Wikipedia talk:No original research

Archives

See also Wikipedia talk:Proposal to replace No Original Research

Proposal for second section

Per discussion, I revised the introduction, taking into account coments and edits by other people active here.

I would not like to propose to change the following section, "What is excluded." I have three problems with this. first, it opens up not with a statement about what is excluded, but with the motivation behind the policy, so the title of the section and part of the contents are inconsistent. Second, the list of what is excluded seems ad hoc. Third, following sections explain in greater detail what is excluded and why.

Here is what I propose: since we are still debating primary versus secondary sources and what is actually included and excluded, I suggest that instead of calling this section "What is excluded" let's follow the lead of the first sentence and make it a section about what motivated the policy i.e. its origins. Such a section can discuss things that have traditionally been excluded, but in the context of the history of the proposal. I think this explanation of the history would be educational.

ALL I am proposing right now is to change the second section. I am not proposing anything about the third or following sections (on sources and synthesis).

here is what I propose:

---

Origins of the policy

The core policy of Wikipedia, NPOV is meant to provide a framework whereby editors with diverse, often conflicting, even opposing points of view can collaborate on the creation of an encyclopedia. It does so through the principle that while it is often hard for people to agree as to what is the truth, it is much easier for people to agree as to what they and others believe to be the truth. Therefore, Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criteria for inclusion. Instead, it aims to account for different, notable views of the truth. First codified in February 2002, the objective of the NPOV policy is to produce an unbiased encyclopedia.

In the year that followed a good deal of conflict on article talk pages involved accusations that editors were violating NPOV, and it became clear that this policy, which provided a philosophical foundation for Wikipedia, needed to be supplemented. Wikipedians developed the concept of "verifiability" as a way of ensuring the accuracy of articles by encouraging editors to cite sources; this concept was established as a policy in August 2003. Verifiability was also promoted as a way to ensure that notable views would be represented, under the assumption that the most notable views were easiest to document with sources. Notability is especially imortant because while NPOV encourages editors to add alternative points of view to an article, it does not claim that all views are equal. Although NPOV does not claim that some views are more truthful than others, it does acknowledge that some views are held by more people than others. Accurately representing a view therefore also means explaining who holds the view and whether it is a majority or minority view.

Soon it became evident that editors who rejected a majority view would often marshall sources to argue that a minority view was superior to a majority view - or would even add sources in order to promote the editor's own view. Therefore, the NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The original motivation for NOR was to prevent editors from introducing fringe views in science, especially physics - or from excluding verifiable views that, in the judgement of editors, were wrong . It soon became clear that the policy should apply to any editor trying to introduce his or her own views into an article (and thus a way to distinguish Wikipedia from Everything 2). In its earliest form the policy singled out edits that:

• introduce a theory of method of solution;
• introduce original ideas;
• define terms; or
• introduce neologisms

for exclusion, and established that

• ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal; or
• ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

as criteria for inclusion.

References

---

As before my attitude has been conservative, to try to preserve as much as the previous content as possible. I have attempted to make the layout more consistent and clearer. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if it sticks, but first we need to unprotect the page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be a long time before we un-protect. I feel strongly we need to resolve the debate over primary/secondary sources, and that is likely going to take time. But like othes, I suspect, i would like to see forward movement. Perhaps if no one objects to this change, an dmin can make it without unprotecting the page. I am suggesting that if we can agree on a change, someone make it, while we continue to confront contentious issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's follow process then, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Vote for this addition to the policy page

Okay, this proposal has been sitting here for 9 days without any objections as to it's content. This proposal does nothing to change existing policy or any of the policy proposals. All it does is add a brief history of the policy and its evolution. I would like to move past this 'subject' so it can be archived, and this page can concentrate solely on more pressing issues. What is concensus here, so that I know whether or not I can ask an Admin to make this change? Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 11:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In case anybody misses the post near the bottom of this page, I have added the above "Origins" to the policy. If I was incorrect in there being a clear concensus on this, feel free to revert.

wbfergus ^Talk 13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Votes to ask for adding Origins of the policy

• Agree wbfergus ^Talk 11:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree provides the necessary context for an easier understanding of this policy, and it is brilliantly written. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - time for some forward movement. WAS 4.250 15:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - absolutely, clarifies the intent of everything else, gives meaningful context, and really not fault I can discern. SamBC(talk) 17:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• agree - very clear and as Jossi points out it provides necessary context for users who have difficulty understanding the policy--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• agree well, obviously ... and reminding people that it has a narow purpose, to explain the origin of the policy in the context of the other two core content policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree This section is necessary, especially for new users or tendentious editors, in order to explain how and why we've gotten to this point. I made a few edits re typos and grammar, but made no edits that changed the meaning. In fact, other than a few things I would have phrased differently due to my own personal tastes, I think this section as proposed by Slrubenstein is excellent! •Jim62sch• 13:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Votes against adding Origins of the policy

• Disagree. First, we shouldn't be voting on what the history of Wikipedia was. If this gets approved and I want to edit this, I should edit it and not have to face claims that the exact language is official policy we voted on. Second, nothing in this section is an actual rule, it's just commentary - an essay. It's reasonable to have a brief "rationale" section that explains what a policy is accomplishing today and how it fits in with other policies. But a policy page shouldn't have a secondary function of teaching history or context. Third, it's just too wordy and impertinent. Fine for an essay, too much digression and fluff for a policy page. Wikidemo 12:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Many policies provide rationales for the policy. How the policy came into being is part of the rationale. The current policy has - and has had for a long time - an explanation of the origins. So having an origins section is not radical. My intention in this rewrite of the section was to be more informative and clearer. Could I have done a better job? Help out! As for editing it - well, for starts, if you have a sugestion right now, why not make it? This voting process is only (like most votes) a poll. There is no reason why it can't be combined with making suggestions to improve the proposed section. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Careful what you ask for. Setting aside the spelling errors, long footnote, dig about an obscure competitor to Wikipedia, and extensive homage to Jimmy Wales (we certainly don't need any more of that in the policy pages), I would gut the historical context and say, if anything, why this policy is here and what it has to do with Wikipedia. I condensed this on the fly, and this would need more work, but I would replace the proposal in full with something like:

Reason for this policy

Wikipedia is a place where editors with diverse, often conflicting, points of view collaborate on the creation of an encyclopedia. As per WP:NPOV it is harder to agree on the truth than to agree on what people believe to be the truth. Therefore, Wikipedia does not address "truth" in any objective sense. Instead, Wikipedia is an unbiased compendium of notable schools of thought.

Verifiability is the way Wikipedia ensures that the most significant views are represented, under the assumption that the most notable views were easiest to document with sources. Not all views are equally significant. Some are held by more people than others. Accurately representing a view requires explaining who holds the view and whether it is a majority or minority view. When an editor creates new material specifically for a Wikipedia article, and cannot cite whether any reliable sources share the same conclusion, we have no way to know if the view is significant or not, and therefor exclude it as original research.

(list of items is impertinent - if we're still banning them, include in policy)

-- Wikidemo 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong to have, for a change, something in a policy page that makes perfect sense and that is wonderfully written. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think we should wait a while longer but if the discussion so far is any indication, there could well be a consensus to include this information. Can I please put in a request that if that happens we do so in a way that does not further complicate the organization and structure of the page? We also need to avoid redundancy. It's already fairly long and hard to read, particularly for some of the new editors we most want to reach. There are already multiple Jimbo quotes, footnotes, context statements, explanations, historical comments, etc. Could we do our best to consolidate these various things into sections labeled "history", "rationale", "background", etc., that are clearly set off from things like definitions and rules about what editors are supposed to do and refrain from doing? Thx.Wikidemo 14:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your constructive approach, and while I myself consider ways to edit down what I proposed, Let me just point out one thing: different people hae different learning styles. This means there is a value to presenting the same information in different ways. Nothing stops a newbie fromskipping a section that is unhelpful to them. For example, for people who want to get right to the point, we hcae the policy in a nutshell. Some people may think that is all we need to say, others would want far more explanation with lots of examples. I agre with you in general that the policy page should be well-organized and straightforward. Just understand that an explanation that you find confusing and irritating, others will find helpful and enjoyable to read - and vice verso. No one is wrong, people just have different learning styles. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I am generally given to a terse writing style, this is one instance where terseness would lead to more confusion. The genesis of the policy needs to be clearly and fully explained. (BTW: impertinent is decidely the wrong word.)•Jim62sch• 14:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Good points Wikidemo. Thanks for those. After reading them I tend to agree, but I think the brief "history in a nutshell" may still be useful to the policy, if not actually part of the policy. Maybe either a sub-page or a separate article, so the concerns you raised are alleviated? wbfergus ^Talk 13:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A little looking shows that WP:NPOV has a (large) section devoted to the history of that policy however. I don't know if this will change anybody's opinion though. wbfergus ^Talk 14:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to pick up on the protection issue. I think it is a little harsh assuming that the page has to be protected for the primary/secondary source debate now ensuing. This is not the same debate that there was edit warring over. I don't think anyone involved in the new debate has suggested radical surgery as yet, and even if they wished to, we could assert that it was a legitimate BRD manoeuvre. It would seem to me that the sensible approach would be to relax a bit: unprotect the page, apply the edit and see what unfolds. 'Tis the work of a moment to re-protect and revert (we could even agree that the rollback point is now if that would help). Spenny 15:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Ok... I think we are at the stage where we agree on the basic principals (1) we want to talk about material and not sources (2) the issue we want to adress is the misuse of primary materials - eitors taking those materials out of context and making analytical, interpretive, or conclusionary statements from them. (3) All but the most basic analytical, interpretive or conclusionary statements included in our articles should be backed by reliable sources (defined as secondary material) that contains the same analysis, interpretation or conclusion.

Now to the hard part... drafting language. As a starting point, I am going to actually propose the language I drafted above (in my "what if we just swapped words" thread). We probably need to edit it further (for example: dropping the tertiary material section?). But I think it may get us off to a good start. Anyone disagree? Blueboar 12:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. wbfergus ^Talk 12:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that "nope" as in "I reject the proposal"... or "nope" as in "no problems here"? Blueboar 12:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a "Nope" as in "Nope, I don't disagree. Go ahead and try your hand at it. The worst that can happen is after a lively debate it's not accepted. wbfergus ^Talk 12:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue the policy as a whole must address is the misuse of all materials, not only primary. Maybe you mean in this particular discussion about the policy we're only addressing the misuse of primary material. Anyway, I see no problem so far in how you're proceeding. Thanks again. --Coppertwig 17:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, continue. Since you've said it I'll point out that you also now have to clarify "all but the most basic." That's 4 more words than "all," and the added four words make a difference. The words can't be left vague in a policy. I'm not trying to be difficult and I don't ask you to change the order in which you do things, just want to say that at some point that need has to be addressed - unless before then you're convinced by others to take out those 4 words. --Minasbeede 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would be comfortable saying just "All statements of analysis, interpretation or conclusion..." Blueboar 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I agree with wbfergus, above. "Go ahead and try your hand at it. The worst that can happen is after a lively debate it's not accepted." As you will be debating language with which I don't agree I'd rather let you just debate it until it's as you think it needs to be. It's not an easy task and I don't want to make it harder. --Minasbeede 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if no one objects, then can we get an admin to unlock the page and export the draft? Or do we need more drafting? 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

I object to the wording of the draft but I don't object to the change. I can say now what it is I object to or I can wait. If even a few would be happy with making the change that would be something. --Minasbeede 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, for the reasons I stated above. Defining "primary materials" (the presumptively bad one) as anything that doesn't contain an analysis doesn't address the whole point of this article, which is Original Research. Citing "primary materials", as you have defined them, is not original research. Even if citing them is bad (which I don't think is true), citing them is not original research, and has nothing to do with original research. Indeed, it is impossible to commit original research when citing "primary material" alone. Actually, original research can only happen when you cite "secondary materials", which according to this definition would include an editor's original, unpublished interpretation of the "primary material". My own pet interpretation of the Gospels is "secondary material". It's not reliable of course, but I think the revised definitions don't get us anywhere, and are likely to lead to more confusion, since we refer to reliable sources as "sources", and these definitions contradict the established academic definitions of primary and secondary sources. COGDEN 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cogden... keep up... you are disagreeing to a proposal that has already been set aside as other proposals have been put forward. :>) ... as for the rest of your comments... While the point is somewhat moot (as we seem to be moving away from even "primary material" etc.), I very much disagree that it is imposible to commit original research when citing primary material alone. Take the Constitution of the US... that is primary material (in fact it is a text book example of a primary source as well). If an editor writes something like: "It is fact that US citizens have a constitutional right to own handguns" and cites the constitution to back that statement, the editor is indeed committing original research. He/she is inserting his/her own interpretation the constitution. To make it not OR, he/she needs to cite some other source that includes this interpretation. Blueboar 19:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Other reasons why the proposal is confusing and probably counter-productive:

• All "secondary material" is by definition a primary source, because it contains original analyses and conclusions.
• Most primary sources, if they are published, are "secondary material", because to get something published you usually have to say something new, and make conclusions.
• Some secondary sources are "primary materials", because they simply convey previously-published information without further analysis.
• Some "material" is neither "primary" or "secondary". For example, a source that contains conclusions, but does not draw on "primary material" to make those conclusions, falls into this limbo.

COGDEN 19:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Squaring the circle

Let me be clear: I think this is a generally commendable policy, but one that can often be used in bad faith by "wikilawyers" or by people who just like to waste other people's time (like if someone says, "There is no citation here for the claim that these two words rhyme", and while that example is hypothetical, it's not exaggerated.)

I think two major things need to be added to the policy page:

1. A clear statement near the outset of the intent of this policy, which I would summarize roughly as:
   1. Keep Wikipedia free of non-notable pseudo-science and crackpottery.
   2. Help to assure that articles that provide interpretation of literature, history, etc. present the thinking of those who are generally considered authorities in the relevant field, not those of random people.
   3. Help to assure that factual claims are reliable.
2. Link explicitly to Wikipedia:These are not Original Research, which may need to be renamed and/or become a more balanced discussion, but which is a necessary corrective to the over-literal mentality that prevails among a lot of our contributors, perhaps especially those who are more familiar with areas in which strict rules must be followed (games-playing, citation style in college term papers, for two examples) than with those that require some judgment in weighing conflicting imperatives.

- Jmabel | Talk 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar is working on a revision of the wording of the policy. Can you help with that, perhaps, at the appropriate time, suggest wording changes like those suggested above?

This discussion has been going on for some time. The main policy page has been locked for close to 24 days already and is probably going to soon be locked again. It would be good to concentrate effort on the particular part of the policy that is the source of contention. My solution would be other than rewording the policy but I favor an effort to improve the wording. That (improving the wording) appears to be productive. --Minasbeede 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The essay is a good idea and makes some valid points. However, it does need a serious revision. Any assistance in revising the essay would be appreciated. Vassyana 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made some significant revisions to the essay. Feedback and assistance would be appreciated. Vassyana 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were good; I made one further one, which I hope will be uncontroversial. What do you think of the idea of pointing explicitly to that essay from the "see also" section of the policy page? - Jmabel | Talk 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Your clarification was excellent and exactly in line with how I was trying to tighten and rework the essay. I would definitely support linking the essay from the main NOR page, as it would help mitigate the wikilawyering that you and others have pointed out occurs. Vassyana 00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted one change you made (about how to deal with typos & misspellings) because your change ignored or contradicted the intent of the essay -- which is to argue that intelligent use of material should never be confused with original research. And IMHO, slavishly repeating every letter of a text is not intelligent use -- which is why I wrote it how it reads. This is an essay -- the expression of an opinion -- not a statement of policy. It should be quoted when someone agrees with it & believes it expresses why they took some action; it should not be quoted as if it were policy. If you don't agree with it then write your own essay -- don't rewrite mine. -- llywrch 01:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to you on the essay's talk page, but please remember you don't own articles in the Wikipedia namespace. If you wish it to reflect solely your own views, please keep it to your userspace. Vassyana 19:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

An alternative proposal

This is an alternative to Blueboar's proposal. I would have no objection to changing the word "sources" to "materials." it also may be possible to incorporate elements of Blurboar's proposal and mine. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I will again object to the distinction between secondary and tertiary sources. Even experts admit the distinction is often a big grey line and difficult to determine. Review literature and textbooks are among the most reliable sources, and as such should not be divorced from reliable secondary sources in general. The main need for any such distinction is the desire to not be derivative of other encyclopedias, but they are a very limited subset of tertiary sources. The concern about being derivative of other encyclopedias is a valid one, but I don't think it has a whit to do with original research. For our purposes here, distinguishing between primary and secondary material is quite sufficient. Vassyana 20:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First, let me know Blueoar's version makes the same distinctions. Second, I tried to respond to your (and others) concerns in my rewording. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the caveat at the end, but I think it's a bit insufficient considering the block of text preceding it prejudices against tertiary sources. As I said, I also think it's completely superfluous to a discussion of original research. To be clear, beyond that, I think this is an excellent draft proposal. A single sentence at the end of secondary sources mentioning the problem with being derivative of other encyclopedias would suffice without delving into the secondary/tertiary divide. (I am aware Blueboar's draft makes the same distinction and I have similarly objected.) Vassyana 21:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Being clear, my objection is based on the observation that encyclopedias (the real "problem") are a very limited and small subset, while the majority of such sources are particularly reliable (such as review literature and textbooks). Vassyana 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I have no problem with what you are saying... why not take the relevant sections from the the two drafts and work up a phrasing that incoporates your ideas. In other words let's see some proposed language :>) Blueboar 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid adding another draft, in whole or part, so as not to dilute the discussion further. However, I will work on an example of how secondary and tertiary can be combined, if you feel such a draft would be helpful instead of distracting. Vassyana 00:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Vassyana is right which is why in my version I wrote "However, some encyclopedias and other tertiary sources, such as Annual Reviews, have signed articles, and often articles that explicitly promote the author's own views. In this sense, a tertiary source can also be viewed and treated as a secondary source." perhaps Vassyana thinks this needs to be stated more strongly or clearly, or would suggest a specific change to my proposal? If it is in line with the sentence I just quoted, I am pretty confident I will hav no objection. If it diverges from what I wrote, I am certainly open to suggestions and will try to accommodate or dialogue until we agree. If you think the caveate at the end is simply insufficient, offhand I see two suggestions: (1) beaking it off into a new paragraph exclusively for when tertiary sources are encouraged i.e. one paragra[h that is proscriptive, and another that is prescriptive. OR, (2) divide "tertiaty sources" into two kinds, anonymous and signed. Other ideas? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made two drafts. One combines the secondary/tertiary sections (User:Vassyana/PSTS draft 1). The other alters the focus/thrust of the tertiary sections (User:Vassyana/PSTS draft 2). Cheers! Vassyana 16:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Either of these would work for me. If I had to pick one, I would go for draft 2... but that is not a set in stone choice. Blueboar 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Source-based research

As a more diverse group of editors were drawn to Wikipedia it became clear that other topics besides physics, such as politics and religion, were attracting original research, and the community sought a more systematic way to define original research and to guide editors in avoiding it. These efforts focused on distinguishing between

• different kinds of sources and materials and
• different ways of using sources and materials

Reliable sources

Main pages: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Any statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. A statement that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is a statement for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you.

In general, the most reliable sources are books, journals, magazines, and mainstream newspapers; published by university presses or known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability for exceptions.

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from reliable, verifiable sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways. In order to clarify the distinction between acceptable source-based research, and pohibited original research, Wikipedia distinguishes between three kinds of source materials.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary materials

Most succinctly,

• primary materials are sources of facts
• secondary materials are sources for distinct views of facts
• tertiary materials are summaries of, or generalizations based on, diverse views of facts

More specifically:

• Primary materials include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents; personal diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; raw tabulations of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works (such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs).

Our policy: A Wikipedia article or section of an article can employ primary materials only if the material is used (1) only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) never to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary materials should be careful to comply with both conditions.

• Secondary materials are analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims that are based upon primary materials. It is understood that some sources may contain both primary and secondary materials.

Our policy: Wikipedia articles can include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims (1) only if such claims come from a reliable, verifiable source and (2) the point of view is clearly identified and accurately represented. The conditions that apply to the use of primary materials also applies to the use of primary source material included in secondary sources.

• Tertiary materials draw on secondary materials in order to provide a comprehensive account of a topic. Typical examples include review essays, such as Annual Reviews[1] or Encyclopedia Brittanica[2].

Our policy: Wikipedia strives to be a superb source of tertiary material. Since Wikipedia does not want to be derivative or duplicate other encyclopedias, tertiary materials are often of limited value for Wikipedia research. Annual Reviews and Encyclopedia Brittanica articles often provide extensive bibliographies that are valuable tools for identifying important secondary materials, and therefore of great use to Wikipedia editors. Nevertheless, these and other tertiary materials do not necessarily have the same content policies as Wikipedia and for this reason should not be viewed as authoritative. However, some encyclopedias and other tertiary material, such as Annual Reviews, have signed articles, and often articles that explicitly promote the author's own views. In this sense, tertiary material can also be viewed and treated as a secondary material.

Comments on the alternative proposal

Well, I don't have a problem with the alternative... but I suspect that others may. For one thing, it does not solve the problem that not everyone agrees with our definition of what a "primary source" is. This version certainly defines it in a much clearer way, but it is a definition that is unique to Wikipedia. Personally, I have never had a problem with that... I understand that in Science the term means one thing, in History it means another... while on Wikipedia it means yet something else. When I apply the NOR policy on Wikipedia, I use Wikipedia's definition, just as I would use the Science definition if I were writing a scientific paper. But, based on the comments that keep being raised here... I am not sure if others can make that distinction. Was there a reason you wanted to keep the word "source"? Blueboar 23:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To your last question, habit, on and off Wikipedia. I have no objection to changing it to "materials" if the change makes a diffeence to anyone. As to definitions unique to Wikipedia: I think this is unavoidable because Wikipedia policies address articles covering professional topics (law, architecture, medicine, business), life sciences, physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Our policies must be flexible and inclusive, and the result will be that we will have to rely on terms whose definitions may be unique to Wikipedia. I see no peoblem with that as long as (1) the terms are clearly defined and (2) a given term, or set of terms, is inclusive enough to guide people working on very different kinds of articles.

Blueboar, I think my alternative is more developed than yours so I propose that absent your objections we use it as a working model. However, I also know that you have been noodling around with your proposal in dialogue with a variety of other editors - I think my alternative has value only if you will edit it to incorporate whatever in your proposal you think is an improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem with that... your version is more succinct and much less verbose. Good work. Blueboar 13:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the proposal above and also Vassyana's drafts. Sorry to be a dog with a bone, but I am still struggling to see what the differentiation of sources brings to the party. The list of primary sources still has the issue that as a generalisation it doesn't work. Simple example, TV documentary could well be a sound secondary source. The list does not explain what makes it a source for fact as opposed to a source for opinion and so this simply raises the query - is Pepys' Diary a source of fact or opinion? It also strikes me that the policy statements made aren't really dependent on this source typing. I guess the other observation is that the differentiation on fact and opinion doesn't really hold water with distinguishing with source typing by example, though it is clear that the distinction between fact and opinion is the issue that is being explored by the policy wording (which I think stands up pretty well on its own). Spenny 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ian, this is why we changed from "source" to "material"... we are no longer differentiating different types of sources, we are differentiating different types of source material... the stuff IN the sources. To look at your examples: In most cases, a TV docuementary will contain both primary and secondary material... the parts of it that are primary material (say, for example, raw footage of Vietnam War soldiers carrying wounded men to a helicopter) should not be used to support a conclusion (say: that the number of wounded caused Americans to turn against continuing the war)... but the parts of it that are secondary material (say, the commentary of the narrator, or a shot of a historian talking about the war) can be. Pepy's Diary on the other hand is clealy both a primary source and primary material, and caution should be used when citing it. His diary amounts to being an eyewitness account and should not be used as a source for analytical, interpretive or conclusionary statements about the events he discusses. We can (and I think probably should) quote him in our articles ... but as essentially an eyewitness... for analysis or interpretation of his comments we need to cite to an historian that has performed such analysis and interpretation, and not interpret it ourselves. It is important to remember that this policy does NOT say "don't use primary material" (or even primary sources)... in simply says to be aware that some uses are considered OR. Blueboar 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand, but then that is not what the examples are, they do not do what you have just done, picking out stuff in sources, it is still a list of primary sources. (That is something to consider as a solution). I am commenting on what I am actually reading. However, that does bring out the point, do we want to clearly and explicitly talk about the individual concept under discussion? As it stands that doesn't come out. (I nearly thought about spawning that out as a separate thread, but I am trying to go step by step on this). Spenny 17:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Two points - and if both of you agree, I would ask you to suggest appropriate changes. First, any list is of illustrative examples. By this I mean two things: first, it is not inclusive; second, it is not exclusive by which I mean these things are not always examples of (primary, secondary, etc.) (sources, materials, etc.) This shouldn't be too surprising: an apple pie could be (1) an example of my mom's cooking (2) an example of things you can do with fruit (3) an example of a desert (4) an example of symbols for America etc. This leads to my second point: whether something is a primary or secondary whatever depends on how it is used, the context. perhaps this gets closer to Ian's attmpt to get at the concept; i am suggesting that the concept involves how something is used and in what context. Does this make sense to you guys? If so, what language could more effectively communicate this? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

First... I have done some more tweeking which might solve this (let me know)... but to answer Slrubenstein's question on primary, secondary being based on use... no. Some things are primary by definition and not by use. The US Constitution (for example) is an example of something that is always primary material by definition ... it does not contain any analysis or interpretation... it just IS. We can quote it in our articles, but we can not interpret it or draw our own conclusions from it. For that we need to cite a reliable source such as legal scholar or Supreme Court justice, etc. Blueboar 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Some observations:

• I'm really uncomfortable with making up definitions like "primary materials" and "secondary materials" out of thin air. For one thing, it's confusing. In normal conversation between academics, if you said "primary materials", everyone would assume you meant "primary sources".
• A policy is supposed to document current, previously-consisting Wikipedia practice. Here, we're making up categories that have never been explained or explicitly used before on Wikipedia.
• Since these categories are made up from scratch, rather than growing organically from Wikipedia practice, there are bound to be logical inconsistencies, and there are:

1. The policy says you can never use primary materials in support of interpretive claims. However, diaries, historical documents, census results, interviews, laboratory and field observations, artistic works, and works of fiction may, and usually do, contain interpretive and explanatory claims by the original author. But wait! That means they're also "secondary material", so you can include them. Or can you? I'm confused.
2. The article says, "The conditions that apply to the use of primary materials also applies to the use of primary source material included in secondary sources", but the "primary" section says "never to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". So material that makes analytic claims should never make analytic claims? I'm confused again.

COGDEN 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

protection

I think we are rapidly moving towards consensus. I have no objection to changing "sources" to "materials" in my proposal, which I think would please many other editors here. I have no objection to reworking the section on tertiary materials, in line with Vassyana's concerns, and I have suggested two possible solutions and invited other suggestions.

There has been little criticism of the section on the history of the proposal/its origins that I proposed; but I hope people will at least go over it for style and clarity.

I extended protection another week just so we can focus on these proposals and keep moving towards consensus. Hopefully all current conflicts will be resolved before the week is out. As we move forward any admin can move material into the policy even in its protected state. My intention is that the continued protection give us space to finish the forward movement to consensus on these issues.

By the way, I know Llywrch, Vassyana and others have been working on an essay on what is not original research. I suggest this: that after we achieve agreement on the two proposals (one on originas of the policy, one on materials) we move that essay to this page and consider working on it as a proposed new section of the policy next. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus being reached is, at least as far as I am concerned, a consensus among those who believe this section is proper. I stopped commenting to allow such consensus to be developed.

The test for the source typing section, which it has failed to pass in the past, is for it to exist and to not be the source of repeated objections. By that I mean objections by others, not myself. I remind all editors of WP:consensus, where it says "A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one." There has been a long line of objections to source typing in the past, as can be seen in the history of the talk page.

If you reach real consensus, wonderful. If not it will show.

My somewhat detached language may seem to indicate I am withdrawing from this discussion. That is true. I'm still a party to the mediation request but with 5 holdouts it's highly unlikely mediation will occur so my my absence will not have an impact. In the unlikely event that all agree to mediation I will participate enough to allow the process to work.

There are good Wikipedia reasons to withdraw and good personal reasons. I bow to reason, thankfully. --Minasbeede 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the essay is better left as an essay. It isn't policy, and shouldn't be hammered into looking like policy. It's a discussion of how to interpret policy sanely. Policy as such should stay simple, but there need to be side discussions (guidelines and essays) explaining the subtleties. - Jmabel | Talk 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel about the essay. I'm flattered that some of the ideas I proposed will be incorporated into policy, but in general it's meant as a warning to people who insist on pushing the language of this policy beyond its logical limits -- honest to God, I remember encountering one person who insisted that photographs a Wikipedian take are original research -- while at the same time encouraging people to intelligently follow this policy when writing an article, & not worry about the Wikilawyers. Other points not covered (e.g. Jacob Haller's comment about Neologisms here), or other opinions, are important but would be better discussed in their own essays. -- llywrch 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A point of interest

Simply as a point of interest and definitely NOT as an argument for or against the changes that we are contemplating... I checked out the Wikipedia articles on Primary source, Secondary source and Tertiary source. They primarily talk about the way historians use these terms... and what struck me was that the way they are defined in those aricles matched the way they are currently defined here. This leads me to conclude that the sources section was definitely written by historians. Those of you from other disciplines may want to edit those articles to reflect how you use the terms. Blueboar 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a historian and I re-wrote the sources section based on my experiences in the social science ... and I admit that they would be improved with edits from people working in the physical and life sciences. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I will also point people to the article on Source text... perhaps this will aid in our discussions? Blueboar 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources in history often include interpretations. Jacob Haller 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, what you are saying is (to use the above lingo) is, secondary sources can become primary sources. For example, parts of the Hebrew Bible (much of Genesis, Kings and Chronicles, for example) were probably originally secondary sources. But thousands of years later, the sources that they themselves were interpreting are often unavailable, and the context has changed, and now historians have the task of interpreting the Bible. Shakespeare may have writen things that were immediately clear to his audience when he his plays were first performed in England, but today require interpretation and explanation. I get your point, do you get mine? If we both understand one another maybe we can work together to clearer and more cuseful language? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Diaries, laboratory notes, interviews, tabulated results of questionnaires etc. also often contain interpretations. The policy should not sound as if it's excluding the use of such interpretations. I think it needs some editing to make that clearer. (Some such might be excluded by Verifiability as not a sufficiently reliable source for that type of statement, but not by NOR.)

An (unrelated) suggested edit: change "Some secondary materials, for example many scientific publications, often include original data and are thus also primary materials." to something like "Some sources, for example many scientific publications, often include original data and thus include both primary and secondary materials." Otherwise, you're just using the word "material" to mean "source" and not getting anywhere. However, these suggestion should not hold up page unprotection. --Coppertwig 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to go ahead and make the change to the proposed draft? Go ahead Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more than just a point of interest, it is a real problem, probably a fatal flaw, to use an article to define a policy term. It is a problem for the article, because editors are going to defend that page like they defend a policy page, which is not good for an article that may need to grow to include different perspectives as pointed out above. And it is also a problem for the policy page, because as the article changes over time, it will inadvertently change the policy description. Each page should be an expression of the consensus there, and changing one should not change the other. People have pointed out the problem with conflicting definitions in different policy pages, but taking the definitions from an article is not the solution! Dhaluza 11:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How to promote instruction creep

It's easy. Whenever there's a dispute between a more restrictive and a more flexible version of the policy, just find an example of something that would be allowed under one version but not the other, and claim that anyone who supports allowing that is against the policy and should therefore be excluded from the discussion. It's not necessary to actually succeed in excluding anyone; it's enough to put a chill on the making of certain types of assertions. --Coppertwig 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying this is being done here? If so, I don't think it is intentional. Blueboar 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that everyone involved here is trying in good faith to improve the policy. My message was not intended to imply otherwise. --Coppertwig 21:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am worried about instruction creep here for another reason, because the new proposals use a whole lot of words to say very little, while introducing a lot of nuances and logical inconsistencies that will provide fodder for the next generation of edit wars. In User:Slrubenstein's proposal, for example, when all is said and done, "The conditions that apply to the use of primary materials also applies to the use of primary source material included in secondary sources". Why, then, do we need to make a distinction? COGDEN 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary and secondary

We appear to agree to not use the word "source". Can we also agree to not use the words "primary" and "secondary"? People here admit that wikipedia is making up its own definition and I contend that even with a definition we make up, there is confusion and misunderstanding over the use of these words. Further, the words have no inherent meaning that makes clear what we are trying to say, as it is the use and not the material that being distinguished, and all material is primary if used as evidence of what it itself says and as secondary if used as evidence of the processes or facts that caused its existence. Whatever you wish to say about Wikipedia's OR policy, if you say it without using the words "primary" and "secondary" you will be communicating better. Please give it a try. WAS 4.250 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest "interpretive material" for the latter. Jacob Haller 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree--the issue is not whether the noun is source, material, or even stuff. The issue is the use of the adjectives primary and secondary are confusing when applied to those nouns, because there is no agreement on their association in different academic fields, much less general use, so how can they be used to describe how to write a general purpose encyclopedia anyone can edit? Dhaluza 11:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A Different Approach

OK, here is the Spenny re-write, which paraphrases the thinking, but adds in a couple of points. I've bolded the key phrase which is the root of what all this source jiggery-pokery is about. It is this key concept that we are battling with, but it is not explicitly stated. Spenny 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Recognising the Right Source Materials

Within source material we will find a mixture of facts and interpretations. Some sources will be basic observations that offer little in the way of analysis; other sources will offer analysis of information and draw conclusions. When adapting material for use in Wikipedia, it is important to only introduce facts and observations that already exist.

A Wikipedia article or section of an article can employ statements of facts only if the material is used (1) only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) never to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on statements of facts should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Typically, statements of fact will tend to be found in materials such as historical documents; personal diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; raw tabulations of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works (such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs).

Wikipedia articles can include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims (1) only if such claims come from a reliable, verifiable source and (2) the point of view is clearly identified and accurately represented. In general, it is this type of source that is of most use to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedic article is a summary analysis of a topic and using raw facts to build an article will often require too much original work that could be challenged.

Further, it is most likely that works which are a comprehensive analysis of the topic will be most suited to providing a comprehensive demonstration of a particular viewpoint. Cherry picking individual concepts from different sources may suggest editing to support a point of view, and this can be especially so in the case of using passing references. (This is really NPOV, and I haven't worked this up well)

Useful analysis is typically found in academic journals, Government Inquiries, and media sources such as serious documentary programs and a few respected newspapers. {Yes, I know this bit is weak, but its past my bedtime).

