want to cite such claims from primary sources such as a peer reviewed scientific article about the subject being written about. See Australopithecus afarensis for a couple of examples[2][3] of conclusions from peer reviewed papers being discussed, showing the need for secondary source context. .. dave souza, talk 09:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What you are addressing here is not OR. If a published source (of whatever type) makes a claim, then including that claim is not OR, because it is no longer original to the editor. We may hold that some types of sources are not reliable references for making analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, but that is not a NOR issue. Dhaluza (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the intelligent design discussion above. Presenting quotations from ID proponents with the implication that they are making a religious argument is an OR synthesis to make that implication, so a secondary source which uses the primary sources to show that implication is required. And, as shown above, is provided. .. dave souza, talk 14:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Presenting published quotes from ID proponents is not OR, but making an assertion (not necessarily an implication) that they are religious arguments is OR only if the source is the editor, not another published source. I still fail to see how the primary/secondary distinction is necessary to separate OR from NOR in this case. Dhaluza (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Kenosis from that discussion, "Where intelligent design is the topic, the original writings of intelligent design proponents are the primary sources. Thus, we quote them or carefully represent those statements without commentary, and use the numerous secondary sources for the analysis." See intelligent design#Religion and leading proponents: "Although arguments for intelligent design are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer,[109] most of the principal intelligent design advocates are evangelical Christians who have stated that in their view the "designer" is God." Primary sources are used to show examples, but the connection and significance of these statements requires a secondary source. Otherwise it's a synthesis. .. dave souza, talk 14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a source is required for the quotes, and a different source is required for the analysis. And obviously care is needed in dealing with such a contentious case where people may be acting with a hidden agenda. But again, why is it necessary to parse the sources into discrete bins? Dhaluza (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a way for editors to think about which sources provide the "facts" in relation to the subject, and which provide independent analysis of these facts. Evidently many editors find it useful. At the same time, there's a clear way for non-contentious primary source material to be used to provide both data and assessment of that data, provided it's made clear where the assessment comes from. There can of course be many uncontroversial cases where this is no more than a checklist, but the distinction is necessary when dealing with difficult cases, of which there's no shortage. .. dave souza, talk 18:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if the above is the right wording... but I approve of the idea behind this suggested language. I think we agree that using a primary source is very difficult to do without engaging in OR... but that there are some situations where a primary source can be used appropriately. We include strong cautions about the dangers of using primary sources, but we don't include any discussion of the appropriate use. We should. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is wide agreement with the idea that "using a primary source is very difficult," in fact it is done all the time in many articles across the entire WP spectrum. It may be true that in contentious cases primary sources are often misused, but this is actually a special case. Many subject areas are fact-heavy, and in these areas secondary sources, if they exist, are considered less reliable. So in these cases the opposite is true. Dhaluza (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I too have problems with the wording. My view is that a primary sources presents data, and secondary sources provide some kind of argument about that data. I think the issue behind Dave's suggestion is that there are some sources that are both. People have called attention to scientific articles but this is certainly true of articles in the humanities as well, though perhaps to a lesser degree. I just do not see this as an obstacle. The fact that one article or book may be viewed as a primary source or as a secondary source or as both doesn't change the principle behind the policy. However, here is what I think should be added to the policy (note: this is off the cuff, I am proposing the idea, not the exact wording, feel free to edit the wording):

Many secondary sources include primary source material. In such cases, editors cannot use the primary source material to propose alternative or opposing arguments (analysis, synthesis, generalization, interpretation, explanation) to those made by the authors of the secondary source.

