Wikipedia talk:No original research

Archives

See also Wikipedia talk:Proposal to replace No Original Research
For the "Sandbox", click here.

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)
• Agree Understanding the background and rationale of the policy is crucial to understanding its importance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree I'm not sure if there's much for me to add, but this policy differentiates the original Wikipedia from POV-pushing copycats like Conservapedia and CreationWiki that do not rely upon this primary policy. This change improves the understandability, which is critical. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree I second Orangmarlin's response, in that it does improve the understandablity on primary sourses. There have been so many instances, that I recall, where editors rely on these primary sources and add them to the article to support their POV, and then add another primary source when someone challlenges the source, therefore making it WP:SYN. This should be totally discouraged. I have to read more on this subject though, but do see a very dangerous pattern if this is not made clear on what a primary source is and what it means in order to sourse a claim made in the content of an article. Jeeny 03:59, 27 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 have different learning styles. This means there is a value to presenting the same information in different ways. Nothing stops a newbie from skipping a section that is unhelpful to them. For example, for people who want to get right to the point, we have 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 agree 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 versa. 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)

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.

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)

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)

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.

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. •Jim62sch• 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)

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)

wbfergus, you wrote at the start of this section "Each of the four main content policies needs to define "sources" differently because each definition is an inherent part of each policy...." Did you mean three content policies WP:NPV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and the content guideline WP:RS guideline or did you mean something else? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For the fourth, I meant the one main core content policy that is almost always overlooked, WP:BLP, probably because it doesn't always apply to every article, just the articles on living persons. wbfergus ^Talk 10:42, 28 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)

That sentence was at the heart of the edit war that started this whole mess. Some editors want it to only include secondary sources thereby depreciating primary sources, while others disagree, and some think it should also include tertiary sources. On top of this, editors can't agree on what the precise definitions of PSTS are, or how to apply them to specific examples. So there is clearly no consensus support for this statement in any of its forms, and removing it is the best alternative. Dhaluza 10:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence is it misses the point of NOPR which is not simply that people must use verifiable sources, which is covered in V and CS - the heart of NOR is how people use sources, and misuse them. The main ways people misuses sources is

• by taking primary material (whether from a purely primary source, like a book of French poetry, or a secondary source, like a journal article analyzing a French poem that provides the text of the original poem; or like a biological assay, or data from a biological assuay included in a peer-reviewed journal article using that data) out of context or
• combining material from primary sources to forward their own views

and the most obvious form of NOR was to do either of the above in order to argue against a view in a reliable, verifiable, secondary sources. Now, it is clear to me that to explain this, we need to make some kind of distinction about sources, and I grant this is not easy. But the point of it all has to do with the ways people use sources. It is not enough just to say, "use sources." NOR is about the fact that there are wrong ways (for Wikipedia) to use them. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 25 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)

It's not unique. I guess it's time to bring back my numerous citations to sources that define primary and secondary sources that way. That's what happens when you get so much activity on a page. Previous arguments and citations get swept into the archives before people see and digest them. COGDEN 22:37, 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)

Eh, editors cannot include their own interpretations. They can only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors can summarise sources of fact, taking care not to introduce an interpretation and change the meaning by a selective summary. Or, as the term goes, quote mining. Any interpretation must be an accurate summary of the interpretation of a third party in a secondary source (in relation to the subject matter of the article or section). Sorry if you find that concept difficult. .. dave souza, talk 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if the editor cites a reliable source that agrees with an editor's interpretation, the editor has not committed original research. That is, her idea isn't new. They can't cite themselves, in any case; they have to cite a reliable source. But just because the editor came up with the idea doesn't make it bad. What's bad is that the editor was the first to come up with the idea, and/or the editor doesn't cite a verifiable source. COGDEN 22:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with COgden, with two minor technical clarifications. A WP editor can cite their own work if it was published in RS. Also they don't need to be the first to come up with it, they need to use WP to publish it before it appears in RS to be doing OR. Dhaluza 09:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this as an alternative: "Editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts. Editors may contextualize facts in an encyclopedic way that is an obvious and non-controversial consequence of the facts" By refocusing on context rather than interpretation, we stick to what is necessary for an encyclopedia, rather than going down the slippery slope of what is not. Dhaluza 09:50, 25 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)

My point is that simply citing verifiable facts is never original research. If the fact is verifiable in the first place, then merely omitting some other facts or context is not OR, just bias. If you disagree and think it's possible to commit OR merely by omitting context on a verifiable fact, I'd like to see an example. COGDEN 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See quote mining. ... dave souza, talk 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In quote mining, the quotes themselves are not OR. The OR (actually NPOV in this case: I still don't see any examples of OR) comes from the commentary, such as when you say, "Quote X says Y, but as you can see from Quote Z, the opposite is true". Quote X and Quote Z, by themselves, are just quotes. They are not new research. COGDEN 22:27, 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)

They are considered secondary sources as to the previously-published material they reference. (As to the novel insights based on those prior sources, they are primary sources.) It's very well established in the field of historiography, where the subject matter is historical ideas, that the primary sources include the historian's novel analyses of other primary sources. The historian to come up with a novel historical idea is the primary source as to that idea. See, this issue is so advanced and difficult, even for very intelligent people like Wikipedia editors, that its hard to justify basing a Wikipedia policy on the fine points of distinction between primary and secondary sources. That's PhD stuff, not really a distinction upon which Wikipedia should hinge. COGDEN 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To be entirely blunt, you don't know what you're talking about. You are confusing fields, in terms of the typing of sources. First, historiography is not at all synonymous with with the disciplines of history, anthropology or archeology, and it additionally has a proprietary set of terms, like most specialist fields. Second, the primary/secondary distinction is only applied to "symbolic" sources. Primary sources in historiography are exclusively texts that originate in the time period being studied, providing a real and direct link to the historical period. Secondary sources are later sources that draw upon these earlier reference. In historiography, an ancient secondary source is still a secondary source. A modern secondary source is still a secondary source irrespective of novel content or theories. In that field, a modern source is only a primary source if it comments upon modern circumstances and is a symbolic source. It has nothing at all to do with making novel claims, at least in historiography. Vassyana 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Again, editors cannot include their own interpretations of previously-published facts, but can only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. .. dave souza, talk 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the excange above is actually a very good example of why using primary and secondary makes it more difficult to explain and debate NOR. It started out on a valid exchange on how statement of facts can or cannot be OR, and went off into a side discussion of primary vs. secondary instead. These distinctions may be of academic interest, but I think they have proven to be of little practical value in writing an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We should stop using them in this discussion, and banish them as OR for not being "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."

Now back to the subject at hand. I struggled with the bit about assembling primary sources, and I share COgden's concern that simply presenting verifiable facts is not OR, and cherry picking facts is more of a NPOV issue. But I did see the point that it could cross over to an NOR issue if the bias was introducing a new previously unpublished interpretation, rather than just supporting one side in an existing dispute that was already documented by RS. Perhaps I did not address this carefully enough in the draft text, and I think it is worth further discussion, but please discuss it without obscuring the point with the primary/secondary bias. Dhaluza 09:37, 25 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 SLRubenstein'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)

...and we deal with that by not policing use by these terms, as however you divide the sources, you get back to stick to the sources. Spenny 20:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, just "stick to the sources" is not adequate. WP:NOR also directs the editors to use secondary sources in preference to highly technical or obscure primary-source material. I just gave some examples above, the writings of quantum physicists, leading philosophers, etc. So it is a drective to "stick to the sources", but it's not only to stick to the sources. Where the material is oblique and opinions about it differ, secondary source material is to be used, otherwise it's original research or original synthesis. ... Kenosis 21:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment, though that is a more complicated knot to unravel. Given that we are writing in summary style, it is that which leads us to choosing appropriate, summarised sources, as we will not find the analysis we seek in the primary documents. The other issue to wrestle with is that is fine when dealing with academia, but how do we evaluate the sources when we have a journalistic editorialisation for the story, not for the facts? As I've commented elsewhere, the likes of Fox News are not reliable sources but more usable sources with a requirement for editorial judgement to be applied when considering them as a source.

Another question is, where we have summary style documents on things like sporting facts, such as league table positions, isn't that basic information safer from the primary sources rather than a journalistic summary piece? If "opinions differ", then in this case are we not simply suggesting editorial incompetence has occurred. Spenny 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

These issues are expected to be discussed and consensused so as to present a WP:NPOV, taking particular note of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:VER#Sources. The policy of WP:NOR directs editors to avoid using the sources to arrive at independent analyses and/or conclusions based upon those sources. The overlap here is, in large part, why it was tempting to consolidate VER and NOR into WP:ATT. Unfortunately it didn't work, so the three basic editorial policies remain separate, with some areas of overlap or dovetail among the three. .... Kenosis 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, if the purpose of defining primary and secondary sources is to explain what Wikipedia is not, then that suggests it be moved to the policy page WP:NOT. I think that might actually be something that opposing sides could agree is a compromise that could attract consensus. Those who think PSTS is unnecessary obfuscation in NOR should be happy to see it moved, while those who think it is essential policy for WP in general will see it remain in a policy page. The history shows that this section was originally inserted to state that WP is a secondary source, but that changed over time to show it is a tertiary source; so now that this is more about what WP is not, rather than what it is, perhaps a rethink is in order.Dhaluza 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis is right that WP:ATT neatly avoided this whole argument about which policy this goes in, and is a worthwhile approach. However, in the current framework PSTS is particularly related to the need to ensure that primary sources relative to the article's subject are not used to create any interpretation or synthesis, which must come from a secondary source and be properly summarised and attributed. Either kind of source can be misused and should not be misused, but for NOR the essential point is getting the interpretation etc. from an appropriate source. .. dave souza, talk 09:58, 25 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?

For the record, I'm experimenting (on the above example page) with a template to show how an "announcement" about where to conduct "Sources" type discussions could be incorporated at the top of this page. I'm not very good at the template syntax, so it still needs a few tweaks if anybody cares to have a go at it. wbfergus ^Talk 22:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

The sub-page isn't an essay. Being a sub-page, it is still part of the present policy, just located a level beneath. So instead of the text physically residing within the NOR page, it is located a level below at NOR\Sources instead. I "Think" the only real advantage to this would be to get all of the talk about "Sources" off of this talk page and onto it's own "specialized" talk page, so that it is far easier to look at this talk page and only see NOR related discussions instead of having to browse through several hundred thousand KB of text to see if there are any "non-sourcing" type discussions. It would allow all of the discussions about sourcing problems or issues on it's own page. I may be wrong though, maybe people like having to wade through reams of electrons to see if there's anything new or pertinent. wbfergus ^Talk 20:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many instances of policy pages that reference essays. That doesn't incorporate the essay into the policy. It just gives the reader some place to go for a discussion on that topic. We could do something similar here. COGDEN 20:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is talking about an essay? 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)

I think that it has been stated by several people in previous discussions above that moving PSTS to a guideline or especially an essay is unacceptable. The only way they would agree to moving it would be to a policy page, either a brand new one or an existing one. At least with transclusion, the contentious section is moved, but not out of the policy until such time as everybody can reach some agreement on where. This way, it is still part of this policy, so the policy remains unchanged, but we can separate the talk pages into a NOR talk page and a talk page for the "Sources" discussions. It's not much of a change, but it is some change. I see it as a small step forward, I don't know how others see it. wbfergus ^Talk 22:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's moved, and then described as a "policy page", it would promptly get demoted, since it does not currently have consensus. I see transclusion as a step sideways, rather than a step forward. I'd rather focus on solving the problem, which is that the current policy has a non-consensus section. COGDEN 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there no doubt the section iteself is contentious. It's been that way since at least January 2005, but the arguments are still going on with little to no improvement. This way, those who argue that it still needs to be part of this policy can remain happy that it is still part of this policy. For those who at least want this talk page cleaned up a bit, so it's easier to follow pertinent 'stuff' about NOR, then they can be happy as well. For the remainder, that want to completely get rid of the PSTS section, well, maybe this could be a first step. Maybe if these discussion center around NOR issues, it may be apparent that PSTS can live on it's own somewhere without detracting from this policy, I don't know. At least it's a small step forward that I think can keep everybody happy. I'm all for cleaning up this talk page, and not just by archiving. wbfergus ^Talk 22:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Would "demoting" the PSTS material to RS really make it any less stable or effective? I don't see that it would. Even here it's not a hard-and-fast rule and there are exceptions. Anyone who wants to make an argument or an article revision based on sourcing could still do so and simply cite RS instead of NOR - people revise articles all the time based on guidelines or even essays. There are a number of people who carefully watch RS and would resist any ill-considered changes. Finally, I'm not saying this is what we should do but one alternative is to promote RS to policy status in connection with a move. There's already a universal consensus that we need to use reliable sources, and there's little if anything in the RS guideline that's controversial at all. In fact, there's little substantive material on that page at all. It's mostly a collection of links and brief summaries of various other pages. It's a nearly empty framework that's ready for some content. If we get consensus both here and on RS for promoting RS to policy, any demotion back to guideline could be summarily reverted. Wikidemo 22:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no rush to transclude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note that we do not need RS to become a policy page, as the reliability of sources is already explored in WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV in their specific contexts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

True, I don't see a rush either. Just an option. In fact, I don't see much of a rush to do anything here, and the way things have been going any quick action seems unlikely. There's a question of organization, quite apart from those challenging the appropriateness and wording of PSTS: is it better to have RS information reside in these various policies, or centrally (or transcluded, or duplicated, two less attractive options IMO).

The only "rush" I see is that this page is already 468KB long, and past due for archiving, though there are still lots of active discussions going on. This will also be at least the third archive devoted almost entirley to "source-type" discussions. If the transclusion is acceptable, and others think archiving is past due also, then it might make sense to try transclusion for a while and see if it does help clean up this talk page. It can always be reverted back fairly simply if it doesn't work. wbfergus ^Talk 00:58, 25 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 were 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)

Although you may be correct that in humanities, peer-reviewed articles are often considered secondary sources, I think that's just the result of imprecise terminology. For undergraduate purposes, you might not care so much about the fine distinction. But in academic historiography, where the terms originated, the terminology is more precise: Primary sources include original historical ideas, whether or not based on underlying data (the original source of the underlying data, of course, would be primary too). Secondary sources are just historical ideas as repeated by others (not the original author of the idea). The terms are used the same ways in works regarding the history of science and technical fields.