Wikipedia strives to be a superb encyclopedia in its own right. Since Wikipedia does not want to be derivative, materials found in encyclopedias or similar reviews are often of limited value for Wikipedia research. Annual Reviews and Encyclopedia Brittanica articles often provide extensive bibliographies that are valuable tools for identifying important materials, and therefore of great use to Wikipedia editors. Nevertheless, these materials do not necessarily have the same content policies as Wikipedia and for this reason should not be viewed as authoritative. However, some encyclopedias and other material, such as Annual Reviews, have signed articles, and often articles that explicitly promote the author's own views which can be viewed as source material in their own right.

Blueboar's re-draft of Speny's approach

Taking what Ian wrote and tweeking.... mostly adding 1) that facts need to be cited to reliable sources as well as opinions... and 2) stressing that analysis etc should be the same as in the source. I could live with this approach. Blueboar 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good approach that will help lay to rest a lot of the disagreement. I could support this as well. Vassyana 01:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Recognising the Right Source Materials

Within source material we will find a mixture of facts and interpretations. Some sources will be basic observations that offer little in the way of analysis; other sources will offer analysis of information and draw conclusions. When adapting material for use in Wikipedia, it is important to only introduce facts and observations that already exist.

A Wikipedia article or section of an article can employ statements of facts only if the material (1) comes from a reliable, verifiable source, (2) is used only to make descriptive claims and (3) never to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on statements of facts should be careful to comply with all three conditions.

Typically, statements of fact will tend to be found in materials such as historical documents; personal diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; raw tabulations of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works (such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs).

Wikipedia articles can include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims (1) only if such claims come from a reliable, verifiable source, (2) the point of view is clearly identified and accurately represented, and (3) the analysis, syntethis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation matches that in the source. In general, it is this type of source that is of most use to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedic article is a summary analysis of a topic and using raw facts to build an article will often require too much original work that could be challenged.

Further, it is most likely that works which are a comprehensive analysis of the topic will be most suited to providing a comprehensive demonstration of a particular viewpoint. Cherry picking individual concepts from different sources may suggest editing to support a point of view, and this can be especially so in the case of using passing references.

Useful analysis is typically found in academic journals, Government Inquiries, and media sources such as serious documentary programs and a few respected newspapers.

Wikipedia strives to be a superb encyclopedia in its own right. Since Wikipedia does not want to be derivative, materials found in encyclopedias or similar reviews are often of limited value for Wikipedia research. Annual Reviews and Encyclopedia Brittanica articles often provide extensive bibliographies that are valuable tools for identifying important materials, and therefore of great use to Wikipedia editors. Nevertheless, these materials do not necessarily have the same content policies as Wikipedia and for this reason should not be viewed as authoritative. However, some encyclopedias and other material, such as Annual Reviews, have signed articles, and often articles that explicitly promote the author's own views which can be viewed as source material in their own right.

Comments

I have been following this debate only intermittently, so some of the issues I mention below may have already been discussed. If so please simply point me to the correct section. (for easy labelling I'll continue to use PS, SS and TS terminology in my comments below)

• "Typically, statements of fact will tend to be found in materials such as ..." : This should be the other way around. PS typically contain statements of facts; it is not true that statements of facts are only or typically, found in PS. Statement of facts are also found in secondary sources, and it is in fact preferable to use SS for sourcing facts too. Editors will perhaps interpret the above version of the policy to mean that they should look for PS, such as historical documents, diaries etc to state raw facts (such as when a war began; when Hamlet was written etc.)
• Signed article in EB are good sources for material on Wikipedia; and Annual Reviews (or other review articles in general) are in fact ideal sources for writing wikipedia articles on subjects they cover (since they are "works which are a comprehensive analysis of the topic" and much better than individual research papers that only present a narrow and novel POV). As currently worded, it is not clear if using Annual review articles as source is being deprecated, or if these are being listed as exceptions to the general rule about using TS.
• "Wikipedia strives to be a superb encyclopedia in its own right. Since Wikipedia does not want to be derivative ..." I don't see what this has to be with quality of sources, as opposed to copyright issues. If copyright didn't prevent it, wouldn't we have liked to download the complete (at least signed) content of Britannica and other standard encyclopedias onto wikipedia as the starting point for further revisions and improvements ?

Abecedare 02:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points, and I agree with them. With regard to the last, I was trying to get away from the tertiary source whilst respecting the spirit. Some of the reason is the issue of copyright. I'd be tempted to simply delete it as it is not useful policy - the policy is in the section above. I've got to save the planet today, so let's give this a little time to brew (a bit busy saving the planet today). I hope what I have demonstrated is that in principle, even through my garbled editing, we can get the spirit of what is required without getting into technical terms. Note to others: feel free to hack away, I don't want to own this, even in talk. Spenny 07:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Spenny's draft as modified by Abecedare's concerns is moving entirely in the right direction. WAS 4.250 09:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this because it is a fresh approach, but I don't think it reflects Wikipedia practice, maybe in part because the language is not precise or comprehensive enough. "Statements of facts" are frequently used to support analytical, synthetic, etc. claims, particularly when the statements of fact are found in the same source as the analytical claims. Usually, an editor will cite the fact, cite the author's interpretation of the fact from the same source. The fact is used by the author to make the analytical claims, not the editor, it's not original research. Such a use of "statements of facts" would barred by this draft.

Also, since this changes the primary/secondary dichotomy to a fact/interpretation dichotomy, we have the additional problem of defining what is a "fact" and what is an "interpretation". This seems a bit too metaphysical for a pillar Wikipedia policy. For example, if Author X says "Joe was drunk", is that a fact, or an interpretation? And does it matter? Both facts and interpretations can be cited by Wikipedia editors, so long as neither the facts nor the interpretations originate with the editor.

As a corollary to the above, how can we really say that analytical sources are "of most use to Wikipedia"? Sources with pure, raw facts are useful too, maybe even more useful, since without the raw facts, what is there to interpret? COGDEN 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cutting to the chase

The more I think about all of this, the more I think that we were approaching this back-asswards. The point of this policy is that we have to answer the question: "Oh yeah? Sez who?" with... "This reliable source over here sez so." If the answer is "I say so" or "the facts say so", or some thing like that, you are venturing into OR. The type of source being cited does not realy matter, the type of statement that it is being cited for does. For a statement of fact, we need to cite a reliable source that states that it is a fact. For a statement of opinion, we need to cite a reliable source that states that opinion. And for a statement of analysis, interpretation, synthesis, conclusion, etc., we need to cite a reliable source that contains the same analysis, interpretation, synthesis, conclusion, etc. Ian's approach is good... it does essentially approach the issue based on what the source is being used for, instead of what the source is. But it is a relatively long winded way of saying it. Can we be more concise? Blueboar 13:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely what myself and several others were arguing for several weeks ago. This policy does not need to define or really care what the types of sources/material are. That's all material for a different page, whether policy, guideline, whatever. All this policy needs to say is here are further definitions of these 'materials', but if you edit an article, be prepared to cite your edits with reliable 'materials', in the proper context as the 'material' you cite. wbfergus ^Talk 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I know... I just had to come around to what you have been saying in my own unique way and in my own time. I thank you for being patient with me while I underwent this process. I guess it is what they call "consensus building". Blueboar 15:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I work with a bunch of scientists, and it's extremely aggravating to me on how long they can argue over a point for months or years only to finally come to a conclusion that what a non-scientist said was the easiest way to address the problem. So, I'm used to it by now. wbfergus ^Talk 15:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. That's probably a pretty good way to say it, too. That could be a good basis for a draft. COGDEN 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Good point that it's what the source is being used for rather than what the source is, it ties in with thoughts I've been trying to pull together. Primary material can be raw data, but of course it can also be an original synthesis. Thus something that's a secondary source becomes primary material when it's the subject of the article or of the part of an article. An example which includes no raw research is Icons of Evolution. This book is a secondary analysis of primary sources, in a synthesis which is notable only as primary material about the ideas it promotes. The book has been thoroughly analysed by various secondary sources which form the basis of the article.
Perhaps another way of looking at the issue is that editors have to be careful to summarise accurately both the primary material providing the facts that are the subject of the article, and secondary analysis, description or summaries of those facts. Particular care has to be taken to avoid inadvertently summarising primary material in a way that presents our own opinion or understanding about the facts, so it's advantageous to use secondary material which shows attributable analysis.
In my view the primary/secondary distinction is useful as a way of assessing material, and while some examples are useful for explanation, we don't want a prescriptive list of what fits in each category. .. dave souza, talk 20:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm becoming rather concerned with the view, largely espoused by Cogden, but seemingly being repeated by others now, that sources that produce analysis based on primary source/materials/whatever are, in themselves, primary sources for that analysis. That is not how the terms primary/secondary sources are used at all. Presenting new analysis, synthesis, commentary, etc etc etc is exactly what secondary sources do, and they are still secondary sources. Don't forget that these terms originate in history/historiography. SamBC(talk) 20:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about." When the document is an analysis (in the case above an unreliable one) it's a primary source for the situation being written about. In history, The Origin of Species is a primary source for Darwin's ideas and his analysis of the sources he sets out in that book. As I understand it... ... dave souza, talk 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Origin of Species" is perhaps a bad example, as it's complicated by a number of considerations; that might also make it a good example if we look at it closely. If you are studying Darwin, or the hitory of the theory of evolution, then it's a primary source. If you're studying evolution itself it's a secondary source that is also the first publication of much of its own primary data (all the sketches and so on). Its usefulnesss as a source in that case is, however, somewhat compromised by the fact that it's utterly out of date. In any case, the interpretation of basic facts, analsysis and commentary thereof, does not constitute a primary source. It's secondary material (or a secondary source, or whatever) because that's what a secondary source is. A document that largely reports and compares, dispassionately, the content of various secondary sources is, I believe, described as a tertiary source. SamBC(talk) 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sam and Dave... this is exactly why I came to the conclusion that we need to completely stop addressing this issue from the point of view of what kind of source/material is being used, and shift to what kind of statement you are using the source for. If you start with classifying the statement (statement of fact, statement of opinion, statement of conclusion/analysis/interpretation) it no longer matters what classification of source you are using. Primary, secondary and tertiary becomes irrelevant. The policy simply states that a statement has to be backed by a reliable source containing the same sort of statement.Blueboar 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Or indeed, to avoid lawyering abuse, that contains the actual same statement, albeit in other words, or written longer, or so on and so forth. The main point about sourcing such analysis and conclusion is that we can cut the verbiage and reasoning, and just report the overall view, unless the reasoning itself is of interest. I was trying to make the points I made, however, more to try and correct some misunderstandings people seem to have. They aren't entirely relevant anymore, or shouldn't be, so I apologise. SamBC(talk) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blue Boar: No, the differences don't diappear. The difference is larger in historical articles, for which the terminology was invented; but even in Darwin, there is a difference between the same statement in the Origin of Species and in a modern biology textbook. Darwin was making an argument (now largely accepted); the textbook is reporting consensus among biologists. This is why secondary sources are valuable: Darwin got several things wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, the differences don't disappear... my point was that it no longer matters as far as editing this policy is concerned. If we don't talk about the different types of sources in the policy anymore, we don't have to argue over our definitions of the terms (at least not on this page). Blueboar 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's significant in that sources very close to the subject don't give the analysis or opinion that make "secondary sources" valuable, since we must avoid doing that ourselves. As you say, we can avoid this classification problem by defining it by use – WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves effectively applies to even the most reputable sources when they're the subject of the article, and in that case the aim is to find reliable sources summarising or commenting on the source. This is what I was trying to point out about Icons of Evolution, which happens to be very unreliable and so although it's a "secondary source" in that it analyses other "primary sources", to us it's only useful as a source of facts about the philosophy it presents, and for analysis of that philosophy we need to turn to reputable expert opinion on the book. ... dave souza, talk 13:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this

OK... on the theory of puting my money where my mouth is... here is a very rough draft of a short, concise... use oriented paragraph:

Citing the Right Source Materials

Within Wikipedia articles we will find statements of fact and statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. It is important to cite the right sources to back those different types of statements. Statements of fact should be cited to reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that fact. Statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion should be cited to reliable sources that contain the same interpretation, analysis or conclusion. Editors should take care not to confuse a statement of fact with one of interpretation analysis or conclusion. To say that "The Constitution of the US guarantees the right to own a sub-machine gun" sounds like a statement of fact, but is in fact a statement of interpretation (the interpretation being that The 2nd Amendment applies to sub-machine guns). Thus we should not cite the Constitution itself for this statement, instead we should cite an article by a constitutional scholar that contains this interpretation.

comments and criticism

The example may not be the best... but it was worth a try. In any case, is this more in the right direction ... or am I off base again? :>) Blueboar 20:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is in the right general direction. I especially like the first four sentences. I'm not sure what to make of the distinction between fact and interpretation, however, because sometimes it gets a bit metaphysical. Plus, I don't think we need to make that distinction. Both facts and interpretations are not allowed if they originate with the editor. If that's true, it's not really important for the editor to know the difference, other than the fact that interpretations are derived from facts.

But I agree with the intent of the last part of the draft. I think we can do it without explicitly distinguishing between fact and interpretation. Maybe we can say something like this:

Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, unless that interpretation is either an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts, or it can be attributed to a reliable source. Nor can editors expand on an author's interpretations of fact, unless that expanded interpretation is also found in a reliable source.

For example, that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution includes a 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' is a verifiable fact that may be cited in a Wikipedia article. I might also wish to also say that "the Second Amendment may protect a person's right to carry a sub-machine gun into a courthouse". However, if this statement is derived from my own observation, the statement is impermissible unless that conclusion can be found in a reliable source. The Second Amendment itself cannot be the source for my statement, since it is not an obvious or non-controversial consequence of the Second Amendment.

COGDEN 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I really like the first paragraph, as it very succinctly encompasses what I think we're all trying to say. However, I think this starts to move off-base in the second paragraph. A large part of the (quite vigorous) debate about the second amendment is whether the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is heavily modified (and substantially changed) by the preceding clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". (Personally, my interpretation says the right of the people is the right of the people is the right of the people. However, constitutional scholars and judges have long debated how this hashes out.) It's more of a good example of the dangers of quote-mining/cherry-picking, than a good example of raw use, since it would imply something that is decidedly not settled. Vassyana 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Vassyana... another example then. Cogden, I am concerned with your "obvious and uncontrovercial" exception. There is bound to be a lot of disagreement over what constitutes "obvious and uncontrovercial"... again I go back to "sez who?" ... if an interpretation/analysis/conclusion is an "obvious and uncontrovercial consequence of the facts", there should be some reliable source that makes the connection and says so. I understand what you are trying to say, and I don't disagree... but I think we need stronger language, and perhaps an example, on this point. Blueboar 22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We can use different language than "obvious and uncontroversial". I just want to make sure the policy doesn't lead editors to be overly-literal, for example requiring a reference for the idea that "Joe was a Native American", when the reference only says "Joe was a Cherokee". We can use a different example, too. Yes, probably something less controversial than the 2nd Amendment. COGDEN 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For a better example, how about:

For example, that Franklin D. Roosevelt survived polio and that he became president of the United States are both verifiable facts that may be cited in a Wikipedia article. The dates of each event are easily verified, and it would be perfectly admissible to say that he "survived polio, and later became president of the United States" without finding a source that specifically uses the word "later", or otherwise explicitly compares the dates. However, any statement about the effect of the disease on his career would require separate citation, since it is not an obvious or non-controversial consequence of these easily verified facts.

(If that's too U.S.-centric, feel free to substitute something else.) I think this has an advantage in indicating both the type of extrapolation that is allowed and the type that is not. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New draft, incorporating comments

Citing the Right Source Materials

Within Wikipedia articles we will find statements of fact and statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. It is important to cite the right sources to back those different types of statements. Statements of fact should be cited to reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that fact. Statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion should be cited to reliable sources that contain the same interpretation, analysis or conclusion.

Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, unless that interpretation is either 1) an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts or 2) can be attributed to a reliable source. Nor can editors expand on an author's interpretations of fact, unless that expanded interpretation is also found in a reliable source.

For example, that Franklin D. Roosevelt survived polio and that he became president of the United States are both verifiable facts that may be cited in a Wikipedia article. The dates of each event are easily verified, and it would be perfectly admissible to say that he "survived polio, and later became president of the United States" without finding a source that specifically uses the word "later", or otherwise explicitly compares the dates. However, any statement about the effect of the disease on his career would require separate citation, since it is not an obvious or non-controversial consequence of these easily verified facts.

Proposed addition to the draft, added by ..dave souza, talk 12:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC) – see discussion at #Proposed addition to the draft below... dave souza, talk 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I have taken your addition out... all it does is re-add the exact same material that everyone has been objecting to. The point of the new approach is to NOT talk about the different types of sources. Blueboar 12:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

comments on this draft

I like this... the FDR example is a great help, although I know that there will still be people who wikilawyer this exception to death. Blueboar 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I could support this. It clearly illustrates the point. Vassyana 02:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I could support this. It clearly illustrates the point. WAS 4.250 08:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. Very good. However, is "editors cannot" the best description? We know that editors can, until someone reverts them. Would "editors cannot," "editors should not," "editors must not," or something else work best? Jacob Haller 04:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. "Must not" is the word I would suggest (cannot is famously ambiguous). We understand the development evolution and we understand that there must be a pragmatic interpretation of the rules in this context: I think that is the "should" exception. It is at this point where we step back and say that if there are issues caused during article development, then we have other mechanisms to deal with that, including "under construction" banners which give the clear indication that rules do not yet apply.

Would have preferred an example based on Winston Churchill myself :) Seriously though, it is clear enough that we do not need a USA frame of reference to understand the point, so I have no concerns.

We now need to bite the bullet, assuming we have a consensus starting to form. This proposal really walks away from source typing - indeed the title no longer fits the words, and it strikes me that it is really just some really good words to put in the policy and the sources section withers away (I am quite happy to see a link to the discussion essay). To risk being contentious, can we agree that the synthesis discussion becomes redundant in this context - it is essentially the final sentence of the second paragraph.

I think what may be helpful is to take a copy of the main page and put it together so people can judge the page as a whole before implementing it on a trial basis. Spenny 08:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As a rule I am opposed to examples of how to apply/enforce the policy. In my experience they invariably become sources of confusion, or invitations for people to add other examples that end up making it confusing. here is why: a policy has to be clear, but general enough to apply to situations we cannot foresee. We have to rely on the good sense of editors acting in good faith to apply the spirit as well as the letter of the policy when controvery arises (when there is no controversy people seldom refer to poliies and that is okay). A policy will end up being applied in various ways. It is inevitable that many times people will have to apply it in a way different from the example. When that hapens, some may find the example confusing and change it with what they think is a better example, or think it incomplete and add another example .... after a while the policy will be overwrought and people will need to spend weeks rewriting it again. I propose instead that we try to be a simple and direct as possible and perhaps add that the actual application depends on the circumstances and editors need to use good sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In the specific case of distinguishing between data/fact and conclusion/analysis and some people's concerns that our editors will make claims that are the one while citing a source that in fact contains the other one; I think that providing an example is very useful and should be done. WAS 4.250 08:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, I like the draft of this section. However, I'm also torn between the other points made above. Spenny makes good points that I have been arguing for, for awhile now. The most difficult for me is the example. Like Slrubenstein, I think that just having one example, no matter how good, will eventually lead to certain cases in the future where somebody will add another example, then another, etc. However, I wouldn't be oppsed to having the example if there was also some way we could gaurantee that future examples wouldn't be included here, but on another page instead, like one that specifically details the various types of sources/materials and their proper usage in Wikipedia articles. These changes make the policy much clearer and by far easier to understand, but as Spenny stated, having these areas (sources/materials and their usage and synthesis) on separate pages will be a lot of work. Personally, I'd rather see them as offical guidelines appropriately linked from the other policies, but then to make them official guidelines for the the other policies will probably increase the difficulty in creating the them, as more people will have comments on what should be included, or the wording, etc. In the long run though, it will make for easier interpretation of the 'rules' (both policy as guidelines), by having everything more standardized, consistent, and modular. A change in one area won't neccessarily mean a change is also need in the other areas (like how each policy has it's own variation of the source issue). If the 'interested' editors from the other policies all agree on a change to the sources page, then the change to the sources page can be changed without similar changes being (possibly) made on the three main policies, so they are all 'in sync'. So, to wrap up, I feel that is good progress in the right direction, but there are still a couple of stumbling stones in our path to be cleared up, and it will be a long and probably contentious process to overcome, though ultimately it should succeed and make life in the future much easier, it's just going to be difficult getting there. wbfergus ^Talk 10:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that examples can pose problems, but they can work in policy pages, if done properly. A good non-Wikipedia example of where examples like this work effectively is in the American Restatements of Law, which look at country-wide caselaw and derive basic rules (restatements), and then follow them up with several model examples applying the rules. The examples are usually taken from actual caselaw. So if there's an issue with the FDR example (which I think is good, but maybe there's not a consensus on that), perhaps we can find an actual example where this issue has arisen on a Wikipedia page, and been resolved by a consensus effectively applying these principles, leading to a stable result. COGDEN 20:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See, here's why sourcing is so important, and why examples in policy are dangerous: FDR never had polio. See Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the draft, with a couple of tweaks: We can call it a "paralytic illness" instead of polio, and there's a minor grammar issue. I think the example is a good one. I know examples are difficult in policy pages, but I think one would be very helpful here. Model examples can work effectively to elucidate policy (I'm thinking about the American Restatements of the Law as a non-Wikipedia example). COGDEN 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Spenny's question on biting the bullet and deleting the synthesis section... No... for two reasons:

1) Dropping the "Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources" section, and replacing it with this new approach is going to be something of a surprise to many editors. It may even be contentious. We may have reached agreement and concensus, but that does not equate to the broader Wikipedia community agreeing with us (for an example of how policy page editors can have consensus, only to find that the broader community does not agree... see the WP:ATT proposal). I really think we need to go slow and take things one step at a time here. Let's get our current proposal set and approved before we move on to other things.

2) I dissagree with cutting it. Synthesis is a discrete form of OR, one that Jimbo has singled out as being something to watch out for (in various comments). it is also a very complicated issue. As such It needs to be discussed seperately in the policy. We can work on the wording if people have issues with it, but the concept needs to be discussed seperately. Blueboar 12:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am content to go one step at a time. I thought it would be useful to test the water on synthesis, but am realistic. I would take issue with you on synthesis being a discrete form. I am content with it being a special case, but in the end it is that same fundamental problem: adding in an opinion that is not supported in the source documents - and it encourages technical sounding complaints. Spenny 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... "Special case" is a better way to put it.

As to the proposed change... Does anyone disagree with the basic thrust of what we are proposing: Replacing the "Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources" section with "Recognising the Right Source Materials" (understanding that we probably need to work on the exact wording some more)?

If not, I think it is time to start advertising the proposal... posting at the Village Pump and notifying the larger community. We can expect some resistance to the proposal... something this fundamental is bound to generate resistance from those who are used to the current language. We will need to convice the broader community that change in and of itself is not a bad thing, and that our proposed change is for the better. Blueboar 13:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. However, when the proposal is 'advertised', I would state that what this policy is doing with the current 'Sources' section and this proposed version, may be the first step in also getting similar changes done on WP:NPOV, WP:V, and possibly WP:BLP as well, so the main policies can become more standardized in this area, using common criteria, definitions, and examples, eventually leading to less confusion in interpreting the policies and their use. Add something else about creating a "guideline" for the source issues (probably incorporating WP:RS, which is still somehow different from WP:BLP#Reliable_sources, which in turn is linked from WP:V). This would help highlight the current convolution of the various policies referring back and forth to different 'things', whther they are the same in context or not, it leads to a lot of confusion. If they all linked to the same "guideline", much of the confusion of interpretation would be alleviated. wbfergus ^Talk 13:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm on board. We can deal with any possible redundancies in the Synthesis section later. COGDEN 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

D'oh...Too late! - I was BOLD and already "advertised" the proposal at the Village Pump (Policy)... you might want to add your comments after mine. Blueboar 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL... Okay, I'll head over there and make the comment. Thanks for being bold. wbfergus ^Talk 14:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks again for your good work, Blueboar. Suggestions re the polio problem pointed out by Quadell: First of all, I suggest never stating in a policy that "X is a verifiable fact" or making statements of any sort of fact. This can be fixed by saying "Suppose it is a verifiable fact that ...". Inserting "suppose" in no way detracts from the value of the example in my opinion. Secondly, since a problem has been pointed out with this particular example, I think it's better to fix it in addition to inserting "suppose". Possibilities include "polio or a polio-like illness", or "a paralytic illness, long thought to be polio" or "a paralytic illness". If it weren't for that detail, it's a really excellent example in my opinion. Another way to fix it could be to make it anonymous: Suppose it is verifable fact that someone named Smith survived polio, and also that the person became president of the United States, and that the dates of each event are easily verifiable. It would be perfectly admissible to say that Smith "survived polio, and later became president of the United States" without finding a source that specifically uses the word "later", or otherwise explicitly compares the dates. However, any statement about the effect of the disease on Smith's career would require separate citation, since it is not an obvious or non-controversial consequence of these easily verified facts. I'm not sure whether one would also have to insert something like "and suppose the date of the polio is earlier than the date of becoming president"; I think that could just be left as implied. --Coppertwig 16:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I like the idea of saying "suppose...", and referring to "a paralytic illness". COGDEN 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "Sticking to the sources" as the title? It strikes me that what we are trying to encourage people to do is not so much to go and find the "right" sources to footnote their ideas, but rather not to introduce ones own ideas in the first place if they go beyond the sources currently available. Also, I agree that examples can be helpful and support their use. Policy documents can suffer from the disease of being so precise and general as to be completely incomprehensible; examples help avoid that disease. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree that sounds like a better title – this is about "care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways", and restates that well. Minor point: "2) can be attributed to a reliable source." should surely read "is attributed...." As to what this replaces, the next section discusses that.. .. dave souza, talk 09:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

support from the peanut gallery

• Approve in principle. I've sat out this one but noticed that it's getting near a consensus. The change is useful and it looks good, whichever exact version and wording people settle on. Once it's implemented we can review WP:RS to make sure it agrees. Question - is this what became of the earlier primary/secondary/tertiary sources discussion and is it supposed to replace or complement that part of the policy page? If we're getting rid of those definitions we ought to put them somewhere else. Wikidemo 02:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, this is essentially a clarification of "care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways", and appears to be intended to replace much of the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section. The "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged.." bit has been lost, this is often cited when arguing against over-restrictive interpretations. As I've commented at #Cutting to the chase above, the earlier primary/secondary/tertiary sources view has advantages when considering whether sources very close to the subject can give useful analysis or opinion, and as you note these definitions are needed, not least to minimise disruption to the understanding of editors familiar with the policy. A third paragraph could concisely discuss the point, possibly under a subheading to ease navigation. .. dave souza, talk 10:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What about using the proposal I made, above, concerning sources, followed by this clarification? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of my reworking of your suggestion was to show that it was possible to address these issues without tying ourselves in knots over classification. I do share your concern that we have drifted too far from understanding that there are different qualities to the sources that editors should be conscious of (but not governed by). Pragmatically, summaries and reviews are most likely to produce the sorts of information that we can readily use to write a summary style article without being prone to our own interpretations. We can discuss this without classification of sources. I think that by removing that red herring we are seeing discussion here which is about clarity of NOR which is healthy. Spenny 11:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the draft

As discussed above, it seems to me that the draft would work well with a subsection concisely explaining the usefulness of primary/secondary/tertiary sources. I've based this proposal (as shown at #Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources above) on the existing policy with some changes to bring it into line with the draft, and the examples etc. commented out. Slrubenstein's proposal may form a better basis for this subsection, but it seemed to me to be useful to put a proposal up for discussion about the principle. ... dave souza, talk 12:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC).. add link 12:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I get what you are saying, and I see how such a subsection would be useful ... but I am not sure it can be done. In the new approach we are trying to avoid using the terms "primary/secondary/tertiary source"... because they cause so much confusion. Different accademic disciplines have different criteria for what these terms mean. Wouldn't such a subsection simply re-add the same problems the current proposals now solve? I would have to see some suggested language to get a good sense of what you are proposing... but I am sceptical. Blueboar 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum... I now see that you did give a draft... by ammending Spenny's draft above. Unfortunately, all that you did was to paste in the same material that we have been trying to move away from. The whole point of our new approach is to NOT include a definition of what the different types of sources are, since that seems to be the crux of the confusion and objections. Blueboar 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a middle ground here and I'd ask Dave to take a look at the section Blueboar's re-draft. The point of that was to see if we could get the sense of policy without the contentious terminology. My feeling was that there was something to work with, and that by taking such an approach it brought out other issues (hence the emboldening). Spenny 13:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We are moving fact and furious folks... and I am a bit confused as to which draft we are now discussing... would someone please post a "proposed" version that incorporates the latest thinking? (perhaps we should entitle them with: Proposed draft as of date/time and periodically update?) Blueboar 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I was thinking somewhat obliquely along the same lines. It would help anybody coming here from the Village pump to easily see what is being discussed, without having to read through mountains of other 'stuff'. wbfergus ^Talk 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to any changes to the long-standing formulation of this key policy. The proposed changes open the door to a long and slippery slope, and for that reason alone I'd objection to their addition, much less their specifics. I appreciate the effort here, but once we start making exceptions, it will never end. FeloniousMonk 15:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think posts that allude to some undefined fear uncertainty and doubt are very constructive, perhaps you could be more explicit on your concerns. The position that some accept here is that the source typing is not relevant to policy, is contentious and is not required to support a robust policy of NOR. The discussion has been persuasive enough that some have changed their position so I think it is reasonable that you should be explicit in your reasoning as to why you do not accept this as we cannot debate FUD. Spenny 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Monk... Are you objecting to change simply because it is change... or do you see a flaw in our approach? How does the new version "open the door to a long and slippery slope"?... what "exceptions" do you see us making? To most of us it simply restates what the policy has always said in a clearer less confusing form. Can you give us a better idea of what you are worried will happen if we adopt the proposal? Blueboar 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Monk, the problem is that the present formulation does not have a consensus. The question is not about whether we should change it. I think everybody has moved past that. The issue is what should we change it to, so that it will reflect longstanding Wikipedia practice, and everybody will be happy with it. This has been a good opportunity to review what the underlying principles of this policy are, and how to best express them. I think most people here, if presented with a questionable article, would agree on whether or not it is original research in most cases. We are just trying to find the best way to express that consensus, but the devil is in the details. COGDEN 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the WP:PSTS section in this policy is confusing, contentious, unnecessary, misplaced, and not supported by consensus, so it must go. The real issue boils down to making sure facts are backed by factual sources, preferably original or close sources, and that all analysis, interpretation, etc. use reliable sources to do the analysis interpretation, etc. See, I said it without using primary, secondary, tertiary, or even quaternary. Dhaluza 01:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza, I am going to quibble with your comment... sometimes an original or close source is appropiate... sometimes it is not. By focusing on the source you confuse the issue. This policy isn't about sources (or it shouldn't be)... it should be about statements made in wikipedia articles. When there is an NOR problem in an article, it is the statements that are OR, not the sources. Blueboar 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are basically saying the same thing in a different way. I agree that focusing on the source has been a distraction, and recognizing that is a breakthrough. I think I was focusing on the use of the source to back the statement, but distinguishing between factual and non-factual statements. The statements are only OR if they are not backed by reliable sources. Also, when is an original or close source not preferable for factual statements (other than when they are corrected by newer sources)? Dhaluza 11:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When it is incomplete, tendentious, inaccurate, or out of context, which (in historical articles, where this distinction is most commonly made) it usually is. The chief problem with primary sources is that they are not intended to be history; quoting them directly and uncritically, as most editors would do even if WP:SYNTH didn't exist, produces very bad history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft as of 9/20/07 (15:48)

Removed for clarity Spenny 17:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on 9/20 (15:48) draft of proposal

Ok... I think this is the most recent version of the proposal, incorporating those comments that seem to have consensus. I would ask that people not make major edits to it until they have been fully discussed and have reached some degree of consensus. If you think something should be added/changed/deleted from this... post it as a new suggested draft with a new date/time heading. The idea is to keep the different versions clear so people can compare them and comment on them. Blueboar 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft as of 9/20/07 (minor update)

Citing the Right Source Materials (alternative suggested section title: Sticking to the Sources)

Within Wikipedia articles we will find statements of fact and statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. It is important to cite the right sources to back those different types of statements. Statements of fact should be cited to reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that fact. Statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion should be cited to reliable sources that contain the same interpretation, analysis or conclusion.

Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, unless that interpretation is either 1) an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts or 2) can be attributed to a reliable source. Nor can editors expand on an author's interpretations of fact, unless that expanded interpretation is also found in a reliable source.

For example, that Franklin D. Roosevelt was born in Hyde Park, New York and that he became president of the United States are both verifiable facts that may be cited in a Wikipedia article. The dates of each event are easily verified, and it would be perfectly admissible to say that he "was born in Hyde Park, NY, and later became president of the United States" without finding a source that specifically uses the word "later", or otherwise explicitly compares the dates. However, any statement about the effect of where he was born or its effect on his career would require separate citation, since it is not an obvious or non-controversial consequence of these easily verified facts.

Comments on 9/20 draft (minor update) proposal

I "think" these minor changes were agreed upon. If not, feel free to delete or strikeout. wbfergus ^Talk 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I prefer using "suppose" anyway (e.g. in case other details arise) but I don't feel strongly about it, so go ahead. I'm quite pleased with how this is progressing. --Coppertwig 17:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of the example is that we have two fact statements that are obvious and uncontrovercial... if the FDR example does not fit, let's find another.