If this does not address the problem adequately, I must be misunderstanding the problem and hope Dave or someone else will be patient enough to explain it again to me. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Slrubenstein. While the situation you point out can arise, the problem some editors seem to have is that primary sources can include arguments (analysis, synthesis, generalization, interpretation, explanation) and they feel that no secondary source is needed to present such arguments. My understanding is that we can show the fact that the argument has been made, but for any evaluation of the argument or for any synthesis that the arguments may imply, we need a secondary source. See this case where an editor who hasn't got involved in this interminable discussion quite naturally questions the value placed on a piece of research from a primary source which lacks a secondary source establishing its importance. ... dave souza, talk 14:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I agree 100% with this principle: "we can show the fact that the argument has been made, but for any evaluation of the argument or for any synthesis that the arguments may imply, we need a secondary source." Do you think there is a way to combine that with what I wrote to craft a proposal more people may find acceptable? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Will think about that, thanks. .... dave souza, talk 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole line of implication is a slippery slope. Presentation of any fact can be interpreted as implying almost anything. It's up to the reader to draw their own implications. An non-obvious assertion must be supported by a cite to a published source. But unless the implication is explicit in the form of an assertion, there is no need for a source. Dhaluza (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza, have you ever been involved in a protracted conflict involving original research? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in the types of cases cited here. I tend to edit in the fact-heavy areas I mentioned above, where primary sources are commonly used without causing OR problems. But if your implication is that only people who have been involved in such a dispute should participate in this policy discussion, then you are missing my central point. Most articles are not contentious, and policy should be written to be widely applicable. It should not be slanted to cover special cases--that is scope WP:CREEP. I don't doubt that these problems exist, and that dealing with them is very difficult; but then perhaps there should be a separate guideline that deals with the special cases specifically, without unnecessarily complicating a general policy. If you think you need the force of policy to beat people over the head to win these arguments, then I would call that wikibullying, and it's not clear to me that that this problem is an acceptable solution to the original problem--the ends do not justify the means. Dhaluza (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you been involved in protracted conflict where WP:NOR#PSTS has been invoked to reject undisputed facts taken from and directly representing its meaning in context to its referenced primary source? Professor marginalia (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, these are special cases, not general editing practice. Dhaluza (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to worry about unrealized or otherwise eccentric hypotheticals. The PSTS policy in some form or another has been at wp for years. I have seen it help enormously. I have not seen it cause problems in straightforward fact claim sourcing except in one case following article probation after an arb comm ruling in a case in which violations of WP:RS and WP:NOR#PSTS were long entrenched. And in that special case, the decision successfully ended a year's long era of edit warring. In my experience, primary sources present special difficulties for WP:NOR when they are presumed to be more authoritative than any conflicting information reflected by most secondary sources.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And again, this is the trivial "It's been here for a really long time" argument. Aside from the dubious accuracy of claim itself, it has no relevance. If your tennis coach told you that you were hitting the ball incorrectly, would it matter that you had been doing it that way for years? If the NOR policy has gone off on a tangent, it should not matter how long it took to realize it, and it should not delay getting it back on track. The fact that the detour is sometimes useful in some other way is not relevant either. The assertion that it does no harm has been refuted before--the PSTS source typing causes side arguments over what is PS vs. SS and this can escalate, rather than resolve content disputes. Dhaluza (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This presumes you're the equivalent of the coach and PM is the player. Assuming that the analogy holds, I would say PM has just told you that he's been winning matches for years doing it that way, and that he has not seen it cause problems for other players. Maybe you want to address these arguments instead? Diffs/examples would be helpful; blanket assertions are not. Avb 18:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza, you are being disingenuous to the point where I question your good faith when you write, "this is the trivial "It's been here for a really long time" argument" because you are taking half of PM (and indeed my) argument and ignoring the second half which I have suggested implicitly (and you made it clear, you understood my point) and PM explicitly, that "...and during that really long time it has been instrumental in resolving many disputes and in enforcing a high standard of quality in articles." Your point, that such controversial disputes are extremes and should therefore be given little weight is absurd on its face. The relevance of a policy is directly proportional to the degree of conflict or controvery. If there is no controversy or conflict among editors of an article they just don't need to and in practice do not refer to policies. The greater the conflict, the greater the need to refer to a policy that can provide a standard for resolving the conflict. My question to you is very much in point and while I obviously do not think that one must have been involved in edit conflicts to contribute to improving this policy, I certainly give the experience of editors who have had to work through conflicts respect and weight and I advise you to give them the same respect. Now let me ask you a related question that echoes PM's question: what experience have you had where the enforcement of this policy has been an issue? If the answer is none, I seriously question the value of your opinion in this particular matter. I will be blunt: some editors with no experience with major conflicts or with the enforcement of this policy come here and do not understand it and whine about it. My question is, why do they come here? Seriously! If you are not involved in a conflict over content, and if no one has accused you of violating NOR, why are you even here? Why aren't you doing what editors are supposed to be doing: work on articles? As long as you can work constructively on actual articles, with no conflicts over content or at least none involving charges of NOR, you simply do not have to bother yourself with the meaning of this policy - I mean, really! Why would someone who only claims the standard deduction ever bother themselves trying to understand the US tax code? Most of it is there only for the complicated cases. Now, you have admitted you lack experience in this matter but PM, I and others are telling you, people sho come to this page for a reason - people involved in content conflicts - have found the distinction very useful. Has the wording changed over the years? Yes! And do you want to know why? Because people involved in content conflicts have discovered the need to develop or clarify parts of the policy!! What is so confusing about this? I wouldn't make fun of a mechanic for having so many different sized wrenches unless I had some experience fixing broken cars (and if I had that experience I would probably understand why she needs the tools she has around, even if she doesn't use them every day. Do you get it? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, but please do not try to dismiss my comments by questioning my good faith or qualifications, or otherwise making this about people rather than principles. I think my recent comments have respectfully acknowledged that PSTS may be useful in some contentious cases, but I respectfully disagree that that is sufficient justification to create a strong bias in that direction in a core policy. First, it's not even clear that PSTS has a broad and stable consensus of definition or application, and it's not clear that its cost/benefit ratio is favorable. Second policies should be for all editors and all articles. We must avoid original research in every article, not just the contentious ones. This means that the policy needs to be understandable to new editors on their first read-through. It's unreasonable to expect editors to parse every phrase as the active editors here are willing to do. I would say that prevention of OR is at least as important (e.g. what is worse one obvious case of OR in a controversial article, or 100 unnoticed cases?). Also, it is absurd to suggest that the policy is only for experienced editors, and only needs to be understood through repeated application. WP policy should not be as complicated as the U.S. Tax code! That was a very unfortunate metaphor. If the PSTS constructs have proven useful in resolving conflicts, then the should be policy. But they should go through the consensus process for developing new policy. They should not be tacked on to existing policy as a "rider", particularly where the overall benefit is not clear to all stakeholders. Dhaluza (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza, I apprediate your reponse and at this moment all I can say is this: much of the work that went into developing the policy over the years was ti make it a more effective point of reference in severe content conflicts. I sincerely believe that the views of those editors who have had to deal with protracted content disputes necessarily carries a lot of wieght in these discussions and I ask you to take those people seriously. At the same time, policies need to be clear and consistent, and even an editor who has no experience with content conflicts can surely help us improve the policy in these ways, and pehaps others, and I would certainlhy offer you my thanks if ou helped turn this into a more clearly written and consistent policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I was wavering before, but the present thread has firmly convinced me that our attempts to distinguish between primary and secondary sources do far more harm than good. Let's burn it down and scatter the ashes, and develop guidelines regarding the appropriateness of sources to context that don't require this arbitrary distinction. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought part of the miscellaneous suggestions here was to burn all of WP:NOR and leave it at just WP:V and WP:NPOV. After which one might wish to slash-and-burn other arbitrary distinctions like "undue weight", "neutral point of view" and "reliable vs. unreliable sources", all of which also need to be negotiated among users on a case-by-case basis. After all, they're only a few years old too.