I think this complexity and confusion can be avoided by simply not going there. We don't need the distinction in order to express what OR is. OR can exist when you cite any type of source, and we have all sorts of inconsistent views on which which type of source is "better". But we don't need to go there. Let's just focus on the core issues: (1) how do you cite a fact without committing OR, and (2) how do you cite an analysis/conclusion/etc. without committing OR. We don't need fancy high-falutin distinctions between primary/secondary, etc. COGDEN 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cogden, seeing as pretty much everyone else involved disagrees with you on this interpretation, do you have any references that clearly agree with that interpretation of the primary/secondary distinction? SamBC(talk) 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You obviously are severely misunderstanding, or simply unaware, of how things are handled in historiography. I'd recommend An Introduction to the Historiography of Science published by Cambridge University Press, as a good start. It will help you better grok how things are done in historiography and the history of science, which are quite contrary to the points you are putting forward. Vassyana 22:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See below. My understanding is consistent with the history/historiographic texts I cite below. This shows you how confusing the issue is, and how inappropriate these fine distinctions are to a Wikipedia policy page. COGDEN 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the subject is confusing, with many definitions across many fields. You're using the library science definition of primary sources (which is often used in ENG-XXX lit classes), not the history or historiography definitions. However, that does help me understand where you're coming from a bit more. Vassyana 00:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with source typing using primary and secondary, and especially its inclusion in NOR, is that it does not meet the standard of being easily verifiable without specialist knowledge. Dhaluza 09:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, in the humanities secondary sources such as peer-reviewed journal pulbications can be sources of data and thus be used as primary sources just as in the physical sciences. For example, a historian my publish material from an archive in an article, along with analysis and interpretation; another historian can use that material to promote another interpretation in another article. Someone studying medieval French literature can publish an article with a hithertoo unpublished poem, and analyze it - and another scholar can then draw on the article for the poem, and provide another interpretation. I do not see how this is different from an article on molecular genetics or chemistry providing data. The point is, data can be published independently or in the context of a peer-reviewed journal article, along with analysis or interpretation. This is true for the natural sciences and the humanities. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be poor scholarship to draw primary data from secondary sources in that field. For example, you shouldn't use the photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls published in the first article they appear in as a primary source. You should acquire access to the photographs (or authorized high-quality reproductions) themselves. The only time you should draw upon primary sources from secondary sources is when specifically writing about how that author, or a group they belong to, used those sources. The results of a dig and an article about the results of a dig are quite distinct. It is my understanding that in the natural sciences, there is not such a separation of primary and secondary. As far as the humanities, if we treat it as they do in the field, additional limitations on the use of primary sources appearing in secondary sources is not necessary (and on the contrary, cumbersome). That is, if the primary materials from those secondary sources were only cited in the context, including accompanying analysis/interpretation, that they appear in the secondary source. That would be purely relying on a published secondary source, not subject to any restrictions about using primary materials. The humanities generally do not present "raw data" absent immediate context as the natural sciences do, except when making a publication of purely "raw data". For example, the publication and distribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls images alone (with minimal commentary for identification purposes and minor "technical" notes about obscure characters/damaged portions) would be a primary source. A modern peer-reviewed article using those photos to form part of the evidence supporting the central thesis is not in any way considered a primary source, within history/anthropology. Vassyana 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also interested in your thoughts regarding using definitions intended to aid original research for the purpose of disallowing original research. To make a crude analogy, one would not use brakes to accelerate. So, why should we use distinctions intended to promote original research in this policy? Additionally, how can we use any particular definition when various fields of scholarship treat them in very distinct fashions? What is the purpose and intent of the distinctions in this policy? Vassyana 14:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, most peer-reviewed journal articles in the life or physical sciences never present raw data. What may look to you like raw data is often actually the rsult of several stages of processing. My point is simply this: in both works from the natural sciences and humanities - works that make an argument, that interpret or explain data - there is often data, in some form, that others can use to develop their own interpretations or explanations. I very strongly believe in making a distinction between data and arguments about data, and I think that the distinction between primary and secondary sources is useful, I am just saying that secondary sources can be sources of data, and this is true across academe. I am not sure about your second question - I do not understand the question. I think your analogy is false. In the United States there is a rule about how old people must be to drink; I think in all States it is now 21 years old. The difference between being twenty years old and twenty one years old is important for people in both groups, but for the first groups it means they must buy a fake ID to by booze, and for people in the second group it means they do not. for people who sell booze, it means they have to check IDs and know how to tell the difference. Knowing the difference has opposite effects for two groups. There are all sorts of distinctions in life that allow one group of people to do something, and prohibit others from doing the same thing. There is nothing unusual about this. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I understand your analogy and it makes sense. I think if we are to keep the distinctions, we should be careful to bear in mind they were created to promote original research to avoid inadvertently doing the same or causing confusion. The origin and purpose of terms is important in determining their future use and modification. My second question may have been poorly worded. In essence, how can we avoid confusion over the definitions, or appeal to "the" academic definition, when there is a large amount of confusion/disagreement over the use of the terms between various fields? For example, peer-reviewed articles are always secondary sources in history and anthropology, regardless of whether they contain "data" or make novel assertions. In the same field, historical sources are always primary sources. In historiography and many branches of literature, a primary source is exclusive to the period or style being studied. In library sciences and other branches of literature, "primary source" is used very literally to indicate the primary source of a statement, claim, et al. There are a lot of conflicting definitions and meanings, and I think this is a large part of what contributes to the confusion here. Basically, we need to acknowledge these several conflicting definitions and what fields they occur in, at least when we're addressing PSTS and the need (or lack thereof) to revise, rewrite or remove it. I hope that better explains the intent of my second question. Vassyana 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is much clearer, and I agree with everything you say. I think we just need to define terms clearly, and also emphasize that what is important is how material is being used - and for that reason, terms can apply to overlapping categories. Most peer-reviewed journal articles in the life and physical sciences do not limit themselves to raw-data and easily fall under our definition of "secondary source." The point is simply that secondary sources can also be sources of primary material (data), and I don't think it should be hard to make this clear in the article. It seems like people view primary/secondary/tertiary sources as mutually exclusive categories when I think they are either overlapping or even best understood by degrees of inclusion - tertiary sources refer to secondary sources and primary sources; secondary sources refer to primary sources ... at this point since we both agree this discussion should move to the following section. I recently posted a long comment calling attention to three distinctions we need to make in this discussion - perhaps you can comment, amplifying on or correcting what I wrote there. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: definition of primary and secondary sources

I posted much of this before, but it wasn't here very long before being rotated to the archive pages. This is a survey of good sources defining primary and secondary sources. I don't think that this distinction needs to be in this policy page, and it overly complicates things, but here it is anyway, so that we can avoid making statements in the policy that disagree with common usage.

Definitions of a primary source:

• "Manuscripts, records, or documents providing original research or documentation." [7]
• "Primary sources contain original information and are usually the place where the original information first appears. Examples of primary sources include interviews, diaries, letters, speeches, results of experiments or original research, literary works, autobiographies, original theories, and other materials. Compare to secondary source."[8]
• "An original work such as a book, manuscript, or document produced by an author. A book can also be a secondary source. A scientific or scholarly journal article is usually a primary source."[9]
• "The main source used to defend a research question. For example, critical essays, documented studies, scholarly or technical journals, or interviews with experts."[10]
• "Information which has not been interpreted by another person, ie, original articulation of an idea or concept."[11]

Definitions of a secondary source:

• "second-hand report or review of original research that is written by someone other than the original researcher"[12]
• "A secondary source is a record or statement of an event or circumstance made by a non-eyewitness or by someone not closely connected with the event or circumstances, recorded or stated verbally either at or sometime after the event, or by an eye-witness at a time after the event when the fallibility of memory is an important factor." Derek Harland, A Basic Course in Genealogy: Volume two, Research Procedure and Evaluation of Evidence, (Bookcraft Inc, 1958)
• "A secondary historical source is a report about the past which does not have authority. A book by a scholar about history is a secondary source. Thus, González' textbook Story of Christianity is a secondary source. You can't prove anything about the past from a secondary source." [13]
• "The distinction between primary and secondary sources is only meaningful when applied to symbolic sources. Moreover, the distinction is not a sharp one. Since a source is only a source in a specific historical context, the same source object can be both a primary or secondary source according to what it is used for. Duhem's la theorie physique will be a useful secondary source for the historian who wishes to study the history of the theries of gravitation; it will be a fine primary source for the historian who wishes to investigate positivist views of science at the turn of the century." [14]
• "A primary source is a document in which an event is described by its witnesses or first recorders, for example: The Diaries of LouisRiel (McL FC3217.1 R54A3). It is the raw material or data which the historian must evaluate in studying the history of a period, event, or individual. The historian produces a secondary source based on primary sources, e.g. Prairie Fire: the 1885 North-WestRebellion by B.Beal and R.Macleod (McL FC3215 B42 1984). The concept is relative: any document may be used as a primary source. For example, if you were to study the historiography of the Riel Rebellion, the book by Beal and Macleod may be used as a primary source." [15]

There are, of course, sloppier definitions of secondary sources. Some say that a secondary source is something that comments on a primary source. And yes, that's very true: if something comments on a primary source or contains analysis about prior materials, it's definitely a secondary source. But if the commentary is original research, it's also a primary source as to that new idea. The terms are relative, and it all depends on what you are focusing on, and sources can be both primary and secondary. But why do we even need to even go there? The concepts of primary and secondary are confusing, and not always interpreted consistently. The ambiguity between primary and secondary sources is all very complicated, and this whole area really has no place in a policy article addressed to lay editors. This is stuff that PhDs debate about. How can we expect the average Wikipedia editor to understand and apply this? COGDEN 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The second and third links under primary sources are dead (404 errors). For reference, those represent the library science definition of primary sources. Vassyana 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it is quite arguable that the wikilinks to articles on primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources should not be on the policy page in the first place. They were added on February 1, 2007 here. The problem is that when a policy page wikilinks to a main namespace article, the article may be dealing with different contexts, and in this case they do just that. Two different standards. These should instead link to project pages, not articles. Nonetheless, there are fairly standard usages of these terms by libraries and historiographers and others. If participants wish to keep the wikilinks to the articles, at the very least the articles should be capable of reasonably accommodating the policy-page interpretations of PSTS among the usages described in the article. The convention in WP, though, is that policy concerns do not wikilink to articles to define their terms. Alternately, Dave Souza and others seem to like the idea of a separate WP:PSTS project page, in which case the examples and discussions of PSTS can of course be extended to a more comprehensive treatment. ... Kenosis 02:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A policy page should not link to the article space for definitions for the reasons I stated above. It is not good for either page. People will defend the article like a policy, and if the article does change to take into account new information, it can change the policy in unintended ways. Dhaluza 09:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia convention is to not redirect pages across namespaces. For wikilinks, the convention is not as strict, but as a practical matter, the wikilinks to articles was a simple oversight. More, these three articles were not closely attended to or particularly well written, and the one on tertiary sources has been almost completely neglected since its inception well over two years ago. The standards for articles are different than they are for policy pages. I've removed the wikilinks. If Dave Souza's proposal to start a separate WP:PSTS page gets going, ultimately these can link to appropirate places on an appropriate project page in the future. ... Kenosis 13:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC).

One thing I have realized in working on the drafts is that the definition of "primary source" does not distinguish between raw evidence, and the first analysis of that evidence. The two are very different, and need to be handled differently, but the arbitrary definitions of primary and secondary don't allow for this. If we treat raw evidence as the true primary source, then an initial analysis needs to be a primary-and-a-half source to allow the analysis of the analysis to be secondary. Dhaluza 09:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of these things are readily debatable, and to a logical positivist they may be intererably inexact. The following link at the University of Maryland library, though, is illustrative of the general thinking among library-sciences specialists: here. The UMD library is only one of a significant number of post-secondary libraries that use this same approach. Note how "diaries" are primary sources, books on the historic event are secondary sources, and encyclopedias on the topic are tertiary sources, according to that method of classification. The divisions are, of course, not hard-and-fast, so it will inevitably make strict interpretationists crazy. But note that many widely accepted editorial considerations make strict interpretationists crazy (which may be partly why technical authors in the "real world" are sometimes tempted to come into meetings with non-technically oriented publishing editors with a holstered weapon and the holster strap already unsnapped ;-\ and also why the editor keeps one in the top desk drawer too ;-) . So I wouldn't make too much of the fact that the delineations aren't hard-and-fast, because WP editors are also expected to use judgment and mutual cooperation in the process of writing articles. ... Kenosis 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Library scientists are great people, but they are not who we should be listening to here. We should listen to historiographers. Library science has to do with classifying books and periodicals, and their definition is rough-and-true, but not as sophisticated or correct as the one used by historiographers. Historiography has to do with tracing the history and sequence of ideas. Original research is about new ideas, and at least when the subject matter of the article is history, the OR question comes down to one of historiography.

Moreover, even the particular definition you cite blanket-classifies interviews, conference proceedings, and works of literature into a as primary sources. These are the bread and butter of Wikipedia articles, and shouldn't ever be discouraged. But, once again, if there are different definitions of primary and secondary sources, why are we basing our policy on such definitions. We don't need them! And we don't need the confusion and ambiguity! COGDEN 17:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The opinion is duly noted. Wikipedia has its own policies that are not based upon editorial policies as defined in other places (except perhaps in guidelines such as WP:MOS). And similar issues occur in many policy discussions in Wikipedia. See, for example, the usages of "free content" and "non-free content in WP:Non-free content, which bear little resemblance to the definitions of "free" in most available external sources, and where public domain technically falls under "non-free". In other words, Wikipedia has been entitled to define its own terms of use, and it has indeed done so from the beginning. ... Kenosis 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:Non-free content#Applied to Wikipedia explicitly contradicts your assertion. Vassyana 18:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but no, the section referring to copyright delineations is only one aspect of WP:NFC, which is the guideline page associated with WP:NFCC, the policy page. And that section of the WP:NFC page, the guideline part, does not explicitly contradict anything, but instead it is Vassyana's opinion and agument that asserts a that it "explicitly contradicts". Note again the part of WP:NFC that expresses policy (transcluded from WP:NFCC). Wikipedia makes its own rules for its own content, and legal considerations are only part of that picture. And as I indicated, "public domain" doesn't fit into either "free" or "non-free" according to either the WP policy WP:NFCC and its associated guideline WP:NFC. In other words, Wikipedia sets its own definitions into place to operate Wikipedia. And in the case of WP:PSTS, it already reasonably well aligns with other uses such as "library science" and even historiography to some extent, but is not obliged by any stretch of imagination to precisely track a particular usage of the terms as used in another field. ... Kenosis 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You assert that public domain is not equivalent to free. However, the section I linked explicitly says: "If a work has no copyright or is licensed to Wikipedia under an acceptable "free" license, it is a free work and may be used on Wikipedia without copyright concerns. See public domain, copyright, and Cornell University's guide to copyright terms for discussion of works that are not covered by copyright." [emphasis added] It quite clearly and explicitly has public domain works as free works. It's not an opinion, it's plain reading comprehension. Vassyana 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The presumption here that "public domain" is equivalent to WP's definition of "free" is incorrect. A free license is an affirmative act, explicitly granted by placing a statement in conjunction with posting the image. Public domain normally occurs by default and can be very difficult to ascertain in many instances. So they're two very different things. In Wikipedia, "public domain" is in something of a "black hole" w.r.t. "free" and "non-free". And Wikipedia most certainly does not explicitly mirror copyright law. The NFCC are far more strongly defined than copyright law. In other words, WP can, presently does, and has from the beginning set its own criteria. Also, if you look at the history, you will see that I was the user who added the material you just referred to at WP:NFC here. In other words, I'm not in opposition to external references in policy and guideline project pages. But, Wikipedia is not bound by such external considerations, except as regards compliance with applicable law. Nonetheless, as I also indicated, WP:PSTS reasonably tracks usage of PSTS in the external sources. .... Kenosis 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm in no mood to play rhetorical games, so I'm going to be painfully blunt. You should bother to read and pay attention. The section you link is a different section that the one I pointed out. What exactly is unclear to you about "[i]f a work has no copyright ... it is a free work"? If a work has no copyright (like works in the public domain), it's considered a free work. That's pretty damn clear English. Vassyana 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

These, Vassyana, are by no means rhetorical games, nor do I feel at all pained by your bluntness. I do now see the quote you refered to-- when I saw the Cornell link in the first link you provided I assumed it was the part I added, which also contained the Cornell link then under very active discussion in that explicit context, in addition to several more I provided. The specific passage with the statement referred to by you (Vassyana) was also added on the same day as the passages and copyright-research links I added to the guideline portion of the WP:NFC page, same section, different subsection (both 10 September 2007, the one you referred to was placed by Wikidemo here). And it was added in significant part in response to my repeated explanations about the neglect of public domain in the NFCC accounting. And, the difference between an explicit free license, which is explicitly granted in black and white, so to speak, and public domain, which occurs by default which is sometimes excruciatingly difficult to verify under modern copyright law, is by no stretch of imagination a "rhetorical game". The difference between the two still confounds WP policy, and is what held up even the guideline page on that particular matter. Thus, as I was saying, I am not opposed to referencing external usages of Wikipedia terms in either policy or guideline discussions. And both of the statements you (Vassyana) and I just referred to are in the guideline portion of WP:NFC. "Public domain" is still, as I just said, in a "black hole" w.r.t. how WP policy (the NFCC) presently analyzes "free" and "non-free". Presently there is no clearly defined policy on public domain images and other public domain media. That is not semantics or rhetoric. Nor do I consider this rhetorical games, or I wouldn't bother to attempt to put these issues into perspective for you.