I have no problem spliting the old PSTS (and similar issues) to some other page... but I think we do need to keep the focus of this page on type of statement and avoid any discussion of type of source. It isn't the type of source used that makes something OR... it is the way you use it. Or to put it more succincltly: Sources are not OR... statements can be. Blueboar 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the "born in Hyde park" example is better. That works well. I also like "Sticking to the Sources" as a section title. It sums up the issue pretty well. Do we want to have more than one example? There are a few different ways in which sources can be used for original research, so maybe we should have an example for each, such as where:

• an editor makes novel analytical conclusions based on two verifiable facts (like the FDR example above);
• an editor makes a novel factual inference based on two verifiable facts (e.g., source A says John did not eat meat, source B says John disliked leather, editor writes that John was a vegan).
• an editor elaborates on an author's published analytical conclusions in an original way (source says that Joe liked to drink and swear, editor writes that Joe wasn't religious);

COGDEN 21:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've been noting, the primary / secondary material clarification of how sources are used covers issues that this proposal doesn't mention. My opinion is that it should be possible to subordinate this classification to the sort of fact / interpretation split that this proposal emphasises, but the primary and secondary idea has a simplicity and clarity that has to be fully matched for this proposed change to be acceptable. .. dave souza, talk 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that primary and secondary did not have simplicity and clarity. Quite the contrary, there was a clear amount of complexity and confusion. A look through the archives at the discussion that occurred over the past month will make the confusion and (more importantly) the lack of consensus clear. Vassyana 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

135,000

David Irving has repeatedly pushed the number 135,000 as the number killed in the bombing of Dresden in World War II. This number like the man is now throughly discredited. See

• Introduction Note the dates on many of these estimates particularly given this letter by Irving to the The Times on 7 July 1966.
  • The 'Final Report' of 15 March 1945. (See note 9 and following that discuss the letter to the times linked above).
  • The real TB 47.
  • Further bending of reliable sources
  • Further misuse of figures: refugees, burials, and excavations.
• general conclusion Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. -- Evans

The trouble is that the number still appears in tertiary sources like encarta Dresden. This is not a problem at the moment because of the reliance on secondary sources. But how would one handle this if the new wording for sources is used? See Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Population statistics and use of napalm.

In a second case take an example from a primary source like Protocol I that says "The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces." Unless one is an expert on international law the nuance of the words "feasible measures" will be lost unless one had read the ICRC commentary on this that makes clear, this is not a complete ban on the use of children in conflict. The ICRC had suggested that the Parties to the conflict should "take all necessary measures", which became in the final text, "take all feasible measures" which is not a total prohibition on their doing so because feasible should be understood as meaning "capable of being done, accomplished or carried out, possible or practicable". See Military use of children#International humanitarian law for sources on this.

It seems to me at first glance that doing away with primary, secondary and tertiary sources may open up a can of worms and I would like others who are considering these radical changes to comment on how the new proposed policy will deal with these types of issues. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For the first example, it's a case of editorial judegement (etc etc). In the second case, anyone quoting that protocol and saying that this utterly prohibited child soldiers would still be committing OR, because they would be interpreting it. SamBC(talk) 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Editorial judgement is a problem, is Encata not as reliable source as Götz Bergander in this case? Under the current rules the answer is no. But under the new rules who says? Just look at the section on the bombing of Dresden given above to see the potential problems this opens up. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)SamBC's response is correct. Additionally, the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction would not affect the 135 000+ claim, as it is widely repeated in secondary sources. A brief survey of available sources seems to indicate that most recent scholarship has revised the number down to the 25 000 to 35 000, largely based on recent German estimates and the death rate for similar bombings. However, even books published in the last five years still repeat the 135 000+ claim. It seems more a case of NPOV and using editorial discretion to judge the most reliable sources, than one of original research or source typing. Vassyana 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"even books published in the last five years still repeat the 135,000" which book since the Lipstadt libel suit has published 135,000? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Well, if you want to know about reliability of sources, check WP:RS. That defines what's reliable. This policy is just about what is or isn't OR. SamBC(talk) 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Without 1/2/3 the RS is undermined because Encarta is usually considered to be a reliable tertiary source, but under the new rules that will be gone from the supporting policy and so undermining RS. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the second point about OR yes under the current rules this is clear (because it is a primary source), but under the new proposed rules, how do you tell the difference between a summary of a source and interpretation of a source given that there is no specific difference between a primary and a tertiary source? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It would still be clear under the proposed replacement. Since making such an assumption would be providing interpretation and/or analysis not present in the source, it would be original research. Source typing does not affect this one way or the other. Vassyana 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If Wkipedia is not to be reduced to a series of quotes how does one tell the difference between a summary of a source and interpretation of a source if the distinction between primary and tertiary sources is lost. Currently if one takes a paragraph from a tertiary source and summarises it, it is acceptable. But if one takes a paragraph from a primary source one may only quote it. Under the new rules it seems that one would be able to summarise it, and given the highly specific nature of some primary sources -- like the one I have given above -- who but an expert is to judge if it is a true summary or an interpretation? I think that this change may lead to all sorts of edit wars. But this is the first time I have read this proposal and I am open to persuasion that it is a step forwards. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In short, some sources that seem at first glance like they ought to be reliable disagree. That problem will always be with us. Editors will just have to form a consensus that certain superficially reliable sources are actually not so. I doubt that following a general rule that articles published in peer-reviewed journals are always better than encyclopedias will preserve us from this problem; while encyclopedias are less up-to-date and often written by non-experts, peer-reviewed journals publish articles that by definition have not been presented to all the scholars in a field until after journal publication, so are not thoroughly reliable until sufficient time has passed for rebuttal articles, or at least letters to the editor, to be published. (Perhaps the problem with journals is somewhat reduced through electronic preprints.) --Gerry Ashton 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Philip... not allowing the 130,000 number simply because the current policy contains a caution(not a ban) against using primary sources is a gross misuse of the clear intent of the policy (even in its current form)... An editor adding the number and citing to encarta (or even to Irving) is NOT adding their original thinking to the article in any way shape or form. They are appropriately repeating information they assume is from a reliable source. If the source is incorrect, that is an issue for V or RS ... but it certainly should not be an NOR issue. Blueboar 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhapse it should be moved to WP:V (It was issues like this why I was not against WP:ATT in principle, just the current implementation). I have yet to be persuaded that this section should not be in one of the core content policies. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RS is a mess, so I'm not sure anything useful belongs there; but this is a reliability issue. PBS is making the case that Irving and those who use his figure are unreliable sources on Dresden. This is a perfectly reasonable argument to make, and source criticism is a part of editorial judgment. I would note, however, that, unless some WPian is using the actual surviving records from Dresden directly, primary/secondary won't help: Irving is secondary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Irving is an unreliable source so we can strike him. But Encarta is under the current definition a tertiary so it is not given the same weight as a secondary source "Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one." AFAICT we are loosing that level of granularity and so who is to say that a well researched well cited secondary source carries more weight than encarta if these changes take place? I have chosen two contentious examples because AFAICT in the real world of every day editing of controversial articles the current wording gives a lot more guidance to people who may not be familiar with working with sources than the proposed new wording. I am worried that such a change is being viewed through the restraints that the current wording gives and without such guidance (and constraints) it we will be opening up Pandora's box.--Philip Baird Shearer 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer, First, there is no consensus for what the wikipedia meaning of the phrase "primary source" is. Second, there is no consensus that any given secondary source is a more reliable source than any given tertiary source (and for good reason, I might add). Finally, this is a reliable sources issue and not an issue that is related to someone making a claim that is not supported by the cite if one is given, or making a claim that is believed to be not supported by any reliable published source if no cite is provided, which is the definition of OR and the proper subject of this policy. WAS 4.250 23:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that there was a consensus, and it is expressed in the policies of Wikipedia specifically the definitions given in the section "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources". If not then what do the sentence "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." in WP:CON mean? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Further (to address you second point) within that consensus it state "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one." which would appear to me to endorse the idea that unsigned articles in a otherwise reliable tertiary source may be less reliable than a reliable secondary source. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take some time to review the archives for the past month. They clearly illustrate the lack of consensus for PSTS within this policy. Beyond that, your concerns about reliable sources may or may not be valid, but regardless this is not the place to address such concerns. WP:RS handles reliable sourcing and WP:NPOV handles appropriate weight. This policy addresses original research, which is a separate issue from the one you are raising. Vassyana 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. I think this this needs to be in a policy document. It is quite easy to argue that it is part of NOR because using primary sources and interpreting them is original research. If this section is removed from the policy documents there will be people who argue that they are not interpreting international treaties because they are merely summarising their content, this is prohibited currently and this change will have a very big impact on the way primary, secondary and sources tertiary sources are used in articles. This will have a direct effect on the way that the data sources used to extract information for Wikipedia articles are researched. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you another example to try to illustrate my concerns. The wording of the Genocide treaty says Genocide is "... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; ..." There are whole articles and a quite a few court cases that analyse each clause of that sentence. It is not the same as reading a similar sentence in a secondary source. What does "intent to destroy" mean? What does "in part mean"? For example is intent to destroy the group the same as the intent to kill members of the group? If one person is killed does that qualify as part of a group or does it take more than one? If more than one person how may makes a part? Also what if the perpetrators kill all those in a group within their reach, but if that is only a small part of the total group (because most of the group are not within the reach of the perpetrators) does that effect the meaning of "in part"? If a Wikipedia editor tries to summarises that sentence on Genocide one is almost guaranteed to get it wrong and mislead the reader. This is very different from summarising a tertiary source. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Philip, the question of whether there is consensus to change the policy is what this discussion is all about. Consensus can change. We are in the process of determining if there is a new consensus. So far, there seems to be a fairly clear majority in favor of making a change... and while that does not mean the same thing as having consensus, it does indicate that something is wrong with the policy as it stands. We are not rushing into this... one thing I learned from the ATT debates is you have to give a LOT of notice and time for comment when you make a major change to a policy. You have to convice a lot of people who will be warry of changing anything that the change is needed and that the proposed wording is good. We are in the process of doing that convincing. As to WP:CON... This seems to pop up whenever two large groups of editors disagree about the wording of a policy page... It is always a bit of a problem to know what "within the framework of established policy and practice" means when it is exactly that "policy and practice" that is the subject of debate... One side always argues that you need show consensus to change... and the other argues that you need to show consensus to keep. I reject both arguments ... you simply need to determine what the consensus IS. Blueboar 01:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Philip, welcome to our discussion! I would ask you to please take a step back for a moment, and please review the examples you provided and the arguments you are making about them. Next, please think long, hard, and honestly about how they apply to "original research". Quite simply, they don't. What they boil down to are variations/interpretations of "Source" issues, as has been previously stated. I would also like you to take a look at the "Sources" section in this current policy (not this proposal). Next, take a look at WP:UNDUE and the section immediately following it, WP:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research. Next, open another browser window and take a look at WP:V#Sources. Again, open another window and take a look at WP:BLP#Sources. Now the real fun begins. Looking at just these sections, imagine looking at them through the eyes and mindset of a brand new editor to Wikipedia. While ultimately they may eventually wind up stating the same general 'thing', they all do so in a non-standardized way, making many new editors' eyes glaze over. Further complicating the issuse, try comprehending those 4 'sections' along with WP:RS, Primary source, Secondary source, and Tertiary source. All of these can probably be condensed into an article (preferably a guideline) on the types of sources with examples of how different 'things' can be classified different ways, depending on other mitigating factors, like conclusions, synthesis, etc, and then further linked to the appropriate "type of source", like primary, etc. In short, all of this "Source" stuff is very convoluted, especially given that various disciplines use the same terms to mean different things. It doesn't achieve anything leaving it in the policies, it just muddies the water and detracts from what the policy is actually about. The whole "source issue" can be greatly simplified by moving them out of the 4 main policies to one standardized (though probably expanded) article, with only a brief description in each policy about how the source issue pertains soley to that policy, "for further definitions and examples, see Types of Sources" (whatever it gets called). wbfergus ^Talk 11:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I understand the arguments that both Vassyana are presenting, and as I said above it may be that the current section should be moved into WP:V, but if it is removed and replaced with the suggested text then it will also alter the reading of other sections of the content policy and guidelines. For example I think the section WP:V#Sources would need a rewrite, because quite obviously a treaty is a more reliable text on that treaty than any "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" as are court transcripts and UN Security Council resolutions, all of which are quoted in articles other than those about themselves. I also think that WP:RS#What is a reliable source? is affected in a similar way. So before any change is made I would like an analysis made of how such a change would effect the reading of the whole content policies and guidelines.--Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got here, but the points you just address are why the proposed policy change was announced at the WP:VP. We need input from others on how this 'proposed' change may affect the other policies as well. I view this a step towards eliminating much confusion amongst the various policies. wbfergus ^Talk 12:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion about changing the emphasis on secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary sources is somewhat misplaced and misguided, IMO. Primary sources that report different empirical or historical calculations than widely reported, as was mentioned in the example at the beginning of this thread (whether 135,000 is = or ≠ to the number killed in Dresden), fall under WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:RS, which work in tension with one another. Primary soucces are already stated in WP:NOR to be validly used to report plain facts without interpretation or synthesizing of ideas that may arguably follow from the plain facts. Moreover, WP:NOR, in its emphasis on secondary and tertiary sources for interpretive and synthetic issues, works in tension and in tandem with WP:VER and WP:RS, along with WP:NPOV or course. These tensions are natural and intentional, and the founding Wikimedia Board would appear to have clearly understood this when the three basic editorial policies were first put forward. WP:Consensus, of course, is the method by which these tensions are balanced or resolved in the process of writing the articles. The push to alter this balance by substantially rewriting one or more of the three most basic editorial policies neglects that the solutions to the dilemma already exist within present WP policy. The dog should move the tail here, not the other way around. ... Kenosis 13:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But which dog? This is an attempt to bring some cohesion to the policies, that if it's there, is very difficult to properly decipher, especially to newcomers. wbfergus ^Talk 14:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's be at least halfway real about this, please. This recent push here is an attempt to make major changes over minor editorial problems and exceptions to the general trend on the wiki (the tail trying to wag the dog), and/or for one group to try to get their way of doing things at a few articles implemented wikiwide (also the tail trying to wag the dog). An equally informative tome on one project page is equally difficult to decipher as are three separate pages expressing three interactive principles. This was tried recently in the WP:A fiasco, raised to the status of policy and fairly promptly demoted after a wiki-wide "wtf?". The cohesion already exists in interaction of the three basic editorial policies, with consensus as a procedure for mediating among them. Those three basic policies operate both cooperatively and in tension with one another, and they do it extremely well -- so well, in fact, that the very existence of WP is not only a function of modern processing power and the wiki method, but also of the balance and tension between the three basic policies of WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. ... Kenosis 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no general trend on the wiki to disallow primary sources in general - it's been pointed out during this process that a large number of featured articles make heavy use of primary sources. If you look back to the earlier stages of this process, you will also see that this isn't a homogeneous group who turned up to get things changed to something they (as a whole) thought it should be. Opinions varied massively at the start of the process. Your "halfway real" description seems to mischaracterise both wikipedia practice (the use of primary sources) and the nature and makeup of the group of people who've taken part in this process. SamBC(talk) 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is only one use of the word "disallow" on this page prior to my quoting Sambc's usage right here (so now there are two, but I didn't say this or anything close to it). Please do not put words in my mouth or on my "pen", so to speak. The present version of the relevant passage in WP:NOR states: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." This reasonably expresses the concept. ... Kenosis 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As to my "let's be at least halfway real..." comment, this refers to what appears to be the present notion that this is just a minor proposal that can be implemented without further scrutiny because several WP users have worked on it and believe it is nearing consensus.My review of the situation indicates that this is in fact intertwined with an effort to significantly change the policy, up to and including rewriting the rules on "original synthesis" and other major changes. As to the "process" being referred to by Sambc, that process has been a discussion among several WP users, indeed properly regarded as a preliminary discussion, advocating one or more significant changes in WP policy w.r.t. WP:NOR. The "tail attempting to wag the dog" here is my reference to the exceptional cases driving attempts to change the basic, fundamental balances of WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. The use of anecdotal examples of users having problems in interpreting and resolving issues in individual articles, such as, e.g. the Dresden bombing example in this section, are properly regarded as a {{sofixit}} issue at the individual articles, not valid reasons to change the policy across the wiki. ... Kenosis 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Material close to the subject..

If we're writing an article about, say, Encarta, we have to treat what it or its authors and publishers say about it as primary material, and aim to base interpretations or opinions on that material on third party secondary sources. That's widely understood from the current policy, and should not be lost in this push to avoid "source typing". ... dave souza, talk 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a concern for NPOV, verifiability and reliable sourcing. However, it seems to have very little to do with original research. Are there potential concerns about biased, unreliable and/or inaccurate information in sources close to the subject? Absolutely. However, that's not a question of original research. Vassyana 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But it is closely tied to this proposed distinction between "Statements of fact" and "Statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion", so it's logical to point it out in this context. Since I've got to cook and eat something, could you please draw on your expertise to point out where this is explicitly dealt with in these policies? Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a dinner I must attend, but I will look over those pages when I return. However, I was not intending to point to any particular section, but rather the principles themselves. Remember, the rules aren't intended to cover every possibility. They should present the principle as clearly as possible, not constrain it to the exact language used. Vassyana 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm post dinner, so not a reliable source. I would just like to say that I am really impressed how people have engaged with the substance of the concerns on source typing, and everyone should be congratulated for engaging with good faith. Spenny 22:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave... When we use the terms "statement of fact" and "statement of interpretation/etc". we are talking about what is written in Wikipedia... not what is in the source. As far as NOR goes, any statements about what the authors or publishers of Encarta say about Encarta end up falling into one of these two categories depending on how they are written: if an article states something like: "According to the Publishers of Encarta, 'Encarta is great'" (cited to where the publisher says this) then we are dealing with a statement of fact. No NOR violation.

Now, if the article just stated something like: "Encarta is great" we also have a statement of fact, but not one for which the publisher of encarta is a reliable source. It isn't an NOR violation, but it should be challengable on other grounds.

Then, if the article stated something like: "Because it's publisher thinks encarta is great, we should all rely on it" again citing the publisher, we no longer have a statement of fact, but one of conclusion... the statement is not matched by the source... instead we need a reliable source that makes the connection between the publisher's opinion and encarta actually beign being reliable. Blueboar 23:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB already addresses this issue, does is not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Selfpub deals with limited circumstances where an unreliable source can be used. Whether Encarta's the ideal example or not, this is an issue where a source is reliable but rather close to the subject, and so hinges on the rather undefined question of "third party".

Am in general agreement with Blueboar's argument, but this tends to hinge on what other policies and guidelines call "third party sources" without spelling out what that means – by accident or design this policy goes further in warning of the danger of using a source close to the subject for anything other than plain fact (including the fact that the source expresses an opinion) and the preference of finding a secondary / third party source doing the analysis or summary, rather than selecting the summary ourselves. If the detail of this point is moved elsewhere it's still appropriate to have a summary-style outline here, directly related to the sourcing of facts and interpretations. .. dave souza, talk 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC) fix typo dave souza, talk 00:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that our proposed change does not use "third party", it isn't a factor... what I meant was a source not directly connected to the topic. Say: External source if you wish. Blueboar 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the term third party, I have always been unhappy to see that in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It derives from contract law, where many contracts have two parties; anyone who didn't sign the contract is a third party. The extention to contracts with more than two parties is fairly obvious, but when extended to the world of publications, it becomes a rough metaphor with flexible interpretation. An example of why the term does not work well is that official announcements, laws, orders, and the like from governments can be quite useful as sources, but they are first party publications. --Gerry Ashton 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it's valuable that this policy is at least clearer about it, and though improvements are possible, we shouldn't be ditching parts of policy without being sure that there's an equally clear replacement readily accessible. Bedtime now, ... dave souza, talk 00:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But why this policy? What does it have to do with original research? I think sourcing, particularly in relation to what should be considered reliable or taking in considerations of bias, is much better addressed at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Many of the editors here have a point that this policy is about original research and considerations that go beyond that should be addressed in the most relevant place. Vassyana 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Material close to the subject can be more biased and less reliable than other material; however, the opposite could just as easily be true, too. A journalist recording an interview is more likely to capture the interviewee's words and intent than a scholar reading that interview 100 years later. A modern Jehovah's Witness reading the book of Hebrews is less likely to accurately describe early Christian practice than Paul was, writing in the 1st Century. It really depends on the source and what it is used for, and overgeneralizing can easily cause problems here. In many cases, facts and conclusions recorded by someone who was close to the facts is better, particularly if the issue is controversial. In other cases, facts and conclusions drawn by a modern scholar might be better, particularly if there is a modern consensus. COGDEN 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the policy alerts the editor and urges caution. .. dave souza, talk 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

None of this is in the realm of Original Research... You are debating the reliability of sources, not whether they are being used to support original research. Any source can be used to back some sort of statement (if nothing else, it can be used to back a direct quote from that source). The type of source being cited does not determine if it's use constitutes OR... HOW it is used determines that. Thus, this policy needs to discuss the how (ie the type of statement the source is being used as a citation for) and not the what (ie the source itself). Blueboar 02:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR is one of WP's core content policies and has stood in essentially the same form for a very, very long time, and benefits from broad acceptance. It is uncontroversial and broadly accepted. I can tell you for a fact that any attempts to alter it's original meaning and formulation, such as diminshing the distinction between primary and secondary sources, are going to fail regardless of any agree between the handful of editors participating in the discussion here. FeloniousMonk 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, that the original meaning and formulation didn't distinguish between primary and secondary sources. During this ongoing and long-winded review, the history of the page was looked at and the circumstances of that addition examined. SamBC(talk) 14:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The original formulation makes the distinction. By original formulation obviously we do not mean the very first stup of a policy - that is a meaningless criteria in a collaborative environment. Several people collaborated on crafting the original policy and by the time it took its first stable form - within a month or so of its first being forwarded as a policy - it made the distinction between wources and has been that way for four years, the vast, vast vast majority of its existence. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, a quick review of the history indicates that it appeared about two years ago. 4 years ago, the policy was, I believe just being introduced (or hadn't been yet). In the early versions including it, the definition was included in order to say that OR creates primary or secondary sources, which is actually an interesting idea, although it has trouble holding water in terms of consistency. I'm continuing to review the history now, but so far it seems to bear out what other people have said earlier in this review (now somewhere in the archives). In any case, saying it's been there for 4 years is quite simply incorrect. SamBC(talk) 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I find the following extract from a January '06 version interesting:

In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable secondary sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

I believe that this was included largely as commentary on the rules that preceeded it, which included a note that it was acceptable for articles to be based entirely on primary sources in appropriate situations (ie, the article has no analytic etc content). I think this is the kind of thing that the current situation grew from. SamBC(talk) 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The same version contains a marvellous list of what's actually excluded further down the page, which appears to be the "meat" of that version of the policy. I include it hear because I think we can learn from it:

"An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is:

• it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
• it introduces original ideas; or
• it defines new terms; or
• it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or
• it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source, which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
• it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source; or
• it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source."

This seems to have been the actual body of the "rules" of the policy at the time. The sourcing information appears to have been by way of explanation. SamBC(talk) 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains is that this policy and WP:RS has made the distinction between sources far, far longer than recent attempts to weaken and dillute it. Any revision of the NOR policy that fails to make a distinction between the quality of sources based on whether they are primary or secondary will never gain sufficient community support from long term, credible contributors to see the light of day. FeloniousMonk 15:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems a remarkably incivil way to refer to a weeks-long review and consensus-building effort, announced to the wider community through the village pump on multiple occaisions, that has included as participants long term "credible" contributors. Especially when this discussion has been happening on-and-off for even longer. Are you aware that your statement could be read as suggesting that those who have participated in this process are not "credible contributors"? SamBC(talk) 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Over the course of the past month over two dozen editors have taken part in the discussion over the "Sources" section of this policy. It is clear there is a lack of consensus for the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction that has been present in policy over the past year. Some of the comments that a NOR policy lacking this feature will never succeed in gaining consensus are misguided and troubling. Quite the opposite is true, or rather, a NOR policy containing these distinctions has already been shown to lack support. Policy must be back by strong consensus. I originally started off in strong support, and making a strong defense, of the primary/secondary distinction. However, the lack of consensus for such a section in this policy is clear. Knee-jerk opposition to any proposal that omits an approach clearly lacking consensus borders on disruptive. Please take the time to review the archives for the past month, which demonstrate the lack of support for the standing section and illustrate the evolving nature of this discussion. Reviewing the same archives, as well as those the months previous, will clearly demonstrate that the PSTS distinctions were the cause of repeated confusion and conflict. Vassyana 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite... lets go back and see how things developed in the early days...

• In Jan '05 the words Primary source are in the policy... but they refer to not making Wikipedia a primary source... it does not talk about source materials. In other words, it talks about not adding original material to wikipedia.
• By March '05 we see the secondary materials mentioned, and some definition and distinction between primary and secondary... but look at the context: "Original research is research that produces primary sources or secondary sources." We are still talking about Wikipedia and not cited sources.
• By August '05 the terms are broken out into their own section... but again the context is Wikipedia and not what is being cited: "Within Wikipedia research that creates primary sources is not allowed".

It was not until sometime after that we started to caution about primary sources... but as late as mid '06 we still had language that focused things on not creating a primary source. this was a key concept that somewhere along the line got lost in the shuffle... we began to focus on what the sources were, instead of how the sources were being used. In answer to Monk's concerns... I don't see this as an attempt to alter the policies "original meaning and formulation"... I see it as an attempt to restore the policy's original meaning and formulation. Blueboar 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the policy of WP:NOR evolved to differentiate between primary and secondary/tertiary sources, based upon practical experiences with users attempting to create original syntheses in WP. WP is not an alternative publisher for new ideas. Rather, to restate the very basic, most obvious nature of the project, it is an encyclopedia. An attempt today to remove this important differentiation of primary and secondary/tertiary sources would be to turn WP over again to the temptations of some users to use it as a publishing vehicle for their own "original research", or original syntheses. People who wish to do this sort of thing will need to first get published, then we'all can consider drawing on what they've published, being cautious about WP:COI in such cases, of course. ... Kenosis 15:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, right, does the current proposal open some sort of loophole? Is this issue of synthesis not addressed by the current proposal? If it isn't, help make it include it, but there's a lot of confidence that it isn't necessary to refer to the 'type' of the source to do so. Or did I misunderstand you? SamBC(talk) 15:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This "weeks-long review and consensus-building effort" that Sambc referred to above obviously took some work among more than one participant. But please understand one thing here. When people get involved in the wiki, they do not ordinarily keep track of every single discussion on every single policy and guideline talk page. Rather, ordinarily, we expect some continuity of policy, guideline and practice. The work of the last three weeks is laudable, but it's work by a few users with an idea, one that hadn't drawn wider attention until now, when it's beginning to draw wider attention. The "current proposal" is only one piece, AFAICT, of an ongoing effort over the past two months to rewrite the rules here. AFAICT, we're not even sure which arguments are referring to what proposal, and upon what justifications. This limited participation that led to this perception of a developing consensus, like it or not, will need to be subject to greater scrutiny by many more users to be seriously considered. Incidentally, where's the thread at the Village Pump? ... Kenosis 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If this were an effort to create new policy, I would understand the concern, but nobody is trying to change policy here, nor could we. This is about fixing a not-quite-correct description of common Wikipedia practice that has been in the policy page for a while, and seemed for a while to be actual "Wikipedia policy", but turns out not to be so in its current form. True Wikipedia policy is not what's written on the policy page. It's what the consensus is, and sometimes that doesn't exactly match the words written to describe and document it here. I think everybody here can agree, given a particular concrete example, which statements are original research and which are not. That as-yet-unexpressed instinct we all have is the true policy. Nobody's trying to change policy. We're trying to express it in a way that we can all agree with. COGDEN 00:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Except for the part about there being an effort to "rewrite the rules"... I agree with everything you just said. I certainly do not want to "rewrite the rules"... I wholy support them. I just think the rules got off kilter in this one section and we need to re-focus them. As for the thread... see: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed change at WP:NOR Blueboar 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The first stub for the policy was December 21 2003. After a few edits no one worked on it until February 2004. Reddi, the third person to work on the stub, first introduced the term "primary source" in the twenty-first edit to the policy, in an edit summary, on February 13 2004. Late that same day, a few edits later, he introduced the distinction between primary and secondary sources. I think that one of the first twenty edits to the policy still falls under "original" and February 2004 was more than three and a half years ago - and thousands of edits ago. And we are talking about the 23rd or 24th edit. Really. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But as people have pointed out, the distinction then was not being used to refer to the sources people use. It was saying "original research creates" primary (and later secondary) sources. The introduction of identifying OR in any way relating to the PST nature of the sources used is vastly more recent, as has been pointed out. SamBC(talk) 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I second the concerns raised by FeloniousMonk and others. This discussion is interesting but do not think that a change of emphasis or dilution of one of the more long-standing formulations of this policy can happen at this stage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you know I strongly favour a distinction between primary and secondary sources. However, it's fairly clear there is a lack of policy-level consensus for such a section, at least in this policy. I've dropped the issue after extensive discussion because of that continued lack of support after vigorous debate and discussions. Vassyana 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Sambc - as others have pointe dout, the policy developed based on editors' experience. After the original expansion of the stub in february 2004 the policy was relatively stable until it was overhauled in February and March 2005. In other words, with a year's worth of experience with conflicts and ArbCom ruling we were able to explain the idea more clearly and define terms more precisely. There is nothing unusual about this process. I have no doubts that every change made in february 2005 were fully in the spirit of the february 2004 version. And after march or April 2005 the policy has been fairly stable - that is two and a half years in something very close to its current version, and well over three and a half years - and I emphasize: the vast majority of the policy's existence - in which the distinction between primary and secondary sources was central to the policy. You can argue all you want but you can't change these facts. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would refer you to the brief history given by Blueboar earlier in this section. In late August 2005, the policy did indeed mention and define primary and secondary sources, although I disagree that they were central. It specified that there are circumstances in which an article may be entirely based on primary sources. In that version, the distinction between source types simply does not refer to the sources of an article and is not used to prohibit, or even discourage, one type of source in preference for another. As Blueboar stated, even into last year the language relating to sources focussed on not creating a primary source. SamBC(talk) 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a very subtle shift, and I think that's probably why I didn't notice the change until about half a year after the fact, having been so conditioned under the original formulation from 2004 to fall 2006. I don't think it really matters, though, how the shift came about, because what's important is to create a consensus description of Wikipedia practice now. Some editors are insisting that if the policy statement doesn't include their positive language, they will not concede. This is not how it works. There certainly has to be consensus to include a new statement of policy, but consensus is not negated because someone refuses to consent unless their controversial statement is included. If the policy says anything, it has to reflect true Wikipedia policy. If something is too controversial, it stays out. COGDEN 00:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary of concerns on source typing

• The definitions of primary and secondary sources are unique to Wikipedia and this causes confusion.
• Sources in the context of policy are not always primary or secondary but may display elements of both.
• OR refers to the introduction of concepts and as such the classification of the source is not at the granularity of the presentation of the concept.
• Taking into account the above, source typing does not necessarily allow an automatic assessment of original research.
• Specifically, qualification of acceptable use of primary source material (which could be the ideal source for the accurate portrayal of facts) is clouded by a presumption of a secondary source being a de facto better source of a fact or concept or analysis, whereas it is the editing, not the source that is contaminated.
• Source typing is used in Wikipedia to discredit valid information presented correctly purely on the basis of it being a primary source without consideration of its actual credibility and the relationship to the edit in question.
• The potential for source typing to be a primary segmentation over the quality of source allows for more dubious journalistic sources to be granted a higher credibility than sound but primary sources.
• Valid secondary sources in the general sense have been discredited as primary sources as they present a novel interpretation or analysis.
• Source typing is potentially a technical debate, beyond the scope and interest of many typical WikiEditors who may not be academic.
• Source typing as a methodology of determining suitable sources does not transfer well to articles outside the academic sphere such as pop culture, which may still be notable and encyclopedic to many.
• The quality of a source is not something for NOR to be concerned about: that is in the remit of other policy. This is therefore policy creep.
• The underlying principles of presentation of information that exists elsewhere in sources do not require source typing, so by avoiding this concept, we can present policy in a less contentious way and gain wider credibility.

Just to be clear, the above is not a neutral summary, but the case against. Spenny 10:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would sum this up with:

• It is the use of sources, not their nature, that creates Original Research.

-- Dhaluza 11:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Some counterarguments as to why categorizing sources is important -

• Primary versus secondary sources are a fundamental distinction in research, see, e.g., here. We're free to adopt a standard definition or adjust it for our purposes.
• If a source has elements of both, we can acknowledge that but it doesn't change the distinction
• There are OR concerns with respect to primary sources
• There is a significant problem on Wikipedia with editors who do not understand sourcing drawing their own conclusions from primary sources in a way that makes the material unreliable, and unverifiable even if true.
• Drawing a distinction between primary and secondary sources is the best way to educate these users about what is wrong with the way they are using primary sources.
• There is also a problem with people using tertiary sources (either wikilinks, or links to other encyclopedias) that increases likelihood of errors, and also makes verifiability difficult.
• If sourcing is not mainly an OR issue then fine, move it to some other policy or guideline page like WP:RS, but if it's important don't don't delete it without putting it somewhere.
• Indeed, a source can be more or less reliable whether it is primary, secondary, or tertiary. We can say so. Wikipedia editors are perfectly capable of understanding that quality issues overlay category distinctions.
• This is not hard to understand. Educating editors on the subject is a worthwhile task because it leads to better articles. Understanding sources is also good for people's analytic understanding of the world beyond Wikipedia.
• Source categories are transferable and especially important outside of academia. For example, people need to learn that youtube hit counts, sales data, interviews, source documents, song lyrics, etc., can be improperly used as primary sources and that (for instance) notability is established by a secondary source saying something is important, not from the editor's evaluation of the importance of the material.

- Wikidemo 12:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with Spenny's characterizations of the policy and the comments in support. In actuallity:

• The definitions of primary and secondary sources given in the policy are derived from the common definitions used in academia and journalism and are not a source of genuine confusion. This "confusion" upon review is most often contrived in order to side-step conforming to this policy and WP:NPOV.
• Sources are almost always easily characterized as primary or secondary. There are almost no instances when a source displays elements of both.
• OR refers to the introduction of concepts that are not verifiable through reliable pubslished sources, and the classification of the source is necessary. The "granularity of the presentation of the concept" is not.
• Source typing is both necessary and sufficient for assessing whether a concept/view is original research.
• As every journalist knows a secondary source is indeed de facto a better source than a primary source for determining whether a concept or view is original research. "Contamination" in this sense is a non sequitur: Multiple secondary sources remove any such doubts.

The NOR policy is not going to so significantly change that editors will not be required to consider sources based on their relationship to the view or concept. That's simply never going to fly. FeloniousMonk 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Monk... read the proposed language... editors are still required to consider sources based on their relationship to the view or concept. All we do is shift the emphisis from the source being used, to the statement that it is being used for. I have to ask... are you perhaps resisting any change simply because it is change, or are you thinking about why the change is being proposed and what the proposal actually says? Blueboar 15:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been multiple proposals put on the table recently, which, taken together, amount to a radical restructuring of WP policy. Which "proposed language" is being referred to here? ... Kenosis 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The most recent version (as of these sudden and rather amorphouse oppositions) is, I believe, at #Draft as of 9/20/07 (minor update) above. SamBC(talk) 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"[T]hese sudden and rather amorphouse oppositions" are a function of receiving information that this discussion has been proposing significant changes to WP policy. Surely the implication is not intended to be that upon receiving notice of these proposed changes others should bow to the developing consensus of several users because they've already discussed it among themselves? ... Kenosis 16:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Most current proposed language below... Blueboar 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ... Kenosis 16:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Thanks for listing the concerns, Spenny. Right at the outset the first assertion really has to be substantiated:

1. The definitions of primary and secondary sources are unique to Wikipedia and this causes confusion.

> If evidence for this is well presented in the archives, it needs to be linked from here so that newcomers don't spend days hunting for it. There are issues with the other points which I'll try to come back on shortly, but time doesn't permit just now. .. dave souza, talk 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed language as of 9/21/07

(To replace the section entitled: "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources"...)