I will say at least this much: Though the boundaries between primary and secondary sources may be arguable, PSTS has been indispensible in many content disputes where the concepts of "WP:NPOV#Undue_weight" and "WP:Verifiability#Reliable_sources" alone have been inadequate to the task. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Kenosis...let's just burn all of our guidelines and policies (after all, like laws they are only arbitrary expressions of the bourgeoisie contra the proletariat). Freedom of action and freedom of information (which we shall define loosely as anything anyone writes) should be our clarion call. I look forward to the day when Wikipedia looses itself from the stifling bonds of such silly concepts as reliability, verifiability and "no original research" and allows itself to become the repository of the free thoughts of the masses. Ave libertas mentis orationeque! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Way to go! APOV! It will represent all POVs from all POVs. Though it will never be as neutral as hell -- it will slide into Google nothingness long before it mirrors the entire Internet. Avb 13:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the analysis above I take "and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" to implicitly include "and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims [about the information found the primary source]" because for me that is implied by the earlier clause in the sentence: "that part of the article should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source". To use an example I used further up the page Wellington said the Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing (Arthur Wellesley quoted in the Creevey Papers, ch. x, p. 236). is I think is withing the bounds of the usage of primary sources. The point of this sentence is to stop people from doing anything but describing what is in a primary source not from using it. If the primary source is itself makes an analysis this clause should not be used to forbid it. Another example in this link is a list of "acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland as defined in section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Until 1989 only those incidents which caused death or injury were recorded." This is an authoritative list produced by the British government as as such is a primary source. If I write that "between 1980 and 1996 the British Government recorded over 150 attacks on the Island of Great Britain by paramilitary organizations based in Northern Ireland."[4], such a sentence should not IMO be deemed to breach WP:NOR#PSTS because the sentence is a description of the primary source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If we're quoting Aristotle's Metaphysics, that work is a primary source, and evaluative or interpretive claims need to be derived from a reliable secondary source. Note that the words "reliable" and "secondary" are both inexact. If two or more users disagree on which secondary interpretation should be used, and one of the secondary interpretations is a fringe minority view, "undue weight" becomes part of the discussion. Note that "undue" is also an inexact term, as is "weight", and as is the word "neutral". The imprecisions come with the territory of being an editorial policy, not with inherent problems with the concept of PSTS. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. In the example of "Wellington said the Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing (Arthur Wellesley quoted in the Creevey Papers, ch. x, p. 236)" that complies with the clause shown above, but "The Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing." (footnote cite to Arthur Wellesley quoted in the Creevey Papers, ch. x, p. 236) is not acceptable, and needs a secondary source, preferably a modern historian, to provide the evaluation; though of course if the historian uses that as a reference that can be stated. Without checking the link, the obvious description of statistics about attacks on the island of GB would fully comply, a secondary source would be needed if some inference was drawn from the statistic, such as "the greatest threat to GB was from NI". If it's a straightforward case of facts with no further interpretation, there's no problem and it's not contentious. However, as always, care is needed to ensure that further synthesis beyond the source is avoided. .. dave souza, talk 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dave, Wellington was an expert on the battle so I don't think that a more recent historian is any more valid and is not needed in my interpretation of primary source usage. But have deliberately left off the second half of the quote "the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life... By God! I don't think it would have done if I had not been there." because it is not such a balanced POV ;-) IMO, a list like created by the British Government in answer to a Parliamentary Question must be a primary source and such a summary is within the letter and spirit of primary source usage. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Using your example, "Wellington said the Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing" is a statement of fact which is easily verifiable, but "the Battle of Waterloo was a close run thing" is a statement of opinion which requires attribution to its source. A simple footnote is insufficient in the latter case, the source must be identified in the text. I'm not sure we should even accept the opinion as fact from an interpretive source like a historian, because it is still an opinion (though it certainly would be relevant to show that historians agree with Wellington's self-assessment). So I don't think this is a good example for why a close source needs to be treated differently, especially from a NOR perspective. And again, we can explain the problem in terms of fact vs. opinion, rather than primary vs. secondary. Dhaluza (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT there is nothing in the policies that explicitly says that the author of an opinion has to be mentioned in the text only if it is likely to be challenged that it should be cited. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