The fact remains, nonetheless, that Wikipedia is not, as is being repetively argued on this page w.r.t. WP:NOR, required to mirror the external usages of its policy terms. I just pointed out another arena of policy where Wikipedia chooses its own terms, and it's not limited to WP:NFCC, but can be found in many aspects of policy such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. These issues too are by no means "semantic" or "rhetorical". Some of the recent rapid-fire arguments by opponents of WP:PSTS appear hell-bent on picking holes in every little thing, with one objective, and only one objective -- to change longstanding Wikipedia NOR policy. In my opinion, if anything ends up being a rhetorical game, it is this ongoing struggle by a few WP participants to pick holes in longstanding, very widely consensused policy upon which many thousands of users have come to rely for quite some time now, without a coherent replacement plan that participants can agree is an improvement. Presently, in this section, the argument is that it does not mirror external usages of PSTS. In other sections it's either one thing or another, or some combination of complaints, but always without a coherent plan that has potential to be widely agreed upon as a superior replacement. Well, the plain fact is that WP:PSTS is not exact, but WP's usage of PSTS comes damned close to that of library science usage and also to that of historiographers. Again, as I was attempting to point out, even if WP:PSTS did not closely mirror certain external usages of PSTS, WP is still within its rights to use its own standard. Note also that the entire policy WP:NOR does not mirror usages outside of Wikipedia, and has only vague analogues with other encyclopedia writing and journalistic writing. Not that I expect these observations to bring a quick end to these various attempts to pick holes in whatever appears like it can be argued. But I offer it just for your information. ... Kenosis 03:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the well-considered and polite response, despite my terse and tense message to you. It is appreciated and makes sense for the most part. However, I would ask you to reconsider the broad brush you paint with, in regards to those taking some issue with the current PSTS section, as I feel it is grossly inaccurate. Vassyana 04:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Vassyana. I think most of us can agree that there is still more work to be done on WP:PSTS. In my view, it's still missing a number of important examples that can be stated in one or two words, hopefully without significant controversy. I believe I mentioned religious scripture a bit farther below as needing to be in "Primary sources" -- just one of a number of things that can very readily bring this project page more in keeping with how it's actually being used around the wiki. ... Kenosis 05:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[Posted prior to the above]Again, though, the simple breakdown can be misleading if taken too strictly. For example, in the case of seminal works, whether fiction, non-fiction or scientific, the seminal books themselves can be primary sources. Examples I gave above include the works of Plato, Aristotle and Kant as primary sources. Similarly, to us in Wikipedia, the written theses of Einstein, Heisenberg and Bohr are primary sources, whether or not they drew on others' experiments. Homer's Odyssey and Iliad are examples of primary sources too, at least from the standpoint of Wikipedia editing. Thus, some flexibility and common sense will need to be exercised both here on the policy page and on the article pages. The key in the primary/secondary/tertiary source categorization is not necessarily which record is closest to the ground, so to speak. To be technical, or tendentious, one could argue, for instance, that only the first laboratory notes are primary sources, so by this measure by the time we get to writing in Wikipedia, the textbook source that mentions the experimental result may be a quinary (5th order), senary (6th order), or even farther down the chain of interpretation. For our purposes, generally speaking, the highly technical interpretation by the original developer(s) of a theory is a primary source, and the explanation of the summary results is a secondary source.

In a similar vein, Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, a leading turn-of-the-19th-century philosophical treatise that gave us, among other things, the word phenomenon, is a primary source. Since it is a highly obscure work, scholarly interpretations of Kant's work are secondary sources on which we depend very heavily. Several times we've encountered editors who think they know Kant better than the scholars, and that's original research -- which is another example of why PSTS is part of the policy page. Thus, again, these are not hard and fast delineations in WP:PSTS, but they are critical in the implementation of the NOR policy. . ... Kenosis 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The very difficulties and ambiguities you describe above show why this policy should not be based on the primary/secondary model. You end up arguing about what is primary and what is secondary, and you lose focus on whether or not what you are trying to do is original research.

As to Kant, while I'm sure editors think they know philosophy better than Kant, they do not know what Kant wrote better than Kant. Thus, if you want the article to say what Kant wrote, you quote Kant. What Kant wrote is a simple factual matter. If, on the other hand, you want to say what Kant meant, then you have to cite either Kant (if he himself said what he meant), or another author. The primariness or secondariness of Kant doesn't matter. What matters is that the editor doesn't say something that hasn't been said before, either by Kant or by another author. COGDEN 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> The list of definitions is good, and would make a useful addition to the Wikipedia:Classification of sources essay which has the potential to be developed into the shared PSTS resource being suggested. As a non-academic I'm comfortable with them all and with the essential point in NOR at present that "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about.", which means to me that the categorisation is relative to the subject of the article or section. Linking to articles as definitions is undesirable and I agree that it should not be done, which is why there's a place for these links to be replaced by the Classification of sources essay once it's developed into a guideline. Alternatively, the clarified classification could become part of WP:RS .. dave souza, talk 09:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Three points which I think are crucial for a productive discussion. First, we need to distinguish between definitions and uses; what something is and how it is used are two different things. In some cases we do need clear definitions of terms. In other cases, how something is used may be more significant than what exactly it is. Second, we definitely need to distinguish between definitions and examples - I appreciate COGDEN's efforts above, but he mixes up the two and it would help to keep them separate - especially because it is possible that, if we identify something by its use, something can be an example of two different classes (primary vs. secondary or whatever words we choose to use); a house can be a place to live for one person, and a source of income for another. Finally, I would suggest that in some if not many cases, something may be both a primary and a secondary source, depending on how it is used. Not only may one person's primary source be another person's secondary source, but the status or use of something may for most people change over time. I hate to bring up a possibly contentious example, but most modern scholars believe that the Hebrew Bible was itself based on a variety of sources, virtually all of which were lost to its readers by the time it was canonized (some of these sources have been discovered thanks to advances in archeology in the 19th century - but most of it sources are presumably still undescovered, perhaps lost). It is quite likely that when the book of Genesis or Kings was furst composed, everyone viewed it as what we might call a secondary source in the way Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is (or was!) a secondary source; a synthesis drawn on other texts with a particuloar point of view. Today it is a primary source and the object of considerable analysis and interpretation. I do not propose these distinctions to make our task harder. On the contrary, I think if we bear these in mind we can avoid some muddles which will help us focus on the more difficult challenges. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious scripture is a poster child for primary-source material, and dealing with it is a case where secondary and tertiary sources are key in Wikipedia. See, for just one example, the approach in Ecclesiastes. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a secondary source that should be evaluated in keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, the reliability of which should be assessed in keeping with newer scholarship based upon newer primary sources such as literature on archeological discoveries and any other more recent evidence discussed by scholars, and in more recent secondary sources. Gibbon's book is a primary source only if the subject of the article focuses on Gibbon's book. ... Kenosis 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the points you raise are well-thought and coherent. I'd also agree with Kenosis that religious scripture is a poster child for primary-source abuse. I am uncomfortable with the PSTS terms, because of confusion and disagreement. However, I would be more comfortable and supportive of a PSTS section that clearly addresses the points raised by Slrubenstuin immediately above that is crafted taking into account my concerns about the conflicting/definitions and origins of the terms in the preceding section. Vassyana 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I do not disagree with anything Kenosis just wrote, your comment seems a bit like a non-sequitor ... which makes me wonder whether you (Kenosis) misunderstood what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. My view is that given the difficulties and ambiguities in definition you've just described, we should run the other way screaming. Policy pages are supposed to document and simplify things, not make them more complicated. We don't need people arguing about what is a primary or secondary source, when they should really be arguing about whether the editor's use of the source constitutes original research. Whether the Bible, or whatever, is primary or secondary makes no difference. The same standard applies either way.

For the record, though, I think that if we use the primary/secondary model at all, the only feasible option would be to base the model on use. Reliable sources are neither good or bad in themselves. It's how they are used that can cause problems with OR. But unfortunately, the "use-based" primary/secondary model is also the most complicated one, and the least likely to be understood by lay editors. COGDEN 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

They're not ambiguities to any unworkable extent. Key is how one views the PSTS breakdown. Primary sources for WP articles are not necessarily the first stage of reporting of facts (though they can be). Primary sources are the reliable publications closest to the origin of the topic of discussion. Secondary sources are published materials and books that are built on primary sources and which analyze and synthesize them. Tertiary sources are, in general, broader syntheses and summaries such as encylopedias, compendia with internal commentary and, arguably, introductory textbooks. ... Kenosis 18:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Warnings added to policy page

I just added some hidden comment warnings to the policy, at the top of the page, and again at the top of each section, so that it is plain and unmistakable that there is a proper way and procedure before edits get made. Though it is redundant, the reason I added it in each section is so somebody can't claim they just hit the section "edit" button and didn't see the warning. Since these are hidden comments, I don't think it changes the policy at all, and refers to another policy about making edits to policy pages. The appropriate policy page/section is WP:POLICY#Differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc., specifically where it 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. wbfergus ^Talk 12:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed them, but I can explain... The fact that everyone can edit every page is a foundation principle; this applies to policy pages and articles alike. Certainly some edits should be discussed first, but not all edits need to be discussed before being implemented, and "this wasn't discussed" is a very weak edit summary to use when reverting an edit to any page. I have started to see that edit summary more often on some policy pages as of late, and this sort of warnings would only contribute to the mistaken perception behind that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I will abide with what you and others think, but the bulk of my reasoning is on your talk page. I don't think I need to (or should) bother with copying it here as well. They weren't meant to prohibit any editing, just so any editors are fully aware of another policy about editing policy, but that's a judgement call I'll let more experienced folks make. Thanks for your reasoning behind it. wbfergus ^Talk 13:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think some concern about inappropriate edits is valid, but when truly inappropriate edits are made the right solution is to point that out on a user's talk page. An edit isn't inappropriate just because it wasn't discussed first, though, and I think there is no reason to add comments to justify people who revert changes only because the changes weren't discussed first. I left some longer comments on my talk page as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

An edit that substantially alters the meaning, intention, or spirit of a policy page is not welcome unless first discussed and agreed in talk in a manner that demonstrates wide consensus of editors. If you make such edit, and get immediately reverted, that would mean that the change you made to established formulation of policy is not acceptable. If you make an edit and it is not challenged, that would mean that the edit you have made is incremental, does not change the spirit of the policy, etc. It is quite straight forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

<tongue_in_cheek>I suppose that when all else fails, one could always invoke the Wikipedia policy (which is still policy), "Ignore All Rules".</tongue_in_cheek>

Okay, seriously though, I've been playing catch up to where many of you admin-types have been for a while. It's interesting reading some of the old original policies, like [rules to consider] (September 17, 2001). From it, it becomes a little more clear on why some polices originated and what the original intent was, even though in some cases what exists now may seem to have very little in common with the original. wbfergus ^Talk 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a tension between various policies, guidelines, and aphorisms about ignoring all rules, seeking consensus, being bold, being civil, not wikilawyering, etc. Perhaps a good thing. Rules like bridges work best when in tension. Regarding incrementalism, it's a good thing for policy and guideline pages to change slowly and that may be an end in itself, but taking too tough a stance on that can make you appear to be defending a walled garden (too nice a phrase to describe it - a fenced schoolyard?) and actually encourage rather than calm edit wars on the policy pages. Rather than stern edicts in the comments and when reverting, it's best to have the patience to point people to discussions on consensus, explain why, etc. Wikidemo 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

I do not think that a few editors that disagree with long-standing formulation of this policy, can held this page at ransom by adding a dispute tag. This is official policy of Wikipedia, until that time in which there is consensus to the contrary. If editors want to alert others about their concerns, they can post a message at the VP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when there's a consensus to change it it won't be disputed any more, because it'll be changed... so what situation, exactly, is the disputed tag appropriate for? SamBC(talk) 17:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

When there is substantial support for a change, which is not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My advice is to ignore the dispute tag altogether. Whatever positive uses it may have once had it no longer enjoys because of chronic misuse. Just ignore it; the policy has no more or less weight with a "disputed" tag than it does without it. Editors who post a "disputed" tag will either gather consensus to change the policy, or they won't; in either case, in a few weeks, the disputed tag will no longer likely to be an issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is not official policy in itself. It documents official policy derived from Wikipedia practice and convention. If it were impossible to change a non-consensus section in a policy page without consensus, policy pages would never change, despite widespread practice to the contrary. Since there would always be a contingency devoted to the non-consensus description of policy, you'd be stuck with it forever. What matters is that the section is controversial, and there is ample proof of that. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.COGDEN 18:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, the choice is to either remove the non-consensus section, or to put up the tag. Or, the page can be protected back in the form it has been for the last several weeks. Editors have to be warned that the section does not reflect consensus, and might soon change. COGDEN 18:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have said "may not" instead of "does not", since as far as I can tell, there has not even been an straw poll conducted to see how people feel about the issue. The major problem with asking for a straw poll would be trying to decide how to word it. A simple poll would surely fail. But a long-winded explanation of what is being asked and why and which alternative to choose, just as surley fail as well, if not properly worded, and containging viable alternatives so the the current NOR policy itself is not weakened. wbfergus ^Talk 18:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, while straw polls can't be used to solve anything (per the page), it may at least give a general overview of how many people are on either side, for example "How many people think PSTS absolutely has to stay where it is unchanged" vs. "How many people will agree that PSTS will remain unchanged, but moved to another appropriate policy level page for further discussion", or something along those lines. Any talk, votes, or other moves to move PSTS to anything other than another policy-type page will surely fail at this point, as only a small minority can prevent concensus (from the way I read the rules anyway). I still haven't found anything yet that clearly states what concensus is in Wikipedia, only vague statements. Can anybody provide a link that clearly states what concensus is, like 2/3 of the opinions or anything like that? Otherwise, exactly how is concensus determined if things like straw polls aren't used to determine concensus? I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm really trying to figure this out. Thankswbfergus ^Talk 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was a straw poll several weeks ago here. It's in the archives now. It showed that there is no consensus. COGDEN 23:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The poll questions did not accurately reflect the statement of policy, and the bias of the questions was noted by several editors. (In the interests of disclosure [for the benefit of those not active during the poll], I was one of the editors who objected to the wording.) All it showed was there was a lack of consensus for severe restrictions that are not present in policy, and never have been (to my knowledge). Additionally, a number of editors have modified their positions due to discussion and a number of editors have joined the discussion that were not present then. Vassyana 06:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule for determining consensus in straw polls. What is more useful are the comments users make, which help shape consensus. That's why an RFC is better than a straw poll for helping resolve disagreements such as this. The current RFC, though, isn't formatted in a way that is likely to get a lot of participation. It would help to have an executive summary of the issue and a section devoted to RFC comments. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As a guess, I don't think there's a consensus for doing away with the source typing and I doubt those who oppose it will win enough people to their side for that. With some patience and advocacy, people might generate a consensus around changing the definitions and/or moving them somewhere else. If I'm right, is that enough for a dispute tag on a policy page (which seems unhealthy to me, at best a last resort)? How are we supposed to know if a dispute is legitimate or significant enough to report? Wikidemo 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a long-established aspect of policy and has the consensus of many hundreds, if not many thousands, of editors and administrators who rely upon it in dealing with WP:NOR on a day to day basis. It will need a serious case to be made that more than a few questioners or disputants will be required to keep a "disputed" tag on any current aspect of WP:NOR. ... Kenosis 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are far more than a "few questioners or disputants". Moreover, the primary/secondary/tertiary model has never been true Wikipedia policy. The fact is, primary sources line peer-reviewed journals, interviews, works of literature, conference proceedings, movies, etc. are used far more frequently than secondary sources in actual Wikipedia articles. That's what the consensus is, and therefore that's the policy. When Wikipedia practice does not correspond to a policy page, it's the policy page that must change, not Wikipedia practice.