Citing the Right Source Materials (alternative suggested section title: Sticking to the Sources)

Within Wikipedia articles we will find statements of fact and statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. It is important to cite the right sources to back those different types of statements. Statements of fact should be cited to reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that fact. Statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion should be cited to reliable sources that contain the same interpretation, analysis or conclusion.

Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, unless that interpretation is either 1) an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts or 2) can be attributed to a reliable source. Nor can editors expand on an author's interpretations of fact, unless that expanded interpretation is also found in a reliable source.

For example, that Franklin D. Roosevelt was born in Hyde Park, New York and that he became president of the United States are both verifiable facts that may be cited in a Wikipedia article. The dates of each event are easily verified, and it would be perfectly admissible to say that he "was born in Hyde Park, NY, and later became president of the United States" without finding a source that specifically uses the word "later", or otherwise explicitly compares the dates. However, any statement about the effect his birth place had on him or on his career would require separate citation, since such a statement would not an obvious or non-controversial consequence of these easily verified facts.

Comments on 9/21 draft

above is the most recent as of today. Blueboar 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would argue that the wording there is not only dense, but it dilutes substantially the current formulation of this policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What problems or loopholes do you see? Vassyana 16:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording is quite convoluted, and it needs wider community input. After that WP:ATT disaster, I am unwilling to contemplate wide-ranging changes to policy without such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, how exactly does it dilute it? I'm not saying that you're not accurate, just identifying the specific problem is what's needed. SamBC(talk) 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Summarily reject the proposal. The proposed replacement above for Primary, secondary and tertiary sources should be summarily rejected, at least until it is thoroughly scrutinized by the wider community for an extended period of time. It represents a complete change to the ongoing efforts of numerous editors and long discussion over the years, in favor of the work of a focus group of three or four users at this talk page. ... Kenosis 16:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is being proposed exactly so it can be thoroughly scrutinized by the wider community. Obviously those who have worked on it hope it will gain larger community consensus... but if you don't propose it, you can't find out if that larger consensus exists. And while it does represent a significant change to the ongoing efforts of editors... it does not represent a significant change to the INTENT of this policy... in fact it clarifies that intent. Kenosis mentions, in a thread above, his concern that this is the "tail wagging the dog"... This to me is actually a good discription for why I decided this change was needed. The tail of source typing has been wagging the dog of NOR. We need to get back to NOR and away from source typing. I can see source typing being useful... and if we can figure out where to put it, I would not be opposed to having it in some other policy or guideline. It simply isn't right for the NOR policy. Blueboar 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Summarily rejecting something until it is scrutinized is silly. No-one's asking for a final decision now, or at any specific time. We're discussing ideas along a general proposal, and the proposal needs work, no-one is likely to disagree with that. I think there's some misconception that, if these new objections hadn't been changed, the page would've been changed by now, or imminently (imminent in the sense of hours or 1-2 days or something). SamBC(talk) 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The comments I read above show no indication whatsoever of preparing to be scrutinized by the wider community. Rather, it appears that several users are advocating implementation of the proposed change based on the very limited participation on this talk page thus far, claiming either consensus or near consensus at present. I note that it was just mentioned at the Village Pump two days ago. ... Kenosis 01:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, we're no longer really discussing the removal of the Primary/Secondary/Tertiary formulation. We don't need wider community consensus to know there's no consensus for that. It's pretty obvious at this point. We're just trying to do something positive here. The alternative is just to have a blank section, and nobody wants that. I really haven't seen any real criticism of the proposal above. All I hear is defenses of the already-proven-controversial PST formulation. That ship has already sailed. COGDEN 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For my own part, I am relieved to hear that, because the change in that explanation of sources from "primary and secondary sources", which had been in place for at least three years, to "primary, secondary and tertiary sources", implemented last October, solved many conceptual problems around the wiki. The proposal to remove the entire section was, to say the least, a bit much. Thank you for so noting as you did, COGDEN.. ... Kenosis 02:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, I think you've misunderstood Cogden, what was meant was, I believe, that we had stopped debating the removal of the PSTS section (from NOR, not from all policy) simply because discussions had made it clear there was no consensus for it being there, now. Sure, there was consensus before, but consensus can change. I disagree with Cogden somewhat, because there seems to be no consensus in either direction, which is especially clear thanks to the new participants in this discussion. However, there being no consensus in either direction would imply that there needs to be a discussion to establish how to satisfy the concerns raised by removing PSTS (from NOR) without having to keep what has now become a very controversial section. SamBC(talk) 02:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That said, it has become less objectionable to many since it was changed to no longer give clear and general preference to secondary sources (over primary ones). However, IIRC it was changes around that, among others, that led to protection for the page. SamBC(talk) 02:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are you going to propose this, so it can be scrutinized by the community? Or perhaps, if sufficient opposition is expressed, it will not even be proposed?--Filll 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice already posted at the Village Pump (policy) page... and I posted notice at V ... Please let me know if there are other venues where I should post a notice. I definitely would like to get broader community imput and consensus. Blueboar 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the proposal include putting the primary/secondary/tertiary source section somewhere else like WP:RS? If so then it's more of a housekeeping function, moving the sourcing stuff to where it belongs and leaving in this policy only the part that directly relates to original research. This work has already been noticed in multiple policy pages and notice boards. When people settle on a final version then perhaps it's time to remind people again on other pages and give them another chance to review and comment.Wikidemo 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think people generally envisage that happening; exactly where is still a matter of debate, I think, and I doubt anyone would "jump the gun" and lose the guidance totally. Thing is, the different care to be taken with different types of source (in the PSTS sense) isn't a matter of policy, it's a matter of guidance. If the policy is to include guidance, it would make sense for that guidance not to be intermingled with the actual rules. SamBC(talk) 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too early. The intention is commendable, but the wording needs a lot of work as not not lose the distinctions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To Wikidemo, Re: moving the PSTS section... I have no objection to moving it somewhere. The sole reason why I am making this proposal is that it does not belong here. It isn't a NOR issue. It probably works best at RS conceptually, but as that page is in such a shambles, I am not sure that is realistic... and I know some people want it at policy level. Could it work in V?

To Jossi... what distinctions are you referring to? Blueboar 17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reject NOR by definition is a proscriptive policy. While we should be clear about what is allowed and what is not allowed, the emphasis is on what is not allowed - e.g. original synthesis. The Roosevelt example is unhelpful because, even if it is permissable, what readers of this policy (which says "no") are going to need most clarity on and explanation of is what they should not do. We have "Cite sources" to encourage people to cite sources. This policy is about the different ways sources (which in general we have to use) can be misused and discussion of sources shoudl be with this purpose in mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No... the policy is NOT about the different ways sources can be misused... it is about including original research in Wikipedia articles... and it says "No" to that. I agree that sources can be misused in a way that fits OR ... but the type of source is not the problem when that happens, the misuse is the problem. Any type of source can be misused, be it primary, secondary or tertiary. There are also appropriate uses for all three types of sources. Again, where it comes to the concept of No Original Research, the type of source is not the problem... the misuse of the source is the problem. Blueboar 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment there was widespread disagreement about what the current written policy, particularly the source-typing sections, mandates, but there was more agreement about what it aims for; there was also disagreement about how it is used in practice, which may vary from page to page. The proposed text is supposed to describe the current policy (in its aims and in practice) more clearly than the current text does. The old source-typing can be improved on another page, to remove discrepancies between Wikipedia descriptions, and to address differences between Wikipedia and various scholarly fields. Can anyone point to one place where the old text discouraged a practice, which was generally rejected, and the proposed one encourages it, or vice-versa? Jacob Haller 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, either I missed something in the wording above or I need new glasses. Somehow I missed that this (today's) version of a "proposed" substitute for the current "Sources | Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources" section was being put to a vote. It solely appears to me that it is simply todays version for people to comment on or suggest additional additions or other changes.

In regards to the various comments from some new names I see up above, let me try to clarify a couple things again. For at least a month now, there has been much discussion primarily focused on the "Sources" section of this policy. Many of us (actually all of us) who have been in engaged in the 'limited' discussions on this agree that we do not want to water down the policy in way, shape, or form. But, many of us have also come to agree through many 'spirited debates', that including the "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources" section confuses the policy to a point that it currently provides more confusion than guidance, especially when viewed in conjunction with the other policies and their rewording of the same principles. We (the many editors participating in this discussion over the last month or so), are not trying to back-door anything. We thought that it was simply best if we could get close to something that we could agree on, and then tell others what we are working on, so that maybe reaching some kind of concensus would have been simplified by many arguments already having been discussed and argued back and forth for a while. That is why we finally posted this 'proposal' over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed change at WP:NOR. If we wanted to backdoor this, we definately wouldn't have advertised our intentions or asked for further input from others.

So again, I will ask you to think about why a policy (in this case one about 'No Original Research') needs to also include extraneous definitions and examples of what the various types of source material are? What does that have to do with "No Original Research"? We can clearly state that original research is definately not allowed without worrying about how to classify different kinds of source material. If not, then I think we should all go back to school for a few more years.

Including the "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources" section in the policy is like having an article about Apples, and then having a sub-section devoted to disambiguations, so road-apples and horse-apples aren't included as well. It may be related, but nothing at all to do with the main subject of the article.

Instead of just saying Disagree, try offering some constructive criticism on how to make it better.wbfergus ^Talk 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we have two questions. Both came from the source-typing debate, but each can be dealt with individually:

1. Should source-typing be in NOR or someplace else?
   1. If we remove source-typing from NOR, are there other concerns its removal may raise in NOR?
2. Should the proposed section be added to NOR?

There were several attempts to (1) fix source-typing within NOR (to resolve different definitions) and (2) address various concerns regarding appropriate uses of primary sources, appropriate uses of secondary sources, etc. within NOR. I think we eventually agreed that RS could resolve the occasional issues with the sources themselves, and that source-typing didn't help with the more common issues with their misuse. One proposal referred to "primary material" and "secondary material" within each source, then "interpretative material" for secondary, and eventually that led to this. Jacob Haller 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Summarily reject the proposal Oh yeah, that's just plain silly, right? Except that it doesn't mean that one didn't look at the proposal; it means that one looked at it and chucked in the trash as being, well, plain silly and quite stupid and not worthy of a long response. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it's only polite to give people constructive feedback. To describe something that a number of editors have worked on seriously as "plain silly and quite stupid" can't really fail to be disparaging of those editors. Why is there this view that we're all being troublemakers? What happened to WP:AGF? SamBC(talk) 00:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Summarily reject the proposal as Not An Improvement. I fail to see, in all this debris, what is perceived as "broken" that is being supposedly "fixed" by the proposed changes. NOR by definition is a proscriptive policy; it defines what is not acceptable. Muddying the waters with non-germane ruminations about other things is inappropriate to this policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, then how does the current section on sources not muddy the waters? It spends a lot of time on things other than describing what's not acceptable. On the flip side, it's not exactly unusual to define something, in part, by that it is not, as well as by what it is. It generally aids understanding. See the current section on synthesis, which follows a similar format to the proposal. SamBC(talk) 00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you speaking of WP:SYN? Please link rather than say "current section" - I don't know whehter you're talking about on this talk page where there is a discussion about the WP:SYN section, or the actual WP:SYN on teh policy page. Specificity helps, thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, yes, I mean what's currently in the policy - I've gotten out of the habit of linking universally in this discussion because it was becoming too redundant (and by this discussion, I mean going back further than the last couple of days). In general, if I say "current" I mean what's on the project page now, whereas "current proposal" means what's currently proposed. It seemed clear to me, so I apologise. SamBC(talk) 02:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I'd rather be a bit anal about ensuring we're talking about the same thing, than risk talking at corss purposes and confusing one another. Your comparison of Synth and the proposed changes to PSTS omits the rather important distinction that whereas Synth describes and identifies what Synth is, and why it is OR - hence one definition of a Bad Thing - PSTS has the task of describing three things, none of which are Bad Things, bur rather are different levels or types of Good Things - sources - and states clearly NOT having them is a Bad Thing. In other words, the comparison is inept. It isn't even apples to oranges; its more like poisoned mushrooms to haystacks, where the goal is to feed a horse. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody actually have any specific criticism of the proposal? Because "it's not an improvement" is not a criticism. The question is, is it an improvement over saying absolutely nothing on the subject? Because that's our alternative. If we can't find consensus on this topic, we're going to have an empty policy that helps nobody. I'd encourage people to take a good look at the proposal and see if they can't improve it. It's the closest thing we've had yet to a consensus proposal. COGDEN 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is a vital section that puts WP:NOR into perspective for users around the wiki. The proposal to replace the section or move it elsewhere is a major change in this policy page that I find unacceptable, at least without something that represents a clear improvement on it. Since well over three years ago, a distinction had been made between primary and secondary sources and what uses constituted original research or original synthesis. A significant number of WP users remained confused about the distinction, e.g., "well, if WP is not supposed to synthesise material directly from primary sources (except for purely factual matters), and if we're supposed to use secondary sources, then how is WP a secondary source?" The extra note about tertiary sources was inserted into WP:NOR nearly a year ago, and suddenly it made better sense to most other participants and much of the confusion diminished substantially. The description of encyclopedic matter as primarily tertiary helped to resolve this confusion right on the policy project page. Since then, it's tended to serve us well in resolving confusion about what is original synthesis, or original research, as distinguished from original wording and editorial decisionmaking.

...... Admittedly there remain residual bits of confusion. One user mentioned Encarta and Britannica, which are also "tertiary sources" according to the delineation presented in WP:NOR. I pointed out somewhere in these rapid-fire multiple threads today there is a wealth of more specialized tertiary sources such as specialized encyclopedias, to which we can also add many textbooks as tertiary sources. Indeed one could readily also argue that there are numerous sources that are quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, etc. etc. Categorizing sources as primary, secondary and tertiary has, nonetheless, served quite well in clarifying the basic types of sources from which material in WP is drawn. If there is a proposal to better clarify the distinction or explain that the delineations between them are not always sharply drawn, or whatever, that would, as I said in the section below, be quite welcome and potentially helpful. But the proposal to replace it with the language at the top of this talk section is, IMO, completely unacceptable on the justifications given thus far. I believe I used the words "summarily reject" to covey my summary opinion about the proposal. ... Kenosis 02:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

Stepping back from the specific issues:

1. Is there agreement that we do not want to produce WP by collating Encarta with Britannica and expressing the result in our own language? (Many articles would be improved by this, but that's another problem.)
2. Is there agreement that one reason not to do this is that encyclopedias are no better than their sources, and so we should consult the sources?
   • PBS has come up with a particularly glaring example of this, but it's not alone.
   • On the other hand, secondary writing is, on average, better than an uncritical reading of primary sources.
3. Should this be policy?
   • And if so where, if not here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be mainly a case of reliable sourcing. Cheers! Vassyana 16:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not an adequate answer. It begs the question of whether it should be policy; and if not, why not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think this is the place to discuss it. Our concern here is original research. If it's a question of NPOV or reliable sources, it should be addressed at those places. SamBC says it well below. Vassyana 16:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in response to number 1, then I expect most would agree about that. Ditto point two itself. The subpoints warrant more considerations. For point 3, that's the meat. Whether a source is suitable just isn't a matter of original research. The originality of an edit isn't affected by what source is used to write it. There must simply be a source for the information or analysis/conclusion. If someone has a reliable source as to, say, the population of a county (say, census data), then the inclusion of that in the article on the county article isn't original research, and calling it that is misleading. The policies on verifiability and point of view discuss what sources are appropriate and when, and do so (pretty) well. If they don't currently caution against what you describe, and NOR does, then that caution should probably be moved into the more appropriate policy, or into the guideline on reliable sources. SamBC(talk) 16:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree to 1... Mostly agree to 2 (I have quibbles about the specific sub-points)... 3 is the hard part. I see this mostly as a reliability issue (the determining the reliability of Encarta and other such encyclopedias) not a NOR issue. Citing another encyclopedia is poor research (its not original research). I am not sure if we can have a policy statement about conducting poor research, so I am not sure where it should be mentioned at policy level ... but I certainly would mention it at a revised WP:RS. Blueboar 16:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree to #1 and #2. An important corollary to #2 is that for purposes of verifiability and further research, the user will have to consult the sources even if we don't; using a tertiary source puts the reader at least one more link farther away from verifying and studying the underlying material. Re. #3, I don't see the difference betwen making it policy or guideline. Either way it's a rule to follow. It really is a matter of RS, not NOR directly - they're two pieces of the same puzzle but this stuff is in that adjacent piece. A proposal to simply remove the source criteria won't fly, but a proposal to move it to WP:RS might be fine. WP:RS is about as hard and firm as a guideline gets. In the process we should bolster RS to say that the reliability of sources is a combination of various factors, one of the weightier issues being whether they're secondary. We should make explicit that when there is a choice of sources that stand for the same thing, or more importantly when they contradict each other, the strongest source should be used. Weaker sources can still be used for further confirmation or detail, but may be removed if they add nothing. Wikidemo 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo's uncertainty about positions is an unfortunate result of the recent policy creep. Policies used to be aims, which we agreed on; guidelines to be rough and ready discussions of how to achieve them. Not collating the other encyclopedias sounds like an aim, and so a policy. I should add that WP:RS is a particularly bad choice of guideline; its status and existence are warmly disputed, although not by me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"We do not want to produce WP by collating Encarta with Britannica and expressing the result in our own language" is a strawman. Of course we prefer articles that are based on source research in secondary and primary sources over rewording an encyclopedia. But since this is a policy page, do we want to forbid it? Isn't it better to have an article that rewords another encyclopedia than no article at all? If an editor encounters an article that is an unsourced POV pile of manure, but he/she has neither the time nor the background to do good research, to rewrite it based on encyclopedias, rather than leave it as it is? The situation reminds me of Charles Babbage, who lost his financial backing because he was such a perfectionist that he seldom finished anything. --Gerry Ashton 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Personaly, I agree with all three. However, historically this policy has wavered back and forth concerning tertiary sources - sometimes it has addressed the issue, sometimes not. I think that there is enough community support to say that we should strive to draw on the same kinds of sources as other encyclopedias, rather than other encyclopedias themsevles ... but I think the support is for a preference and not a prescription. In my own proposal, I suggest that consulting other encyclopedias is a useful part of research, especially when they provide bibliographies, but should not be used as sources unless signed (non-anonymous authorship) i.e. can be pegged to an identifiable view. I think for the sake of consensus the policy should express these values but as preferences not as prescriptions, unless we want to open up a big debate on the issue. The fact is, LOTS of wikipedia editors rely on other encyclopedias. I happenb to think this is a very bad idea for all sorts of reasons but the fact remains, they do it, and if they were invited in on this discussion I bet they would express real resistence. I agree with Jossi and FeloniousMonk and others that there is a longstanding consensus (or as close to one as anyone will ever get at Wikipedia) for the distinction between kinds of sources. But there just isn't a strong enough redord concerning opposition or strict limitation to use of other encyclopedias. It IS a discussion we ought to have, but (1) maybe not here and (2) if here, definitely not now. One step at a time. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein makes very good points... but fails to explain how the classification of sources relates to the concpet of "No Original Research". Perhaps someone who was involved in the developement of the PSTS section in this policy could explain this to me?

Folks, this isn't about "getting rid" of PSTS ... it is about the fact that PSTS does not belong in this policy. Source typing just isn't an NOR issue. ANY source can be misused to support OR... the type does not make it OR... the misuse does. Blueboar 18:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on the issue of tertiary sources. A complete replacement of the section on Primary, secondary and tertiary souces with the proposal developed here in the last two or three weeks would be a radical reformulation of the policy without effective community feedback. More plausible, it appears to me, would be a revisiting of the issue of other tertiary sources (WP itself being reasonably termed a "tertiary source"). I should caution, however, that tertiary sources are valuable sources in many areas of the wiki, due to the numerous specialized encyclopedias covering various topic areas, e.g. philosophy, linguistics, mechanical principles, etc., etc. Go look in a good library sometime-- they're just filled with them, valuable specialized summary resources on just about every topic area you can think of. The notion that tertiary sources are limted to just Encarta, Britannnica and the like, is simply a mistaken view of the range of tertiary sources that are widely drawn upon in writing articles throughout the wiki. ... Kenosis 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But what has this to do with "No Original research"? Nothing. This 'subject' can, and should be, included as either a "guideline" or possibly as a watered down policy all on it's own. Again, the type od source material used does not constitute "original research". It's how the source material is used (especially after inclusion in Wikipedia), that may lead to "original research". The type of source material has nothing to do with it. Any kind of source material can be twisted, mis-interpreted, or just flat-out "changed" by an editor to insert "original research". wbfergus ^Talk 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What it has to do with WP:NOR has to do with describing the range of syntheses that are already available, and how they fit, in general, into the concept of using published material in writing articles devoid of original syntheses, a.k.a. original research. The descriptions assist in clarifying the flow of information from primary sources through summary resources, in order to allow users a better perspective on how to avoid original research. This information is valuable to WP users because WP is quite different from "research papers", where we're commonly expected to draw on sources and come up with an original synthesis. The distinction is extremely important in placing in perspective the range of sources available to users. As such, it does cross over into WP:V to some extent, but not to a very great extent. In this project page, it is set in the context of avoiding original research while still making editorial decisions about how to write an article. ... Kenosis 19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar notes, "but fails to explain how the classification of sources relates to the concpet of "No Original Research"." And asks for an explanation. Wikipedia has an NPOV and a V policy which incouraged editors to cite sources as away of includin diverse views in articles in an unbiased way. Several editors became aware that some people were citing sources to introduce material in articles in biased ways. Mere compliance with V was not enough. And biased edits often seemed to comply with NPOV because they clearly identified the point of view of the cited material. How were people seeming to comply with NPOV and V, while violating them, at least in spirit? By selective quoting, by duxtapposing different quotes in order to make the editor's point, and by using primary sources to argue (the editor's argument) that a primary source was wrong. So it became evident that it was not enough to insist that editors had to use reliable sources. We needed to emphasize that editors' views shouldn't go into articles, and we needed to show how one could seem to comply with V and CS and still be forwarding one's own arguments, which meant we need to show some dangers in how editors could use sources, and encourage other ways to use sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Slrubenstein... I agree that selective quoting, Juxtapposing different quotes in order to make a point, and misusing sources are all NOR... but I don't see how classification by type gets into it. Can't the missbehaving editor do all those things with any type of source? And I think our proposed wording address these problems...

I would say that selective quoting is making a statement of fact and not citing something that clearly demonstrates that fact, because the fact is taken out of context... this is covered in our proposal. Juxtapposing different quotes to make a point is a form of sythesis... and we are not removing the synt section in this proposal. Making an argumentative statement without citing to a reliable source that makes that same argument is covered in the proposal. The types of sources used seem irrelevant to the NOR violation. Blueboar 23:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to address the new opposition

Point 1

Recent history that may have been missed is that there has been problem with exactly what the definition of primary and secondary sources actually are, especially when the language still strongly favoured secondary sources (as it did until quite recently, I don't know from when, but definitely a number of months ago). One of the reasons to remove the distinction is that there have been problems with the definition, and the distinction is not essential to identifying, describing, or prohibiting original research.

It should also be noted that, however long something has been a certain way, that age or stability does not automatically make it either good or correct. I'm sure there are articles on wikipedia with factual errors that have been stable (in terms of the error) for quite some time. The fact that a policy gets more attention is offset by the inertia in editing policy.

Problems were raised, challenged, demonstrated, established to the satisfaction of those involved at the time, some of whom were very skeptical. Asking the parties to demonstrate and establish them again begins to feel like obstructionism, although I am sure that that is not the intent. Can good faith and, perhaps, competence be assumed? The question to address then becomes whether the new suggestions provide for a correct, consensus-bearing, current-practice-describing NOR policy. If a particular proposal doesn't, then address how it doesn't specifically and help people to make it do so, without saying "I don't believe you about the problem that led to this".

Assume good faith that the editors who've worked on this aren't somehow trying to allow original research. This isn't a fight or a battle, it's a discussion to reach a consensus solution to certain problems and improve the policies that help us to write a good encyclopedia. SamBC(talk) 18:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Point 2

It seems that a lot of the problems with the proposed removal of PSTS info aren't entirely adamant that it must be in NOR, but that it must be somewhere. Can people accept that there may be somewhere more suitable for it? The distinction between these types of sources, and between involved-party and third-party sources, and so on and so forth, touch all three of the major core policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR here), so why not locate the definitions centrally and refer to them from each policy. If the reason for each policy to refer to them is a matter of guidance, rather than of rules, then why not put that guidance centrally as well? Those two suggestions are seperate - to me, the first (centralise definitions) seems straightforwardly sensible, while the latter (centralise the classification-related guidance) is a vague thought in my mind.

There is what's now a rather poor-shape essay at Wikipedia:Classification of sources that was actually created originally as a proposal for roughly this purpose. How would people feel about going back to this and working on it in concert with the proposal to change NOR? Those who've raised these objections would be more than welcome to join in and make sure that it says what needs to be said. If that's in place as a related proposal, it may well smooth the proposals here. SamBC(talk) 18:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be right with "so why not locate the definitions centrally and refer to them from each policy" but this steps straight into the [[WP:ATT] debate. Also this debate is touching on the other perennial should WP:RS be promoted from guideline to policy? (it got shoved on the back burner during the ATT debate and has it been revived since?). I say this because moving sections like the one under discussion from a policy to a guideline has an affect on the perception of the importance of a section. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Point 3

The "new opposition" referred to at the top of this section is not what's "new" at the present. What's "new" here are these proposals to significantly change WP:NOR, developed within the past month or so by three or four users on this one talk page. Let's at least get that much in perspective, please. And the resistance to such significant changes is already substantially evidenced in the present fact that this project page needed to be locked. ... Kenosis 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, I must say that I strongly object to your language and choice of words. I know nothing about you or your history on here at Wikipedia, but even I know the Wikipedia behavioral guideline of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I must state for the record that I strongly object to your statements, which several people have pointed out to as being incorrect, yet you continue to re-state them. This discussion has been going on for around a month, and somewhere around 20-30 different editors involved in it at various stages. If you would bother checking your facts first, instead of just spewing allegations, you would readily see this. You have been provided with several links and also asked to review the Archives, which obviously you have not bothered to do. So, either please stop making baseless accusations, or please refrain from further disputive posts. Thank you. wbfergus ^Talk 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If we need to go over the comments I've made thus far, one by one, what they were responding to, and the responses and re-responses thereto, we shall. Now, what precisely is your objection to my "language and choice of words"? Without putting words or attributing implications that are not contained in my statements, please. ... Kenosis 19:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I will also point out that the page was not locked over this proposal... it was locked over disagreements relating to the EXISTING language. This proposal was developed as a way to solve those disagreements (and indeed it seems to have done so) after the page was locked. so no... that there is resistance for such significant change is NOT evidenced by the fact that the page needed to be locked. Now, I don't think anyone is suggesting rushing off and making the change once the page is unlocked. You are correct in stating that more community input is needed. That is what we are currently doing. Blueboar 19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I further reviewed the recent history, and see the distinction between COGDEN's points of advocacy, Vassyana's ideas and proposal, and the more recent new proposal developed and discussed among Bluebear, Vassyana, wbfergus and SamBC within the last two to three weeks or so. Thanks for pointing out the difference. Either way, a complete replacement of the longstanding section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is a significant change to a policy page. I trust that once complaints about opposition are put aside and accepted as a reasonable added participation and expansion of discussion, the discussion can continue on the substance of the proposal. ... Kenosis 19:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment above about your comment was speciafically the part that said "developed within the past month or so by three or four users on this one talk page". Without going back over this entire I can't recollect if there were other comments by you or somebody else that were accusatory in nature or not, but I know that several comments on here in a simalr vein really got my blood boiling. We are attempting to make the policy better, easier to understand and implement across the other existing ploicies, and trying to be as above board as possible in the process. We have only reached this point with a lot of arguning, giving and taking amongst 20 or more different editors, and we are still a ways from concensus. wbfergus ^Talk 19:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My points above are in no way critical of the opposition, but the point is that it is opposition to the proposal, and it's newly appeared. If you read the actual points I made, they were an attempt to explain the position leading to the proposal, explore what the nature of the opposition is (as I assume that it isn't knee-jerk, assuming good faith), and seek to address it (as in work with it and develop a way forward the addresses the issues that led to the proposal whilst eliminating the reason for objection). SamBC(talk) 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

jossi and Odd Nature, please explain in detail what you object to in the proposal, perhaps giving examples. Philip Baird Shearer said that we can summarize a tertiary source but we can't summarize a primary source such as a treaty. That may be something that's said by the source-typing policy but not by the new proposal. I did some thinking about that. (As an aside, I'm not sure we absolutely can't summarize a treaty. I think we may be able to say things like "this section talks about genocide", if that word appears, or "The treaty consists of 9 sections which are titled ...") I think it's not the type of the source that prevents us from summarizing it; rather it's the amount of material that comments on the source. The more reliable-source material there is (or is likely to be in future, for example for a treaty that's just been written) that interprets and comments on a source, the less we can summarize it ourselves as opposed to quoting directly. This could apply even to an encyclopedia article. The wording of a signed article could become controversial as evidence of the state of mind of the author if the author is charged with a crime, for example. It would then become un-Wikipedian to summarize what it says ourselves rather than relying on commentary about it. Quoting would still be fine. So, maybe some tweaking of the wording of the proposal is needed. --Coppertwig 22:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think summarizing a treaty is covered under the proposal... If an editor summarizes a treaty, that would be a statement of interpretation/analysis/conclusion etc. ... thus, for it not to be OR, he/she should cite to a reliable source that contains the summary and not to the treaty itself. If the editor stuck to the source - ie quoted the exact wording in the treaty(preferred) or closely and accurately paraphrased it, then he/she could cite the treaty itself. Blueboar 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Novels are primary sources. According to Blueboar's reasoning, editors must not summarize novels; they must find a summary in a published review or similar secondary source. Which of course is an absurd position. --Gerry Ashton 23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that that interpretation is correct, but I'm also not sure that the current policy is entirely comfortable with summarising a novel without reference to a source for the summarisation. Summarisation, especially of fiction, is notoriously subject to spin and interpretation, and that's original research. Summaries can appear, but we shouldn't be doing the research to write them. How about this as an indicator of OR - if people can disagree over it without anyone ever referring to sources, it's likely to be OR. SamBC(talk) 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good source-based non-original research requires skill, some understanding of the subject matter (after the research is completed), judgement, and decision making. Summarizing material is a basic skill of source-based research; just because it can be done badly does not mean source-based research can do without it. After all, we're talking about research, not monkeys and typewriters. --Gerry Ashton 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bear with me, I'm trying to find the right way(s) to say this. Summaries can be written that do not involve interpretation/analysis/conclusion etc, in the sense that leads to OR. They can be written in a way that does. Summaries are not "right out" under any version of the policy that's been discussed (that I'm aware of), including the current version. It takes care to write a summary that's not OR, and it also takes care to check whether a summary does introduce OR (in the form of interpretation/analysis/mongooses/etc). The PSTS nature of the source isn't actually entirely relevant to that, which is why it's been suggested that PSTS isn't a vital and inherent aspect of the NOR policy. All that said, you raise an interesting point about summaries generally, and it might be helpful for the policy to have a section (seperate to that under discussion) discussing summarisation. SamBC(talk) 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Please note that a word in the preceding post has been replaced with an irrelevant word as a vent to sanity

Churchill once said of Chamberlain "he viewed world affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drain-pipe." I think that these debates are very constructive because we all tend to edit in certain areas and the effects of these sections in policies vary on different types of articles. These conversations improve our understanding of the issues by presenting the information in a broader context and it is often the unforeseen consequences of these policies and changes to them that cause the most problems for people.

BTW, An example of where a primary source is also a very good secondary source is the European Court of Human Rights - Jorgic v. Germany Judgment, because it contains a very good summary of other different international courts analysis of whether ethnic cleansing is genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Attention newcomers to this article

In an effort to minimize confusion regarding how this current discussion of replacing the "Sources" subsection on PSTS came about, please refer to the Archive for the last month or two. It's an awful lot of reading I know, but it aslo way to much to even begin to try to re-link back into here. This is not a "let's get this done today" proposal. We have been discussing this for a while and will continue to discuss even longer.

Take your time to read the Archives and get caught up on what you think the pertinent issues are before posting comments, especially derogatory or accusatory comments. Probably the very earliest this "proposed change" would or could (or even should) take effect would around the end of October. We need plenty of time to assimilate everybody's constructive feedback, comments, and suggestions. Thanks you. wbfergus ^Talk 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Having spent quite a bit of time trying to get up to speed on these arguments by reading the archives, please be assured that a coherent case needs to be put together and "read the archives" doesn't present your arguments properly. .. dave souza, talk 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a new day, starting to get my caffeine and nicotine levels back to normal, and I had about 6 hours of sleep, so let's see if I can coherently try to state what we are attempting here. This perticular subject of what we are attempting has been scattered all over this page the last few days, so maybe this section title will draw a few of the newer people to this discussion here.

First, we are not, in any way, shape or form, attempting to weaken the NOR policy. We are attempting to make the policy itself more coherent and concise, by having this policy only deal with NOR related issues.

Second, this mainly came about because of numerous edit-wars on many different kinds of articles where one of the parties stated something was "OR". Many of these also related directly to the interpretation of primary, secondary or tertiary sources that were based solely on this policy's brief definition of them, not on the more detailed explanations (and examples) offered on their respective pages at Primary source, Secondary source, and Tertiary source.

Third, "Sources", in one form or another, appear of multiple policies and/or guidlines. For an example, open each of these in a new window and compare:

• WP:PSTS (from this policy)
• WP:UNDUE and the section immediately following it, WP:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research
• WP:V#Sources
• WP:BLP#Sources

These all attempt to describe the same issue, but in different ways. Especially in regards to source-typing, why should each policy even attempt to re-define these, when they are easily linked to the aforemention articles created solely for the purpose of defining the various types of sources?