this is not a good example. W. was the commander on the winning side, and his view of the results may have been conditioned by that. I would certainly quote it as a clever and possibly accurate summary sourced to him, for he certainly did say it, but I can think of any number of possible reasons why he may have said it without it being strictly accurate--for example out of pride, to emphasise the import of his victory, or modest, to disclaim any great genius in a matter where the result was so uncertain, or just the desire to be clever and enigmatic. I would much prefer the objective judgement of later analysts. (my understanding is that they pretty much do agree with him). DGG (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an objective analysis of the Battle of Waterloo! About the only thing most people agree on is that it was a close run thing. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Which cuts to the chase. While any of us may be expert historians, if we use our own judgement to assert that Wellington was a credible expert on the battle that's original research on our part. A reliable published source is needed for that assertion, and that means a modern historian. Churchill was an expert on WWII and a historian, but his account of the Battle of Britain is hardly going to give due place to his complicity in the sacking of the two men who did most to win the battle. .. dave souza, talk 10:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does cut to the chase. No source is needed for the assertion that Wellington was an expert on the battle unless that is added as a statement in the text, if that were true (that such a source was needed) then every single source that was used would need another source to confirm that the author of the first source was an expert, and a third level source would be needed to say that that person of the second level source was an expert on judging experts in that field, and so on "Ad infinitum. Original research applies to the text on the page, not the process by which that text arrives. As I said above, I take "and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" to implicitly include "and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims [about the information found the primary source]". This means it is fine to put into an article that the "The battle of Waterloo could have gone either way (Cite Wellington)". But what is not acceptable is "According to Wellington the battle of Waterloo could have gone either way (Cite Wellington), but he may have said it without it being strictly accurate--for example out of pride, to emphasise the import of his victory, or modest, to disclaim any great genius in a matter where the result was so uncertain, or just the desire to be clever and enigmatic." because that addition is an "... explanatory, or evaluative claims [about the information found the primary source]" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before the distinction between sources has long been considered at Wikipedia a necessary one in light of how primary sources can be misused and the original phrasing in the policy was accurate, sufficient, and necessary. I will not support any alterations to the policy that ignore this and/or water down this section, nor will a number of long-term admins and other members of the community. Move along, there's nothing to see here now. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, in so far that the point of controversy has not been well defined. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And since global warming has been happening for an even longer period of time than this policy, let's not worry about that either. The causes are not well defined, the solutions are even less well defined, and its been serving us well for years. Besides, millions of people all over the Earth know what it is and how it (the cause) benefits us. Come on, get a better argument. Several people have been using the same argument for many months without any concrete examples of how the current policy section on PSTS is actually a benefit in general usage the majority of Wikipedians. Instead, they claim (falsley) that it is "accurate, sufficient, and necessary". wbfergus ^Talk 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"we can explain the problem in terms of fact vs. opinion, rather than primary vs. secondary". I think it's easier to write a guideline to help editors ways and means to be cautious in use of primary vs secondary than fact vs. opinion. One man's fact is another man's mistaken opinion. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with that assertion. That Wellington said something famously quoted is an easily verifiable fact. Deciding whether that quote is a primary or a secondary source depends on your arbitrary definition of primary source, and is subject to far more interpretation (as discussed above). For example, under the original definition from 2005 it would be secondary, but under the present definition here it is primary because Wellington was close to the thing being written about (especially since he said it was a close run affair). Dhaluza (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WRT "accurate, sufficient, and necessary": "Accuracy" is not the issue; only "sufficient" and "necessary". Any demand for "accuracy" is completely irrelevant, because the policy is a set of commands, not statements of fact-- a set of commands as to how to approach our editorial undertakings in WP. And all of these commands in the core content policies have an inherent degree of inexactness, along with an expectation that a discussion take place when their particular manner of implementation is under question, typically involving multiple users negotiating how best to present a summary explanation of a particular topic to the readers of WP.

And actually, "sufficient" is not necessarily the issue either-- AFAIK no one here has been arguing that the PSTS is insufficient-- the many defenders of PSTS are essentially saying that the content policies would be insufficient without it.

The only real argument here is whether it's necessary. A sufficient number of reasons have already been given, along with numerous practical examples, of why it's necessary. Yet opponents of PSTS, despite explanations of how it is reasonably or properly applied to many practical examples, continue to protest essentially "no, no, you're not listening to us -- the policy is wrong." To which I must respond: "No, the policy is a useful and important editorial policy, and it is right because it's been shown to work, and work well in conjunction with the other editorial policies, on countless occasions." ... Kenosis (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As to the examples where PSTS is argued not to apply, the solution to this conceptual problem is that if it doesn't apply to a particular circumstance, don't use it. If NPOV doesn't apply to a particular article, don't try to manufacture a reason why it should be. If WP:V isn't an issue in a particular article, don't try to make it into one. If PSTS isn't a significant issue in certain particular instances, don't use it in those instances. And in those instances where it may be unclear, discuss it in the context of the known body of literature on a given topic, and figure it out, just like we do with NPOV, V and the other parts of NOR. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I somehow fail to see how flawed, inaccurate definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary sources is a command. I also fail to see how that pertains to OR, as a policy. I can easily see how it would pertain to NOR, V, and NPOV as a guideline however. That is what most of the discussions here have been about for the last three months or so (that I've been around this page anyway). Having flawed and inaccurate definitions in a policy is wrong, especially when they don't belong as part of a policy anyway, they are merely guidelines to help define to any interested reader what the distinction between sources is. The policy itself is about No Original Research, and that can just as easily be introduced intentionally or unitentionally from primary or secondary sources. One is not more prone to abuse than the other. Though perhaps this policy should simply say "when using primary sources, the text supplied must be used verbatim and appropriately cited. Any editing of the cited text by the editor must performed on material from a secondary or tertiary source". Otherwise, your comments above can simply be construed as, when you don't like the outcome, simply invoke WP:IAR wbfergus ^Talk 16:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