Moreover, you do not need a consensus to change a policy page that does not currently reflect consensus practice. If that were true, non-consensus statements in policy pages would be permanent no matter how controversial, since there would always be a constituency favoring the language. There is no such thing as a highly-controversial Wikipedia policy! COGDEN 23:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you give too much credence to your own views. Absent of a substantial challenge (which the current one is not), the wording in policy pages is a reflection of current practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This claim would be all the better for some evidence of present practice. The bald assertion that this page must magically reflect present practice seems unfounded; practice may well change while this page is still being reverted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding and removing the tag. Such revert warring will not solve anything and will just make both sides less willing to discuss things. I have seen such arguments before... those who are defending the policy can say "prove to us that there is consensus to change"... those who want the tag can counter with "prove to us that there is consensus to keep"... Let's focus on what will solve this dispute instead of making it worse. Blueboar 19:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on those wanting to change things to demonstrate there is a problem, given that that the current policy has been in place for several years, and there is consensus to change. Throwing tags around willy-nilly on policy pages by a small group of malcontents with some personal agendas does not constitute some serious dispute or serious problem. What is going on here?--Filll 19:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone following the talk page will know there is a problem. (Also read the last four or five archive pages.) No consensus is needed to change (or when all else fails, to remove) a highly-controversial section of a policy page. The fact that it's controversial means that it does not "describe common Wikipedia practice" (See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). If a consensus were required to change such sections, they would never change so long as some constituency wants it there, regardless of how controversial it is and how much damage it might do to the Wikipedia institution. COGDEN 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What we really have is a few editors throwing a hissy fit that their proposed changes are getting nowhere and who are subsequently violating WP:POINT by misusing the disputed tag. As a policy (not a freaking "definition" or whatever it was alleged to be of policy) it needs to be brought before the entire community before changes can be made, and cannot be held hostage to the whims of a few disagruntled and apparently misinformed Wiki editors. I don't see the community being in a lather about this policy: hence the tag was placed inappropriately, and was rightfully removed -- numerous freaking times. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute tag marks the presence of a dispute - which is the absence of consensus - which is what we have here. The absence of a dispute tag should mark the absence of a dispute - which is the presence of consensus, either for the present version or for agreed-on changes. Removing the dispute tag falsely characterizes the section as being undisputed. Jacob Haller 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but if I am not mistaken, are not policy pages a bit different than regular article pages? It strikes me that one should be less cavalier with dispute tags on policy pages. However, I might be totally mistaken here...--Filll 20:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the heading box at the top of the article claims that the items in the article reflects widespread Wikipedia practice. The absence of a tag turns the policy page into a lie, doesn't it? COGDEN 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tsk! Tsk! Go off to parents' evening, come home again to find all you naughty children have made this mess. I think you all should be sent to bed. It strikes me that however right or wrong the tag is, it is hardly worth warring over. Now say sorry and tidy your rooms.

Filll, please be careful about comments questioning peoples' motives. There has been an undercurrent of suggestion that those who want the policy explained in clearer terms are doing so out of malice which I thought was dissipating as people gained understanding of the issues; there are some people posting in superior terms about the qualities and qualifications required to participate here. For example, if I am right that some of this stuff is too complicated for your average editor either to be interested in or understand, then that group are unlikely to be participating in this current, if I may say, rather rarefied debate. But everyone deserves a slap on the wrist of common sense ;) Spenny 21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's written at grade level 15; I would assume that anyone proposing to write an encyclopedia should be able to read at at least that level, especially given that many of our sources are written above that grade level. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea what grade level 15 means. I don't doubt that to write some parts of the encyclopaedia there is a requirement to be highly intelligent. However, Wikipaedia covers a very wide range of subjects, and until someone determines that the wide raft of other stuff other than the academic is unencyclopaedic, then I would suggest, and I have already suggested, that you need to ensure that the language is targeted at the simplest level possible - does policy not apply to Britney Spears? In the UK we have an organisation called the Campaign for Plain English which awards crystal marks for documents written in straight-forward English. I have suggested that it represents a goal Wikipedia should have, not just for policy, but for articles. Having an encyclopaedia written to a high grade of English is not something to be proud of: the art is to get the same point across in the simplest English. That takes real editing skill. Spenny 23:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit of reasearch on your part (the type we often do for any article) might have gone a long way: see Flesch-Kincaid#Flesch.E2.80.93Kincaid_Grade_Level.

Also, if you read carefully, you will see that I noted that many of our sources are written above that grade level. In other words, no matter what level we may chose to be efficacious for the writing of a widely comprehensible encyclopedia, the sources we often use are written at a fairly high level and we need to be able to apprehend them in order to use them. Quite a simple concept really. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me join Filll in questioning the motives herein. My only problem with changing this policy is Evolution. The second the policy is gone (and it doesn't matter if it's the slightest change), POV warriors will be swarming in, and "upgrading" the article to Evolution is bad theory without any scientific support with references to some Creationist website. Holding this hard-fought ground is fine. So, there are no good reasons to change this policy. None. Yes, I've kept up with the discussion, as convoluted, confusing, and confounding as it is. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting changing this policy. Nobody is suggesting removing the policy. What we are saying is that the sound principles of the policy are at risk of being subverted by confusing explanations and improper tests of OR. So, there are no good reasons to change this policy. None. If you have been keeping up you will see that there has already been a consensus change where it was recognised that the OR policy had been subverted by inappropriate amendments before this current discussion started.

Is this policy page a perfect expression of policy, accessible to all? I suggest not. If not, then there are two good reasons to be looking to improve. Spenny 23:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a second here... the slightest change, however well-thought-out, to this policy will immediately lead to the complete and utter entropy of the Evolution article? I'm going to take a break now, and hopefully by the time I come back (from smoking and playing Pokemon, in case anyone's interested) everyone will be back to being WP:CIVIL. SamBC(talk) 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably a better waste of our valuable time to deal with WP:CIVIL. I actually read the rules on civility. And nowhere does anyone above violate it. Questioning motives may not assume good faith, but it doesn't violate civility. Telling someone that they are "a #$%(*&ing POV-pushing @#$%head". Now that's uncivil! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refresh yourself on the civility page. WP:CIVIL isn't rules, it is guidance. Spenny 23:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Got distracted by your smoking. Back to Evolution. Without a strong policy and vigilant editors, the article gets messed up. We have to spend hours just finding the crap articles that people try to sneak into the project. So yeah, I am totally worried that POV-warriors will use any change in policy to lead a charge towards complete and utter entropy of the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I share your concerns about the evolution article, but that article has little to do with OR, and more to do with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE, which this policy page doesn't address. Essentially everything that can be said against evolution by creationists has already been said before, numerous times. Indeed, the more "secondary" such sources are, the wackier they become. It's never original. And it never depends on whether your sources are "primary, secondary, or tertiary". If it's unverifiable fringe research, it doesn't matter whether you get the fringe research directly from the wacko researcher, or you get it second-hand from some evangelical commentator. COGDEN 23:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a dispute, there is very likely to be an absence of consensus. Since {{policy}} loudly asserts wide consensus, it is very useful to label the points where this is an exaggeration. As it happens, I think we need to have source typing in one of core policies (probably this one, since writing from primary sources is one quite common type of OR); nevertheless, I support the tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Brief aside: using primary sources doesn't make it automatically OR. I think the recent discussions here have pretty well established that. SamBC(talk) 23:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I say it does; but use of primary sources only, as in the embarassment recently on the front page, Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre‎, varies between carelessness and WP:SYNTH. In that case, the article managed to omit that its most quoted source is a piece of poetry, written to flatter, and in a genre which did not value historic accuracy. It may be that the primary author understood the problems involved, but he failed to make them clear to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Even using primary sources only is not in itself OR. Many, many Wikipedia article rely only on primary sources such as interviews, novels, movies, works of art, peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, speeches, comments by press agents, even poetry. Your concern about the Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre‎ is a good one, but it is not about "original research". It's about NPOV. The poetry, and non-critical acceptance of the poetry, isn't "new research". (It's very old research.) But in this case, statements about the poetry, and implications made by editors, do not include the critical POV that the poem is fanciful. COGDEN 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One revert rule

I don't know if anyone appreciates the irony of the edit war over the disputed tag at the top of the PSTS section resulting in a protect tag at the top of the page saying there is a dispute. It seems to me that this is a worse outcome, sort of a self-fulfilling (or self-defeating) prophesy. Anyway, I suggest we agree in advance that when the protect tag expires, we all follow the one revert rule to prevent escalating any future edit war. Regardless of whether you think you are right, or the other editor is wrong, once you make your change you have made your point on the record, and there is no reason to repeat it. Let someone else step up, and be patient. WP will hopefully be around for a long time, and there is no deadline. Dhaluza 00:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There's another related irony, which is that we're having a fierce edit war by numerous editors over whether we should admit that a section is controversial. I participated in the last edit war (I think I reverted twice), but this time I only reverted once, because I could predict what was going to happen: Between each edit war-protection cycle, more people join the controversy on each side who couldn't possibly have kept up with the reams of archived arguments written on this issue, we re-hash the same arguments, and any good movements toward consensus, like that managed most recently by Blueboar, get forgotten. Then, by the time the page comes up for automatic unprotection, we're back to square one. I think the first step toward recovery is to admit we have a problem. There's fierce disagreement on the primary-secondary source model. And the sooner we admit that, the sooner we can start healing. COGDEN 00:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If people don't realize the sheer irony of edit warring over a disputed tag, 1RR is essentially meaningless. Also, there's quite enough people involved here on both sides to make 1 revert per person worthless. How about we all agree to not edit war over a policy or be banned from this policy page for three months? That would actually have teeth, provided some admins have balls enough to enforce it. I'm a bit cynical about the dispute and some people involved at the moment, so take those comments with some grains of salt. Vassyana 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but I think we need some sort of consensus language in that section first. The current section is broken (it's controversial, which by definition makes it wrong), and nobody should be sanctioned for trying to fix it in good faith. But when we arrive at some rough consensus language, further editing at that point ought not to happen without prior discussion on the talk page. COGDEN 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus determination ideas

Can we agree to at least maybe have something along the lines of a [[straw poll to determine which cources of action would be acceptable for further discussion, so that we aren't spending our limited "editing time" arguing about some point that may become readily apparent doesn't have a snowballs chance? Something along the lines of Wikipedia:Editing policy pages maybe, where 8 different 'subjects' or proposals are put to a non-binding vote. It should be clearly stated that the votes won't be used to determine yea or nay to the policy, just to try and determine if there is some common ground for further discussion. Good or bad idea? wbfergus ^Talk 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... perhaps we should conduct a poll to determine if we should conduct a poll about whether having a poll is a good idea or not. Seriously, having sat through the "poll" at ATT, I have a feeling that it will just add to the confusion. It is obvious that there are more than just "a few" people who have problems with the wording (if not the concept) of the PSTS section. The question is if there are enough people who feel something is wrong to warrent a "disputed" tag. I don't there is a "lack" of consensus for the policy... But, I do think there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Blueboar 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Before we go around and let 3 or 4 people with personal agendas change the principles under which WP has operated for years, lets try to understand what the issues are. I think there is no consensus to change, and this is quite clear. What on earth is the problem with the current status quo?--Filll 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Try going back and reading the comments on this page and the last two archive pages, Filll... Then go back and read the comments of several dozen people who have raised similar issues for more than a YEAR. There may not be a consensus to change, but there sure as hell are more than just "3 or 4 people with personal agendas" commenting that they have concerns about this section. I assure you that I do not have any agenda... I am a firm supporter of NOR. But I do have concerns about the current wording of PSTS, and how it ties in with NOR. Blueboar 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll, before you wade waist-deep into a debate that has finally gotten reasonably friendly again, please try to familiarise yourself with the discussion that has already taken place. So far as I know, there is no-one with a "personal agenda" to change the policy. In fact, all that's being debated is the expression of the policy. No-one has advocated removing or substantially weakening NOR here for quite some time, although some people believe that certain good-faith suggestions would have the unintended effect of doing so. Most of those issues have been reasonably well worked through now, in fact, and throwing around accusations is not going to help the situation. SamBC(talk) 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the fact that I am advised to dig through months if not years of history and the dispute cannot be stated succinctly and clearly, tells me something smells bad here. So you are telling me all this hubub and sturm und drang here is because a few mean old editors want to stay with the old policy, when for years people have been clamoring to change it? Hmm...--Filll 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, and it's misleading to characterise it as one or the other. Sensible, reasonable people are taking various positions, none of which represent an intention to sabotage policy. There was a reasonably summary not long ago, in a section entitled something like "for people just arriving". It's a little out of date now. However, expecting a new summary every time another editor arrives to join in the discussion is a sure way to stop discussion from actually happening. SamBC(talk) 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to that essay setting out the case for change? .. dave souza, talk 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? It's more like 2-3 editors want some change for some unknown and undecipherable reason, and want us to agree? Uh, but pardon me if I don't agree.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