Over the last month that I have been here, there have been numerous examples of how OR can be inserted into an article, either intentionally or unintentionally, regardless of the type of source used. As a matter of fact, as several other threads on this particular page (not even in the archives yet) have shown, secondary source material can be mis-applied just as easily (if not even more so) to create original research than just quoting the raw data from a primary source can. With secondary material, one could easily cherry-pick various sentences from the source(s) to build an argument promoting a POV that is not even contained within the source. This is usually much more difficult to achieve with data from primary sources, unless the editor tries to add their own conclusion or interpretation, which can easily be challenged to cite an appropriate source to verify the claim.

Trying define a type of source (some sources can also be multiple kinds of sources, depending on the context of what is being cited to it), and general blanket statements can easily be either misconstrued or otherwise misapplied by different editors at different times. The type of source has nothing at all to do with whether or not OR is being inserted into an article.

In short, many of us (around 20-30 different editors in the last month), though still not in complete agreement on wording or implementation yet, are starting to lean more towards this policy (and maybe the others) being more like an insurance policy. Everything is not defined just in the one policy. Much of what is in your insurance policy actually comes in whole or in part, from either another policy or other 'document'. The entire policy is the result of multiple "definitions" taken from various documents, and there is no overlap of those definitions when all the pieces are put together. With the current state of the policies, there is much overlap and redefinition of the "sources" subject over and over and over, with variations in those definitions. To alleviate confusion, we would like to remove this confusion from this policy and place it in a more logical place, that (hopefully) the other policies could link to similarly. We are not proposing to remove WP:PSTS, just move it out to a better place, so that PSTS would still be part of the policy, just not defined within this policy. Similar in wording to how this policy and the others, state "Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three". Instead,, probably something along the lines of "Since NPOV, V, NOR, BLP and 'source typing' complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all, as a good Wikipedia article will adhere to all".

I probably worded that last sentence poorly, but I think you should be able to get the idea of what we are trying to accomplish. If the "source typing" was moved into it's own article, having the common definition that the others can all share makes this concept easier to comprehend. I think more thought and effort needs to go into what and where this "source typing" article should be, like a guideline isn't strictly enforcable, but do we really need a policy to define the types of sources?

Thanks for reading this, hopefully this may alleviate some concerns about this being conducted behind closed doors as an attempt to weaken current policies. wbfergus ^Talk 11:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

should we make a proposed change essay page?

Would it make sense to create a "proposal" page... explaining the rational for the change, the proposed language, and the various options on implimentation (such as a) moving PSTS to some other policy or guideline, or b) creating a new guideline out of PSTS)? I know something like that is really meant for entire page revisions or new proposals.... and it is rare for policy change discussions, but it might help people FIND what is being discussed, and get a sense of the basic issues (pro and con) without having to sort through all the chatter or the archives. If people like this idea, I would suggest such a page say prominently that that comments continue to be made here, on this page. (My concern would be that someone would come along later and the say... "gee, I didn't even know the issue was being discussed"... my suggestion is so that both the proposal and it's discussion are prominent. Blueboar 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would probably be very helpful for newcomers, to quickly find out what is going on, why, etc., and clearly see that has not been a "behind closed doors" discussion by a few people to slip in some wording to water down the policy. wbfergus ^Talk 19:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as stated above it's really necessary for the case for each aspect of this change to be presented in a clear and accessible way with appropriate references to allow informed discussion. ..dave souza, talk 20:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That would probably help the situation to move forwards. You seem very capable with these presentation matters, Blueboar, would you like to do the honours? SamBC(talk) 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardly any point, really. Like others have pointed out, the idea is fatally flawed and will "never fly". Can't say I'd ever support it, myself. The proposed changes I've seen are a stereotypically Bad Thing. Odd nature 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not stop anyone to work on improvements to policy pages. If Blueboar and others want to start a sandbox page to display their proposals for improvements, why not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to do us the courtesy of explaining how it is "fatally flawed" or "a stereotypically Bad Thing"? The people who've been working on and towards this aren't all newbies. SamBC(talk) 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a rather dismissive comment, and is not at all helpful. Would you please explain why we should not just dismiss it instead? Dhaluza 22:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that a "I refuse to even read this" or "I wont' consider this" or "it will never work" is not a bona fide expression of support or opposition and pretty much counts as no opinion. An "I don't like the wording" without a statement of what is wrong with the wording is not much better. However, do take heed because it may well be an accurate assessment of what other people do in fact think. I'm still a little lost as to exactly what's being proposed. I don't care to participate in the drafting and debate buf this is merely an effort to put the primary/secondary/tertiary source in its proper place I'm wholeheartedly behind that in principle and I would probably support a proposal if a specific, firm one is made. If it's a proposal for gutting that section without finding it a good home somewhere else, I still need to be convinced and from what Jossi and others seem to be saying that proposal would likely be DOA.Wikidemo 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if WP:RS is a bad home for it merely due to quality concerns then we should clean up WP:RS. If it's that WP:RS is only a guideline then we should make it a policy in cleaned-up form or merge it with WP:V or something. Or put the sourcing policy in WP:V. Wikidemo 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(NOTE: I wrote this the following comment was made, so some overlap). Thanks Wikidemo for the constructive comment and feedback. You've peeped in here now and again so you have some idea about what's going on, even if you don't know all of the minor details of each discussion. Others are recently arrived to the discussion and basically have no clue, so if you are confused, the newer memeber of the discussion must totally be lost, as I think we've seen from other posts. I just went back through the edit history for this page to see when I first started, and it was Aug. 23, with around 2,000 comments/edits since then. That's an awful lot of 'stuff' to read through to try and get a feel for where this subject just when I first joined this discussion, and it looked like this was going on before I joined.

I think that what is being proposed is that the primary/secondary/tertiary section only be replaced here with something more NOR related, but that the information in that section needs to be moved into another article/page/guideline/policy, which could then be easily referenced from all of the others using similar language. I really don't think that anybody has found a good 'home' for it yet though. Is it more appropriate in WP:V, WP:RS or maybe a new 'page' is beyond me. I think if we can agree on where this part of the policy would be more appropriate and work with the folks actively discussing that 'page' (policy or guideline), then it will be easier for others to see that we are not 'gutting the policy', as that guidance in whatever form, will still be applied, but instead proposing to make this policy easier to understand. There, I think I said all that correctly, if not, I'm sure others will correct me. wbfergus ^Talk 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK... I will write up a proposal sub/page this weekend ... I would welcome input from those opposed to the proposal as well as those for it.

As for what the proposal is ... today some new ideas were put up for consideration which I think have some merrit, but need further discussion. Here is my suggestion....

• Proposed: That the PSTS section of WP:NOR be replaced with the "Citing the Right Source Materials" section contained in the 9/21 draft (above). The PSTS section will be moved to either another existing guideline or policy page, or to its own unique guideline/policy page (exactly which page to be determined by community consensus prior to the replacement and move.)

Are we agreed that this is the proposal? (note, I am not asking if you agree with the proposal... I am just making sure that this is the proposal.) Blueboar 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can break it into two complementary proposals:

1. to add "Citing the right source materials"
2. to move PSTS to another suitable page (V, RS, Classification of Sources, etc.) and

(However, CRSM should cover any gaps which PSTS' move would have opened, so the two parts go together). Jacob Haller 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a cautious approach. I do not think that any of these wide-ranging changes will have any traction. Work on improving rather than changing may be a more fruitful approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, there was a lot of effort to improve it, and nothing met with anything approaching consensus even within a small group. The first thing that consensus was apparent for was that the current PSTS stuff has lead to confusion and difficulties, which was shortly followed (as I recall) by a general acceptance that this distinction between sources isn't actual vital to prohibiting, identifying, or helping people to avoid OR. I have a feeling that the recent post to VP wasn't the only one about this during the whole discussion either, so it's not as if the discussion has been behind closed doors. In essence, though, the point of this "change" is improvement. SamBC(talk) 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Right" sources? That's hovering dangerously near "truth" - "right" is inherently open to interpretation, and is subjective. Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary are clearly defined and not open to abuse of interpretation. I do not see how reducing clarity and confusing the issue and inviting arguments by using subjective phrasing is in any way anything but a recipe for disaster. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might interpret that into a constructive suggestion, what about "most appropriate" rather than "right"? Several of us have seen abuse of interpretation of the PSTS stuff, although few would disagree that the distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is useful in editing wikipedia. SamBC(talk) 00:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bear with me here, this is going to take a bit. I don't see the point in merely changing the title to something which is not clearly an improved title. While "Citing the most appropriate source materials" avoids the word "right", if I understand you correctly, you wish to have some sort of explanatory content there, and shuttle the PSTS information off somewhere else, is that correct? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That over-summarises a little... the intent is to provide more useful information as to sources being appropriate to content in order to demonstrate that content isn't OR, which isn't directly related to whether the source is primary, secondary, or even the slightly-less-well-defined (in policy and in general) tertiary. PSTS isn't directly and especially relevant to OR, although it is relevant, and it's also relevant to V and RS, to my mind. The definitions (and possibly guidance) in the new location could then be referenced from any policy or guideline which needs to do so. I personally imagine that this may be (briefly) referenced from the new section in OR, stating that secondary sources are typically good sources for analytical (etc) content, while primary sources are typically most useful for factual statements in content. Having the whole definition in the policy for the purpose of that would seem excessive. SamBC(talk) 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for "over-summarizing" the language and ideas here have become so convoluted and complex I'd prefer to start with simple and work up to details, if you see what I mean. If I follow what you're saying, its a qualified Yes. I can see the point of clarifying the PSTS section, but I don't see that adding another layer, by first discussing "sources being appropriate to content in order to demonstrate that content isn't OR" (a statement I find confusing, actually, and would appreciate if you would attempt to rephrase, as your meaning is not clear to me), is going to help with anything at all. While I agree that PSTS is relevant to V and RS (one of the reasons for the up then down ATT), I don't see that adding another layer of complexity does anything much but offer a way to back-burner this rather important distinction, and possibly open the door to yet more creative interpretations by edit-warriors, as rather than a simple PSTS they will have a discussion about appropriate sources which gives two opportunities for muddiness rather than one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the complexity, I think those of us closely involved are sometimes unaware of the collective thoughts that have been built up and a situation-specific "shorthand" may have developed. Hopefully with new participation this can be unravelled, which should be of benefit even to the people who've been at this for weeks. Basically, knowing the PSTS status (in the general, classical sense) of a source simply doesn't give as much help in determining the appropriateness of the source as the wording in the current policy seems to indicate to many people. Analytic statements don't require a secondary source, and factual statements can come from almost any source, but the primary source for the fact is quite often "better" (more reliable, neutral, etc). I don't believe that that aspect can be eliminated, although tight WP-specific definition of PSTS would help. However, if we're going to have tight WP-specific definitions, then it becomes important to ensure that they are WP-wide as well as WP-specific, and that the same definition is used on all policies that refer to them. In that case, it makes sense for it to be on a seperate page from the policies in question, although there may be other things worth putting on that page (this was the impetus behind the original creation of Wikipedia:Classification of sources, which has since become confused and a tad stale). With or without this seperation, however, it has been felt that NOR would benefit from guidance on selection of appropriate sources to demonstrate that content isn't OR that isn't based squarely on PSTS (for the reasons discussed earlier in this paragraph).

Apologies for my writing being less than clear - I'm not at my best at the moment, due to getting over an illness IRL (you don't want to know what, but it does mean that I'm on a pretty high dose of codeine). Also, the preceding paragraph is a combination of my summary of the discussion here over the last few weeks, and my own thoughts. I've tried to indicate what's what, but have found it hard. SamBC(talk) 02:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the illness, and hope you get over it soon. It seems to me that there's great significance in the statement you made: "Analytic statements don't require a secondary source, and factual statements can come from almost any source, but the primary source for the fact is quite often "better" (more reliable, neutral, etc)." The second part I can agree with to some extent, though often the primary source needs specialist interpretation which is why there's the caution about it at present. However, I find the assertion that analytic statements don't require a secondary source disturbing. It's my understanding that WP:V requires us to rely on reliable, third-party published sources, and the NOR policy at present gives an exemption in that primary (or first party) sources can be used for statements of fact that require no analysis, in the context of analysis by secondary (or third party) sources. This issue bears directly on NOR, and should be made clear as part of the policy. .. dave souza, talk 09:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You make the assumption that all primary sources are first-party, which seems to be a common misunderstanding (because of the use of ordinality in the terms, perhaps). A source can be primary and not first-party quite easily, because the term "first-party" means that the the subject of the source is the same as the "author" (or source) of the source. For example, in Quaker history, there are a number of first-hand (but not first-party) accounts regarding Quaker shops, from customers who found their fixed prices terribly confusing. These sources are not first-party as they are not from the shopkeepers themselves, or any investor or so on, but they are first-hand, which is a better term to relate to "primary". In those sources (which I'm afraid I don't have references for, it's not something I've studied formally) the non-Quaker customers make a number of analytical/conclusive statements. Of course, quoting those (especially the ones along the lines of "these Quakers are crazy!") would most likely require phrasing that puts an opinion or conclusion or analysis as a statement of fact ("customers found that this indicated that Quakers were crazy"), which is of course one way to address the issue. However, a common interpretation is that peer-reviewed journal articles are often primary, and they are certainly sources of analytical/conlcusive statements. A lot of problems were found with the idea of a tight wikipedia-specific definition of PSTS, and even more with that being on this page when it's useful to other policies and not core to the OR issue. SamBC(talk) 11:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, different interpretations of PSTS fed several edit wars on other pages, with arguments that any secondary source trumps any primary source, that we can't use direct statements in an author's own works as evidence for the author's opinions, but we can use his critics' works, that we are not allowed to use primary sources for any purpose, etc. Moreover, there was no agreement on the meaning of "primary source" and "secondary source." Many ancient histories are written from older, often lost, histories. In particular, scientific papers were debated, and generally considered especially appropriate primary sources. The scientific paper issue resulted in suggestions like "wikiprimary" and "wikisecondary" which led into the effort to define NOR without using PSTS. Jacob Haller 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the edit wars, as I imagine are most editors of more than a few weeks duration. This is an argument for clarifying the P, S, and T definitions and statements, not for shuttling it off to another page, and certainly not for inventing neologisms. I'm not seeing how this relates directly to the current discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Some personal history on this issue... I got involved in this discussion (about a week ago now) because I too assumed that this was about weekening PSTS to allow what I thought were inappropriate sources. I argued long and hard for leaving PSTS alone. However, in the course of my arguing, I came to two realizations... 1) the definitions in PSTS are based those of historians - other disciplines use the terms differently. This has led to a lot of controversy and argument. 2) talking about types of sources in the NOR policy was a problem. The type of source does not automatically lead to Original Research. There are appropriate NOR uses for any type of source (direct quoting for exmple... citing the source for a quote is not OR), and there were OR misuses for any type of source (taking the quote out of context, or using it to back an argument). And for me, that was a key moment... It wasn't the type of source that led to OR, it was the misuse... OR that involves sources is when the statement in the article was not accurately reflected by the source that was cited. Blueboar 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the background Blueboar, we can only hope that will help people to share your, well, for want of a better term, epiphany. This does illustrate a practical problem any proposal is likely to face - it will be difficult and stressful to wait for/induce the same epiphanic realisation in other editors who have the same (entirely understandable) knee-jerk reaction. To clarify, I don't mean knee-jerk judgementally. It's a natural and almost always useful reflex in anatomy, and the same is generally true in the metaphorical use. Just sometimes it gets in the way, and this case would seem to be one of them. SamBC(talk) 02:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Blueboar, I think you have it right. I don't think I have seen any of the serious contributors to this discussion arguing that we should lessen the standards for NOR, in fact I think we are trying to strengthen them by focusing on the root cause and addressing that. What we need to show is that the use of PSTS actually weakens NOR by being an unnecessary distraction. We need to stop using the terms primary, secondary and tertiary altogether, and describe exactly what we mean (without resorting to neologisms). Dhaluza 09:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a point that needs being made: although some edit conflicts will be caused by editors who realy want to do original research, and resist our policies (and they need to learn, or go away), and other conflicts will be caused because the policy is unclear (and needs to be clarified) I think that there are also many conflicts that are unavoidable and in a way desirable. What I mean 9by this third caegory of conflicts) is conflicts among editors who understand the policy quite well and have reasonable difference over how to apply it to the particular case. I do not think that when there is such a conflict, it is because an editor is acting in bad faith, nor because the policy is flawed or poorly written. Rather, I think that policies like NPOV and NOR are not simple policies that are easy to follow. The demand us to act and write in ways we would not in perhaps any other context. People in good faith will have different interpretations, and will debate them. I simply do not see this as a bad thing. I get the feeling that some people here want to avoid edit conflicts at all costs, even if that means getting rid of a policy or radically revising it. I agree that there are many unnecessary edit conflicts and we all agree those are bad. But I believe some edit conflicts are good - I have been involved in amny myself, where the end result is both parties to the conflict end up with a much better understanding of one another and the topic (and the policy) and the edits to the article are much better. In these conflicts, policies express core values and provide guidelines, but it is unreasonable to ask them to provide solutions to all our problems. We need to do that, on the talk pages of articles, and it really can involve heated arguments among editors acting in good faith. That is what makes this a wikipedia - anyone can edit, strangers collaborate, articles are the proeucts of complex collaborations among editors with diverse views. I hope all of you have had the experience I have had - of being involved in a tense argument with another editor that eventually gets resolved on our talk pages and leads to a much better understanding of things. Such conflicts do not require changing policies (or blocking users), the just require patience and a recognition that people in good faith will disagree, including disagree over how to apply a policy to an article, but if they are willing to keep at it, they can work through to the solutions. Policies provide the princples, but it for editors, on talk pages, to do the hard work of finding solutions to complex problems. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua said, "Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary are clearly defined and not open to abuse of interpretation. " I disagree. There is a large class of very useful sources: ordinary peer-reviewed scientific articles, for which there is no consensus here as to whether these are generally to be defined as primary sources, secondary, or a combination of the two. This lack of clarity/consensus in the definition is one of the fundamental problems in the current dispute. I see many other problems with the various proposed definitions, too: for example, I pointed out that laboratory notes might contain interpretations. I think the complexities in categorizing the various sources mean that it isn't feasible to define them in a policy, but it should be done in a guideline where there's more flexibility. It just isn't feasible to define them clearly in a way that covers every case. --Coppertwig 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addendum

WP:V requires us to rely on reliable, third-party published sources, and the NOR policy at present gives an exemption in that primary (or first party) sources can be used for statements of fact that require no analysis, in the context of analysis by secondary (or third party) sources. It seems to me that this distinction is being lost in changing the emphasis to what's really an expansion of "However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways." If we accept the analysis that the primary/secondary/tertiary analysis is so broken that we have to make the radical change proposed (and evidence of this breakdown is needed for those of us who can't find it in the archives), we have to ensure that any relevant requirements under the present policy are fully covered by the new policy, and also have to provide clarification for editors used to the current terminology. This applies both to experienced editors who haven't re-read the policy for a while, and also to new editors advised in discussion that use of a source goes against WP:NOR in the old terminology. Here's a suggested addendum to the current proposal:

Care must be taken to accurately represent the overall sense of the source, and not introduce our own interpretation in summarising or selectively quoting from the source. Statements of fact can draw on documents or people very close to the situation being written about, often described as primary source material. Statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion must draw on third party material, often called secondary sources, which draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. For example, we can state the fact that when Charles Darwin was finishing proofs of The Origin of Species he wrote to a friend "So much for my abominable volume, which has cost me so much labour that I almost hate it." However, we can't use this source from the author to state the conclusion that "the book is abominable or almost hateful", but for an assessment must find a reliable third party source giving the opinion of a recognised current expert in the field.

Obviously the example given[3] is the first that came to hand, and no doubt a better one can be found. There may be other points from the current formulation that need to be covered. Aspects of source categorisation not closely related to NOR could be covered in WP:RS, or in the proposed new guideline. If the "third party" definition needs clarification, that has to be reflected across all policies and guidelines that use the term. .. dave souza, talk 10:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a very acceptable draft proposal Dave. However, based upon my understanding of discussions here over the last month, might I suggest that a couple minor changes be made. To help clarify the interaction of the various policies, add in parentheses which applicable policy or guideline the different parts are covered by, as in "Care must be taken to accurately represent the overall sense of the source (WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE),..." etc. Maybe with an example that shows how all of the applicable content policies and their associated guidelines all act together, others can more readily see the cohesion between the policies. wbfergus ^Talk 11:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an example using the Dan Rather episode might be applicable (or maybe a completely fictious example?), as it also would have a tie in WP:BLP and probably WP:RS as well. The more policy points and guidelines that can be tied together in one example would highlight how with a good article, all of the policies and their guidelines are tied together, and for this particular policy, OR is avoided. wbfergus ^Talk 13:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with this reasoning is that, as I've explained above, primary and first-party are not synonyms, not is there an implication of first-party if a source is primary. I assume that the confusion comes from the use of ordinals in the terms. Primary is more first-hand than first-party, as first-party means that a source is writing/talking/whatevering about itself. SamBC(talk) 11:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreement or consensus on the meaning or application of the phrase "primary source"; but there is understanding and agreement that claims must be supportable by cites to reliable published sources that make the same claim and that the claims of notability we used to judge inclusion into Wikipedia must not be from biased sources (we specify not being biased by reason of being neither from the "first party" or the "second party" with regard to the claim, but the point is being unbiased even if this is the only objective criteria we've managed to specify to date). WAS 4.250 12:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, do I correctly understand your assertion to be that there is not general consensus about what's meant by the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources, or more specifically about what's meant by a primary source as differentiated from derivative sources and interpretive sources? ... Kenosis 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The term third party should be avoided because entities that strive to be unbiased can still be a first or second party. Some examples are every decision of the supreme court of any country where another branch of that government was a party to the case. Another would be the 9/11 Commission Report because it reported, in part, on actions of the U.S. federal government, and was also set up by the same government. --Gerry Ashton 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole "third party" issue is, indeed, another potential mess, but it's a good general rule. It's quite possible that it would be best to add a not to all policy pages mentioning third party in that way, to indicate that certain sorts of non-third-party sources are generally as good as third-party ones (such as courts, and respected government statistics agencies). It also seems to lead to the odd misunderstanding regarding first-party and primary, which is in many ways the same sort of confusion that led to the whole debate in the first place. SamBC(talk) 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You both mention examples that provide good reason why third-party sources are preferred and primary sources where restricted with a "take caution" disclaimer. The meaning, impact and context of significant government review reports, like the Commission, are strongly debated by political scientists, historians and sociologists. Similarly, the meaning, impact and context of significant court decisions are strong debated by political scientists, historians and legal scholars. If experts in those fields engage in a vigorous debate, we should not be citing those "primary sources" to support claims. Conversely, if the experts in those fields are in general agreement, then it should not be difficult to cite a textbook, review literature or another tertiary source that notes the universal interpretation, or strong scholarly consensus. Outside of complementing the points of third-party references, citing such large and dense primary sources amounts to little more than cherry-picking at the whims of the contributor. Again, the examples are good examples for this, since both the Commission and court decisions in the United States must be taken in the context of case law, which includes existing conventions, past court decisions and past applications of law. This complex context cannot be accounted for without engaging in original research or referring to a third-party source. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 16:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, your cautions on the use of my examples are cautions that apply to using primary sources, not to using third-party sources. Being a third party means having no physical saftey, financial, or egotistical connection to the topic, and not being an employee, officer, or member of organizations connected to the topic. Being a secondary source means all the data and concepts in the source came from other sources, and are not new. These are different concepts. --Gerry Ashton 00:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to dave souza re evidence of a breakdown: I think there is/was no stable version of the policy, at least not relatively recently, and as I see it there is a three-way conflict among three groups. There is consensus that ordinary peer-reviewed scientific articles are usable as sources and are not to be restricted as "rare", "used sparingly," etc., but one of the groups feels strongly that some of the previous wordings of the policy imply deprecation of such sources and that the policy should not do that. Another group feels strongly that editors must be warned that "primary sources" (or what they mean by primary sources, which could be worded differently) must be used particularly carefully. A third group strongly believes that the phrase "primary sources" must include ordinary peer-reviewed scientific articles, because that's how it's defined elsewhere or because "primary" means "first" and such articles present new results, and this third group seems to include new people who show up from time to time and make definitive statements on this talk page that scientific articles are primary sources, causing alarm among the first group. No wording which satisfied all three groups was found until the proposal that many of us developed over the past week or so under Blueboar's leadership. Another way out might be for the policy to mention scientific articles specifically, for example to state that they are not generally included in the definition of primary source here. However, there is some difficulty in getting consensus for such a definition since I think some people believe that obviously only the raw data is primary and the peer-reviewed article is secondary, while others believe that obviously the peer-reviewed article is primary; others admit that a peer-reviewed article can be seen as containing both primary and secondary material.

The wording you propose, dave souza, seems geared towards history or social sciences, not hard science. Typically, a peer-reviewed scientific article contains data and also contains statements of interpretation and conclusions about the data. It's not clear what "third party" means in this context, since the article is not about the authors of the article but is about some object of scientific study. Requiring a "third party" without explaining what this means for scientific articles could possibly be interpreted as meaning you can't use scientific articles because there's no "third party". Whatever the wording is, it has to be considered how it will affect the use of scientific articles. --Coppertwig 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy has never been stable? Untrue. When the policy was first established, there was work on it between December 2003 and February 2004 which achieved a stable version (which included a distinction between primary and secondary sources). In February and March of 2005, several people (including myself) revised the policy - the revisions evolved via consensus and the result was a version that was stable until September 2006, when three or four elements were questioned by a number of editors. We worked through each one until consensus was reached - and the changes all had to do with wording, not the substance of the policy - and the policy has been stable since then. So i see no breakdwon of consensus let alone absense of consensus. I see a stable policy that was revised largely for style, not for substance, twice since it was initially developed. Both times revisions were collaborative and achieved via consensus, and both resulted in highly stable texts. And I repeat: the revisions had largely to do with wording not substance. The policy as such has been accepted by virtually the entire community since its conception. As to Coppertwig's analysis, I would say that virtually all Wikipedians accept the first two points, and I think it is relatively easy to add that many peer-reviewed journal articles, while being secondary sources, contain primary source material (and Coppertwig is wrong to suggest this distinguishes natural science articles from other fields; it is as true of articles in the humanities and social sciences as it is of the life and physical sciences) and that it is important not to take such primary source material out of context. It is not a major problem and to suggest is is is a red-herring. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, and especially like the example, but I disagree with how you say it. Rather than characterizing sources as primary or secondary, which is unnecessarily confusing, why not just call them what they are. Primary sources are factual sources, and secondary are interpretive or analytical as you said. Just stop right there. The sooner we jettison this primary/secondary baggage, the sooner we can make this policy about NOR and nothing else. Dhaluza 15:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we have a problem... I think a lot of us will agree with the statement: "primary sources are factual sources" (at least in the way PSTS uses the term "primary"), but I don't think the coralary statement "factual sources are primary sources" is true. Factual statements can come from any type of source. Blueboar 16:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Slrubenstein: I didn't say it had never been stable. Not a major problem? Great. I think there is generally pretty good agreement about what the policy should mean. It's pretty much just the wording we've been having trouble with. I think adding something to the policy that defines how peer-reviewed articles fit in might very well solve the problem. --Coppertwig 00:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait -- "not a major problem"? Maybe there is no major problem here and maybe the page should not be protected? --Coppertwig 01:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Errors in "reliable sources"

Back in another discussion taken from here, someone implied that primary/secondary source conflicts were "rare". I have now had to treat yet another case of a mistake in a secondary source where appeal had to be made to a primary source. This particularly seems to be a issue with BLPs of people who are notable enough for media sources, but who lack conventional biographies. These media sources make lots of mistakes; fact-checking (or at least cross-checking) is obligatory when questions arise.

As I commented over in the discussion of WP:RS, our policies don't treat this issue well. The problem in WP:RS is that the issue of source errors isn't addressed at all, so that being correct isn't a criterion for being reliable. The problem here is that the constant hammering on avoiding primary sources is ratifying the notion that secondary source errors are to be preferred over primary sources.

One point I consider non-negotiable: when a primary source is quoted in the article, the primary source should be cited if possible. In this case, a secondary source should be never, ever, be preferred over a primary source. Likewise, when a secondary source misrepresents a primary source, whether by accident or design, the secondary source statement must not appear in Wikipedia unless it is necessary to explicitly deny its accuracy. These are the absolute standards of non-fiction writing, and we cannot credibly contravene them. Whatever other rules we establish, these must not be contravened. The problem I've consistently seen in the discussion here is that the discussion of sources is so abstract that it doesn't consider the ways that secondary sources use primary sources. Some of these uses it is not our purpose to argue with, but some of them, we have to review. Mangoe 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether primary, secondary, or tertiary, a source can still be wrong or unreliable. We shouldn't reprint obvious errors. When it's useful to provide a quotation, cite the primary source for the quotation if you've actually seen it and checked it. If not, cite the secondary source for what it reports about the primary. That's done in academia all the time. Don't doctor up a fake primary source out of information gleaned from the secondary, as if you had actually read the primary when you didn't. That would only mask any error. It's okay if an editor excludes a secondary source as an obvious misstatement or misquote of a primary source. But keeping in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, an editor shouldn't do his/her own original analysis of primary sources to confirm whether the secondary source is a good synthesis. Wikidemo 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue of verifiability and reliable sources is one thing. The issue of how those sources are used in creating an article is another. Of course they interact. All three of the basic editorial policies interact -- WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. WP:NOR requires dealing further with the issue of what kinds of syntheses are generally available among the sources. The issue of whether they're "right" or "wrong", as has been explicitly stated in WP's policy growth and development from the very beginning of WP, is not the issue. Odd as it may seem at first blush, the original mandate from the founding Board (read that:"from Jimbo Wales") that the standard is "verifiability, not truth", still controls in Wikipedia. What's required are sources that show a published weight of opinion about a particular assertion of fact or conclusion that can be drawn from published information. But that's more for WP:VER and its offshoot WP:RS. For WP:NOR, the issue centers around relying on published sources and not formulating new syntheses or drawing new conclusions that are not already available in the published literature. When the published literature conflicts about the basic facts or conclusions, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight controls the method by which the material is to be presented. As I said earlier here and as others have stated too (not necessarily in this discussion), the "big three" basic editorial policies work in tandem and in tension with one another. That interaction and tension among the "big three" is mediated by consensus process at the local article level. For the purposes of this policy page, WP:NOR, it is useful and appropriate to provide a framework or basic breakdown of the range of sources available, which the primary, secondary, tertiary delineation does quite effectively. ... Kenosis 15:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that any serious thinker on an issue who wants to present it properly has to do more research than is suggested. Currently, it seems to be suggested that we have to take secondary sources at face value: indeed it has been asserted to me that attempting to correct those sources, even when referring to what must be their source material, is original research - we would typically have the synthesis argument brought up. The point is that this concept does not transfer well outside of the domain of the most reliable sources, where we are thinking of proper reliable sources, such as high quality scientific journals. As soon as we allow ourselves to consider the less reliable sources, say such as the Times, we should be evaluating the evidence put to us.

For example, in the Times today, they have published a story on biofuels being worse for the environment than normal fuels. They quote some statistics. I could base an entry on biofuels asserting that opinion quoting that story from the Times. However, the Times story does give its source quite specifically. Its source is an article in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, noted as an article placed for open review. So we start to see that although the Times paper presents the evidence quite firmly, (and one of the points it makes is that one shouldn't be to hasty in jumping to conclusions - yet the article appears to have taken the point as proven). And is a scientific paper a primary source in this case, or a secondary source?

According to NOR, we apparently could dive in on the Times story and use it. We could check other newspapers, but we then need to consider whether they themselves are reliable. Often these sources are from news agencies and the end result is checking the same source, adapted for the readership of the paper. We find that the report, and we can see it has been misrepresented (and can quote it, not just argue this), surely it is correct to do this. (We could more readily argue that the information should not be in due to the quality of the source).

A couple of questions. Is that scientific report a primary source for the story, or is it a secondary source as it is a scientific analysis? What about for the specific claim that biofuels contribute more to global warming than normal fuels? Does that change anything as to how we look at the sources? Let's assume this has been added to an article, how would you deal with it with the policy as a whole? Spenny 15:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Academic papers are often a mixture of primary and secondary. We can all point to errors in secondary sources. Any newspaper is guilty of factual errors and bad analysis, even the Economist, Financial Times, New York Times, etc. Even the best-researched books get things wrong here and there. But what's the alternative? Supplanting sources with individual editors' analysis of what is true opens the door to even worse, systematic errors. A newspaper story about a piece of technology or a scientific theory is only a medium-good source. Any subject worth its salt has been written up in books, reports, journals, etc., which are more reliable sources than newspaper articles. A weak / stubby article may just have a few sources picked up from a google search, in which case it's still important to use the best available reliable sources. Nothing wrong with those articles, they're just the first step towards a better article. As everyone knows you can't and shouldn't take Wikipedia articles as the truth about a subject, just an introduction and starting point for making your own mind up and finding more information. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As the article matures, its sourcing gets better and better as people make refinements.Wikidemo 15:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed wording as of 2007-Sept-22

(To replace the section entitled: "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources"... which is to be moved elsewhere)

Citing Appropriate Source Materials (alternative suggested section title: Sticking to the Sources)

Within Wikipedia articles we will find statements of fact and statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. It is important to cite appropriate sources to back those different types of statements. Statements of fact should be cited to reliable sources that contain that fact. Statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion should be cited to reliable sources that contain the same interpretation, analysis or conclusion, often called secondary sources (see WP:PSTS). Collections of facts which tend to lead the reader to a certain interpretation should be supported not only by a reliable source for each fact, but also by a reliable source that contains the same interpretation.

Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, unless that interpretation is either 1) an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts or 2) can be attributed to a reliable source. Nor can editors expand on an author's interpretations of fact, unless that expanded interpretation is also found in a reliable source.

When there are a number of reliable sources that interpret a particular piece of material, we need to be especially careful not to insert or imply our own interpretation of the original material.

For example, that Franklin D. Roosevelt was born in Hyde Park, New York and that he became president of the United States are both verifiable facts that may be cited in a Wikipedia article. The dates of each event are easily verified, and it would be perfectly admissible to say that he "was born in Hyde Park, NY, and later became president of the United States" without finding a source that specifically uses the word "later", or otherwise explicitly compares the dates. However, any statement about the effect his birth place had on him or on his career would require separate citation, since such a statement would not an obvious or non-controversial consequence of these easily verified facts.