After this, maybe go explain to the participants in WT:NPOV how it isn't accurate because it doesn't match any other standard "real-world" application of the idea, and at WT:V how verifiability isn't accurate because it doesn't match attribution requirements in academic writing, etc., etc. WP has its own expression of PSTS for which the usage, for example in historiography, is peripheral if not completely irrelevant. The reason is that we're not scholars that are often expected to track stuff down to the earliest notes or publication of a particular historical fact in support of an original thesis, but rather are expected to use secondary and tertiary sources to get a balanced view of a topic to present to the reader. Nor are we permitted to be philosophy scholars that may be at liberty to go right to Aristotle's voluminous works and try to explain to readers that secondary sources are incorrect because it appears to some WP user that Aristotle meant "this" when the secondary sources say he meant "that". Nor are we at liberty to cherrypick primary scientific sources when the secondary and tertiary sources summarize a point quite effectively in a certain way. And it goes similarly in other topic areas. The reason is that as a collection of quasi-anonymous or completely anonymous editors we have not expert authority to interpret primary sources for the readers of WP, when the experts have already summarized virtually all notable topics in secondary and tertiary literature. Moreover, when it was repeatedly pointed out that WP's usage of PSTS is quite closely analogous to the general usage in library science, one of the most vocal opponents of PSTS went on a tear seeking primary source analysis of PSTS itself in order to debunk the library science usage in the article namespace and rewrite the articles on primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources in the article namespace, articles that are not intended for policy purposes but for general usage in any of a variety of potential "real-world" uses outside of Wikipedia. (If I weren't assuming good faith, I'd surely draw the conclusion that the goal was to do original research.) In other words, it's not true that PSTS is inaccurate, only that it's a general method of demarcating sources, and as such is perfectly appropriate as an editorial policy for a large and diverse endeavor such as Wikipedia. But even if it were true that PSTS is "inaccurate", it would still be totally reasonable for Wikipedia to say "this is what we mean by PSTS", and would stilll be perfectly appropriate as an editorial policy for a large and diverse endeavor such as Wikipedia.

As to why it's in WP:NOR, it's in WP:NOR because it pertains directly to WP:NOR, and because Wikipedians including J.Wales learned fairly early in the development of the wiki that saying "stick to the sources" was not sufficient. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You can say that again. Avb 19:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Neutral point of view" and "verifiability" are not terms of art that have well-known definitions in other fields. There are many problems with Wikipedia having its own Bizarro World definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources:

1. It leads to confusion. If someone who knows what a primary source is hears somebody say, "You can't cite that source because it's a primary source, and isn't backed-up with a secondary source that repeats the same thing", they will misunderstand, and will think that the speaker is referring to the terms as defined outside Wikipedia. There's no "signpost" to tell the reader that the Wikipedia definition of primary source differs from the academic one. In that sense, it differs from Verifiability and NPOV, which are usually designated by Wikilinks, so you know you are talking about the policy.
2. Basing the definitions on some editor's view of what the terms mean violates WP:V and WP:OR. Do we at all respect these policies, or understand what they are for? We have verifiability to make sure that definitions are tethered to the real world outside Wikipedia. Doing so prevents edit wars, and the rationale behind this is the same for mainspace articles as it is for policy pages. As far as possible, we don't want to base Wikipedia policy on some editor's unverified research, particularly when that research contradicts the verifiable sources that are available. Verifiable definitions are always preferred over original research definitions.
3. Creating new "alternate-universe" definitions re-invents the wheel, and is redundant.
4. It will be almost impossible to achieve consensus on using a definition that conflicts with standard academic practice.

COGDEN 05:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) What do we have here...

A-class statements:

• Supposedly PSTS is in NOR because it pertains to NOR.
• Supposedly PSTS is necessary because "Wikipedians including J.Wales [learned that] 'stick to the sources' was not sufficient."
• Supposedly "the distinction between sources has 'long' been considered at Wikipedia a necessary one"
• Supposedly "[the distinction is necessary] in light of how primary sources can be misused"
• Supposedly <XYZ> in article ABC demonstrates something or the other.

B-class statements:

• PSTS is used to show people "how things are done around here."
• PSTS is a set of "commands."
• PSTS is a "trump card."

C-class statements:

• Supposedly all policies are inexact.
• Supposedly all policies are inexact but it is necessary to make PSTS exact.
• Supposedly all policies are inexact but it is necessary to make PSTS exact using novel definitions of 'primary', 'secondary' and 'tertiary' sources.

What we really have here is empirical evidence for two things:

1. Some editors won't refrain from OR even when discussing OR.

2. Some editors need some catch-all "policy" to rub people's nose into, and think NOR PSTS is such a policy.

3. Some editors think that

• a) secondary sources are less susceptible to abuse than primary sources, and
• b) that it is the susceptibility to abuse that makes primary sources undesirable, and
• c) a novel description of 'primary' is the way to minimize susceptibility to abuse

Cui prodest scelus is fecit?

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel all better now? The list is long but it's also largely sophistical. Policies are one of the few areas of WP where editors do determine the content: not PSTS published sources, but editors via consensus. The final question may have been whimsical flourish, but wouldn't it be more apropos to ask this about the editors trying to kill the PSTS clause altogether than to those urging it be left in WP:NOR, as it's been for about two years now?Professor marginalia (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The list is long, but doesn't reflect my arguments. Somehow I'm not surprised. As to whimsical flourish, while also echoing PM's turning of the table, I would like to remind everyone of another even more famous Seneca (the younger) quote: errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum. Enough already. Thank you. Avb 01:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is trying to kill PSTS? I haven't seen any proposal to do that, only to move it out of a "Policy" and into a more appropriate "Guideline", where the definitions can be more easily cleaned up (read that as made more correct) and still referenced as part of this policy (and other policies). Doing so makes this policy easier to read quickly and understand what its supposed to mean, and gets all of these discussions about what is a primary vs. a secondary off of this policy. How does that weaken this policy? wbfergus ^Talk 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it more appropriate as a guideline? If indeed no one is trying to kill PSTS, they most certainly are trying to dumb it down to the point where it is non-functional -- think of it as mors in animo sed corpore non. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it (PSTS) is inaccurate, and the definitions are only loosely related to what is used in the library sciences, but not the other disciplines people tend to write about (though it doesn't state that), it obfusticates the core content of the policy, which is simply "No Original Research". Many people, especially editors "new" to the policies, who came here because somebody challeneged one of their edits on the grounds of OR or something else, winds up getting sidetracked away from what is "Original Research" and why it prohibited, especially if they come from a discipline that has a different definition for primary or secondary sources. If PSTS was simply moved into a guideline, and included as policy by reference, the policy is not weakened, but the policy becomes clearer to others seeing it for the first time. How many people other than those who have been invloved in these discussions actually look at this policy? I'd wager the proportion is rather small. Most "editors" who come to Wikipedia don't read the policies until one of their edits is challenged (and/or reverted). For these editors (who make up the bulk of Wikipedia editors), the more concise and clear policies are, the less confusion there would be, and probably fewer edit wars. This in turn would hopefully lead to more efficient use of everybody's time, actually improving articles per a clear set of policies, instead of editors of various articles arguing about what a policy really means. wbfergus ^Talk 17:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