More than 3 editors have advocated the idea that a change is necessary, or would be beneficial. A number of editors who were initially resistant to the idea have concended some merit, and once again some editors who haven't participated in the conversation make comments that bear a striking resemblance to streamrollering the discussion. Never mind the shocking lack of WP:AGF shown in impugning the motives of the editors raising issues. For crying out loud, what motive do you actually think any of us might have? SamBC(talk) 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I went back and all I see is a confusing mess. I am not going to spend 10 hours digging through obfuscation and nonsense and contentious disputation to try to find the nugget of the argument, when people do not seem to be sufficiently motivated to state it here where we can read it. This looks suspiciously like you want to drive others away so you can do your dirty work in secret. Either make it clear, or forget it.--Filll 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One can only state clearly that which is ratiocinated clearly. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me take a stab at it, for what it's worth. An edit war developed over a statement that favored secondary sources over primary. The edit war lead to several cycles of protection, during which the discussion examined first the statement, then the definitions of primary and secondary sources, then the need for source typing in the context of NOR. One of the things that came from the discussion is that it is not the type of source that creates NOR problems, it's their use. If you look above, you will find different drafts explaining the use of sources in relation to NOR without classifying them as primary and secondary sources. The discussion also examined whether the definitions of PSTS belong in NOR, and various alternatives were discussed including moving them to another policy page, a guideline, or an essay page. Then new editors came to the discussion here to oppose any change. And here we are. Dhaluza 01:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll and Orangemarlin, I really (honestly and truly) expected far better from the both you than snarky comments mischaracterizing the situation, assuming bad faith and disparaging more than a few intelligent and experienced editors. I'm seriously and frankly shocked. Vassyana 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

One problem with OrangeMarlin's Filll's and Jim62sch's holier-than-thou comments is are that this very subject we have debating here recently has been problematic in this policy since at least January 2005 (see further instructions below, I can't get it linked) the oldest talk page I can find. Numerous people have argued these points over and over, and it appears that they probably just got tired of being stonewalled by groups oppesoed to any change not of their own doing, and figured that their time could be more constructively used elsewhere and they would edit as they saw fit, regardless of what the exact wording of the policy actually was. If their edits got reverted or challenged later, oh well, there was still a good chance most of their edits to artciles would still stand. So, basically what I'm saying is it seems to kind of difficult to effectively articulate 30 archived talk pages (some are buried underneath the draft rewrites), into a one or two sentence position, as he would suggest. Conversely, I've yet to see any effective or coherent reasons to leave a problematic section that has generated much controversy and heated discussions over almost three years (just about 3 months shy). wbfergus ^Talk 10:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To see the page, go to the Archives, and select the very first one, "No original research (draft rewrite 5th December 2004 to 5th February 2005)", then select the "Discussion" for that page. wbfergus ^Talk 11:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't have struck though "is", problem is the subject. In any case, if these points have been argued, it's quite obvious that the arguments have gained no traction simply because they are not seen as valid arguments by the community as a whole. You seem not to realise that ultimately it is the entire Wikipedia community that decides these issues, and while there may have been complaints, they were quite likely soundly rejected given that the policy didn't change (I'm guessing here since you've provided no diffs and I'll be damned if I'm going to read through a whole damned archive section).

Holier-than-thou is both funny and out of context. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clear and simple

This policy would be more clear if it said what needs to be said without using the words "primary" and "secondary". - WAS 4.250 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I may agree with you, and invite you to start a sandbox page in which these ideas can be explored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We already have some good proposals that describe the policy and practice without using the primary/secondary/tertiary concepts. I think we should start there. Or go back to them. With such a high volume of comments, it's easy to lose track of the arguments and the proposals. COGDEN 00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this is the only way toward consensus. We all agree (I think) on what the policy is. What we argue about is how to express it, and about philosophical side-issues like the meaning of "primary" and "secondary". I think we're trying to be too cute by using such high-falutin historiographic ideas as primary and secondary sources. COGDEN 00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Make a proposal in a sandbox page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't know what good it will do, but I am creating Wikipedia talk:No original research/1 as a sandbox page and will put the examples in it that were made on this page as examples of explaining NOR without using the words "primary" and "secondary". Please note that these examples were not written with the intent of being perfect replacements for the section in question, merely proofs of concept that such a thing makes sense. Further it seems consensus that the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction is useful to keep somewhere in Wikipedia policy space even if NOR is better off explained without it. So please, no one moan over that straw man. WAS 4.250 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is the argument here that "primary" and "secondary" are too hard or too complex to be understood? Obviously "tertiary" must be a real poser then. Good thing we don't have quarternary sources: just imagine the mental agita they might cause. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> I agree with Jim here. Holy cow! If this is a problem, then explain primary secondary and tertiary with some well-chosen examples. This is an unbelievable objection...wow.--Filll 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody is seriously promoting the idea that the concept of tertiary sources should be part of the OR policy anymore. Maybe I'm wrong: is that still a sticking point with anybody? COGDEN 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing the point. Anyway, the T in PSTS stands for tertiary. Are they propsed for elimination? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just saying, not trying to respond to the main point. I was just thinking that I hadn't heard much on the tertiary issue for a long time, and it seems like maybe we at least have a consensus that the tertiary aspect of the historiographic OR model is not helpful. We'd call the remaining model the "PSS" model. Maybe this is one small step in the right direction toward consensus. COGDEN 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clear and simple (2)

The text in question has been part of this policy for many years and it will not be removed unless there is wide consensus for its removal. I count maybe five or six editors that want to change this text and that are arguing for a dispute tag to be added. I say, no, you cannot do that. If these editors want to make a proposal for change, create a sandbox page as a proposal, and advertise profusely in VPP, the mailing list and all talk pages of core policies, so that the community is aware of your proposal. Then sit back and listen to its voice. That is the way to address significant changes in policy pages, such as removal of entire sections, changing the underlying principles of policies and other such changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Except the discussion has moved on from removing that section, to refactoring and possibly relocating it. The dispute tag, as I understand it, refers to the wording, not the existence, of the section. SamBC(talk) 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For those who want a summary of the reasoning, here's a very brief version. There have been a number of problems on article talk pages (specifics have been brought up here, and I'm not going to dig out the specifics right now) with people exhibiting confusion about the implications of the PSTS section on discerning original research. This lead a number of people to seek to clarify the presentation of it. After much debate with very differing views around, it seemed that presenting the same principles without recourse to the ideas of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources was sensible. With widened participation after such was sought on the village pump, cogent arguments against the loss of the section were presented. Since then, discussion has (mostly) focussed on refactoring or relocating the section, along with the addition of material that was originally conceived to replace it, but has been argued to be of benefit to the clarity of the policy in any case.

Some people are still arguing that it would be best to lost the section completely, but this no longer has any real degree of support. SamBC(talk) 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking for an affirmative defense of WP:PSTS, but I have not seen one yet. I may have missed it in all the back and forth, but I don't think I have seen the cogent arguments you refer to. I have seen people saying the section developed over X amount of time, and has been around for Y amount of time, but of course it was not around for Z amount of time, so all this may be of historical interest, but of little practical value. I've also seen various assertions of its importance, but no serious discussion of the costs vs. benefits. I've also seen assertions that PSTS is supported by a really large groups of editors, and have seen the questions and concerns about PSTS dismissed as the work of a really small group. None of this rises to what I would consider the level of cogent argument. It seems to me that a really large group of supporters would produce a really large pool of cogent arguments. Dhaluza 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It happens that I think the section should (1) go on another page (2) include more clarification regarding different uses of the terms "primary source" and "secondary source" and, if Wikipedia-wide standards are needed, specificly state where the Wikipedia-wide standard differs from academic standards in different fields and (3) include more information on appropriate and inappropriate uses of sources with regard to NOR, probably NPOV, and possibly other policies. It happens that I also think the tag is appropriate to note the ongoing debate. I suspect that if I did not seek transfer and revision, I would still seek appropriate tagging. The section is disputed. Requiring consensus (as opposed to dispute) to add dispute tags would make the dispute tags useless. It would mean we could only mark disputes where there are not disputes. An awful lot of people have passed though this debate, on all sides - some people on two or more sides. Jacob Haller 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Contra Jossi, the text has not been here for "several years." Another editor linked to several versions of PSTS to show its development in time. The passages which triggered the latest stage of the debate - the passages which some editors were using to remove primary sources and statements referencing to primary sources - were inserted some months, not years, ago. The debate expanded to include the appropriate uses of primary sources, the ambiguity rooted in different definitions of primary sources, etc. Jacob Haller 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Make a proposal in a sandbox page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll simply endorse Blueboar's proposal - both halves. I might consider expanding PSTS with discussion of different understandings of "primary" and secondary" and new sections of appropriate use of each class of source, if PSTS is moved off NOR, but I'd keep things as short as possible, if PSTS stays on NOR. Jacob Haller 02:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The text has not been hear for years. It's been here since October. Changes leading up to that point were made in the months preceding. You know I agree, and have vigorously argued, that the section did demonstrate consensus (at least in the past) and was the result of steadily moving in that direction. I've also made a few proposals and a ream of comments. I just feel lost and hardly even know what to say anymore at this point besides "fuck it, whatever happens to that damn policy, happens". Vassyana 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of your proposals were excellent. Why don;t you bring them up here for discussion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I will do so when I get my head on straight in regards to this discussion. Thanks for the vote of confidence on my ideas. :-) I'm just seriously flustered with the behaviour of some editors and at the endless circles we're moving in here. I'll review my proposals for the most appropriate ones and post when I find my center, and therefore some good faith in the process again. Vassyana 04:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's understandable, given the events of recent hours, that some of us are feeling rather burned. I think this is especially true for Vassyana, who's put in a lot of work and articulated several sides of the debate over recent weeks, showing an uncommon ability to work with others towards a sensible solution. It's very demoralising when it seems that, whatever happens, every so often more new hands will show up to the debate and insult us and question our motivation. I reckon that Vassyana's invested more in this than I have, and I know that I feel burned by it. It begins to seem likely that the idea of near-infinite inertia of policy will win out simply by the emotional battering that editors get for suggesting that the policy page could be improved. SamBC(talk) 02:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You could help by avoiding the use of "us" and "them" in your arguments. All I am saying is: put forth proposals that can be assessed on their merits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of "them" and similar, I was attempting to avoid names, as I don't want to get into specific accusations. In this case, "us" is those who have been unfairly accused and impugned, and "they" are those who made the accusations. As to your actual suggestion, I completely agree. My statements were to try to give context and explanation to the strained tone that has become evident from several of "us" (in the same sense as I mentioned). I don't suggest that any of the unfortunate statements that have led to a feeling of being burned came from you, Jossi. SamBC(talk) 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, when people constantly impugn one's good intentions and motives, a siege mentality (us vs. them, or "they are out to get me") is a natural result. I think it's insulting to everyone involved. It's especially rude to people like myself and a few others here who started off being extremely supportive of the PSTS distinctions and changed opinions/positions based on discussion and/or compromise. As you well know, since you helped me, I even advocated a tightening of the section not too long ago. I find it rude and ignorant, to be pretty polite, to have aspersions cast on me for believing that the PSTS distinctions cause confusion and supporting reform. Vassyana 04:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It was just mentioned again that WP:PSTS has only been in existence since October 2006. Is the proposal to go back to the roughly three-and-a-half-year-old "Primary and secondary sources"? If, for sake of argument, the proposal is to move WP:PSTS off to another page, is the suggestion that it should instead be transcluded onto this policy page? Or is the argument that it should be moved entirely to another page? Other than a determination that the policy makes no sense to a number of people, and/or that some articles are having problems with it, what's the present suggestion here? ... Kenosis 05:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Both transclusion and seperation-and-wikilinking have been suggested. I would suggest seperation with judicious use of noinclude tags, so that the key points can be transcluded whilst creating a new page that can go into greater detail with more examples and so on, with the full version wikilinked. SamBC(talk) 09:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this approach, so long as the current content under PSTS is continued until that page gets a foothold and so long as no major changes are made to the basic concept. Expansions on a separate page would be helpful, IMO, to further issues such as how introductory texts can be tertiary sources, and a number of other things that I personally would not want to see shoehorned into that section. ... Kenosis 12:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Much of the primary-secondary-tertiary model has already been moved to Wikipedia:Classification of sources. We can always link to there from this page, but this page has to be a true policy page in its own right. Although it can link to a non-consensus essay, it can't have any non-consensus sections. That's why we need to work out some consensus language here as a replacement. Then, if we want, we can link to [[Wikipedia:Classification of sources, which might then evolve into a guideline, assuming it accurately describes current Wikipedia practices. COGDEN 17:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The page that says "::This document is extremely rough and not of any use for anything. Don't link here except from talk pages."? .... dave souza, talk 18:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the structure and purpose of that page is just about right, but the content is a bit "out there" and, aside from that, needs a deal of polishing. It might be worth replacing the PSTS section of that with a verbatim copy of the PSTS defintions from NOR and then working on them, if the page is to be put to the purpose now being discussed. SamBC(talk) 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Blueboar's proposal?

Way back, Blueboar proposed to move PSTS to another page and add Citing Appropriate Source Materials (alternative suggested section title: Sticking to the Sources) to NOR.

Are there any objections or improvements to the second part of Blueboar's proposal? Jacob Haller 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's pretty much a non-starter, not because it's wrong, because it isn't wrong. But it doesn't work as presently proposed w.r.t. WP:NOR. "Citing appropriate source materials" is for WP:V, if anywhere. Here in WP:NOR, the WP:PSTS distinction is a framework inextricably connected to how WP:NOR is applied. The words "stick to the sources" were just added to the text of WP:NOR, and there's no reason to think they don't effectively convey the concept of WP:NOR to readers of the policy page, at least not thus far. The concept of sticking to the sources, by itself, does not lend to a complete explanation of WP:NOR where there are conflicting views among article editors about how to express what's in the primary source(s), i.e., in the published source(s) closest to the origin of the topic . This is especially true 1) where many differing primary sources on a particular topic of discussion are in wide disagreement, or 2) where the editors cannot agree on the plain meaning of the primary source(s), and/or 3) where there are significant analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims involved in the point(s) presented in the article. In these cases, secondary or tertiary sources must be used in lieu of primary sources. WP:PSTS (or at minimum something like an updated version of the older "primary and secondary sources" with, e.g. "derivative secondary sources") is needed in WP:NOR, not somewhere off on another page with a link. In other words, WP:PSTS not supplementary, but integral to WP:NOR. Wikipedians have come to be accustomed to using it and t's been successfully applied in every type of topic on the wiki, irrespective of that people occasionally have problems with it. ... Kenosis 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, it's clear that you find WP:PSTS to be a useful tool, and some Wikipedians agree. But myself and others disagree that is integral, or that the success outweighs the problems as you assert. I think your conclusion that it has been successfully applied to every type of topic is incorrect. It has already been pointed out that scientists and historians use the primary/secondary distinctions differently, and this has caused problems in interpretation. Blueboar's proposal, whether you agree with the exact language or not, shows that PSTS is not integral to explaining NOR by explaining NOR in relation tot the use, not the nature of sources. The problems in the application of PSTS for source typing have been demonstrated time and again on this talk page when editors in good faith could not agree on the precise definitions of primary/secondary and how to apply them to specific cases. The result is that the discussion moves from NOR to discussions of PSTS, and neither is resolved. PSTS is a distraction. If editors who have taken the time to study and discuss PSTS cannot reasonably agree on what it means, how are editors at large to successfully apply it on the wiki? Dhaluza 09:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "occaisional" the problems with it are, but they have been considerable even if they are rare. This indicates that something needs to be fixed. I did support removal (and relocation) of PSTS, although I would now personally advocate a strong refocussing of the section. Also, if people have become accustomed to using something to discern OR that isn't actually very good for that purpose, that's a problem in itself. Recent discussions still seem to indicate quiet disagreement as to whether primary sources are actually acceptable in any but the rarest circumstances. SamBC(talk) 09:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kenosis. It is often an important point of reference in identifying and explaining original research. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, this is the crux of the whole thing. Please give the best example (make one up) you can of a situation where the word "primary" is an asset rather than a liability in communicating the reason that you reverted someone's edit. WAS 4.250 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only rarely seen it on an edit summary; mostly on talk pages. Given a few days of spare time, I'm fairly confident I could list articles in every, or virtually every, topic area on the wiki in which the editors have succussfully used it to sort out content issues in their articles. And given adequate time, I'm sure I could show a vastly longer list where it's the actual practice. Ordinarily, we simply call it "OR" or refer to WP:NOR. ... Kenosis 12:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC) ... And in response to comments a bit farther above, people have problems with VER and NPOV too. That's not good cause to change those core policies in any substantial way, because they work well on the whole right across the entire wiki. And w.r.t. this policy, even a local consensus here on the talk page would be quite inadequate to implement this degree of a change to longstanding WP policy. ... Kenosis 12:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is advocating a change in policy. The policy is what it is, and I dare say that given an example, we would all apply the policy the same. The policy is not the policy page: it's current accepted Wikipedia practice and convention. What's at issue here is the current expression of that policy on this policy page. That expression does not have consensus, and therefore is not binding. We need to make it binding. We need the legitimizing stamp of consensus here.