Comments

I tried to address the concerns that had been expressed and to incorporate some of the wording from dave souza's proposal. Further discussion and proposed changes are welcome. --Coppertwig 15:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

How about combining the titles and dropping the "right" (vs. wrong) issue (and using wiki-caps) as follows: Citing appropriate source materials, and sticking to those sources -- Dhaluza 16:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Appropriate" might be a better word than "right". I have changed it. One other comment... facts can come from all sorts of sources, not just pimary ones. so I took out the "usually called primary sources" clause. While statements of analysis, interpretation etc. can be found in primary or tertiary sources, they are usually found in secondary ones, so I left that in. And given that one of the points of this proposal is that PSTS will not "disappear" but simply be moved elsewhere... I think it appropriate to point the reader to PSTS when mentioning secondary sources. Blueboar 16:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Sticking to the sources" is, IMO, a reasonable proposal for the title of an additional section or subsection for possible inclusion in WP:NOR upon receiving scrutiny, discussion and feedback from the broader community. via the Village Pump, and perhaps other relevant fora (e.g. a mention of this discussion in WT:V and WT:NPOV), in addition to this talk page. The additional participation in the last day or two is a step in this direction. IMO, "Citing the right source materials" should be dropped from consideration, for reasons given by several including KillerChihuahua above. The explicit content of the proposal needs further work. the concrete example is not adequately broad to convey the range of situations encountered on the wiki, IMO, and I'm resistant to providing a bunch of examples like the Roosevelt example on a policy project page. Perhaps a new proposed guideline might be considered, e.g. Sample applications of WP:NOR or whatever. I don't know. IMO, the first three paragraphs of the proposal are reasonable proposed additions to the policy page, either leading up to the primary, secondary, tertiary distinction, or immedately following it, or in a separate section a bit farther down. Please consider how the proposed language integrates with the more-or-less existing language in this policy page. ... Kenosis 16:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see two problems with KillerChihuahua's comments: 1) he talks about adding the proposed language as "an additional level of complexity" instead of it substituting one level of complexity for another. I would agree with him if we were adding the proposed section on top of PSTS... ie keeping the PSTS section in NOR... but by moving PSTS and replacing it with the proposed language, we actually simplify the complexity. 2) His comments don't address the main problem with PSTS... the fact that PSTS is talking about things that are not really in the realm of NOR... The type of source being used does not determine whether there is a NOR violation. OR can happen with any type of source. PSTS is an important and valuable statement... but it is misplaced in WP:NOR. It needs to be moved elsewhere. Blueboar 16:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your position and that of several other users on the section Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (referred to by some on this page as PSTS) has been made clear. Many other users disagree. I disagree in no uncertain terms. Because of the mass of talk that has been brought to bear on this page on multiple issues, I will simply reproduce the relevant comments I submitted on the same issue several sections above.... Kenosis 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

..... The section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is a vital section that puts WP:NOR into perspective for users around the wiki. The proposal to replace the section or move it elsewhere is a major change in this policy page that I find unacceptable, at least without something that represents a clear improvement on it. Since well over three years ago, a distinction had been made between primary and secondary sources and what uses constituted original research or original synthesis. A significant number of WP users remained confused about the distinction, e.g., "well, if WP is not supposed to synthesise material directly from primary sources (except for purely factual matters), and if we're supposed to use secondary sources, then how is WP a secondary source?" The extra note about tertiary sources was inserted into WP:NOR nearly a year ago, and suddenly it made better sense to most other participants and much of the confusion diminished substantially. The description of encyclopedic matter as primarily tertiary helped to resolve this confusion right on the policy project page. Since then, it's tended to serve us well in resolving confusion about what is original synthesis, or original research, as distinguished from original wording and editorial decisionmaking.

...... Admittedly there remain residual bits of confusion. One user mentioned Encarta and Britannica, which are also "tertiary sources" according to the delineation presented in WP:NOR. I pointed out somewhere in these rapid-fire multiple threads today there is a wealth of more specialized tertiary sources such as specialized encyclopedias, to which we can also add many textbooks as tertiary sources. Indeed one could readily also argue that there are numerous sources that are quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, etc. etc. Categorizing sources as primary, secondary and tertiary has, nonetheless, served quite well in clarifying the basic types of sources from which material in WP is drawn. If there is a proposal to better clarify the distinction or explain that the delineations between them are not always sharply drawn, or whatever, that would, as I said in the section below, be quite welcome and potentially helpful. But the proposal to replace it with the language at the top of this talk section is, IMO, completely unacceptable on the justifications given thus far. I believe I used the words "summarily reject" to covey my summary opinion about the proposal. ... Kenosis 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for this, or for any alteration to the policy for that matter. We're only going to be altering core policies when there's any pressing need that overides the need for a stable policy, and I've yet to see evidence of such a need anywhere on the project but in claims made here, and anyone other than those making such claims. FeloniousMonk 16:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, first congratulations on what looks like your approximately 3 year anniversary here on Wikipedia. Secondly, your opinions are valuable as an Administrator. However, I think it must be apparent that so many people have been arguing this back and forth for so long, with such passion, that there must be a "problem" somewhere along the line, or people wouldn't have been coming here to voice their opinions or to seek clarification in the first place. I (and many others) do see what we are proposing as neither weakening nor destabilizing to any of the core policies. Instead, we see it as a needed cleenup measure to minimize why so many people have been coming here to discuss this in the first place. If we can agree on moving PSTS somewhere else, and create that 'location' with whatever other changes may be required (additional examples, further defintions, whatever), and then replace the current PSTS section with this proposal, how do you see that as a destabilizing event in Wikipedia policies? Perhaps we can address that to alleviate your concerns. Thank you. wbfergus ^Talk 16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether WP:PSTS is critical to editors understanding of WP policies is not relevant here, it clearly is not critical to understanding WP:NOR because we can say what NOR really means without using PSTS as a crutch. Frankly I think it is not well defined, not widely applicable, and therefore widely misunderstood. Also the idea that removing it changes core policy would require changing the core policy on WP:CONSENSUS. It's obviously contentious, and not necessary, so it should not remain. We can define NOR without creating defined terms, which is a form of Neologism. Let's just use plain English. Dhaluza 20:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Plain English or not, this now refers to secondary sources without making it clear that sources close to the subject, which for most of us is plainly and simply expressed by the term "primary sources", can be used for facts but not for interpretation etc. This is still less clear than the existing policy. The Darwin example I showed above was designed to bring out the point that a fact about an openly attributed opinion can be stated, but that opinion from, eh, a primary source can't be used as analysis, conclusion or whatever. That's a point which still seems to be lacking, and some thought is needed as to whether this proposal would have other unintended consequences. .. dave souza, talk 23:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Would those who are against the proposal to state the NOR policy without PSTS please suggest alternatives? For example, would you try to find a previous version of the policy for which broad acceptance can be built up? We need to move forward somehow, to get out of this deadlock and get the page unprotected.

In reply to dave souza: when you say "sources close to the subject", do you mean an individual human subject? How would this wording apply when the topic is a mathematical theorem, a property of an astronomical object, or something of that nature, rather than a human subject? --Coppertwig 23:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For that matter -- who objects to the current version of the policy, and on what grounds? --Coppertwig 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If we remove PSTS from this article, where will (should) they go?

Almost all of the discussion the last month or so has been around the "Sources" issue. Some of the people just joining this discussion in the last few days seem to think that this discussion is being centered around diluting NOR by merely replacing the current PSTS section section with something new, and not by actually moving it somewhere else. I think we can make progress faster on replacing PSTS if we first can agree on where and how WP:PSTS would get moved to. This would have to take place before we could ever hope to replace PSTS, as it would have to exist at least in it's entirety someplace first, or else we would be diluting NOR policy. Can we start a discussion about where and how to "re-position" WP:PSTS in either another article or in it's own "guideline" (I don't think we actually need a policy to define the types of sources do we)? Once this first step is accomplished, others can see that policies aren't being dilluted or otherwise weakened, and then many of the arguments against these proposed changes may very well disappear. wbfergus ^Talk 16:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable question. Firstly, this is not an article, but a project page on policy. Secondly, what has been chosen here to be termed PSTS is not going anywhere. Its predecessor (Primary and secondary sources, or if you prefer, PSS) has long and extremely strong, stable widespread, community consensus. The expansion of PSS into PSTS last October has become a valuable part of the WP:NOR policy and has achieved and enjoyed strong, stable, widespread community consensus, except for some complaining here among several who do not like it, and who would prefer to totally rewrite the longstanding approach. No reasonable justification has been given thus far for its removal. Users wikiwide have come to rely on the primary, secondary, tertiary distinction in explaning and implementing WP:NOR. That section is not going anywhere on the justifications given by the advocates here thus far. ... Kenosis 17:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

After some limited looking around, trying to see where an existing page might be most appropriate, to me it seems like WP:PSTS could easily fit into the WP:RS guideline. It seems the most logical place, but any policy referring to it would probably need some additional words like "The following guideline section is include in this policy by reference" or something like that. A simple sentence or two like this could be added to each policy so that there is an inherent enforcement of the guideline as part of the policy text, and they would all use the exact same "text" (by reference to the guideline). This would eliminate much confusion, and when disagreements arise about types of sources, etc., those discussions would occur on that page, not scattered across the various policy pages. wbfergus ^Talk 17:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is presumptive and unwarranted, at least based up the arguments and weight of opinion expressed on this page thus far. Moreover, the proposal to remove WP:PSTS is a proposal to remove a long-developed integral part of a policy page, without anywhere near adequate consensus to do so. ... Kenosis 17:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the talk page of each of the 4 main content policies. All four of them currently have discussions about sources. This approach of each policy having source discussions and defintions is more effective than having one page that discusses sources? If we "promoted" WP:RS to a policy in and of itself, wouldn't that centralize all arguements about sources? Future discussions on sources could then focus on the applicability of the source as it pertains to all four of the content policies, without each content policy having it's own internal debate on how that particular source issue pertains to that policy. wbfergus ^Talk 17:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note:This comment immediately below was intended to respond to the question farther below. I leave it here so as not to created additional confusion, since there have been responses place already.,,, Kenosis 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In a word, no. The now infamous WP:A fiasco is a perfect example of why a focus group should not attempt to substantially change foundational policies in Wikipedia. WP:A, or WP:ATT or WP:Attribution was an attempt to consolidate what was perceived by a focus group roughly ten times larger than the focus group that's made this proposal regarding WP:PSTS. It was raised to the status of policy in February 2007, resulted in widespread discontinuity and confusion across the wiki. By the beginning of April 2007, it had been reduced once again to a proposed policy, and by the end of June was reduced further to a summary essay. The foundation of the wiki relies heavily on the balance, interaction and tensions among and between WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR, three basic policies that are to be mediated by consensus at the local article level. The solution to the "problems" mentioned here and there in the preceding talk threads (of which there are relatively very few, anecdotal examples) is to use the existing policies at the local article level, not mess with these established policies in any substantial way. ... Kenosis 17:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, WP:ATT failed because it failed to achieve a clear consensus, which is required for policy pages. If there is a lack of clear consensus for a portion of policy, we must deprecate it, just as WP:ATT was deprecated. Your arguments do more to support the removal of WP:PSTS from this policy, than to support its continued retention. A change to something else will have to meet a standard of clear consensus. However, deprecation (as you so well point out) is a matter of simply lacking that clear consensus, not showing a clear consensus against as you'd seem to demand. Vassyana 17:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is flat-out incorrect. It achieved a consensus among the participants in the proposed policy page. Then it was rejected when exposed to a much wider consensus upon being put into play. ... Kenosis 17:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not mutually exclusive with my point. Vassyana 18:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. You just stated that it did not achieve concensus, only local approval. wbfergus ^Talk 18:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not support removing WP:PSTS in the strongest possible terms. FeloniousMonk 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why? If we can find a suitable home for it, where it is central to each of the four content policies, can you explain how placing it there would weaken or otherwise destabilize the four policies from their current form? Right now, the 4 policies have four different versions covering the exact same subject. Wouldn't making a cnetralized definition that they all use actually strengthen the existing four policies and ensure greater consistency across the application of policies? If not, can you please explain how it wouldn't and how having four different explanations of the same subject is less confusing and allows for more consistent application of policy? Thank you. wbfergus ^Talk 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may add to this, even if people would argue that each policy needs to define things in subtly specific ways for the specific purpose of that policy, this is likely to lead to terminology clash and confusion when it comes to applying those policies together on actual articles. SamBC(talk) 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Those interested in this discussion may wish to review the essays Wikipedia:Classification of sources and Wikipedia:Using sources. Vassyana 18:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Wikipedia:Classification of sources, do please review the talk page and/or history as well, as development pettered out, so the page isn't in a particularly consistent or stable state representing any consensus of anyone. It's the idea of the page and the structure, rather than the content, which is relevant. Also, note that it was originally tagged as a proposal and was summarily re-tagged for not proposing anything "actionable". SamBC(talk) 18:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of where to move these - the only logical option is "to another policy page". Since they are an integral part of policy, you can't remove them to a guideline or essay (as seems to be what's being suggested here) without downgrading the status of this information (which is, of course, not an option, since we don't change policy without a complete, project-wide discussion...and even that may not be good enough). Of course, I'm still trying to figure out the "why" part of the question of moving this material. Guettarda 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this position. WP:PSTS is not an integral part of this policy, and it's not even clear why it's here, other than to attach it to a policy page rather than a guideline like WP:RS where it would otherwise be expected to be. Based on the wide disagreement on the basic definitions of PSTS (e.g. scientific vs. historical context) I would say it needs to be moved to an essay page until the definitions are revised to make them widely applicable and understandable. Then, when and if that happens, it can be integrated with the RS guideline which also needs work, and then the combined document could be considered for elevation to policy. Keeping this flawed section in this policy is only preventing needed improvement in the basic expression of the concept of PSTS, because of the inertia of policy pages. And it's preventing basic improvement in the NOR policy it is attached to, to the point of fueling an edit war that has kept this page protected for far too long. If PSTS does not have broad consensus support now, regardless of what may or may not have been deemed consensus in the past, it needs to go. All we need to do is simply define NOR without using the PSTS terms that are so confusing, by simply using descriptive adjectives that are plainly understood. Dhaluza 21:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is simple. We need to distinguish between PSTS because distinguishng between verifible and non-verifiable has not been sufficient to explain the diferrence between OR and non-OR.Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It was once the case that WP:NOR was more simply stated-- about three or three-and-a-half years ago. The current form of WP:NOR is a result of that three-and-a-half additional years of practical experience, during which time WP has grown from something like 100,000 articles to over 2,000,000 articles. Users around the wiki, myself included, constantly run into the need to explain the WP:PSTS distinction w.r.t. WP:NOR. Reducing this policy to a bare-bones version again based upon vague complaints simply will not wash, at least not without a clear, widely consensused improvement that takes into consideration the same range of issues that led to its current form. There may well be more effective ways of doing it. But we certainly have not seen them articulated here in any way that factors in the breadth of the issues that people encounter in the numerous types of material and topics areas covered in those two-million-plus articles. ... Kenosis 22:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Naturally NOR has changed over the years, but that is a reason why it should continue to change, not a rational for no further change. The fact that you have to explain PSTS should be a sign that change might be warranted. I don't think that there is serous discussion about stripping the policy down, but there is serious discussion of the cost/benefit of PSTS, and if it does not have wide consensus support, it must go regardless. So, can you please explain for my benefit why we need to use wiki-defined terms like PSTS, rather than plain English, to describe NOR? Dhaluza 23:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Arguments agianst moving PSTS anywhere else

Okay, so far the arguments against moving WP:PSTS seem to be the following:

• WP:ATT failed, because of a local consensus that did not withstand broader consensus. This is the destined situation for moving or removing WP:PSTS.
• The current Wikipedia four main content policies each having their own section about sources, defined and presented in differing contexts. This is considered important as each policy has a different focus and context.
• Each of the four main content policies needs to define "sources" differently because each definition is an inherent part of each policy. For instance, in order to best ensure there is no original research in an article, it is imperative to understand primary or secondary sources.
• Deprecation or replacement of this section of policy would have negative consequences, including a weakening or destabilization of policy.

Did I miss anything? wbfergus ^Talk 18:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Revised 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) by Vassyana.

I agree with your essential points, but this a bit snarky. Please consider rephrasing. Vassyana 18:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vassyana. I'm not actually sure how to get the same essential point across in a better way, mind you, but I agree that some way ought to be found. The main point is to ask if those opposing feel that this reasonably summarises the arguments, what's included that shouldn't be, and what's missing. SamBC(talk) 18:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I was probably "over-the-top" with my sarcasm, and I apoligize to any who may be offended by it. But, I am also at a loss as to how it could be re-worded unsarcastically. I've gone over the arguments against any change at all, and this seems (to me) to what the main points against the proposed change are. When asked for specific examples of how this is bad, these same points come up again and again. If anybody wants to reword the above any any way, please do so. All I ask, for historical purposes, is that you use strikeout instead of just replacement. I am trying to determine why some people are against the proposed change, or how this won't eventually help improve Wikipedia with consistent definitions and consistent enforcement of policy based upon those consistent definitions. Thank you. wbfergus ^Talk 18:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried revising the points to be more neutral and civil. Since I am rewriting another's comments, please revert me if it is felt inappropriate. Vassyana 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel some of the points now appear weaker than how they were first presented by the original poster of the point, but I can live with the more nuetral wording. Thank you for your effort. wbfergus ^Talk 19:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• The representation of "arguments against" in this section is wirtten and placed by an advocate of removing this longstanding policy, and should not be taken as a summary of arguments in objection to the proposals presently being put forward on this page. No further comment at this time. ... Kenosis 18:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, make a better summary. And when did anyone suggest removing a whole policy? SamBC(talk) 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No thank you, at least at this time. What I am beginning to see here, and above, are strategies that are arguably crossing the line into WP:POINT. I've said my piece for now, thank you. ... Kenosis 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems instead that there are no valid reasons opposing the proposed change. Slrubenstein (who I have grown a great respect for during our discussions here the last month), seems to be the only person who is opposed to the proposed change who has bothered to even attempt to come up with valid points while also offering some very constructive criticism. For almost all other opposition to the proposal, when asked for specifics, we get variations of the above points. When asked how the proposal could be made better to alleviate unspoken concerns, no suggestions are forthcoming. Please, please give us examples of how this will destabilze any existing Wikipedia policy, lead to greater confusion, or make enforcement of any of these four main content policies more contentious? wbfergus ^Talk 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We should not move PSTS. While Wikipedia articles on different branches of academia, journalism, and jurisprudence can have discussions of how experts in those fields conceptualize and categorize sources, for WP policy the distinction is meaningful only in the context of this policy, because the concept of "verifiable sources" is not enough to explain what original research is and we need to make other distinctions about sources in order to clarify the different ways they may and may not be used in Wikipedia. As such, any discussion of them belongs here. Let me add that the more I reflect on this, the more the whole debate seems like a wild goose chase. It typically begins with someone faulting the policy for prohibiting the use of primary sources. The problem with this argument is the policy has never flat out prohibited the use of primary sources. As soon as someone points this out, critic just start arguing that the whole mention of sources is problematic. It is just a bait and switch tactic. That said, I have no problem with trying to improve the text, and indeed I have tried to do so myself. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the suggestion of fraudulent arguments is offensive and has the smell of someone not accepting that the points have been argued in good faith.

The fundamental point is a simple one: however you define a source, it can be used correctly or incorrectly. The action of OR is not dependent on the type of source, but the editing.

To go further, the text suggests that sources as a whole are primary or secondary, but is seems to be consensus that sources can be both. Then people introduce the concept of perspective, where a source changes its nature dependent on the point being made. Then we have the debate of whether the source is a cohesive whole, or a collection of concepts and each concept needs to be tested.

There is no bait and switch: there is a simple observation that the solution appears more complicated than the problem. I do problem solving on a professional basis, and I can guarantee you that the biggest cause of "impossible" problems to resolve is the insistence of educated people refusing to accept that a problem that causes difficulty can be the simplest one that has already been dismissed as it is too obvious. Source typing seems a nice pure solution, but for the purposes of NOR, especially outside the domain of good academic sources where there are still sound encyclopaedic articles to be written, it simply is not.

The edit warring over the previous month was not about removing the categorisation, but simply a genuine deadlock over being able to reconcile the categorisation with appropriate uses. The general consensus was that there had to be exceptions, and the confusion was that nobody seemed to be working to quite the same concept of primary and secondary sources so could not agree what were the real exceptions.

The classification of sources is of no interest to me: I simply fail to see how it resolves the question of "Says who?" and it fails the general public test of being able to explain simply and concisely what No Original Research means. If Wikipedia is the domain of a few academic wizards and everyone else are inconsequential ticks to be looked down on and deemed a nuisance, fine, let policy owners play the academic game and come up with complex rules that Joe Public will never really understand. However, that is not the domain Wikipedia occupies at the moment, and therefore policy should be set out in the simplest and most accessible way that it can be. Spenny 21:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I will ask that those opposed to this proposed change please do the following:

Open each of these in a new window and compare:

• WP:PSTS (from this policy)
• WP:UNDUE and the section immediately following it, WP:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research
• WP:V#Sources
• WP:BLP#Sources

Now, after doing this, please describe how this is more efficient or leads to less confusion than if all of these various definitions and examples were instead placed on one 'page' somewhere, with each of those policies mentioned above linking to it with the following statement (or one similar in concept), "The following guideline (or policy, whatever it turns out to be) is also included in this policy by inference". The referred page could even have subsections in it for specific examples of what or how "Sources" directly related to each policy. Having everything in one place for a "subject" like sources easily allows everyone to quickly view all of the information in one viewing. The 4 different policies are currently attempting (very poorly in my opinion) to piecemeal this subject, instead of trying to improve peoples comprehension of the subject. It doesn't appear at all that any of those opposed to the proposed change have done this, as none of those have expressed how this current arrangement is better than what is being proposed. wbfergus ^Talk 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What is being requested here is a summary of the entire history of the three core foundational editorial policies upon which Wikipedia is built. The onus is not on users to defend the entire history of existing WP policy, but rather, the onus, or burden of proof, is on those who assert that significant changes should occur. As to the specific proposal to alter, move, or remove WP:PSTS, I repeat here again what I gave above:

...... The section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is a vital section that puts WP:NOR into perspective for users around the wiki. The proposal to replace the section or move it elsewhere is a major change in this policy page that I find unacceptable, at least without something that represents a clear improvement on it. Since well over three years ago, a distinction had been made between primary and secondary sources and what uses constituted original research or original synthesis. A significant number of WP users remained confused about the distinction, e.g., "well, if WP is not supposed to synthesise material directly from primary sources (except for purely factual matters), and if we're supposed to use secondary sources, then how is WP a secondary source?" The extra note about tertiary sources was inserted into WP:NOR nearly a year ago, and suddenly it made better sense to most other participants and much of the confusion diminished substantially. The description of encyclopedic matter as primarily tertiary helped to resolve this confusion right on the policy project page. Since then, it's tended to serve us well in resolving confusion about what is original synthesis, or original research, as distinguished from original wording and editorial decisionmaking.

...... Admittedly there remain residual bits of confusion. One user mentioned Encarta and Britannica, which are also "tertiary sources" according to the delineation presented in WP:NOR. I pointed out somewhere in these rapid-fire multiple threads today there is a wealth of more specialized tertiary sources such as specialized encyclopedias, to which we can also add many textbooks as tertiary sources. Indeed one could readily also argue that there are numerous sources that are quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, etc. etc. Categorizing sources as primary, secondary and tertiary has, nonetheless, served quite well in clarifying the basic types of sources from which material in WP is drawn. If there is a proposal to better clarify the distinction or explain that the delineations between them are not always sharply drawn, or whatever, that would, as I said in the section below, be quite welcome and potentially helpful. But the proposal to replace it with the language at the top of this talk section is, IMO, completely unacceptable on the justifications given thus far. I believe I used the words "summarily reject" to covey my summary opinion about the proposal. ... Kenosis 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how two paragraphs above answer my question, how are the four (current) definitions in the four different core policies less confusing to the majority of Wikipedia editors or how the four different definitions lend themselves to a more consistent enforcement of policies across all of Wikipedia than just one definition that each policy used would. Answering the above question with two completely unrelated paragraphs is of no assistance, when assistance is requested. wbfergus ^Talk 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason that it is unreasonable to expect an answer to the question just posed above was given in the first of three paragraphs I gave just above. And the failure to "see" how they relate to the request, essentially, to explain the entire justification for core WP policy is not sufficient grounds to assert the need for a significant change to longstanding foundational policy, nor to the way foundational editorial policy has been long allocated to the three most basic core editorial policies, WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. ... Kenosis 19:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally you state that "The section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is a vital section that puts WP:NOR into perspective for users around the wiki". Since this is also covered in the other 3 main content policies, and PSTS also links to three different pages with far more detailed explanations and examples, how you state such a claim? It can't be proven that what you say is in fact true. It also can't be proven that maybe many more Wikipedia editors received their "guidance" from one of the other pages, or maybe even from another editor. Your statement itself is based entirely upon "original research". wbfergus ^Talk 19:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is increasingly becoming clear to me that the primary failure here may be a failure among the several outspoken advocates of policy change to understand the basic policies. But a complete, thorough rehashing and justification for the long, increasingly rich history of the core editorial polices, from their beginnings to the present, is out of the question. It's just too much to effectively do here, though it might well be a very reasonable project to embark upon for the future. ... Kenosis 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

...so, if presumably intelligent people are failing to understand the policies, is it the people or the explanation that is the problem? Spenny 21:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Understanding the three core policies and how they interact and are interpreted via the consensus process takes time and work. It's never been instant, and seldom has been a quick learning process. The material presently included in WP:NOR, as well as the other two core editorial policies, is mostly a result of accumulated experience with the application of the policy. Removing WP:PSTS from WP:NOR makes the learning process more contorted and confusing in practice, not less so. ... Kenosis 22:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So essentially you subscribe to belief the Wikipedia policy is far to complex for the common man to be able to intuit. Sounds more like encyclotology than encyclopaedia Spenny 22:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That, sir, is a rather hyperbolic snipe to say the least. You've made your opinion clear. This page, however, is not going back to square one, not without lengthy and broad community discussion far beyond the miscellaneous and inconsistent complaints that have been intermixed here of late, and not without a proposal that can be widely agreed to be a clear improvement. The current basic structure of WP:NOR, including WP:PSTS, is based upon experience, and is presently part of the wiki method of avoiding original research or original sythesis. WP:PSTS guides the user, as an integral and long accepted part of this policy page, to better understand what's meant by WP:NOR in the many contexts in which it is manifested across the wiki. ... Kenosis 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I was rather pleased with it myself as you might guess, but yes, a little bit too snipey, so apologies for that. However, the point was a serious one, do you not see the contradiction in what you say and the purpose of expressing policy? If you pick up [this link, I think you'll see that I am trying to avoid square one. However, I do think the long term goal should be to get back to a much simpler expression of policy over some time. Spenny 00:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Spenny, essentially you seem to be ignoring the genuine concerns of experienced editors who find it very hard to see that this proposal with incompletely documented justification is going to improve things by removing a well used and generally understood part of the policy. Comparing that to Scientology sounds like an insult, and you're surely familiar with WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL. if, as is now being said, the intention is to refocus this section and move it elsewhere, there should be a proper proposal as to how that's to be done. Since it interlocks with the use of sources in a way that avoids OR then there will still be a need for a summary style outline of it in this policy. .. dave souza, talk 23:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The allusion is simply that there are those who appear to claim a deeper knowledge than the ordinary mortal. With regards to civil, as I have alluded to elsewhere, it seems that if the motives of those who know is impugned, then that is incivility, when the motives of those who do not is impugned, then that is acceptable. There have been several posts on this page and elsewhere which suggest that people suggesting change are not doing this with sound motives. The problem I have with the recent discussion is the strong sense of denial, the this is how it is, anyone who does not think as we do has clearly not understood, you have not enough years of experience to commune with consensus. To be frank, that is all pretty condescending and uncivil, not assuming good faith - and I didn't need any of those nasty square brackets to say it.

I am not ignoring genuine concerns but I don't think I've yet heard a reasoned argument that refutes that there is a case to answer on this page, that case being the policy is not expressed in a simple and comprehensible form. My point has always been very simple: you do not need to descend into disputed terminology to be able to explain the principles, and the principles do not depend on typology. If you care to check back I had a stab at addressing that without major surgery to the wording. You would also see that I do actually have a concern that too much is being lost and I believe there is a middle ground (but that middle ground does not need the words primary and secondary within it). However, there is little point expending the effort to reiterate this, if there are those who are just saying that'll never fly when I know they can effectively veto change without ever engaging in discussion. Spenny 00:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. Can someone point me to the arguments in favour of removing this section from the policy page? Guettarda 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For a (very) brief synopsis, please see #Attention_newcomers_to_this_article. I "think" I covered all the main points there, but I may have missed something. Feel free to ask any additional questions. wbfergus ^Talk 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This proposal has come together recently on the presumption that those taking part art familiar with arguments extending back over several archives, and are convinced that "something must be done". The evidence for this has to be set out in a coherent form so that it's accessible to people who haven't been involved in this long process, and it was proposed earlier that an essay is to set out the case. The idea of removing PSTS categorisation of sources seems to be aimed at some undefined difficulties of interpretation. The effect would be to remove from this policy restraints on research from primary sources. At present this policy allows their use for undeniable facts. Other policies require use of third party sources. In my opinion there's an inconsistency there that should be clarified. While the wording can be reviewed to avoid any confusion, removing restraint on using primary sources is not acceptable. It may be possible to move detailed clarification of clarification to a resource shared between policies rather than having it here, but the essence of the policy has to remain in WP:NPOV. ... dave souza, talk 19:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing for removing the existing restraints on factual sources. We just don't need the excess baggage associated with defining them as primary sources, which means different things in different contexts. Dhaluza 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Dave, I'm going to say this again. Please respond this time. A number of times above I have given the explanation and examples, so I'll stick to a bland statement this time. "Primary source" and "third-party source" are not mutually exclusive. Primary does not mean or imply "first-party", although one may say that it means "first-hand", but that is not the same thing. SamBC(talk) 23:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, Wikipedia:Classification of sources is obviously giving an indication of the distinction you're drawing. The present wording in NPOV NOR defines primary sources as sources of fact and as being close to the subject: that article's putting the latter definition into the "first party" area. The first essentials that come to mine, and it's a bit past midnight so not the best time for thinking, are that facts that need analysis etc. have to be in the context of an outside source for anything more than plain description, and that analysis or opinion close to the subject similarly needs an outside view. In both cases this has to do with avoiding original research in presenting the information. This discussion needs focussed, but not tonight. Any progress yet on #should we make a proposed change essay page? ... dave souza, talk 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC) corrected' dave souza, talk 16:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to guess that you made a (late-night-induced) mistake saying NPOV there, because I can't find anything about primary sources in NPOV; assuming you meant NOR, then I think part of the problem is the ambiguity of the term "close to the subject". Based on the general (including off-wiki) use of the "primary source" label, I would read that as meaning "able to make first-hand observations". After all, a witness to a traffic accident provides an account and that's primary (and I sincerely doubt that anyone would disagree with that). However, the witness is a third party unless they were actually involved in the accident (or certain other situations, like having a connection to one of the people who was). They are "close" to the subject (the accident) in a very literal sense in that they were there (or nearby) at the time. Hence, first-hand but not first-party. I'm also retiring for the night around now, when it's gone 1am I'm generally not at my best. SamBC(talk) 00:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on my typo, it was after 1 BST when I posted that. :-/ Ιt's a very good point that "third party" has just as much of a problem in terms of ambiguity, and the relation of terms categorising sources in all policies needs to be straightened out. The #Motivations section below seems to be looking for a way forward... dave souza, talk 16:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Slrubenstein: you said "It typically begins with someone faulting the policy for prohibiting the use of primary sources. The problem with this argument is the policy has never flat out prohibited the use of primary sources. As soon as someone points this out, critic just start arguing that the whole mention of sources is problematic. It is just a bait and switch tactic." I'm not using a bait and switch tactic. I'm concerned that some versions of the policy may be interpreted as prohibiting the use of primary sources. I agree that the policy has not flat out prohibited primary sources, but it has said in some of its versions that the use of them should be "rare" or "used sparingly" and in some versions has stated in bold type that Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources, which might be interpreted as implying that they should not rely on primary sources. (Currently it says articles should rely on primary and secondary sources.) My concern is that those sorts of wordings could be used, by editors interpreting the policy, to prohibit some specific uses of primary sources in some articles. I believe that if the policy says something should be "rare", for example, then it will be used to prevent the thing from happening on some pages at some times, with the effect on those pages being the same as if the policy prohibited it. This is a genuine concern, not a tactic for the purpose of promoting some other goal. My concern is particularly strong when it's not made clear in the policy that peer-reviewed articles are not to be generally lumped in with "primary sources", but my concern is also there for primary sources in general. Perhaps NOR needs to say that care must be taken when using primary sources and that one should not go beyond what the sources say, (etc.), but in my opinion it should not limit how often such sources are used. --Coppertwig 14:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:PSTS

Where is the link to this Request for Comment? One should be provided here. Please feel free to remove my comment here after providing the wikilink. Thanks. ... Kenosis 19:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted above in the tag, it will be automatically added to the list. The heavy lifting is done by RFC bot. Vassyana 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, this is the RfC. The bot will add a link here to the RfCs page, to rovide wider notification that broader consultation has been requested. The discussion still happens here. SamBC(talk) 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes, thanks. I hadn't known that policy RfCs had been set up to be conducted this way; unlike the way RfC's are generally set up on a separate page. ... Kenosis 03:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think all content-based (including content of policy) RfCs are done like this. User conduct and usernames are exceptions. I've been involved in this sort of RfC on normal articles as well. And if I don't fall asleep soon, I'm probably going to start seeing things... SamBC(talk) 03:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Sleep well -- argue later on, tomorrow, whenever ;-) ... Kenosis 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the Pope have white hair?

If I write a statement "The Pope has white hair" would this be original research? (assuming I could find no academic sources saying this.)

What I'm really interested in is how obvious something has to be before you can say it, without slapping a {{fact}} template on it. Mike Young 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a more realistic example? This one is so obvious as to be begging the question. Vassyana 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this policy, this statement could be easily slapped with the citation needed template. Many others could easily contend that the Pope's hair is not white, but a shade of grey. If you could find any source, even the Vatican web site where it said "the white-haired Pope" or whatever, then there is at least some reference to it somewhere, and the point being made is not likely to be very contentious at that point. However, if you said in an article "The youngest Pope ever was Pope XYZ at the age of 45, and his hair was already white", and then further stated "The next youngest Pope was 15 years older with white hair" (and both of those were properly referenced), you still couln't say "All Pope's have had white hair" without that statement being properly referenced. It states a conclusion that needs it's own reference. wbfergus ^Talk 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with wbfergus in general. WP:VER anticipates that many statements in articles will go unchallenged. If it's a significant enough issue that someone challenges it, sourcing would, in general, be needed to support the statement. Alternately, a source such as a photo might be adequate to verify such a statement. Also, there is a difference between editorial decisionmaking, original language (or original wording of the text), and original synthesis of conclusions or concepts that are not part of the sytheses or concepts already available in the sources. This concept is expressed by WP:NOR. ... Kenosis 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we avoid splitting hairs, please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PSTS anomalies

The absence of consensus for PSTS reflected several known problems.