An example I just ran across may be this, United States physiographic region. For the database we have at work, we needed this information. But, our database also needed similar information for the rest of the world. I wound up having to go down the hall to our library, and after about 6 months of research and work, I wound up compiling a list of all identified physiographic regions in the world. Near as I can tell, very little has published on these, except for the maps I was able to find from which I compiled my master list. Now, the current PSTS section doesn't include these as a primary source, though for my use, they were primary. They were published, back in the 1920's or so, by various map-makers, so maybe they could be considered semi-secondary sources, but they themselves were original and also contained original analysis, interpretation, etc. They haven't been the discussion of any books, articles, etc. that I was ever able to find (with the exception of North America), hence there is no other secondary source available. I could make this information available here on Wikipedia, in the hope that it would be of some use to others who may be interested. I've tried to give it away to others in my organization, thinking I've already done all thegrunt work, they (somebody) could just take it and create a publication in short order, since that's how many in our organization get promoted. But, after 8 years, all the information is still sitting in my office gathering dust. In order for me to include it here though, I would have to make some statements that would be original research though, like the number of different physiographic 'regions' (divisions, provinces and sections) worldwide, etc. With the flawed and inaccurate PSTS section this policy currently has, I might be able to get away with it, claiming that most of my claims were based upon secondary sources, and I could probably make a good case that they are. But, in the very strictest sense, they are primary sources and nobody else has ever compiled the contents and conclusions from the maps into one cohesive reference. If PSTS was moved out of the policy into a separate guideline, which in turn could (would) have complete descriptions of what constitutes what type of source for which discipline, etc., then this problem could be easily solved one way or another. Either I could supply this information or I couldn't. As it is, it's debateable and confusing. wbfergus ^Talk 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It would help if the information could be reviewed online. Accepting for now that it is as straightforward, innocuous and encyclopedic as presented here, I see no reason to exclude it from WP or to redesign PSTS so as to keep it out. Other rules might apply though, for example if the material gives rise to WP:SYN concerns. Avb 18:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord. wbfergus isn't asking your for your opinion on its validity. He's demonstrating a) how meaningless a differentiation of PSTS is, b) how PSTS subverts/undermines other policies (here V).

-- Fullstop (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. My first sentence asked for the material since he clearly wants to add the info to the encyclopedia and I would be glad to help. For the rest, he's saying that PSTS is not an obstacle to including the material which is not a very good way to convince me that PSTS should be removed or rewritten to keep it out, as to me it looks like material that should not be kept out. Also, if you want to express irritation, perhaps you could choose other words than "Lord"? I, for one, would appreciate that. Thank you. Avb 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Never mind. FM is right; I'm wasting my time here. Avb 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

One problem I would initially have is they are only maps (large maps). Along the sides of the maps, they made a table listing the physiographic regions depicted on the map. So for all intents and purposes, the map itself is the only source. So, to include the information here, I would basically be able to scan in the map (once I found a large enough scanner), and basically leave it at that. In a few cases, I was able to search for a few of the physiographic names and get some additional background information, so in those cases there is a little bit of secondary source material, but only as it pertains to a few of the hundreds of physiographic areas. As the policy currently is, I could probably get the information included, as it doesn't specifically prohibit it. But, after being on this talk page for the last three months or so, I know that by doing so, I would probably be subverting the intent of this policy if I did. This information could be of use to some people (admittedly, very few), as I was never able to find a complete reference anywhere that contained this information. The main problem is with the PSTS section and the additional stipulations placed on primary source material that don't exist for any of the other source types. I could simply quote the tables included on the maps, and then cite the locations where I found a secondary source for a physiographic region, and then make conclusions based upon those as they could pertain to the other regions, and that would be "legit", as the conclusion, interpretation and explanatory statements would be cited to a secondary source, even if it was incomplete and didn't cover all of the area I made my statements about. Does anybody else see how including flawed definitions in a policy overly complicates the issue? This should be something that's eaasy to decide, either I can or I can't. Instead, there's a huge gray area that this could fall in, depending on how I decided to word things. wbfergus ^Talk 12:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Incidentally, 'scelus' ("crime, iniquity, sacrilege") referred to

a) the comment by FeloniousMonk that generated the responses immediately above my comment. That statement reads "Move along, there's nothing to see here now."

b) the removal of the "{{Policycontroversy}}" template on the WP:NOR page, again by FeloniousMonk.
Both appear to forget that it is a Wikipedia principle that everything must be answerable for. The tone and language are also not appropriate for a Wikipedian intent on doing whats right for the community. But then again, I'm probably expecting too much.

• But that is not what my comment was about, so what is really interesting is that no one has commented on any observation I made.

The closest thing to a response is a trite "editors via consensus," even though consensus is quite obviously not present.

Or, does WP also have a novel definition of "consensus" too?