When we arrive at consensus language, nothing will change in actual Wikipedia practice. We'll still all be citing interviews, quoting novels and movies, citing peer-reviewed publications and conference proceedings. We'll be following NPOV. Fringe ideas will be excluded. Nobody will be including original research on pages. The only difference will be that we won't be arguing over which sources are "primary" and which sources are "secondary". We'll be arguing over what is, and what isn't, "original research". We'll arrive at the same results, but with less arguing, and with less misunderstanding and metaphysical hand-wringing. COGDEN 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Goals

I was tempted this morning to archive the whole talk page and get everyone to make a fresh start. Here is my fresh start, to see if I can convey my motives for change. With anything on this, we get into a why am I bothering: all those dangerous principles that get us worked up and put far more effort into something that does not deserve the attention it is getting.

I will set down a couple of my starting points. Let's test to see if they are worthy goals. If they are, then we can work together to find a way to satisfy them. Take it as read that I do not believe the policy pages meet these goals. I would like to think that if you go back through the pages, all my comments have been based around these principles. Perhaps you have some goals. Perhaps having agreed a common purpose, we can then test all the policy pages against these principles and, slowly and carefully, work towards these goals.

1. Policy for everyone

Policy is not the domain of a select few who have communed with the Oracle. Wikipedia is a community and within some bounds, all members of the community should be welcome to discuss policy constructively. Contributions not be in keeping with the goals of a great encyclopaedia can be robustly challenged, but constructive criticism should be welcomed, as should constructive contributions.

2. Policy should be stated in straightforward terms

(a) It is a fundamental for the true acceptance of a policy that the policy is understood. It should not be written in such a way that it requires significant intellectual capacity to divine its subtle nuances. Put another way, it should say what it needs to say in the simplest way possible, but no simpler. The expression of policy is not the same thing as the policy.

(b) Wikipedia policy should avoid its own neologisms: I have felt that the primary/secondary debate has in part been fuelled because the policy is expressed in terms that can only be understood if you understand the policy.

This is my Campaign for Plain English goal. There should be no unnecessary intellectual barrier to understanding policy.

As an aside, I would set a plain English goal for the whole of Wikipedia - it might be there, but I was struck by yesterday's comment which I read as being proud that the reading age of some articles was high (that may not have been the intent).

3. Stability

I put this up, not because I agree with it, but because I strongly disagree with it when it becomes a goal in its own right. It becomes an excuse for refuting criticism. In the past, I have had this argument made to me explicitly, and it is an underlying theme. Put another way, stability is useful if we can achieve it, but it is not necessary, and if it works against (1) and (2) then it is undesirable.

Comments and concerns

Agree:

1. Comments that WP editors need higher education are elitist, and not consistent with the principle that WP is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

2. Policy should avoid neologisms the same as articles, should use plain English as well. Policy statements should not be candiates for {{Confusing}} {{Unclear}} or {{Technical}}.

3. I think the people rigidly defending PSTS need to consider that a similarly rigid group of editors could have prevented its inclusion in the past for the same reasons given now.

-- Dhaluza 09:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree in principle. Probably the reason more people haven't been participating on this is because most users don't know this debate is going on. It seems to me (going from memory over the last month or so now), that probably 2/3 of 'contributors' to this debate have been for change, and about 1/3 against change, mostly within the last week or so. There also appears to be a small core of people in the latter group, while being against change, are open to change if it doesn't weaken policy and makes things clearer and less contentious. wbfergus ^Talk 10:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• These are your own goals. Looking at them,

1. Fine, but to challenge and change a policy you have to put up a coherent case well supported by evidence (not just anecdote), and welcome constructive criticism of the proposed changes. Comments that WP editors need to be able to read are hardly elitist.

That was unnecessary misrepresentation of the point. Spenny 14:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

2: Simple terms that many, probably most, editors can follow should not be junked because some PhD level disciplines use the terms slightly differently. If there are better terms these should be proposed and subjected to detailed critical testing to ensure that they don't change the effect of the policy. Alternatively, proposals can be considered for improving the explanation of the terms.

No argument there. Spenny 14:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

3: Stability is essential for contributors who make the effort to get to grips with the policy, but don't keep it on their watchlist and check it daily to see if someone's changed it and they have to begin a new struggle to get to grips with the new formulation. New terminology can be introduced if it maintains in full the effects of the policy, and if an explanation is included showing how the new terminology relates to the previous terms. .. dave souza, talk 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find this convincing, though I understand your point. There has never been any suggestion that policy is fundamentally changed, just the explanation (plus, I should add, some concern that there has been some subversion of the policy - as recent edits to resolve this were made with some consensus). On that basis, those who understand policy should not be concerned about its latest formulation, if it looks like NOR, smells like NOR, then, by golly, we've got a good idea that it is NOR. I agree that, for example, removing source typing would be a jolt, but given that I do not subscribe to the belief that "It's a primary source" is equivalent to "It's NOR" then that sort of change might be a useful one to adjust to, we can call it without bringing other terms into the main space. In other words, editors will use the policy pages to understand the key principles and it is rare that they will need to be concerned with the exact current wording which is used to convey the principles. Spenny 14:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Exact current wording or any proposed wording does play a pivotal rôle in the interpretation of the policy. People have known this for millennia, and hence our laws are writen very precisely (and appear to be written rather densely to many). What may seem as a minor change can have a significant impact in the interpretation and administration of a policy, hence changes must be carefully weighed and then brought to a much wider audience than is present on this talk page. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Two different points: I don't see anyone disagreeing about careful wording, where do you? My point was, assuming that the changes have been carefully weighed and promulgated to the appropriate audience, the argument of monitoring policy pages for changes in the explanation is a straw man argument. We especially need to remember these are not laws but guidance and we are enjoined, where appropriate, to ignore all rules. On that last point, I have made an observation on the IAR talk page for some tightening up to avoid the presumption that it might mean what it says. Spenny 18:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful about Wikilawyering here. Policy pages are not legal codes. They are pages that try to accurately document current Wikipedia practice and convention. (See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.) The only true policy is the convention itself. I believe that everybody here essentially knows what the consensus OR policy is, and can apply it correctly. Where we differ is in how we describe that policy. The policy page description has to be a consensus description. The policy page is to educate, not to decree. Thus, I totally agree with points #1 and #2. I also agree with stability, but only stability of consensus policy itself. If a policy page contains a non-consensus section, no matter how long it remains there, that works against stability, because it seeks to change the long-established behavior of Wikipedians. COGDEN 18:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? None was offered here -- it was an analogy.

In any case, in order to describe policy properly we must be sure that the descriptions are all-encompassing and not simplified to the point of real or potential dilution of the policy. That was the point. Language is a tricky thing -- simplification often has the effect of complicating an issue. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm not worried about policy being diluted. That's impossible in the short term. The policy exists. It has existed for years, and nothing we do or say on the policy page can change that. All we really need to worry about is describing current Wikipedia practice in a way that most everybody agrees is not incorrect. Of course, the more understandable, the better. It won't ever be perfect, but it will achieve consensus, which is something sorely lacking with the pseudo-historiographic primary/secondary model. And if we can never achieve consensus on any language in this area, the policy page will be blank. Even if it's blank, though, nothing will really change in practice, because the policy is current practice, independent of how we describe it on the policy page. COGDEN 22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re the last sentence just above by COGDEN: No. It's interactive. Sometimes policy leads the way, and sometimes it follows the practice of experienced users that are familiar with the concerns involved in how to write and edit articles. Moreover, the three core content policies were set into motion, essentially, by decree from the founder. NPOV, VER, and NOR, were each set into motion "from the top", so to speak. From there on it developed by consensus, was honed by an increasingly large body of practical experience, and modified accordingly as it developed. At this stage, evidence of successful application of WP:NOR, including PSTS, can be found in every topic area of the wiki. So, it reflects practice and also defines it in a way that both new users and experienced users are also expected -- indeed required -- to follow. A blank page doesn't accomplish this, nor does a distilled or gutted version ... Kenosis 04:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: The word "distilled" in my last sentence just above was by no means intended to advocate against occasionally distilling policy and guideline pages, because WP:CREEP is a reality in an expanding realm like WP that can get out of control, and which occasionally does get out of control. And when the "instructions" within a policy or guideline are consensused to have gotten out of control, they should be dealt with accordingly and either split off into a fork or distilled to manageable size. In my opinion, thus far this is not the case with WP:NOR w.r.t. the PSTS section presently being disputed by several users on this talk page. The potential for expansion of how PSTS is applied in various contexts throughout the increasingly large wiki is why I find the proposal by several users for a separate WP:PSTS page reasonable. In my opinion, such an additional page: (1) could, as already mentioned, be transcluded onto this page with the basic already existing content of the present section on "primary and secondary sources" left intact, or (2) could be transcluded from this page to the proposed WP:PSTS page, leaving supplementary commentary to the additional page, or (3) simply be a separate essary or guideline about how PSTS has been successfully applied in practice in various contexts in Wikipedia, or (4) could be some variation on one or more of the three I just mentioned. Removing the section on PSTS is, IMO, out of the question here, because its predecessor "primary and secondary sources" has been in play almost from the beginning of WP, and "primary, secondary and tertiary sources" (PSTS) is presently a reasonably well thought out and widely accepted expansion of the original that uses tertiary to accommodate an extra dimension of secondary source such as encyclopedias and other publications that clearly are designed to integrate divergent secondary sources. ... Kenosis 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Derogatory statements, and personal insults

Since this 'area' has been cropping up quite often in the past few days from people who haven't participated in these discussions at all within the last month, let me state for the record that it is extremely disappointing to have a few people with Admin status come into the middle of the discussion, make absolutely no attempt to determine what the discussion is about, and then cast aspersions on those who are advocating change, without even knowing what the change entails. A couple others have merely popped in long enough to simply say "I oppose" or "I disagree", without any further comment or suggestions on what may change their mind or even what their concerns are.

This extremely piss-poor behaviour on the part of a few over the last couple of days has led to (once again) a siege mentality of us vs. them, even after several people originally opposed to change had changed their minds after a long debate and things had started to get civil around here again.

So, once again, even though some progress was finally getting made, albiet slowly, we are once again getting divided into three different camps, as Blueboar elaborated on above, They are (slightly modified):

• 1) Those who have problems with the language of PSTS. (Change the language group).
• 2) Those who don't have a problem with the language of PSTS per se, but do not think it fits in the WP:NOR policy. (Just move PSTS to a better 'home' than WP:NOR).
• 3) Those who feel that PSTS is vital to enforcement of WP:NOR as they can't explain NOR (or even OR) without falling back on PSTS, and do not think it should be touched in any way shape or form. (I oppose any and all change group).

We were finally getting groups 1 & 2 two to collaborate and work on ways to alleviate the concerns of group 3. Then, new members of group 3 come into the discussion and are immediately opposed to any change, without even knowing what the change is. They come in and start throwing around insults and refuse to make any constructive comments. Now, once again the policy itself has gone into protection because of edits wars over something so stupid and assinine as to whether or not the policy should have a tag saying a section is in dispute, when the section has been in dispute one way or another (language or substance) since at least January 2005 (as can be seen in the archives). wbfergus ^Talk 12:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RE the last sentence of the first paragraph of wbfergus' comment above ("A couple others have merely popped in long enough to simply say "I oppose" or "I disagree"..." ): Presumably they are doing other things, either within WP or elsewhere, and consider this policy already in place w.r.t. the work within WP. I cannot effectively speak to the reasons that some of the "critics of the critics", so to speak, may have chosen not to provide additional substantive commentary. Sometimes the word "no" is enough. For anything else about the recent arguments here, I think one would need to ask them individually by mentioning usernames and providing specifics. Regarding the last paragraph just above, agreed that some snipes and exaggerations appear to have gone, in more than one direction.