One was defining the categories, and there was broad agreement that this was a problem, as well as various ad-hoc fixes. I pointed out above that many ancient histories derive from even older histories. If we interpret PSTS literally, most ancient histories are secondary sources and most scientific papers are primary sources.

Another involved primary sources, even first-party primary sources, which include their own interpretive claims. These should, of course, be used very carefully. Suppose we have one secondary source which states "all X believe Y," we have several secondary sources which state "A was an X" and we have a primary source by A which states "I believe ~Y and I do not believe Y." In this case, as I've argued before, it shouldn't be OR to state that at least one X did not believe Y. (It may be undue weight, but even then noting some instead of all would be appropriate). To my mind, second-guessing the sources by stating that A was not an X, or that A really believed Y, is much more likely to involve OR. Jacob Haller 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Example without PSTS

The definitions of PSTS are not critical to NOR because they are not used outside of the PSTS section. I have rewritten that section without using the defined terms: primary, secondary, and tertiary:

Use of sources

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

• Factual sources - Facts that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse factual sources. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the factual source should be able to verify that the related Wikipedia passage is true to the factual source. Any interpretation of factual source material requires a reliable interpretive source. Examples of factual sources include archaeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

• Interpretive sources draw on factual sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a interpretive source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a interpretive source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published factual and interpretive sources used appropriately.

• Some publications such as encyclopedias that sum up other sources are more reliable than others; within those sources, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica, and encyclopedias of similar quality, can be regarded as reliable interpretive sources. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used as factual sources so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one.

An article or section of an article that relies on a factual source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on factual sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Comments

I tried not to change too much, to remain as true as possible to the original. But once the sacred cows are banished, I think it shows this is not a good example of clarity. It needs lots more work, but we can't get that done until we get over the religious arguments over PSTS, and actually get down to the real work of editing. Dhaluza 01:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What is a factual source? Are we now reinventing distinctions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I was trying to show an alternative to the confusing primary/secondary distinctions using plain English. I think if you ask a friend or relative who has never seen Wikipedia "what is a factual source?" and "what is a primary source?", you will probably get a more reasonable answer to the former than the latter. Dhaluza 11:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to pose a very simple example, illustrative of numerous real situations that have already occurred on the wiki: Take Aristotle's Metaphysics and the various interpretations thereof. A lot of "know-it-all's" in the world like to quote Aristotle and are frequently at odds with the range of scholoarly interpretations of Aristotle's voluminous works. Where does Aristotle's Metaphysics fit into this proposed schema? Is it a "factual source"? Or is it an "interpretive source"?. If Metaphysics is itself an interpretive source, why can't we just interpret the interpretations. Isn't it better to go right to the "horse's mouth" rather than some Ivory Tower interpretationist? .. Kenosis 01:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I could give many other examples myself. It strikes me that these categories may make sense for journalism and the like, but I'm not sure they make sense for many areas of knowledge. While we often think of philosophy and religion as being primarily interpretive, this is equally true for science as well. Most scientific theories are efforts to interpret the available evidence, and the facts on which scientific theories are based -- data, collections of measurements and the like -- are generally not appropriate for encyclopedias. It strikes me that this proposal comes close to imposing an epistemology on Wikipedia, something that not only goes far beyond the appropriate scope of the NOR policy but which strikes me as immoderately ambitious. No one's been able to come up with a one-size-fits-all epistemology for all of human knowledge so far, why should we think we can do it even if it were our job? Many people, W. Edwards Deming for example, have argued that facts and interpretations are inherently confounded in scientific work, and Deming in particular is noted for claiming that "there is no such thing as a fact" and "without theory, experience has no meaning." All we need to do is identify whether a source is considered notable and reliable and whether that source said something, and tell whether the artcle content sticks to the sources or draws inferences beyond them. There is simply no need to get trapped in the hopeless swamp that attempts to classify the complexity of human knowledge into these types of epistemological bins tends to lead to. It's a swamp we can and should avoid. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I am by no means promoting the use of "factual" or "interpretive" as being good (or bad) descriptions, just plain English alternatives to the obscure and arbitrary "primary" and "secondary". This was not an activist attempt to impose epistemology (if anything, clinging to PSTS is imposing agnotology, but we are digressing from the point, which is using plain English). I don't think this example is a suitable alternative explanation without further development. As I said, I tried to stick to the original text, and just substitute terms, and found this revealed basic structural problems with the existing descriptions. I think the comments above also show that the PSTS text does not really explain NOR without itself requiring OR.

In the transition, I had to drop the primary source examples of eyewitness accounts because these require more careful explanation--for example is the witness an expert eyewitness or not? We can't use eyewitness accounts to draw conclusions, but we can use them to highlight differences, etc. The other example I though of that could be further developed is the Rosetta stone. As a factual source, you could say it was a stone tablet, but that's about it. Any further analysis would require expert interpretive sources. The issue is that we do not need to try to sort sources and stick them in a particular bin, we need to carefully describe what is and is not appropriate use of sources on Wikipedia. Dhaluza 11:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Here is another example, dropping classification of sources altogether, focusing on use only. I've dropped the examples for clarity of the example, but appropriate explanatory examples probably should be added to each section.

Use of sources

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways. This policy places certain restrictions on the use of sources to preclude editors from including original research in Wikipedia articles.

Facts

Wikipedia does not bear witness to any fact. All statements of fact in articles must be supported by a previously published reliable source. Factual statements must be made with caution, because misstatement of facts is a common problem in Wikipedia articles. The facts should be presented so anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the cited source can verify that the related Wikipedia passage agrees with the source. Any interpretation of facts or evidence requires a reliable source for that interpretation. Wikipedia editors must be careful to not make statements of fact based on their own observations or evidence, unless they are also supported by reliable published sources.

An article or section of an article that makes a statement of fact should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors making statements of fact should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Interpretation

Wikipedia does not publish original thought. Using raw evidence or statements of fact to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims is original thought. Wikipedia editors must be careful not to include their original thoughts in Wikipedia articles, but must instead depend on reliable published sources to make these interpretive claims.

Some publications such as encyclopedias that sum up other sources are more reliable than others, and within those sources, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be used for interpretation of facts and evidence. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be also be used for interpretation so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one.

Comments on this example

This is an example of how to describe NOR without resorting to the unnecessary distraction of source typing. It focuses specifically on the use of the sources, not the nature of those sources. It basically says the same things as PSTS (excluding the examples) without using the adjectives primary or secondary, or other replacements. It may not cover every point in this iteration, but could with minor revision. I think this is a much simpler, more understandable, and less confusing explanation of sourcing as it relates specifically to NOR.

Step-by-step

Looks like I'm one of the first to wake up from a few hours of sleep. I'm starting the day by browing through the history pages of NOR. One of the first things I've noticed, is that any change to the policy has been met with fierce opposition, even changes that corrected obvious inaccuracies. One example is [[4]]. This was a fairly obvious and simple correction, changing the policy wording from saying there were three other main content policies but only listing NPOV and V, so the editor changed it to simply say "others" instead of "three others". This was immediately reverted back to "The other three are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V)." with the revert labeled as "Restore longstanding version, no discussion, no consensus for this"., basically accusing the first editor of making a change without any support. This was a rather childish example, the editor made a simple minor correction in good faith that corrected a glaringly obvious mistake, but it took another round of reverts to get paast just that one simple case. The edit comment was glaringly false as well, as a simple edit history check shows that typo didn't appear until earlier that same day (two hours earlier). That is hardly "longstanding".

I next noticed, spurred in part by a previous post of User:Minasbeede, that PSTS did not exist in this policy until this diff [[5]] on Oct 23, 2006 (less than a year ago). The policy itself also didn't use the policy shortcut of WP:PSTS until June 22, 2007, so claims that this (PSTS) is long-standing policy are untrue. Before the edit by SlimVirgin on Oct 23rd, the "Sources" section only talked about primary and secondary sources, tertiary sources weren't mentioned. Just since Oct 23, 2006, there appears to have been almost 500 edits to this policy, though some (I have no idea how many) were vandalism and the subsequent reverts. So stating that this policy has been stable seem blatantly untrue as well. Simply going to the history and setting it to show 500 edits at a time, it is still less than a year ago at the previous 500th edit, so 500 edits in less than a year (about one and half edits per day to a policy), is not very stable, at least within the last year.

With these brief observations out of the way (only included to disprove statements of "stable" and "long-standing"), lets move on to what Wikipedia is at it's very basic core. I am not talking philosophically of what Wikipedia should be, or strive to be. I am talking that at it's very base, Wikipedia is simply a database, though one with a very good user interface (though a few small improvements could be made, more later).

Now, as anybody with more than just a tad more than rudimentary knowledge of databases knows, proper database design tries to limit the amount of redundant information and therefore redundant coding, for consistency and simplicity. This is not meant as derogatory in any way, just a statement of fact. I work everyday with many smart scientists that even after 12 years of usage, still can't grasp the concepts of proper database design. Anyway, let me try to go back to the insurance analogy.

Insurance companies write hundreds of thousands or more insurance polices each year. These are not all the same, but simply boiler-plated together for the customer. For example, a car policy, a business policy and a house policy will all contain a clause about "Acts of God". This clause, specifically the definition, is not included and defined in each type of policy. There is simple code in the program that tells it to also include the standard definition of "Acts of God" in each policy. The definition itself only exists once within the database, but that common definition is used by multiple "things" (policies). Databases use the same concept, primarily with what are sometimes called "List of values" (or select lists), though there are many more common usages as well. What this means, is that instead of defining something over and over and over, you simply define it once and then use that one definition over and over. In the long run, this makes maintenance much easier. When the definition changes, you make the one change in one place, and instantly everything that links to it begins to use the same standard definition again. You are not forced to search through the entire database for every occurrance to make the same change over and over again. So if some lawyer comes along to the insurance company and says "We need to add this extra definition of an act of God", they pull up that definition, make the change, and 'poof', all new policies instantly begin using the new definition. They do not have to go through all policies trying to see if that definition exists there and then changing it.

This is all we are proposing for this policy. Hopefully WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP could see after implementation that it is easier and more consistent. However, before we can get there, there's an awful lot of work that needs to be done first, and we also have to take into account the concerns made by other editors, even if they do "over-exaggerate" some claims. So, trying to toss out ideas on how this 'could' work (to even stand the proverbial snowballs chance), this is what I see we need to do:

• Take all of the existing definitions of "Source" type issues from the existing four policies, and try to combine them into not only one location, but also in a coherent form. This in itself is a formidable task. One or two people could probably get the bulk of it accomplished, but then editors personally involved in the other related polices would also need to be involved to help tweak it per their respective policy backgrounds, ensuring that no salient points are missed or otherwise weakened. This may also require some 'policy' specific sections, I don't know. It seems like including all of this in WP:RS is the most logical place, but that current guideline also needs improvement, as Wikidemo and jossi can attest (I believe they are both currently working on that page).
• After this phase is accomplished, then that page (whatever and wherever it is), would need to be presented to the entire Wiki community for comments, to see if there would be consensus for making it a policy. Now just that alone would make most people automatically reject it. This would also have to be presented with the additional explanation that if this was accepted, then the applicable sections from the other policies would be redundant and could be removed from those policies, to be replaced and (two-way) linked appropriately. This would result in five policies instead of the current four, but would result in more easily maintainable, consistant, and understandable policies. Now this would be far easier if Wikipedia had something like an #include directive, like several programming languages do. Then, each policy could simply have the #include statement to pull the appropriate section from the 'sources policy'. Instead though, I think we'd have to jump through the hoops of just using links back and forth.
• If we can achieve the creation and acceptance of a 'sources policy', then changes to this and the other policies could occur, as at that point, removing things like PSTS would be redundant, and with a link to the new policy, nothing would be lost.

I'm may be missing something else up above, but that is how I see we have any chance of ever improving this. If there are people who will revert even obvious typographical errors just because it's a change or over-exaggerate their claims so others who don't bother to research the history will more easily fall in agreement behind them, then we need to come up with a step-by-step approach that clearly shows the benefits. About the only way to actually accomplish this, since no amount of explanations seem to get through to some people, will be with viable alternatives that they can easily see. To be fair though, it does help assuage their fears that won't remove something like PSTS now, and it's replacement home will be worked on. We all know full well how long that usually takes (years), and there has to be an established place for it, probably at a policy level. Including these in NPOV, V or BLP doesn't accomplish much even though those are already policies, as those really aren't logical places for this 'subject'. Either a major rewrite of RS, or the creation of something similar seems to be the only way, though I could be wrong.

Accomplishing this would take probably 3-6 months, depending on how long it takes to create the new 'centralized' home, and then addressing concerns brought up by other editors and the community in general. I really don't see how it could be accomplished any faster, but I suppose it could. Like some changes to this policy (and I'm sure others as well), there could easily be times when the bulk of 'objectors' are absent from Wikipedia or otherwise busy for awhile, and a change can be made and be present before most know what happened. But that is real back-door and I wouldn't want to be a party to it. I honestly think these proposed changes would be a great benefit to Wikipedia, making 'policies' easier to understand (especially for the newcomers) and more consistent in enforcement of policies. But, we also need to do it 'above board' and with viable alternatives availabable at each point in time or it will surely fail. wbfergus ^Talk 11:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your example of ridiculous reversion is right on target. Some editors believe every change to policy must be discussed to death, and any change should be reverted "on sight" if it hasn't. This is not consistent with WP:REVERT or WP:POLICY but it is an all too common bad-practice. Only things that are new or controversial need to be discussed. Simple text edits can be discussed with edit summaries, and should not be reverted by an editor unless they are 100% opposed to them--even if it is 90% disputed, the undisputed 10% should be left in so progress can be made. It's the same as a disputed bill--you pay the undisputed amount.

I also agree that PSTS is only half-baked, and the cost/benefit to NOR is not clearly favorable. Having a widely applicable unambiguous set of definitions for types of sources may be useful if it existed, but it clearly does not exist now, and is not essential to NOR. So the sooner we jettison the excess baggage of PSTS from NOR and define OR in plain English, the better. Those who are concerned about coming up with source type definitions can shepard PSTS through the process of redefining it and possibly re-incorporating it later if a consensus forms around it. But there is clearly no consensus for it now, and keeping the page protected to protect PSTS must stop as soon as possible.

Your insurance policy example is somewhat consistent with my experience in writing technical specifications. In a spec document, you must be careful to define a term only once, and use that definition consistently throughout. If a term is defined multiple times, you don't get the sum of the definitions, you only get the least common denominator. Legal documents like specifications, contracts, and insurance policies tend to favor defining terms in the document. But general purpose documents like instruction manuals should avoid using defined terms as much as possible, because in a non-legal setting, it leads to confusion. Since we depreciate wiki-lawyering, I would suggest that we should write policy more like a manual than a spec, and also avoid defined terms as much as possible. That is why I have been arguing for dropping PSTS and explaining NOR in plain English. Dhaluza 12:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in the insurance industry, so I can't accurately state exactly how the process works, I simply used that as an example that I think most people can easily comprehend, based upon my last 27 years experience working with databases, both design and programming. I also agree with your point about when there are multiple defintions (as is the norm with Wikipadeia policies currently, since they are to be used in conjunction with each other) that one side takes the least most denominator (the most restrictive) but there is also another 'group' that will always push for the least restrictive as well, since it isn't explicity spelled out, and with conflicting definitions, what is actually meant is open to a very vigorous debate (from my experience). wbfergus ^Talk 12:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, you are mischaracterizing the situation. I have stated already that tertiary sources as a concept has dropped in and out of this policy for most of its existence. When i have stated that it has been fairly stable, I mean the idea of original research and the distinction between primary and secondary sources - this is the main point under contention, the issue of tertiary sources is secondary (no one here has made it a principle point of contention). Be that as it may, let's get the story right. First, do not confuse the shortcut PSTS with the presense of the distinction in the policy itself. It is a non-sequitor to claim that because the shortcut is less than a year old, PSTS being a component of the policy itself is less than a year old. In fact, Reddi introduced the distinction between PS and T sources in this edit on February 13, 2004 - thre years and seven months ago. More to the point, that was only the twenty-third edit ever made to this policy (a point I have made already, above). So please, let's not say that the distinction is less than a year old. Now, just in case you missed it, I repeat: "tertiary sources" has dropped out as well as in various times in the history of this policy, and we have also played around with defining terms in an attempt to be consistent and to match practice. I certainly think most people who have played a role in developing this policy are open to continued discussion on its value. What people have been arguing is the importantce of primary and secondary sources, and in this regard the policy has been pretty stable. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to impugn the integrity of anybody, especially somebody who I may disagree with at times but have required a respect for their judgements, but it appears that you have also stated a case that the "sources" section hasn't been very stable, if teriary has dropped in and out of the definition over the years. The overall policy in general may have been relatively stable, but browsing the history shows that the "sources" section itself has undergone numerous revisions. I have another semi-comment, but I'll include it below Jossi's comment below. wbfergus ^Talk 14:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your correction to wbfergus's conclusions are noted. I actually created the WP:PSTS shortcut because I couldn't find it one time when I looked (I didn't think to look in WP:NOR because that was counter-intuitive) and that should not be taken as the start date for the concept, only the shortcut. But I think it is important to also note that the diff you cite characterizes WP as a secondary source, which is not consistent with the current policy framework. So this just goes to show that the definitions of PSTS have been confusing from the start. Dhaluza 14:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Perusing the archives, I went to one covering the time-frame for when PSTS actually came into being Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive15. I see extremely little discussion there about it. There was sombody who posted that another person was making lots of edits to the policy (24 different ones), but not a single edit on the talk page announcing the changes or proposing the changes.There was subsequently no additional discussion other one other editor stating "Skimming over the diffs, they all appear quite reasonable". I also don't see any calls for opinions or other types of votes on if the changes met with any concensus of those who knew that the change was being made. I also fail to see that any announcement of the change was ever posted at the Village Pump. So, it appears that this 'addition' was made without widespread community concensus, just the opinions of the few who happened to be following this page at that point in time, based upon the lack of dissent from the few that were actively involved then. Yet now trying to improve the policy for understandability and pertinence has to involve widespread community involvement. So, just a few can get additions made to a policy without widespread involvement, but fixing it after the fact requires widespread community concensus? I guess this helps to highlight why we need to make this proposed change honest and completely above-board, so in a year or so, others can't come in and claim that this was accomplished behind closed doors. wbfergus ^Talk 14:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Something that remains in a policy page unchallenged for a substantial period of time, carries the implicit presumption of consensus. If that implicit consensus is challenged, yes, you will require widespread community consensus to change it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying primary sources should be rare and saying that claims based on secondary sources are presumed to not be original reseach has been contested from the very beginning. By the way, wbfergus, the Wikipedia software does support the equivelent of include. It is called transclusion and is done for every template. You can do it for nontemplate space pages also { { : name of page to be transcluded } } without the spaces. WAS 4.250 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a novel interpretation of WP:Consensus and WP:POLICY. A policy statement must have consensus to remain. That it remained for any period of time only means it had implied consensus in the past. If it can be shown to not have current consensus, either because it has been exposed to a wider group over time (like WP:ATT), or that consensus has changed over time, then the previous consensus is only of historical interest, and is not considered a precedent. Dhaluza 15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't mean to impugn the integrity of anybody. It just seems strange that the current proposal has been deemed to require widespread community concensus and announcements, etc., while the inclusion of of this did not. Can you please refer me to a change in overall Wikipedia policy in the last year that now requires this to be done? Or can you please show me where I missed something in this policies archives (or on the Village Pump archives) that shows that these additions were announced and widespread community involvement (concensus) was being requested? I have been unable to find anything like that so far. All I've seen (though maybe I've been looking in the wrong place), is what I have posted above. It appears (I am not saying this is the case) that only a relative few people, probably less than 15, even knew that these additions were made at the time they were being made. I fail to see how this can be construed as "implicit concensus" if nobody knew about it. Thank you for any clarification you could provide on this or other related issues.

Also, let me restate once again that I absolutely do not propose anybody trying to force this proposed change through any back-door. I personally feel that what I stated above in my observations, while actually detracting from a point I was trying to make (bad thing about editing while still sleepy), are the perfect example of why this should not happen. Everything should be completely honset and out in the open, with the widespread community asked for their opinions. Only in this manner will future editors see that the entire process was completely above board and no small group forcing through changes that affects hundereds of thousands of users. wbfergus ^Talk 15:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

W.r.t. the history of the PSTS section, the assertions above by wbfergus are incorrect, erroneous by selective omission, or at the very least very misleading. Wbfergus says he looked into the history. He didn't notice that "Primary and secondary sources" has been part of this project page for over three years? I too have had a recent opportunity to quickly review the history of both the policy page and the talk page. The primary source/secondary source distinction has been in place well in excess of three years, and arose out of direct guidance from the WP founder. Some time later it became a discrete section called "Primary and secondary sources". What happened in October of 2006 was that it was expanded to "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources". This expansion from primary/secondary to PSTS explained a great deal, and it remained extremely stable for nearly a year, during which time it has served the community quite well. This is why it required little or no explicit argumentation about the existence of WP:PSTS on the talk page. ... Kenosis 14:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are taking edits out of context.... while the policy has indeed included discussion of Primary, and Secondary sources for a long time... for most of that time the distinction was focussed on explaining what type of source Wikipedia should be... it wasn't talking about the types of sources that should be used in Wikipedia. That is a much more recent change. Blueboar 15:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting more convoluted than I intended it. Would the respondents of this section mind if I reformetted this, so that the point I really wanted to make with my example above is separate from the other discussions about my own personal observations? This would allow things to be grouped more accurately together, and hopefully not detract anymore from the example I was trying to provide. I feel I need to do more research into the history of this and the other policy pages, and also of Village Pump, but none of that has any bearing whatsoever on the example that I really wanted to get across. Thanks.wbfergus ^Talk 15:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza writes, "This is a novel interpretation of WP:Consensus and WP:POLICY. A policy statement must have consensus to remain. That it remained for any period of time only means it had implied consensus in the past" and makes a classic error in confusing article pages from policy pages. The very wiki nature of this project means that articles can and should be updated and improved regularly, and consensus can change whenever a new editor brings new knowledge. But for this to work, the opposite must be the case with policy pages. Dhaluza's argument suggests that as soon as one new person comes to Wikipedia who rejects a policy, the policy no longer has consensus. That is absured for two reasons. first, imagine how easy it would be for someone who simply rejects Wikipedia policies to come, say "I do not agree, therefore there is no longer consensus" and remove the policy. It defeats the whole point of policies, which leads me to the second reason: policies are pre- or proscriptive, not descriptive, and one function is to instruct newbies as to how to contribute to Wikipedia, and also as points of reference for reverting, blocking or even community bans of editors who refuse to follow our policies. This means that policies must have more inertia than articles, and consensus must reflect the weight of time. The opposite has to be the case with articles, as with time we have more and more editors who hopefully have access to more and more research and can add more and more to articles - we actively seek improvement of articles so past versions carry weight only insofar as they comply with our policies and standards. That means we can just let people change policies carelessly. Past consensus carries a good deal of weight. It provides the model for future editors to follow, if they are to make positive contributions to the project. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I have seen newbies challenging WP:NOR on the basis of being original research and WP:NPOV on the basis of being not neutral... WP policies are not articles and require a certain degree of stability, in particular at this stage of the project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:Consensus addresses the extreme example you cite and attempts to strike a balance between stability and stagnation. And we are clearly now in a period of stagnation that must end as soon as possible. You cannot dismiss all proposed changes as attempts to undermine the policy. Clearly an attempt to dissolve the NOR policy would require wide discussion throughout the community. But using a different word to describe the same thing does not. Extreme examples are not needed, and not helpful. Dhaluza 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Okay, the Wikipedia definition of policy states "A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions. As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first". This statement has appeared on that page since before the occasion I mentioned above, when an editor stated that another editor had made 24 edits to this policy without any discussion or concensus, aginst already established Wikipedia policy in effect at that time. Just on this point alone, it would seem to indicate that this was a back door attempt in clear violation of established Wikipedia policy and without any concensus. Claiming that nobody objected doesn't neccessarily mean that everybody inherently agreed, it could also mean (since it was never discussed or otherwise anounced), that most people simply didn't know about and therefore had no oppurtunity to object. I'm not saying this is the case, just that it appears so. I have to assume that these edits were made in good faith for the ultimate benefit of Wikipedia, though I find it hard to accept. wbfergus ^Talk 17:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Motivations

It has become obvious to me that we have three competing but overlapping groups here...

• 1) Those who have problems with the language of PSTS.
• 2) Those who don't have a problem with the language of PSTS per say, but do not think it fits in the WP:NOR policy.
• 3) Those who feel that PSTS is vital to Wikipedia, and do not think it should be touched in any way shape or form.

The proposal to replace PSTS with more NOR focussed language came out of a compromise between the first two groups. Essentially the compromise says: Remove PSTS from NOR, and deal with it elsewhere. The problem is that this compromise did not take into account the third group. They need to be included in the compromise.

The third group is not going to agree to anything that demotes or weakens PSTS. At the moment they see the proposal as doing just that. The third group has to feel confident that the concepts and basic language contained in PSTS are protected before they would agree to anything.

So... I think the only solution to this three way argument is make it a complete package... we need to hammer out a proposed PSTS policy/guideline page to go along with the proposed replacement section for NOR. Blueboar 15:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. For the record, I would consider myself part of "group 2". wbfergus ^Talk 15:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happier with one tiny step at a time. First add some variation of the context/history/justification "voted" on above. Second remove claims that indicate primary sources should be rare. Third add something that notes that claims based on secondary sources are not presumed to not be original research. Does anyone have a problem with these three minor changes? WAS 4.250 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be some obfuscation and misrepresentation going on here, possibly to satisfy some sort of narrow agenda. I suggest that what has served the community well for years, particularly years of growth and growing acceptance, should not be tossed aside by a tiny group of editors on some sort of personal mission. If there are a substantial number of editors in the 2nd and 3rd categories, then I agree; make sure that the PSTS situation is dealt with first and its continued existence in its present form or some even more explicit form guaranteed, then make whatever minor changes to format and organization that are required.--Filll 15:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While your attempts at broad consensus building are commendable, I think the starting point is incorrect. We need to start from existing consensus and build up from there. The existing text is strongly defended by group 3 as you point out, but that does not mean it has consensus support. Don't take this out of context, I'm not saying the views of group 3 should be ignored, but they should not be given undue weight either. The suggestion that because this text has been around in some form for some time, and therefore must remain, is not consistent with WP:Consensus. I think we can make sure WP:NOR says everything it needs to say without using the words "primary" and "secondary" because it is not essential to WP:NOR. If it is essential to WP, then that position needs to attract consensus in another forum. For the record, I am in group 1 and 2. Dhaluza 15:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an argument that does not have basis in reality. Wikipedia policies are official and have implicit widespread support . If you, or a small group of editors what to challenge that, the burden is on you to demonstrate lack of consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Current wording of official policy pages are a codification of current convention and common practice which already have wide consensus. Incremental improvements are always welcome, but major changes such as removal of material that has been stable for years, cannot be contemplated unless there is wide support. That is basically the issue here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a burden of proof to show the policy does not reflect consensus, but that burden was met long ago in this discussion. This section attempts to summarize the discussion comments into three camps, only one of which supports the inclusion of PSTS in NOR in its present form. Dhaluza 15:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Five or ten editors' arguments does not demonstrate lack of consensus. Look at what happened with WP:ATT: it had the active participation of hundreds of editors over a period of 6 months, it was announced at the VP, the mailing list, the WP:POST, and was still rejected as lacking consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good example, but I disagree with your conclusion because the absolute numbers are not relevant. ATT failed because it had a narrow consensus, and failed to attract a broader consensus. The same is true for PSTS. Dhaluza 16:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not precisely true. ATT went down primarily because Jimbo vetoed it. It had consensus until he vetoed it, then it lost consensus (evidence of the sway he has here). If we learn anything from ATT it is this: if Jimbo does not think that a policy has or ought to have concensus, he makes it very plain on the talk page of the policy/proposal. Capiche? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That Jimbo vetoed it is one thing. This "veto", so to speak, occurred only after a month-and-a-half of wide confusion at the grass-roots local article level over the change in the layout of basic policy. People all over the wiki had come to rely on the three core content policies in their work on the wiki. Similarly here, people all over the wiki have come to rely on the primary/secondary source distinction, and more recently on the WP:PSTS distinction. There needs to be an extremely strong set of reasons and a far broader base of participation in this discussion here to even seriously consider changing this longstanding, basic policy approach to avoiding original synthesis, or original research. ... Kenosis 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Narrow consensus, Dhaluza? 300 editors is not narrow. What is narrow is the number of editors challenging long-standing wording in this policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the veto, I would say that is an extreme characterization. Jimbo just joined the chorus questioning the consensus, and the policy proposal fell. Actually I think it's a shame that WP:ATT could not be salvaged, as it was a good idea at bottom (I even worked on it a bit). As for narrow, 300 editors is narrow compared to the broad WP community. The true test of consensus (or not) is whether something gains or loses support as the community is broadened. I think the basic problem with the formulation of PSTS is that there is a core group of people who support it, but as you get away from that core, the support diminishes because it is confusing and not universally applicable. I agree that the discussion should be broadened, but I think that as it is broadened, and the pros and cons are weighed, the present formulation of PSTS will continue to fail to show a broad consensus support as an explanation of NOR. Dhaluza 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noted above that PSTS defines most ancient histories as secondary sources or mixed primary/secondary sources since they usually include older histories and only sometimes include eyewitness accounts, since they include the historians' own interpretations, and since they don't resemble the "examples of primary sources." Nonetheless, common practice, including common Wikipedia practice, regards these as primary sources, or groups ancient sources into their own category. (P.S. I think we can agree that the literal reading of PSTS which makes these secondary sources is not Wikipedia practice and therefore does not have consensus).

PSTS is basically concerned with describing the sources, their strengths, and their weaknesses. NOR is basically concerned with which claims in the sources can support which claims in the articles, in particular, avoiding improper synthesis. This means using factual claims to support the same factual claims and using interpretations to support the same interpretation. So NOR has to classify statements as factual or interpretive, and probably also note issues which make for unreliable statements in reliable sources, while PSTS has to classify sources as Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary, with some special cases. (P.S. Count me in groups 1 & 2. I initially supported keeping PSTS in a "self-contained" NOR policy, but I think the new proposals cover the NOR issues and mean we can move PSTS elsewhere; I now think PSTS would do much better on its own or with other source-classification policies). Jacob Haller 15:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle, and think we can avoid classification altogether (see draft above). Rather than classify the sources broadly, we can have special provisions for special cases, like "ancient sources", which should be called what they are. Dhaluza 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to jossi: The requirements for demonstrating consensus are not the same as the requirements for demonstrating lack of consensus. I would argue that the arguments of 5 or 10 editors does demonstrate lack of consensus. What do you propose as an alternative? i.e. is there an existing or previously existing version of the policy that has broad support? --Coppertwig 16:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The arguments of 5 or 10 editors only demonstrates that they disagree with long-standing material, The burden is on them to gather sufficient consensus to change established policy. This should be obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If, and this is a big if, there was a way through transclusion to accomplish change, while still keeping what some people deem as "imperative to be included", would alleviate "group 3's" concerns? For example, with transclusion, it would be possible for the entire PSTS section to be own it's own page (call it maybe something like a sub-policy, or maybe just policy on it's own). Then, using transclusion, that 'page' can be brought in to this policy as well, to still be part of this policy (even though I'm in the camp that doesn't think it needs to be). Any further discussion or changes, etc. can be referred to that page, while at least this talk page can maybe become devoted to solely NOR issues, without being 'cluttered' with discussions on types of sourcing, or other "source" related discussions. Just looking at this page and the last two archive pages clearly show that this would help clean up the talk page here. By transcluding, the disputed text is still kept within the policy, just that it's stored differently, and therefore changes or discussions can be handled differently as well.

Just an idea I'm tossing out for the moment for possible consideration. This could be used as one way to at least begin trying to address what 2 different groups see as a problem, even if the thrird group doesn't think any exists. Their needs or concerns are still addressed by keeping the text they think is so important. By transclusion, the text is brought in and becomes part of the "article", or "policy" in this case. wbfergus ^Talk 16:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> The proposal to make a complete package... hammering out a proposed PSTS policy/guideline page to go along with the proposed replacement section for NOR, looks welcome to me. What's needed with it is a FAQ showing the evidence for the concerns, for example the contexts in which definitions vary, and diffs of example of disputes over interpretation. We also need to consider carefully the policy implications of PSTS and of the proposal, both in this policy and in relation to other policies. There could be good use of a page covering both this and what exactly is intended by "third party", possibly with text brought in through transclusion as above. .. dave souza, talk 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop good intentioned editors to start a proposed page to cover these issues, designed with a possible future transclusion in mind. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis?

On the page Talk:Ebionites, the following statement was made, and I quote: "Citing two authors with divergent views in some areas is not OR nor synthesis. What matters is whether they are making the same claim in the specific area which they are cited about -- which in this instance they are". Is that statement in accord with wikipedia policy as per this page? John Carter 16:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the actual dispute, which seems quite heated. My observation is that if there are two sources saying the same thing, then quoting that thing from two sources is not synthesis, instead you have a corroboration of different sources. If two sources, assuming they would be thought of as reliable sources, that differ on their interpretation elsewhere concur on some point, then that would be pretty good evidence of agreed facts.