• PSTS is more appropriate somewhere else because

a) because PSTS has nothing to do with NOR, and no evidence to the contrary has yet been forwarded. (btw, just asserting that it is "important" (etc, etc) is not evidence).

b) because PSTS contributes nothing to an understanding of what OR is. (the proof in the pudding is the fact that several editors think that a differentiation of PSTS is a prerequisite to understanding what OR is)

c) because PSTS undermines other policies, by - for example - stating things are "reliable" (or not) by virtue of them being "secondary" or "primary" ad nauseum.

d) because PSTS is already non-functional, itself explicitly contradicting its own supposed purpose.

e) because it became "policy" by non-procedural means. By feature creep that is, that has since come to pervert the original idea behind a mention of a type of source.

f) although the necessity of a PSTS section in NOR policy has been questioned many times, not once has anyone addressed this. Instead, the arguments always run along the lines of "primary sources are dangerous."

g) although the applicability of a PSTS section to NOR policy has been questioned many times, not once has anyone addressed this. Instead, the arguments always run along the lines of "primary sources are dangerous."

If, as is frequently asserted, PSTS were really policy material, it should have no problem becoming policy. But... evidently editors so fear that PSTS would not pass, that they won't allow it to take the test.

-- Fullstop (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(back to the regular scheduled programming, i.e. wbfergus' two comments above)

In terra caecorum, homo monoculus claudus rex est. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Blinded by the Light, it would appear. ;) On the album "The Roaring Silence." Says it all, no? Crippled or otherwise. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Video lucis hic non. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

take your time addressing the points. They aren't going away, but I can repeat them if you so desire. The silence is still deafening. ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ubi o ubi est meus sububi?--Father Goose (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this text introduced as and additions insert at 09:12, 22 November 2007 by Dave souza:

• Where the primary source itself makes analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, assert facts about the claims, but do not assert the claims themselves. Attribute the claim to someone and discuss the fact that they make this claim.

Because as should be obvious from the conversation above I did not interpret the clauses already in place to make this restriction and that it was added suggests that others did not either. I think it makes a very large change to the use of primary sources and should be discussed further to see if there is a consensus for such a change before it is made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of Dave souza's text, and believe it should never be reintroduced. As a counterargument to this clause, consider an announcement on the web site of a state highway department declaring that a certain bridge is unsafe and has been closed. This is a reliable source. The state highway department announcement is a primary source because (1) the highway department is close to the situation and (2) they didn't rely on any published primary sources; their employees looked at the bridge with their own eyes. A statement that the bridge is unsafe is an evaluation. According to Dave sousa, Wikipedia can only write "According to X state highway department, bridge Y is unsafe" and it would be improper for Wikipedia to write "Bridge Y is unsafe". I disagree. (In any case, a citation to the state highway department's website would be necessary.) --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC), modified 01:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Garry Ashton muddeies the waters here by mixing up NOR and V. Wikipedia is based on "verifiability, not truth,\." It is absolutely our policy to report 'not tht "Bridge Y is unsafe" but tat "According to X state highway department, bridg Y is unsafe." ut why are we discussing this natter here? "Verifiability" should be discussed on the V page. This page is to talk about NOR not anothe policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Provided the source website is cited, we can certainly write "bridge Y is unsafe" because the source is sufficiently reliable that we can treat it as an established fact, not a claim by a potentially biased source. And we are discussing it here because an editor attempted to make an unwise modification to THIS policy. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Moreover, as Slrubenstein also points out, Wikipedia is based on "verifiability, not truth."

But "verifiability not truth" applies to every statement, irrespective of type of source. Consequently, a differentiation of source types does nothing to enhance any policy or any understanding of one. All it does is muddy the waters. ;)

Instead, what the addendum did was attribute features/functions/restrictions to "primary sources" even though these features/functions/restrictions (like much other junk in PSTS) are not specific to primary sources.

The addition was not fundamentally false, after all, all statements have to be verifiable. But the addition was neither appropriate w.r.t PSTS (because its not specific to type of source) nor is it appropriate w.r.t NOR (because the addition is actually about V).

And, its really not necessary to provide every possible permutation of words to express "statements must be verifiable."

-- Fullstop (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about using a novel as a source for a statement about the author

An Edwardian-era author has some books available online. I skimmed through a couple but stopped reading after finding blatantly racist passages. The Wikipedia article on this author doesn't mention racism. I can't find an academic who's studied her. Would mentioning the racism and providing the relevant chapters of her novels as references stand up to this Wikipedia policy? WikiJedits (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be original research. You are making an evaluative claim by stating that the passages are racist. You must have secondary sources for such a claim. --Farix (Talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If the book is obviously racist, and stating so would not be controversial, then its racism is verifiable without a citation. Anything that is verifiable is not considered original research. COGDEN 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Value judgements that require interpretation of meaning must be attributable to a RS. —Viriditas | Talk 05:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

*Any* interpretation you do yourself is OR.

Although, Cogden's note is fundamentally correct since if it were verifiable it would not be "original," he appears to have missed that you wish to use the "novel as a source for a statement about the author."

"Blatantly racist passages" are not unambiguous indications that the author is a racist. This is a connection you are making yourself. It could just as well be (for example) that the author is using racism as a literary instrument in order to further the story.

Also, "blatant racism" is not necessarily as "blatant" as you might think. "Racism" is not a universally applicable term: For one, what we call "racism" could just as well be good ol' British imperialism. For another, it is not safe to apply 21st century terms to (the attitudes of) the 1910s.