W.r.t. the 1,2,3, bulleted grouping, it neglects the very important option of moving WP:PSTS to another page for possible expansion of the concept while transcluding the present content back onto this page, allowing any necessary additions, clarifications, and/or minor modifications to be made to PSTS. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Dave Souza proposed this particular approach. I also believe several others, myself included, have indicated they thought that moving WP:PSTS to another page with transclusion or partial transclusion is a reasonable course of action. ... Kenosis 13:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kenosis. Regarding the possibility of transclusion or other similar type discussions, I think that is where the bulk of the people in the first two groups have been working, on trying to find some acceptable way that this can be accomplished so people like you who say there a demonstrated need for the PSTS section at a policy level is the only acceptable alternative, though you seem to acceptable to the idea of allowing the move even to another (or new) policy if proper linking or other inclusions are in place so that it is still easy to determine that while not an actual part of the policy, in essence it is still enforceable by the policy. I think I said that right, if not, please correct me. wbfergus ^Talk 13:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is an integral part of the policy. Removing it from the policy is a non-starter, lacking a coherent replacement where most everyone who sees it agrees it's superior and more accurately reflects how WP:NOR is implemented across the wiki. ... Kenosis 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you are open to replacing the primary-secondary model with superior equivalent language. I think that's progress. Maybe we can work together to find out what that language us. As far as I can tell, the closest we've come to consensus language is the proposal managed by Blueboar. What's your stand on that proposal, and how would you improve it? COGDEN 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I already gave my opinion just above and in WT:NOR#Whatever happened to Blueboar's proposal?. IMO, we've yet to see anything close to a reasonable proposal for a replacement for WP:PSTS. Even if most or all participants here could agree that it was a significantly improved approach to PSTS, which we have not, there would still be a great deal of work to do to persuade all those users out there that've been using WP:PSTS in their discussions and practice. I also gave my opinion about Bluebear's proposal in particular. Most of it doesn't belong in WP:NOR, but in WP:VER, if anywhere. I inserted the words "stick to the sources", from Blueboar's proposal into WP:PSTS. Beyond that, I wouldn't know what to recommend changing in it so that it helps WP:NOR. Like i said, if someone comes up with an idea that looks to me like it will help residual confusion about WP:NOR without trashing the PSTS or PSS distinction, I'll be more than pleased to help. Thus far, IMO, that hasn't happened, and it appears I'm not at all alone in that opinion. .... Kenosis 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I am one of the editors who supposedly "popped in here" and who is accused of insulting the editors here who are diligently working away, who did I insult? If I stepped on your toes, I apologize. I wanted to understand what makes people so frantic to change a policy that seems to be working fine. I have suspicions of ulterior motives. I will be looking for examples of how the current policy is failing, and some new policy would improve things. I was met with a fair bit of rudeness. I guess my comments "shocked" some people. You should not be shocked if you understand me, and my editing philosophy and my concerns for some of the agendas and motivations here. In fact, I think it should be blatantly obvious, but I am not going to make that explicit if others cannot figure it out. In any case, people did state what they think the problem is, and hopefully I will be able to see some examples. I agree with the people above that instead of developing a small knot of people here whining, they have to make this case far more explicit and detailed, and put material in a sandbox for inspection, and then, if it comes to that, advertise for weeks or months to the largest possible group for community input. That is what seems most reasonable, anyway.--Filll 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll, please see #Transclusion example for an example of one proposal, and comment if you feel it's warranted. This is only one example of possibilities being explored. Several others have put forth a couple other examples (I think), but this page changes so much from hour to hour, things rapidly get 'lost in the shuffle'. This is also one of the problems with providing examples. The example quickly gets lost from all of the newer posts and coments. Any ideas on how we can provide a consistent and easy to find place for the examples? Maybe a sub-page of this talk page with a (more or less) permanent link at the top, similar to what gets done for archives? wbfergus ^Talk 14:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I volunteered to write up a sandbox, stating the case for my move/replace proposal... but 1) real life limited my wiki-time over the last few days, and 2) the discussion moved beyond my proposal... so I have held off. Since I expect that real life is not going to get slower in the next few weeks, I will have to leave stating the case for incorporating some form of change to others. It might help if everyone could make their cases more explicit and detailed. Perhaps the sand box could contain a coherent outline of both the reasons to change the wording of the section and the benefits of leaving it the same. I can understand why people who care about this policy, but have not active on the page for the last month or so, are wondering why everyone is "all fired up" to change things... and I also understand why others (who also care about this policy), are wondering why there is all this resistance to dealing with what they see as legitimate concerns. Both sides in this debate could benefit from taking a step back and explaining their positions instead of insisting on them. Blueboar 14:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think your proposal is the closest we've come to consensus. At least, it's the only one that has gained positive comments from both the "primary/secondary" people and the "plain language" people. COGDEN 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Everybody needs to cool off

I think that a cool-off period is needed. I am not interested in discussing motives, or diverging into polemics about policymaking, the role of the "admin cabal" in these pages, and all other miscellanea. I am taking a break from this page for a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A sensible point, and I trust that your silence for a few days will not be taken by others as assent to whatever new consensus is claimed to emerge. .. dave souza, talk 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, others will need to step into Jossi's shoes for a bit to ensure that the basic principles of NOR and PSTS are not tampered with. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody needs to be stepping into anyone's shoes and nobody is trying to subvert any basic principles as far as I am aware. The most telling point is that all the discussion has been on talk pages, there has been no attempt to force a change into policy. Please do not continue to insinuate that those seeking change are trying to subvert a reasonable process. Will you please at least give a semblance of assuming good faith until there are actual changes that occur to allow you to prove otherwise. I am sure we can agree that the tag edit was most inappropriate by all parties. This rhetoric is most unhelpful to a calm and friendly atmosphere which will allow us to discuss the issues sensibly. Spenny 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one step in the direction toward consensus is to stop referring to "PSTS" as an initialism, on par with NPOV, NOR, RS, and V. The primary-secondar-tertiary source model is just one expression of one aspect of the NOR policy. Referring to it as an initialism implies that it is a policy, rather than a particular (perhaps imperfect) model of describing Wikipedia practice, and that it can't be messed with. We're going to have to "mess with" the model if we want to achieve consensus. There's no other way. The OR policy itself, and how it is effectively applied, will not change, but we have to find a way to describe the intent of the primary-secondary model without using those concepts. COGDEN 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I will be taking a break as well. My ability to remain civil in the face of continuing insults and bad faith is severely strained. I came to this page today ready to dive in, provide some proposals and discussion. However, I cannot do so in a continuing hostile climate without responding quite bluntly in kind, at least for the moment. My apologies. Vassyana 18:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you and User:Jossi will continue to monitor the discussion, because I think we'll need your agreement on the consensus replacement language for the controversial section. COGDEN 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Heck... we need their participation to even reach a consensus that there is a controvercial seciton. But seriously... I echo what Cogden says... I hope both of you do come back once your batteries are recharged. Your opinions are valued. Blueboar 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded (if I am allowed to say that!) Spenny 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. .. dave souza, talk 19:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Like an AOLer, me too... you both represent some of the most sensible reasoning and discussion that this debate has seen (along with some others). Please, take all the break you think you need, but I think we (the whole discussion, both/all 'sides') are better of with you than without you. SamBC(talk) 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured that no decision will be made during your absences. Hopefully, by the time you return though, we might have added enough information to the Sandbox pages to continue having worthwhile discussions that actually address peoples concerns with the policy (all sides), and can begin to work on addressing those concerns. wbfergus ^Talk 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What are people afraid of?

Jim, you talk about the need to "ensure that the basic principles of NOR and PSTS are not tampered with". I don't understand this comment. What basic principles do you see being tampered with? As near as I can tell, none of the various proposals that have been discussed change the basic priciples one iota. The wording that expresses those prinicples yes, but not the principals themselves. As I see it, this is not an "attack" on the principles of NOR... I see it as a discussion about the best way to express those principles. If you see the issue differently, please explain. Your comments seem to go along with Filll's comments about "agendas" and "ulterior motives"... It is obvious that you fear something will happen if we change anything ... that we will open the door to something you object to.... but what exactly is it that you fear will happen? Blueboar 17:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that should be fairly obvious. However, let's just say we do not want anything with unanticipated consequences and other assorted blowback to happen to the project, shall we?--Filll —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely un-obvious to me. This innuendo must stop. It would do far less harm if you could describe exactly what you suspect the agenda is and explain exactly who you see pursuing this. It has been made clear that a significant number of editors are offended by your comments which they feel is directed personally at them and yet you feel entitled to carry on in this uncivil manner, presumably under the guise of a defender of the faith. I am afraid that this is exactly the behaviour that brings the administration of Wikipedia into disrepute. Would you please consider the civility guidelines and think about whether you are abiding by their spirit. Spenny 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To repeat, Exact current wording or any proposed wording does play a pivotal rôle in the interpretation of the policy. People have known this for millennia, and hence our laws are writen very precisely (and appear to be written rather densely to many). What may seem as a minor change can have a significant impact in the interpretation and administration of a policy, hence changes must be carefully weighed and then brought to a much wider audience than is present on this talk page. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these points is an argument against any editing of the policy page, surely? No-one was in a rush to change anything, changes were simply being discussed. Is discussing change dangerous in itself? SamBC(talk) 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

hence changes must be carefully weighed and then brought to a much wider audience than is present on this talk page... I completely agree! That is why I ask you to explain what you fear will happen if we make a change... it is part of that carefull weighing. So what is it about the current wording that you think is vital? What is it in the various proposals that you disagree with. engage in the discussion... don't just take a "NO CHANGES!" stance and then go mute. TALK to us. What is wrong with the various proposals made so far? Blueboar 18:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the most strong impression that the discussion of this issue for over a month with no attempt to implement it onto the main page was a fairly good indicator of trying to carefully weigh the policy changes. I was also under the impression that the notifying the discussion (not any implemented change) widely was evidence of attempting to bring it to a wider audience. That the talk page has been obfusticated by obstructive rather than constructive comment is not necessarily the fault of the party wishing change. No doubt these points could be more concisely, but when faced with stonewalling and FUD it means that things have to be discussed in terms of rebuttals. Anyone with some exposure to legal processes will understand that to make a point is simple, to rebut a point requires detailed evidence out of proportion to the point. Is simplifying NOR really such a fearsome prospect that we might as well switch off the servers and go home? Seriously.

I'd be interested to know if you could sign up to either of my first two goals or whether you see something intrinsically harmful in the concept of having policy for the people by the people? Spenny 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested if someone could please produce a well documented proposal for discussion, which addresses the points raised and gives diffs of the alleged problems arising from the existing formulation. What are people afraid is being lost by the present restriction on using primary sources (as defined) for anything other than obvious fact? .. dave souza, talk 19:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked first. :)

However, the point you have raised is entirely misplaced. What are people afraid is being lost by the present restriction on using primary sources (as defined) for anything other than obvious fact? Firstly, there has been a move in the past, which has in part been resisted by a recent edit to the main policy page, to try and enforce an outright ban on primary sources.

Secondly, the point on this is that the problem you raise is not in it being a primary source, it is the improper use of a fact to generate an analysis. If the fact was stated in a secondary source without any supporting analysis, it would not make it any more usable, would it? We are looking for a way to express the same restriction without what some (me!) see as an unnecessary mechanism of source typing. Wouldn't it be great if it didn't require Joe Public to bother with this strange source typing business yet we could still get the same result? So what if the powers that be think source typing is a useful tool? They are welcome to use that approach to divine faulty reasoning in articles. However, it has been claimed it is essential, and that claim simply does not hold up to logical reasoning.

But is a source an entire source or is a source some discrete element of a source article?

If it is a discrete element, then standard definitions of sourcing don't really help us.

If it is a whole source then we have the "it can be both at the same time" argument.

Then we have the inability to decide if certain documents or elements are primary or secondary, is it the source or is it the originality of the concept that is being tested?

Then, even when we have determined what type of source we have, we still need to decide if the sense of the edit is contained within the sense of the source. If it is primary, was the edit a statement of fact? If it was a statement of fact, was it truly represented. If it was secondary, and it was an analysis, was the analysis accurately portrayed in the edit. Those questions remain the same regardless of source typing.

If we allow secondary sources that are not of the highest repute, how do we allow this policy to let editors make reasoned evaluations of different sources to ensure that the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia is the fairest and best representation of source material that can be achieved? If USA Today say Bush won the Florida election but the publishers of the poll said it was Reagan (I'm not very good at American politics) are we forced to go with USA Today as it is a secondary source and therefore preferred to the publishers who are bound by electoral law?

So my point is, you raise a simple point of concern. We share the same concern in principle. We want to express that concern in a straightforward way that cannot be subverted by unneeded extra steps in deciding whether something written in Wikipedia has its roots in something previously published elsewhere.

Have I said anything entirely unreasonable here? Spenny 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly an elaborate scenario, and you seem to be in a bit of a fankle. Firstly, if there has been a move in the past to try and enforce an outright ban on primary sources, that's not my understanding and not what's said now. We should rely on third party sources, primary sources can be used with care for obvious facts. Secondly, if the fact was stated in a secondary source without any supporting analysis, then we don't go beyond the source and can't cite that source for analysis.Then, editors have to apply care and judgement in using sources. The present formulation is clear and conveys the point well to Joe Public, though some academics allegedly have problems with their specialist definitions. If USA Today say Bush won the Florida election but the publishers of the poll say that Al Gore had a majority (could this possibly happen? ;) we use a A simple formulation. ... dave souza, talk 06:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that I think Dave just summed it up very well. For me and I believe many others, what is at stake is preserving this part of the policy: "the present restriction on using primary sources (as defined) for anything other than obvious fact." As some have pointed out, this all started with an atempt o remove a line that secondary sources are prefered. Well, maybe that contested sentence could be beter-phrased, or completely rewritten. I happen to believe that PSTS is important to the article (which seems to put me in group 3) but I am also willing to revise the writing for greater precision and clarity - which either moves me to group 1, or leaves me nowhere (so to me the "three poisitions" is polarizing, I see a fourth one). Whatever further changes we make, what is most important to me is what Dave just said. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If nobody else has done it yet, I'll go ahead and create a couple of different Sandbox pages off of this. There may a bit of trial and error getting the initial blank pages done, so please bear with me while I progress. I' will post here when I am done. wbfergus ^Talk 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have created the basic sandbox page with an example of Transclusion included in a sub-page from the Sandbox. After I post this message, I will create a link at the top of this page to the Sandbox, where other examples, essays, etc. can go. wbfergus ^Talk 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, what is your definition of a primary source? Is your proposal to specifically define as primary sources any category of documents that should not be cited except for "obvious facts"? If so, how granular do we need to define primary sources? Do we say that "peer-reviewed journal articles are primary sources except when they contain less than half original data and greater than half theoretical analysis"? That "interviews recorded by journalists are primary sources unless they contain at least half commentary or paraphrase"? "Movies are primary sources in the science fiction and action genres, but not documentaries, unless the documentary is at least 50% fictionalized"? COGDEN 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are yoiu asking me a question when (1) I have answered it several times already on these pages and (2) expressed my willingness to modify my definition i.e. work on improving it with others, in the spirit of cooperation? What is the purpose of your question given that you know the answer? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well, what I read here is clearly a sign of some trouble.--Filll 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please could you be specific? This unspecific innuendo is very tiresome and specifically outside the civility policy. Much though I detest the quoting of behaviour guidelines myself, it should not need explanation, I will quote one specific element: Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. I would ask you to consider whether your mode of conversation here falls within that definition. For the record, as a significant contributor to this section, I feel that comment is directly pointed at me. Feel free to explain to me what in my summary is an unreasonable opinion to hold and could be construed as malicious or disruptive. Spenny 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. I do not think I have said anything uncivil. I did not attack anyone. I have been repeatedly jumped on for my very minor contributions to this page. Is it appropriate to drive away all others from this page? All I want is, for example,

• to see examples of what the proposed changes are
• to see the advantages and disadvantages of each proposed change
• to see copious examples of these proposed changes and how they would be expected to work in practice. I would like to see what would be allowed under the old policy and would be allowed under the new policy.

These should be on a sandbox page, or a few sandbox pages, for inspection by everyone.

After people spending an almost infinite amount of energy here railing away at each other, as far as I know, these do not even exist. Am I incorrect? When I express mild misgivings about how this is being done and what people want to achieve by this proposed change, it is met with very negative responses. This in itself is a very bad sign, as far as I am concerned. I am not sure what to think. Does this violate WP:NPA to say?--Filll 23:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've no problem at all with that reply. Unfortunately, the discussions have spun out of control and there is a need to regroup. I think the issue in the recent exchanges is that there are a group of well meaning people who have seen a problem and want to do their thing to fix it. What was believed to be a straight-forward process of discuss, edit, advertise and implement, which I have seen work quite satisfactorily elsewhere (or even BRD) is now inadequate and there hasn't been enough constructive guidance on how to resolve that. Unfortunately, these exercises have been conducted within the talk page, and nobody really saw fit to suggest over the past month that there was a better mechanism to use. It is now being suggested, and is now being adopted, but at the moment it is not fit for purpose.