The devil is in the detail though, and the synthesis can often be not in the citation of an agreed fact, but what use is then made of it. Another question to answer is, is the citation really in context and being used as the author intended, or is it some passing aside being extrapolated into support for some novel argument? I am always deeply suspicious of debates that depend on policy over editorial judgement, and I would be looking at whether it was an issue of the neutral point of view policy. Spenny 17:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Entropy" in WP:PSTS over the past few months

It unfortunately appears to be the case that WP:PSTS has recently been manhandled by too many various, unsynchronized edits in the past few months, and is in need of work. As I stated farther above, "Primary and secondary sources" has been a standard part of WP:NOR for some three-and-a-half years, with its roots in direct instruction from WP's founder. A couple years ago it became a discrete section of WP:NOR. In October 2006 it was changed to "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources", which solved many conceptual problems and gave an extra layer to the concept of "secondary sources" in the implementation of WP:NOR around the wiki. Nearly a year ago WP:PSTS read as can be seen in the version in late October 2006. Notice also how it still read pretty much the same in April 2007. In the interim a some "entropy", so to speak, has occurred. Note how it began to be worked over gradually, bit by bit, e.g., by 23 June 2007, with the example of the "Security Resolution". By the beginning of August 2007 it looked like this. Presently it looks like this. This section apparently only needs to be cleaned up and brought back to its earlier, more stable roots, not thrown out. ... Kenosis 17:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

See Dave's proposal above, which I would support, in which well intentioned editors could start a proposal page to cover PSTS, with the intention to be proposed as a transclusion for this and maybe other pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No objection to a transclusion approach, so long as the participants there don't get too far off into manufacturing unwieldy categorizations. The PSTS distinction is supposed to be a way of conceptualizing the flow of information directly integral with the concept of NOR. In other words, the objective is to avoid creating primary sources or new syntheses in WP. The tertiary distinction is just shorthand for, essentially, multiple layers of synthesis in published material. ... Kenosis 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

By far, the worst statement at present is the bolded statement: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources." This statement was originally added on 28 June 2007 in the midst of a brief flurry of edit warring by several users. It originally read: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." It was arguably an oversimplification of "secondary sources" from the very beginning of that bolded policy statement in late June, The statement, with the addition of "primary and..." to the sentence, has since become confusing and essentially meaningless. It's no wonder a number of people are more confused by PSTS than need be the case here. IMO, the statement should never have been added to begin with, or at an absolute minimum it should be set into better context. ... Kenosis 17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That edit must be reverted. It was widely challenged and was added again against consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Going back to an older version would go a long way towards clearing up my concerns... somewhere along the lines we lost a key statement (that: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.")... this placed the discussion of sources in the context of NOR. It made it clear that the point was to not add things that made Wikipedia a primary source. While I still think the idea of having all this in a seperate policy/guideline has merit, I could support Kenosis's idea as an acceptable solution while a proposed version of such a page is created an goes through the process of determining consensus. Blueboar 18:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Going back through the Archives, it does appear that there has much discussion over this section, going at least as far back as January 2005 [[6]]. What I find unusual so far, since I haven't yet gone through all of the archives, is that in this case, SlimVirgin is making the same points about primary sources that many editors still feel important about now, yet SlimVirgin is also the editor that made the numerous edits back in Oct 2006 with any discussion. I will be interested to see what arguments were finally made to persuade SlimVirgin to change their position. They may be viable to bring back up. wbfergus ^Talk 18:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely true that we'll find little talk-page material on SlimVirgin's 23 October 2006 change from PSS to PSTS. What is clear is that it was sufficiently effective at solving certain conceptual problems, e.g., specialized encyclopedias, general encyclopedias and other summaries of what had been grouped as "secondary sources", such that there was a more-or-less collective "aha!" at the time. Hence, no talk-page discussion was needed there. Also, the farther back we go, the less talk-page discussion we'll find in general right across the wiki. I agree the amount of talk last October was not in keeping with the ordinary expectation. Moreover, I am not an opponent of going back to PSS instead of PSTS, so long as compendia, summaries and various derivatives of other secondary source material are effectively dealt with. The main reason I see for not going all the way back to PSS is the issue of encyclopedic matter built on secondary sources. If someone comes up with an improved way of comprehensively dealing with the issue of, shall we say, "secondary sources built on other secondary sources", I figure others will tend to recognize its potential value and discuss it accordingly. If Dave Souza gets his way, there may be a separate page to work on that one issue. But it must be interactive with WP:NOR, because WP not being a primary source is integral to NOR.. ... Kenosis 18:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The addition of "primary" to that clause does two things: it contradicts the guidance on using primary sources; and creates confusion. What the editor who added primary to that clause thought he/she was doing is unclear, but it needs to be edited as Kenosis has noted. 18:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As the link I just provided above shows, this issue has been in contention for quite a while now. wbfergus ^Talk 18:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But what guidance is there, with consensus, that says that primary sources being used is a problem in and of itself, rather than just something that needs more/different caution than secondary sources? SamBC(talk) 18:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. To go back to the early roots of this concept, prior to when the various practical experiences with it gave rise to the manifold PSTS general distinction, see the following: Jimmy Wales 3 December 2004 and Jimmy Wales 6 December 2004. This may help to focus on the primary objective of PSTS. ... Kenosis 18:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That indicates certain problematic uses of primary sources, but does not indicate any general problem with every using primary sources generally. Plus, while Jimbo's opinions tend to lead consensus, Jimbo saying a few things doesn't automatically indicate consensus guidance. Sure, don't use primary data to create novel theories. That's valid and no-one's going to argue with it. If you remove everything after "data" then it becomes rather more general and contentious. SamBC(talk) 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And, in between then and now, there is a longstanding consensus on the basic aspects of its development in the intervening three years. At this stage, the onus is upon those proposing any signifcant changes. ... Kenosis 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether the consensus was londgstanding, or even was, is only of historical interest now that it has been widely and thoughfully questioned. This latest turn in the discussion seems to me to be like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. The two bolded statements at the top of this section were indeed the root cause of the edit war. My POV is that statement depreciating primary sources did not represent consensus, and that inserting it over the objections raised opened the whole can of worms on PSTS. My attempt at compromise language was immediately reverted, for example. Frankly, if editors would have agreed to just leave the bolded statement out altogether, the edit war probably would have died down, and we would not be at the point we are. But since it was reinserted every time the protection expired, and that lead to re-protection, the talk page discussion has questioned the whole concept of the relevance of PSTS to NOR, and I have not seen a cogent stand alone argument for it other than it's been in there for X amount of time and we really really really need it. That's a religious argument in my book, and carries little weight. I could be swayed by a cogent argument, but I have not seen any yet. I have made a proposal on how to reword PSTS to remove source typing above, and I think it is actually forms a stronger policy because it is more easily understood. Explain why that explanation is inferior to primary/secondary. Dhaluza 20:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

Most succinctly,

• primary sources are sources of facts
• secondary sources are sources for distinct views of facts
• tertiary sources are summaries of, or generalizations based on, diverse views of facts

More specifically:

• Primary sources record data that are to be interpreted or explained, or data that are used to interpret or explain other data. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. Note: often times secondary sources present data and may thus also function as primary sources.

Our policy: Original research that produces a primary source is not allowed at Wikipedia. Moreover, a Wikipedia article or section of an article can employ primary sources only if the source is used (1) only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) never to make original analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

What do people think? I'd like to add something to make it clear that if we are citing a secondary source and that source includes raw data, we can include the raw data as long as it is restricted to the context in which the authors of the secondary source (e.g. journal article) use it i.e. in the context of their own analysis/argument ... but I haven't figured out a concise way to say it... Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I understand the addition of primary sources to the bolded statement as a response to the non-standard-practice deprecation of primary sources implied by the bolded and italicized statements.
2. I suspect that the requirements of explaining PSTS and the requirements of using PSTS to explain NOR conflicted with each other, leading to more entropy; using non-PSTS explanations of NOR would avoid this. Jacob Haller 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should avoid using the words primary and secondary in explaining NOR. The arguments against source typing are compelling, and the need for this characterization has not been shown. The problem with NOR is the use of the sources, not their nature. Dhaluza 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I still do not support any changes to the existing policy as it is, but if a compelling case were made that changes are necessary (and one hasn't yet) SLR's are reasonable and accurate enough. FeloniousMonk 20:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What's currently missing from Slrubenstein's proposal for shortening PSTS is that WP is not permitted to be a publisher of original syntheses, and as such is not a publisher of original secondary source material either. The primary/secondary/tertiary distinction helps clarify this. BTW, I liked the basic idea that Blueboar proposed of "Sticking to the sources". Any ideas about how a very brief articulation of this might be woven in without interrupting the continuity of basic policy across the wiki? ... Kenosis 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"What's currently missing from Slrubenstein's proposal for shortening PSTS is that WP is not permitted to be a publisher of original syntheses," - how can you say this? i address this explicitly! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The way this flows appears not to express the concept at first reading. It says: "Our policy: Original research that produces a primary source is not allowed at Wikipedia" That appears to neglect original synthesis, which is also original research. Or am I missing something in this proposal? ... Kenosis 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC) ... OK, I see it now, in #2. Fine, no problem. it draws on existing long-used language and doesn't appear likely to confound users who have relied on the older language for any length of time. It's not a major change, but a brief clarification, if I'm looking at it correctly. ... Kenosis 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding wikipedia not being a primary or secondary source... it would make sense, to my mind, to pretty much completely rewrite the PSTS section so that its main thrust is defining all three and stating that wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source. The corrolaries of this belong in other sections of the policy, to my mind. This would not implicitly or explicitly prefer primary or secondary sources over the other, handily. I would personally favour, though, a seperate page (of policy standing) defining PSTS, and just referring to that and saying "wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source". However, the definitions can stay in NOR while that new page is developed, and be replaced with a wikilink reference when the new page is adopted. The new page would also be a good place to keep all the definitions of different types of source (including third-party) needed by policies and guidelines, and refer to them there. It would need to be of policy standing itself because it would be a definition officially recognised and adopted. A new term might be worth using, other than policy/guideline, such as "policy support", but that would most likely over-complicate things. Anyway, consider that a suggestion. If people don't seem to notice I've made it in the middle of all this discussion, I'll start a new section for it... SamBC(talk) 21:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

When an article or part of an article draws on primary source material, it is reasonably regarded as a secondary source. When it draws on secondary material, it is reasonably regarded as either a tertiary source, or a derivative secondary source, depending on whether you're using the old PSS or the more recent PSTS breakdown. The prohibition is against being a primary source, and also against synthesizing primary source material in a way that creates an original secondary source. ... Kenosis 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Making use of a primary source doesn't render the result a secondary source as an automatic consequence - according to Tertiary source, "a tertiary source is a selection and compilation of primary and secondary sources" (bolding in original). SamBC(talk) 22:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, SamBC, Note that you just quoted a Wikipedia article on Tertiary source. If you know what you're doing here, I would prefer to not continue feeding back on this sort of junk argument on a policy discussion page. If you don't know what you're doing here, then please learn better. I shouldn't need to explain this sort of thing on a policy discussion page. ... Kenosis 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem with quoting that article is, given that the article is also linked from the relevant bit of this policy page (presumably to give further information). The policy itself also says that tertiary sources sum up primary sources as well as secondary. This university-hosted glossary also says the same. You might also like to keep your comments more WP:CIVIL. All this is relevant assuming that your comment that I quoted in response to was actually a response to my suggestion to reword the section to focus on wikipedia being a tertiary source. Otherwise, we've somehow started talking at cross-purposes. SamBC(talk) 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That comment was definately not called for and seriously broached both civility and personal attacks, not to mention just downright common courtesy. Sam's lack of response to that uncalled for comment shows maturity and civility that is missing in some posts on here, that seem (on the surface at least) to be no more than obstructionist tactics with strawman arguments. Claiming that 'something' wasn't widely challenged for a period of time doesn't neccessarily mean that there was widespread concensus for it. If that was truly the case, the wouldn't have been an Emancipation Proclamation or a movement towards Abolitionism.

For the record I would like to point out that it has been widely acknowledged that PSTS is a breif synopsis of the definitions of the individual P,S, and T articles, even though those articles may have come into existence after these concepts were argued on this page (I haven't checked). The NOR policy page does not get into the full definition of those, otherwise it would be completely pointless to have a full 'policy' definition of them and still link to the articles with complete definitions, explanations and examples. wbfergus ^Talk 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And I could very easily argue that continuing to bring up specious or irrelevant points is uncivil, in that doing so wastes our time. Kenosis' assessment of the situation was correct. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And what would the "specious or irrelevant points"? That almost all of the discussion at least over the last month (actually a little longer now, that I know of), has revolved almost exclusivley around the current "Sources" section, primarily PSTS? Almost all of this page, and almost all of the last two archive pages show that this is where the bulk of conversation has been.

Or did you mean instead that unlike a previous edit or two (or many more) were done in clear violation of existing Wikipedia policy, as can be readily seen by the dates and versions for those dates, and so that we don't fall into the same sort of quagmire a year from now of somebody asking "Why wasn't policy followed for these edits that are now so contentious", we can instead show that policy is being followed. There is a very healthy and long debate going on with how to address the issue of moving extraneous material that has nothing to do with "No Original Research" someplace else, so that this policy can concentrate solely on NOR issues. It is ludicrous that a policy devoted to "No Original Research" is instead expending most of it's time and energy deabting the differences between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Nobody (that I can tell) is proposing weakening any of the existing policies, but simply moving this extremely problematic section somewhere else so that any further discussion about the various types of sources or "this can be a primary in this case, but it is also a secondary in this case", etc. type discussion do not clutter up something that should be devoted to NOR issues. Why should NOR be concerned with whether a source is primary or secondary or tertiary? Why can't editors simply look at the problemmatic text from an article and ask "Is there a verifiable and reliable source for this statement or conclusion or whatever the statement is about"? The type of source, while related, is not a core part of this policy, though as has been previously stated, it's been part of the policy since the 23rd edit. As my analogy above stated, just because something has "been that way for a longtime", doesn't make it correct or the best way.

Or maybe were you referring to my comment that some posts above can be seen as obstructionist? When asked what they think, some people just say "Object" (or a variation of it), and when asked how it could improved to alleviate their concerns, we (those who want to clarify and simplify the policy for easier understanding by all Wikipedians, both old and new) either have our questions met with silence, answered with a variation of "it's been long-standing policy....", or other useless suggestions or comments. There have been extremely few people (Slrubenstein and Jossi that I remember right off-hand) from the group that has voiced opposition that actually appear to be open-minded about the issue and have actually bothered to offer constructive criticism instead of obstructive criticism. wbfergus ^Talk 12:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe SamBC, upon meditating on it for awhile, will understand what he did (not for the first time, incidentally) and will also understand what I meant just above. As to the hasty exaggerations about "violations" of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, I stand by what I said. I'll drop SamBC a note via email in a couple of days and I presume we'll briefly discuss it in private. If we need to publicly analyze it in greater detail, I'm prepared to spend some further time doing it on a separate page. Other than some additional indicator that it's necessary here, I consider this ancillary issue closed as far as the purposes of this talk page are concerned. ... Kenosis 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's remember the point of all this explaining of source types... which is to say that Wikipedia should not be 1) a primary source of a fact or idea... or 2) an original secondary source in analyzing facts or ideas. IE facts and ideas should not originate on wikipedia. All else is fluff to help explain these two concepts. Blueboar 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources." UN Security Council resolutions are published primary sources. What is not wanted is unpublished primary sources. What is not clear to me is whether manuscripts only held in one archive are acceptable. I asked this question either on this talk page or the talk page of WP:V when I came across it on the Chindits page and the people who bothered to answer seemed to think it was OK if they were accessible by the public. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We had concensus for policy changes?

In case people don't have a "Watchlist" set for the policy page itself, it automatically was unprotected this morning by the 'bot, and two edits have taken place. Both covered an area that's been under discussion, but I don't remember seeing anything that asks for if people agreed or not.

• One edit removes "An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources.".

Agree wbfergus ^Talk 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't disagree... but wonder why these were removed? Aren't they primary sources? Blueboar 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the UN Security Council Resolution and Encyclopedia Britannica examples, because they are not broadly enough illustrative of primary and tertiary sources. they made things confusing by omission of other representative examples. I recommend instead coming up with an agreed list of examples of P, S, and T sources and listing them with bullets, or alternately to leave the unnecessary examples out completely. ... Kenosis 13:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in an attempt to begin removing the definitions of "types of sources" so emphasis is instead on puerly NOR isssues? wbfergus ^Talk 13:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Another edit removes Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.

Agree, though I think the same could have been accomplished with just removing "primary and secondary".wbfergus ^Talk 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree - no need to repeat what is stated earlier in the policy. Blueboar 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreement on adding Slrubensteins "Origins of NOR"?

The way I read the "unofficial" vote at the top of the page, it appears that there is concensus for that, so I will add it. If it turns out there is not concensus, then go ahead and revert. wbfergus ^Talk 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appeared plain that the insertion of this passage earlier this year and the later modification of it was terribly confusing. So was calling WP a tertiary source. In some cases WP is a "secondary" source and in some cases a "tertiary" source, but never a primary source, at least not according to the NOR policy. ... Kenosis 13:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the other debate...

As of yesterday, Blueboar's proposal read:

Citing Appropriate Source Materials (alternative suggested section title: Sticking to the Sources)

Within Wikipedia articles we will find statements of fact and statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. It is important to cite appropriate sources to back those different types of statements. Statements of fact should be cited to reliable sources that contain that fact. Statements of fact should also match the context of the source for that fact. Statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion should be cited to reliable sources that contain the same interpretation, analysis or conclusion, often called secondary sources (see WP:PSTS). Collections of facts which tend to lead the reader to a certain interpretation should be supported not only by a reliable source for each fact, but also by a reliable source that contains the same interpretation.

Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, unless that interpretation is either 1) an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts or 2) can be attributed to a reliable source. Nor can editors expand on an author's interpretations of fact, unless that expanded interpretation is also found in a reliable source.

When there are a number of reliable sources that interpret a particular piece of material, we need to be especially careful not to insert or imply our own interpretation of the original material.

For example, that Franklin D. Roosevelt was born in Hyde Park, New York and that he became president of the United States are both verifiable facts that may be cited in a Wikipedia article. The dates of each event are easily verified, and it would be perfectly admissible to say that he "was born in Hyde Park, NY, and later became president of the United States" without finding a source that specifically uses the word "later", or otherwise explicitly compares the dates. However, any statement about the effect his birth place had on him or on his career would require separate citation, since such a statement would not an obvious or non-controversial consequence of these easily verified facts.

Comments & concerns

Support I think it summarizes NOR as cleanly as any of the alternatives. I hope that we can work out any remaining issues and add this to the policy by, say, the end of the year, regardless of how we handle PSTS. Jacob Haller 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should pursue my proposed new section without addressing the PSTS section at the same time... unless you are suggesting adding it on top of PSTS(?) I don't object, if that is the consensus, but it wasn't written with that intent. Blueboar 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see value in adding it seperately at this point, and continuing the discussion of refactoring or relocating PSTS. I would prefer both refactoring and relocating, personally. SamBC(talk) 21:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Blueboar 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have added a sentence about not taking facts out of context... an easy way to introduce OR with a fact statement. Blueboar 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Where is this proposed to be placed? In lieu of something? As an addition to some existing section? As a separate section? ... Kenosis 22:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest immediately before or after the PSTS section, with the understanding that the refactoring/rewriting/moving of PSTS is still under discussion. SamBC(talk) 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this as a plain language explanation of NOR, but think the reference to WP:PSTS is unnecessary. Dhaluza 22:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza, could you accept that, even if it's unnecessary, it does no (substantial) harm, and therefore not oppose its inclusion? SamBC(talk) 23:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I would tend to support it. Maybe after I eat and sleep I may change my mind, but for now it seems a completely logical extension. It by far seems to make the point about NOR better than PSTS does, but that is still a separate issue. wbfergus ^Talk 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - Let's add this and Srubenstein's context/history to the policy without deleting anything. Can we all agree on that? Let's get some kind of improvement into the policy. WAS 4.250 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Support with one modification. I agree with Dhaluza that the reference to WP:PSTS is unnecessary. I also think it's not accurate. An original analysis, conclusion, or interpretation is actually the primary source of that new analysis, conclusion, or interpretation. So I suggest we just delete the confusing parenthetical phrase "often called secondary sources (see WP:PSTS)." It doesn't add anything, and it's potentially confusing. Otherwise, I support. COGDEN 18:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cogden... I also support removing the paranthetical... but not for the reason you state. Quites simply, you have unique definitions of the terms Primary and Secondary source. If we avoid the terms, then this does not matter... but they are unique. Blueboar 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose this: "Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, unless that interpretation is either 1) an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts" which is a departure from the policy and would require far more support to fly than the number of editors currently involved in this discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a departure... Take a look at the example... isn't saying something like "FDR was born in Hyde Park and later became President" allowable? Are you saying that such a statement can not be made without a source? Blueboar 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a departure from the meaning, spirit, or intent of the policy. However, I can understand why there'd be concern about it potentially causing problems. I just don't think that people will get far trying to stretch what "obvious and non-controversial consequence" means. SamBC(talk) 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing new. It's part of WP:V. If something is obvious or non-controversial, you don't even need a citation to a reliable source! All the above formulation says is that editors cannot include their own interpretations unless they are verifiable. That Wikipedia practice and consensus has been well established for years. COGDEN 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative draft

Using Appropriate Source Materials Appropriately

Wikipedia articles contain statements of fact, and statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. It is important to cite appropriate sources in each case.

• Statements of fact should cite reliable published sources that state the same fact in an equivalent context.

• Statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion should cite reliable published sources that contain the same interpretation, analysis or conclusion (also called secondary sources; see: WP:PSTS).

• Collections of facts presented in a given context should be supported not only by a reliable source for each fact, but also by reliable sources for the context.

Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, unless that interpretation is either 1) an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts or 2) can be attributed to a reliable source. Editors can only expand on a source's interpretations of fact by citing additional reliable sources in an appropriate context.

When there are multiple reliable sources that interpret a particular concept differently, editors need to be especially careful to present all mainstream and significant minority views, and not develop a novel interpretation or reinterpretation of the original material. When the collection of facts support different interpretations, editors must present the relevant verifiable facts, and not selectively present facts that support one interpretation over another.

For example, that Franklin D. Roosevelt was born in Hyde Park, New York and that he became president of the United States are both verifiable facts that may be cited in a Wikipedia article. The dates of each event are easily verified, so it is reasonable to say that he "was born in Hyde Park, NY, and later became president of the United States" without citing a source that specifically uses the word "later", or similarly characterizes the sequence. However, any statement about the effect his birth place had on him, or on his career, would require a citation, since that would not be an obvious and non-controversial consequence of these facts. Both of these facts are important biographical information that should be included in his biographical article--an editor who thought Roosevelt was a bad president should not simply ignore that important part of his life.

Comments & concerns

Apologies in advance if this seem shocking. I broke out the ax and chopped down excess wordiness. In the process I also changed a few things. The title is new. I broke the paragraph making two different points into bullets. I refocused the third statement on context rather than the slippery slope of tending to lead to... because I could see this being used to reinvigorate controversy over lists for example--instead, I added a sentence about cherry picking facts, which should address the same problem with less collateral damage. I expanded the example to tie it to the last paragraph as well. Feel free to compare and contrast this with the original proposal (I have thick skin). Dhaluza 10:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise editors cannot expand on a source's interpretations of fact, except by citing additional reliable sources. I can see your troubling over that too. This has the potential to suggest synthesis is ok (there is a fact, there are some other facts, look I can join them together), and if additional sources are cited, then the interpretation depends on those so is not an issue. My instinct was simply to delete the second half of the sentence, but perhaps some wording is required to hammer home the point. It is also ambiguous for not saying what these additional citations are required for. Spenny 10:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the original sentence is redundant, so I tried to make it relevant, but I see your point too. Oh well, it's still a draft on a talk page, so we can kick it around the block again.... Dhaluza 10:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have let it set :) I think the current wording is better, but still has that problem of being "too helpful". I could paraphrase it to say "You can only extrapolate from the facts if you can cite that extrapolation." That still seems redundant. Thinks, how about "Editors may never make their own extrapolations from cited information."? Spenny 10:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No good, it's just repetition really isn't it? Spenny 11:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see the subtlety, how about: Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, unless that interpretation is either 1) an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts or 2) can be attributed to a reliable source. Any interpretation must be completely contained within the cited source. Spenny 11:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this more than Blueboar's version, though I still have doubts about the Roosevelt example. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree much of this version, though I think Blueboar's version is more likely to achieve consensus. I have the same issue as with the other proposal, with the parenthetical "(also called secondary sources; see: WP:PSTS)". An analysis, interpretation, or conclusion is not called a "secondary source" (not by academics, anyway). If the analysis is original, it's actually the primary source of that analysis. We don't need this parenthetical, and it's potentially confusing.

I also have serious qualms about requiring "reliable sources for the context" in the OR article. Obviously, we want editors to provide context for quotations and facts, but that's mainly an WP:NPOV issue. Simply omitting context is not original research. It may be biased and deceptive if you don't cite other facts and information that should be included to provide the proper context, but it's not OR. Let's keep this policy focused on OR. Otherwise, this has the potential to cause trouble down the road. COGDEN 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It becomes an NOR issue when someone takes something out of context to forward their own argument. Put another way, taking things out of context is one of the most common ways people violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

COGDEN, original analysis and/or synthesis does not mean it is a primary source in the humanities. On the contrary, published articles by experts in humanities are expected to contain novel points and yet considered secondary sources. Similarly, historical texts are generally considered primary sources in humanities, regardless of whether they would fit a "technical" definition of secondary or tertiary. Additionally, some historiographers and philosophers would even be "extreme" enough to say that any material you draw upon for your study is a primary source. There is no single universal and coherent definition for the distinction between source types. Vassyana 20:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for refocussing of PSTS

I already posted this suggestion in the middle of another thread, but the discussion following it skewed off onto other subjects, so I'm posting it in a new section so that (hopefully) the discussion here can focus on the suggestion itself.

Given the history of the section, and comments made by people on both sides of the debate here, it seems that the greatest (potential) value of the PSTS section is to explain what a tertiary source is, and explain that that's what wikipedia is supposed to be. This doesn't mean prohibiting primary sources, but perhaps indicating that they require greater caution. (every definition I've found - and linked during discussions above - of "tertiary source" says that they are based on primary and secondary sources, but mainly secondary ones). As such, I would suggest that the section be redrafted with this clear focus, as that should actually be less confusing and give better guidance to editors. The potential for moving the section to a new page to be referred from any policy that needs it is a seperate matter that, while I still support, is not an aspect of this suggestion. SamBC(talk) 13:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sam, I gotta go for now, and will be gone for most of the next couple of days. Very quickly, the difference between primary and secondary sources is key, while the difference between secondary and tertiary sources is supplementary to what originally was termed a secondary source, to account for encyclopedias and other compendia derived from secondary and/or primary sources. The key here is 1) to avoid making WP articles a primary source, and 2) to avoid making WP articles a new or original synthesis of primary and/or secondary sources. In other words, as Blueboar succinctly put it, "stick to the sources". Original wording and editorial decisionmaking is one thing, and is permissible, while new, previously unpublished material, and new, previously unpublished analyses or conclusions are forbidden. ... Kenosis 13:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely and utterly agree with what you write here (which is a good thing, given the friction we seem to have generated recently - I'll put that down to heightened emotions on both sides). My suggestion above is based on synthesising points that others have made that were, to my mind, cogent and appropriate. It's not an original thought of my own. Whether wikipedia is a tertiary source or not depends on the precise definition, and the definiton isn't as widely agreed (on or off wiki) as primary and secondary. However, wikipedia's intent seems to fit the gist of all the definitions I've found, as what you describe (not adding novel interpretations and so on) seems to be something that' supposed to be a characteristic of tertiary sources, rather than the types of source they use. SamBC(talk) 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Although you'll be away a while, I would hope that others either share or understand your concerns enough that we can carry on discussion almost as if you were still here. SamBC(talk) 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If we can achieve consensus on what Kenosis suggests, I'm all for it. I don't disagree with anything above. Achieving consensus on this seems a little more ambitious than consensus on something like the proposal Blueboar is managing, which I also support. Kenosis's suggestion has been suggested before, and one of the sticking points was in defining primary and secondary sources. Maybe we don't have to define them in this policy. We just refer to the Wikipedia articles primary source and secondary source. COGDEN 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would define a primary source as any source of facts that are the object of someone's interpretation, explanation, analysis or synthesis, or facts used to interpret, explain, analyze or synthesize other facts. What is wrong with this? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe insert "subsequent" in there, as in "...the object of someones subsequent interpretation..."? I had read that twice before it struck me exactly what you saying. At first I thought you were saying that someones interpretations etc. were primary sources. The subtle distinction in there went right by me at first. wbfergus ^Talk 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

An interpretation etc. can be a primary source, if it's the original source where that interpretation can be found. COGDEN 18:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I agree with it the way you're saying it here. It's the facts, etc., upon which the interpretation is based that become a secondary source when cited as part of a primary source analysis. For example, if Einstein cites data from the Michelson-Morley experiment when describing his new theory of relativity, that cited data is a secondary source for that data. But Einstein's new analysis (Relativity) is the primary source of his new theoretical conclusions. If the policy stated that, I wouldn't disagree, but I don't think we need that in the policy. It's not necessary, and doesn't add anything. COGDEN 18:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It was off the top of my head and I certainly appreciate help in phrasing it more clearly and elegantly! But here is why I wouldn't say subseuent: as we all know, peer-reviewed journal articles often publish data and analysis of data simultaneously, and in many disciplines in both the social sciences and natural sciences such articles may be the first time the data is being published - so subsequent analysis may be technically accurate in terms of the process by which such articles get written, but for those of us using such articles to research a Wikipedia article, subsequent may be confusing. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just passing through quickly here, among the things that appear unaccounted in SLS's proposal is that the works of Plato, Aristotle and Kant are primary sources. So are the written theses of Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr. Homer's Odyssey and Iliad are examples of primary sources too. More, secondary sources can also be "the object of someone's interpretation, explanation, analysis or synthesis." This needs more work before considering insertion. All, or at least most, of the bases should be covered if such a statement is to be effective. Please don't be too hasty to insert yet. IMO, what's presently needed is careful discussion about how to improve the policy-page description of "secondary sources". For example, textbooks are conspicuously missing from secondary sources, and some kinds of textbooks may be regarded as tertiary sources, particularly introductory textbooks that make use exclusively of established secondary sources. Also presently missing from "primary sources" are nonfiction primary sources-- e.g., I mentioned aseveral philosophers and several physicists above. ... Kenosis 18:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)I don't think there would be any major contention on this section, on the basis it is using a description of sources to describe the characteristics of an encyclopaedia. The issue is raised by trying to then reverse the logic (I am trying to think of the right word, is it an intransitive function where you can put a value in and get a predictable value out the other end, but you put the answer back through and you cannot get to the question?). Kenosis recent edit on the main page actually removes that logic and reverts to a general description of sourcing without an attempt to invert the logic, so it becomes far less contentious. Sticking with that thought, if the current description of sourcing as it stands only describes the features of a good encyclopaedia, then we may see that whilst interesting, it does not really underwrite the policing of policy. Spenny 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of a policy page isn't only to define and aid the policing of the policy, it also has the goal of making the policy understandable. SamBC(talk) 18:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that, and I think that is the distinction I wanted to make, but didn't say it clearly enough (the interesting comment wasn't meant to be as dismissive as it sounded). Rather it was an observation that having cleaned up, perhaps we could garner some consensus for the principle that although secondary sources make good encyclopaedias, that does not mean that primary sources make bad encyclopaedias. Spenny 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... that all depends on how they are used, doesn't it? I know it isn't a popular view right now, but I still come back to the fact that both types of sources can be used correctly and both can be used incorrectly. Blueboar 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I can't recollect for sure (and probably some reading through the recent archives may be required), but it seems like this point has been given examples by people from both sides of the argument, that any source can be misused to insert OR, regardless of primary or secondary.

Now, now... Let's be NPOV here... even Tertiary sources can be misused to insert OR. :>) Blueboar 19:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion example

Okay, here's an example of transclusion User:Wbfergus/Sandbox/Transclusion example. I copied the "Sources section from the policy to create the page. I next created a sub-page called "Sources", and moved the PSTS sub-section into that sub-page, then I used the transclusion template on the first page to pull in the sub-page. Feel free to look at the edit text to see how it works.

Now, the advantage to this is that if we implement this on this policy, the "Sources" can be a sub-page and any discussion about these "Sources" can be discussed there, instead of here. This would help focus this talk page more to strictly NOR issues, and all of the "Sources" discussions happen somewhere else. When reading, it is transparent, so it appears that what is transcluded is hard-coded into the text they see on the screen, so there is no "loss of policy" or other weakening of this policy, it's merely moving one section that has generated an awful lot of discussion into another spot so thse discussions can happen elsewhere.

A disadvantage would be that it would need to be documented better what is happening and that "Sources" discussions happen on the sub-page. This isn't that big of a deal, but it's a step that needs to be done. (I won't sign the two questions below so that my sig doesn't interfere with the questions) wbfergus ^Talk 20:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody see any other advantages or disadvantages?

Would all parties involved agree that this would be an effective compromise to at least "clean-up" this talk page so that it is far easier to concentrate on solely NOR issues?

I don't see any benefit to transclusion, and lots of potential for confusion. If a full cost-benefit analysis of various types of sources is going to be part of the policy (which seems unlikely at this point), then it should just be included. If it's moved to an essay, it should be referenced by a link. COGDEN 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PSTS and source typing

A large part of the confusion between source types seems to lie in contradictory understandings of the distinctions. For example, my main area of study has been in the humanities, which uses quite different definitions than the sciences, which use differing definitions than the "strict dictionary sense". It seems like a lot of the confusion and disagreement largely lies in those distinct understandings of the issue.

I will raise peer-reviewed publications for an example. In the humanities, peer-reviewed publications are considered secondary sources. In the sciences, they are generally considered primary sources (when putting forth a novel theory). In the strict dictionary sense, they are a mixture of primary and secondary, based on identifying raw data and novel claims as primary material. Within these individual fields and viewpoints, there are further variations as well. For example, a small part of the humanities considers any source drawn upon in research to be a primary source. Beyond all this confusion, the academic distinctions created with the goal of creating and reviewing original research in mind.

In a broad sense, primary sources are those drawn upon as "raw" evidence, which are subjected to an intense review and analysis, particularly of their reliability and context. (In humanities, it's more "internal" to the work, peer-review generally judging the strength of argument. In the sciences, it's more "external", peer-review usually examining even the raw data collected with intense scrutiny.) In the same broad sense, secondary sources are the analysis and reviews of other contemporary authors, drawn upon to critique and counter those views or cited as sympathetic to the central thesis being forwarded.

So, in essence, I feel the conflicting definitions create a lot of confusion and conflict, and I have no particular ideas of how to "fix" this problem. A centralized definition is not a solution in and of itself, because such a thing has been present in policy, but the confusion and conflict continue. Perhaps we need to work with other terms, or maybe the language simply needs to be clarified and tightened. I also wonder if definitions created to promote and frame original research are appropriate for a policy that has the opposing intention. We may be working at cross-purposes to ourselves in continuing to use definitions created for the converse purpose as the policy they support. Just some thoughts. What are your thoughts in response? Vassyana 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)