-- Fullstop (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you could say that the author has written things that would now be considered racist, but since you can't actually apply any analysis or make any conclusions based on it (and you would still need a source to prove that it is racist by today's standards), it would be a fairly meaningless statement. Mr.Z-man 04:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's a statement about the author, that might be different, but if it's a statement about the works, I see no problem. It's not actually true that any interpretation you do yourself is OR. Any verifiable interpretation is not OR. And obvious, non-controversial interpretations are verifiable. COGDEN 04:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiable" means that I can find a RS calling the work "racist". It does not mean that an "obvious non-controversial interpretation", which in this example is a value judgment, is acceptable for inclusion at any time. Values change, and so do interpretations. If the work is widely considered racist, then it will be extremely easy to source that opinion. —Viriditas | Talk 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A statement only requires a source if people are likely to disagree with it. See WP:V. Thus, if it's not controversial, and obvious, you don't need any source (primary, secondary, or otherwise). COGDEN 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a narrow and selective misinterpretation of basic guidelines and policies. We require source for all interpretations. You cannot call a work of literature (or anything else for that matter) "racist" solely based on your opinion. —Viriditas | Talk 06:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree in the least with Cogden's advice here--a conclusion like "racist" is exactly the sort of conclusion which is OR and must be found, not concluded on your own. If the OR rule has any purpose at all, it is to prevent this sort of personal evaluation on what may after all be controversial. If one person says "racist" another might say "only slightly racist, considering the period", and the debates will begin. It is precisely not the role of WP to engage in that sort of debate.

But there is a way to handle this: simply quote a passage. The reader will be able to judge. DGG (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's any disagreement that material is racist, then yes, you need a source. But if a statement in a book is obviously racist, and nobody reasonable would disagree—and we all know what those statements are—then no source is needed. It just depends on the facts. But just because you have no source does not automatically mean that it isn't verifiable. COGDEN 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. All interpretations require sources, and some are better than others. —Viriditas | Talk 06:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V, which says that the only material which requires a reliable source is "quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged". COGDEN 12:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOR, which says "any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation." —Viriditas | Talk 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, an editor making such a claim about the author is very likely to be challenged. So, its going to need a source anyway.

But the source, which in this case is a novel by the author, is not a source on the author. The editor is thus taking things out of context, which is OR.

-- Fullstop (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Golden_Plates#Metal_plates_outside_the_Latter_Day_Saint_tradition and see if it passes the OR test? None of the sources used in that section say anything about LDS. —Viriditas | Talk 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a perfect example of coatracking (WP:COAT), leading the reader to believe that two unconnected issues are connected.

The section violates OR because:

• The sources being cited are being applied to a context (the subject of the article) for which they were not written.
• Even when the individual statements are not an OR violation per-se, daisy-chaining sentences that are not explicitly about the same subject is synthesis.

There are two ways to solve the problem:

• Make the (presently implied) connection explicit, for example with "Several plate inscriptions are considered 'related' to the Golden plates. These include ..."
• Move the content of that section out from the LDS context to a neutral one (eg "Plate inscriptions" or "Epigraphy#On metal"). The neutral context can then be referred to (or See also hatnoted) from the Golden plates article.

The cited references are however only legitimate when used with the second option.

Does that help? The problem you've identified with this section should probably be brought to Cogden's attention. The article's edit history suggests that he is familiar with the subject. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you've helped greatly. I have no desire to annoy Cogden, so I will leave the outcome of this in the hands of other editors. —Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on the article, but not on that particular section. I think it could be fixed by actual citations to articles making the argument described in the first sentence of the section. I'm pretty sure this information is verifiable (ergo not OR), just not yet cited, but I'm not familiar with the apologetic literature making those claims. I'll see what I can "dig up", so to speak. COGDEN 00:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all the replies. I did not expect so many or to jump into the middle of a big issue. Cogden is correct, I meant to say the novels contained racist passages, not to label the author. But I understand the point about personal evaluation, and it applies both to a statement about the author or about her novels.

Her work seems hardly read at all any more, though it was bestseller popular a century ago, so it is not extremely easy to source an opinion that those passages would today be read as racist. Google Scholar does come up with a few hits for the author's name (some in articles from the 30s and 40s), but these are in publications locked to people without university access accounts. It may have to wait for someone with academic credentials do this.

Also appreciate the advice about quoting the novels, but I don't want to put material I myself consider racist up on Wikipedia. Thanks again and good luck with your consensus building. I appreciate you all taking the time to look at my question. WikiJedits (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How is the current practice harmful? Or is it?

Many editors are citing primary sources (such as peer-reviewed journals). It appears to be common practice on Wikipedia as well as in encyclopedias in general.

The policy holds that primary sources are unacceptable.

Should they be unacceptable?

Why?

The Transhumanist    00:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See my comment just above. Primary literature in the natural-sciences sense (such as peer-reviewed journals) is no problem at all. Primary sources in the historian's sense (such as historical documents) are the problem. Two unrelated concepts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy doesn't hold that primary (close to the subject being written about) sources are unacceptable, it holds that they should be treated with particular care to avoid going beyond the source and introducing synthesis or unsupported value judgements. Note that primary sources also includes self published sources which meet WP:RS in the context of an article about themselves, but which are generally unreliable. ... dave souza, talk 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, for the purposes of this policy, many peer-reviewed journals are considered secondary sources. I agree that this sort of nitpicking should not be necessary, but it's necessary for people who want to pick nits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Apply WP:RS common sense. PSTS is if/then/unless hell. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "primary sources" is also problematic. There is no universal definition, and the one we have now is inconsistent with the examples. For example, why is a photograph a primary source? It is the work of the photographer, not the subject. Photographs should not be interpreted by editors, but not because they are close to the subject being written about. Dhaluza (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)