My observation is that the various parties have stated several times what their aims are. The response has been fairly critical for even attempting it even though I would say that we were still kicking around at the proof of concept stage. If the concerns are simply that you need confidence in a proper proposal being worked through then that is good, but it is not how the issue has been previously expressed. I think perhaps you got caught in the cross-fire, but there has been a lot of "you are doing this all wrong", a fair smattering of "We don't care what it is, don't change anything" and not enough "this is the best way to approach it." As far as the comment above, I am not making a proposal, I am simply trying to establish if anyone acknowledges that there is anything other than malicious intent.

Bear in mind that in the past very significant changes have been made to these pages without such a process so it is understandable why there is a bit of confusion as to why the bar has been raised. Regardless, various people are working towards providing that. It's bound to take some time.

Perhaps next time some innocents come along with a well-intentioned suggestion for revision, a sensible response from the community would be to help guide through an acceptable process rather than to dismiss them. If the amount of effort to make a change is to be so high when other editors have been given free reign in the past, then the least the community should do is ensure that contributors are guided in this unwritten process. Spenny 00:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Where can we put stuff so it won't be lost?

I understand that sandboxes are appropriate for proposals, but would an essay at Wikipedia: PSTS concerns and proposals be a better solution? We could keep the basic summary, list of proposed solutions, etc. on the essay page, so it doesn't disappear as the talk page grows. Jacob Haller 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR is useful. The word "primary" is not.

Above I said:

Slrubenstein, this is the crux of the whole thing. Please give the best example (make one up) you can of a situation where the word "primary" is an asset rather than a liability in communicating the reason that you reverted someone's edit. WAS 4.250 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The response to that and other similar statements is that people see "primary" and think "NOR". The issue here is not NOR. The issue is the word "primary". Read that again until you get it. We are all very tired of the accusations and ridicule based on what ... inability to read? Inability to AGF? No one is asking that the substance of NOR be changed. Only the words we use to explain NOR. Why? Because the word "primary" gets in the way of a clear explanation of what the violator of NOR did. Why? Because we use a Wikipedia specific definition. It is a Wiki-ism that gets in the way of a clear explanation of NOR. You violated NOR. No I did not. You used a primary source. No its not. Well it is by our definition. What is your definition? blah blah blah. Well so what. NOR does not say primary sources can never be used. Ya but you are misusing the source to make a claim the source does not make. Well for the love of God why the frickin hell didn't you say so in the first place? WAS 4.250 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WAS, are you addressing me? Are you accusing me of ridiculing and accusing you? Because it seems to me that you are attacking me. Above both wbfergus and jossi (who, I think, disagree on other things) have urged people to be more civil to one another. If I have been uncivil to you I honestly do not recall that but just in case, I apologize right now. But I think if you reread what you just wrote after allowing some time to pass you might see why it seems to me that you are just calling me a stupid point-of-view pusher. Are you not satisfied that i have expressed myself clearly? Fine, that is a fair point to make and you can ask me for clarification - but it really seems to me like you are simply asserting that I lack good faith here. That is not fair.

I also do not understand your hysterical "Why for the love of God why the frickin hell ..." I have never - never ever ever - said that primary sources cannot be used. Indeed, i have consistently said over the past three plus years that primary sources can be used under certain conditions. I repeated it, for the zillionth time, in the section above, in response to a comment by David souza. This is not the first time I have said this; there is no "finally!!!!" - I have stated this repeatedly as long as there has been an NOR policy. My intention above was merely to thank David for expressing an important point so clearly. But you feel some compulsion to turn my expression of Wiki-love into an excuse for you to spew wiki-hate? Now will you please explain to me why you want to attack and insult me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to second the sentiments of Slrubenstein here. People, please calm down. This is really a tempest in a teapot here.--Filll 03:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed it was unhelpful to express it in those terms in the current atmosphere. WAS does get misinterpreted. Please note that the main thrust of the point was to mimic a discussion with a user, not aimed at a person. I've picked up the theme below. Spenny 08:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was intended as a personal attack. I think that was intended as a slightly humorous narrative of an edit dispute. I can recognize the arguments and the mutual frustration. The last part is an expression of the frustration many editors have felt in debates over whether statements are appropriately sourced, appropriately balanced, etc. Jacob Haller 03:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am glad I misunderstood, then! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, to answer your question. This map was included in the White people article:

Hair color map according to Frost . The yellow represents 80%+ light hair, orange is 50-79% light hair, tan is 20-49% light hair, dark brown is 1-19% light hair.

Eye color map according to Frost . The purple represents 80%+ light eyes, green is 50-79% light eye, pink is 20-49% light eye, dark brown is 1-19% light eyes. Grey area omitted by Frost.

I would call it a primary source, or, if some people quibble with the word choice, primary material. By my definition it is primary because it presents facts (the distribution of eye-color in Europe) and - by my understanding of NOR, if someone presented this solely to illustrate the distribution of eye-color in Europe I would consider that perfectly acceptable under our NOR policy as currently written. I also consider this to be a primary source in that it provides data which can be and has been the object of analysis. Some of the explanations for this distribution has to do with geography and selective pressures acting on eye-color at different latitudes. Some of the explanations have to do with the history of migrations and intermarriage among neighboring groups. These explanations constitute secondary sources or material, and they have been forwarded by a variety of scientists, and if an editor added "Scientist X has used this distribution to illustrate her point about latitude and selection" or "According to scientist Y, one explanation of this distribution is a postulated migration of people ..." I would also consider these perfectly acceptable under (even desirable and to be encouraged by) our NOR policy as currently written. However, an editor inserted this map in an article to illustrate that people of Northern Europe belong to the White race, because one of the defining features of the White race is a tendency towards blue eyes. Now, I consider this a violation of NOR because it is taking the primary source material out of context and using it to forward the editor's own point of view. This is especially troubling because many scientists uses this data to explain why they have abandoned the notion of race as a biologically meaningful concept. Several editors supported the use of this map to make the point about the White race, and in some cases i think they genuinely misunderstood the scientific literature, in other cases they were explicitly arguing against scientific interpretations published in peer-reviewed journal articles.

So that is one example. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As compelling as that example is, I think you could make it even more obvious with a more outrageous version of OR. An article might state that the incidence of melanoma will follow this same pattern as the eye color map, without including the necessary intermediate citation "building blocks" and making some assumptions.--Filll 03:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is, how does defining it as a primary source help communicate to someone, perhaps not overly familiar with the NOR policy, help us communicate to that user that it is an outrageous violation of policy? We are not after great examples of OR, we are after an example of where it is explicitly helpful to think in these terms. We can say, "You need to find something reliable that has made that point before you include it in Wikipedia." Do we need to say, "Do you understand our concept of source typing? If you do not, please read about it. When you have understood the concept, you will see that you have used a primary source, and in this case you have used it in an inappropriate way as you are making a point that has not been made outside Wikipedia."

I will answer that in part. The issue to me becomes that we need to think in summary style, not in discrete, citable facts. Any discussion needs context and to take facts or analysis out of context is the problem. Source typing becomes useful when we can understand the context within which an argument sits. NOR is not expressed in these terms, it thinks about discrete points. As experienced editors, we understand we cannot work in discrete elements, but need to consider the article as a whole and the source as a whole and consider each in all aspects of policy. Spenny 08:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a useful point, and I'm certainly interested in seeing NOR framed in terms of summary style taking sources as a whole, being conscious of sourcing fact and sourcing opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments appropriately. The "#What is excluded?" section in recent versions[16] has been removed, and while its historical intro is replaced by the "Origins of this policy" section, the brief list under "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following" made a useful and clear start to the article. It could be reinserted, or a better section could draw on Blueboar's ideas together with the above point. .. dave souza, talk 09:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I might even go as far as saying that it is not the expression of policy itself that is the issue at the moment, but it is the way that the debate is distorted - people come here when a controversial issue is in dispute. I will even give you a culprit for leading the policy down a point by point path - the {{fact}} tag. This, unwittingly, encourages the examination of an individual point, rather than allowing us to stand back and say, as a whole, is the thrust of the article a fair representation of the sources. (There's more to be said, but I do witter on, so I will stop). Spenny 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to jump in here because I haven't had the chance to read the voluminous discussions here and on the sub-pages, so forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick...but part of the debate seems to be centred on whether the terms "primary, secondary and tertiary sources" are esoteric, or even "wiki specific". I can only say...they aren't. These are terms that every schoolchild (or at least every one who's paid any attention, i.e. about 5% ;-) will be familiar with from history and historiography courses. The meaning seems quite plain to me and these are widely used, standard terms- "factual" in particular is not at all a good substitute for "primary", if that is a proposed change. Badgerpatrol 02:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they will be familiar with the terms, but not familiar with the Wikipedia definitions which ofte vary from the common definitions in each field. That's the problem. PSTS as written doesn't just ask people to learn new definitions, it asks them to unlearn old ones. Jacob Haller 03:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the relevant threads where examples of these departures are given? The language could be tightened up a little bit maybe, but the definitions as currently given on WP:NOR are pretty much exactly in accordance with accepted terms in historiography and information science (at least as far as I'm aware- I'm not a professional historian). Badgerpatrol 03:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I also am not a journalist or a historian, but I would love to know how our definitions of primary secondary and tertiary sources differ from the standard definitions.--Filll 03:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - a different kind of reply to JH) As I have expressed, I believe there is always room for improvement, and I have tried to suggest some ways the definitions of PST sources could be improved - and would welcome other suggestions. However, I believe it is essential for this discussion that we all agree that it is inevitable that some Wikipedia policy terms will be ideosyncratic to Wikipedia and thus require people to (temporarily) "unlearn" (I would say "bracket") their more familiar definitions. I make this as a general point and acknowledge that one can in good faith say "Yes, but this is not one of those times." We can disagree over whether we need to use the words primary and secondary, and we can disagree over how to use them. But I do not think we will get anywhere unless people asknowledge that unique definitions are sometimes unavoidable and good. I have two reasons, and an example. Reason 1: our policy must apply to people researching within or about different disciplines, professions, and domains. Thee is no reason to think that lawyers, engineers, historians and anthropologists would necessarily all use the word "source" (or pick any other important term) the same way - but we need to define it in a way that can apply to any article; in other words, we need a definition that is appropriate not for law, engineering, history or anthropology, we need a definition that i appropriate for an encyclopedia. Reason 2: we are a wikipedia, an necyclopedia written through a collaboration by diverse amateurs. Our policies must foster effective collaboration. Being diverse amateurs creates challenges and needs not faced, say, in peer-revidewed journals or EB where most authors are all academics and share many conventions, and furthermore what they write is policed by an editorial board or editors (I mean, journal editors, people with power to dictate content to authors). See - even when talking about peer-reviewed journals, we see that we define "editor" in a way utterly unlike most other people. This is already an example, but not the one i intended (which will follow) but eveytime I contribute to Wikipedia I need to "unlearn" what "editor" "really means" (meaning, the definition I need to live by in my work, if I am to kep my job and advance in my career - I have to unlearn that definition). Anyway, my point is that absent the kind of editorial supervision of journals and other encyclopedias, we rely on policies - policies take the place of people. So we are going to have policies that may be unnecessary at journals and other encyclopedias, and our policies have to accomplish something that is accomplished through very different means in other context. So it shouldn't surprise us if some of our policies are unique and use words ideosynratically. Now my real example (though editor is still a good one!): NPOV. most of us are used to this policy and realy "get it" but read the policy and you will see it is written for people who need to redefine what they mean by "neutraility" to understand the policy. So I have nothing against unique definitions, as long as they are clear and consistent and useful. I realize others may disagree with me that "primary sources" should be one of those words, but I hope we can agree on the general principle. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The principle of primacy in learning holds that it is difficult to "unlearn" something -- it's why first impressions are so important. So if we don't need to force people to unlearn we shouldn't. The problem with the term "primary source," and the principle of primacy is that people have learned different meanings in different contexts, and they are not all applicable in the Wikipedia context. So introducing it into NOR is creates unnecessary obfuscation and confusion. I don't think your example of editor is the analogous to this, because an editor is someone who edits, and so it is a proper descriptive term in each case. Editors may edit by different rules in different settings, but editors are still editing. If NPOV is redefining "neutrality" that is also a problem (I'm not saying it is or isn't) that should not be repeated. Dhaluza 09:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have had some problems with users reading scientific papers, then taking information from these papers that occur in the "results" section of the paper. Now as far as I can see the "results" of scientific research are primary sources according to the Wikipedia definition. These results are often highly dependent upon context. The important sections in scientific papers are the introduction and discussion sections, the introduction section usually outlines the purpose of the aper, and the discussion section interprets the results. So effectively the discussion/conclusion section of a scientific paper represent secondary sources, an interpretation of the results. I have come across several occasions where editors with a pov to push take data right out of a results section, without any attempt to place these data into context, and put the data straight into Wikipedia articles, mainly because the data they use appear to support their point of view. This is a clear use of primary sources to push a pov by taking the data out of context and not having the data interpreted by a reliable scientific source. In this context the definition of what constitutes a primary source seems reasonable and pretty clear. Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; United Nations Security Council resolutions; 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. and secondary sources Secondary sources draw on primary 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 secondary 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 secondary source. (both are from Wikipedia:Primary sources). I haven't been following this debate at all, but I was asked to comment. As far as I can see it's clear what a primary source is, and it's clear why we need to be careful when using them, so I can't see what the problem is really. Alun 03:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Neither the term "Primary source", nor its definition, are unique to Wikipedia. It's a consistently framed, general term in common usage (within the context of history/information science). Where are these Wiki-centric neontologies? Badgerpatrol 03:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Alun, and having read this thread above [17] was going to say the same thing myself. Some sources may be primary, secondary and tertiary, and papers, which are highly structured to a consistent format and composed of discrete parts, are a good example. Results sections are obviously primary sources- new, first-hand research. Discussions are (basically) analysis and interpretation of that work- a secondary source. One could also argue that "Introduction" sections, which tend to synthesise previous work and lay out the aims of the study, are a kind of tertiary source. It's the abstract, discussion and conclusions that should be most relevant to Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, most ancient histories rely on older sources and pull them together. Some, such as Polybius or Ammianus, include some of their own observations as well as their research, but very few parts meet the PSTS definition of "primary source," or resemble the PSTS examples of "primary sources," and these mostly match the PSTS definition of "secondary source," but these are generally considered "primary sources," in history and historical archaeology. I've considered adding a note regarding ancient sources - that they should not always be considered primary sources for Wikipedia purposes - but these examples really belong in the sandbox.

Another problem is if the source is written by a participant and is published in an encyclopedia. I've sometimes disparaged tertiary sources but respect these primary/tertiary hybrids.

Another problem is when the primary source makes its own clearly-described interpretive statements. e.g. major theorists describe their own positions in their own words. Jacob Haller 06:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think interpretation can be considered a primary source. Look at the definitions above, primary sources more or less equate to "raw data", while secondary sources equate to "interpretations of the data". Therefore when an academic proposes a theory based on observation of primary source data, this theory represent a secondary source. Just like my description of the difference between a "results section" (primary source, ie data) and a "discussion section" (secondary source, ie interpretation of the data). I understand that in history a primary source can simply refer to the oldest extant source for a piece of information, but this is still a primary source by Wikipedia criteria because it is this source (data) that is the original for all subsequent theories. It is the theories (secondary sources) regarding what the primary source (data) means that we are interested in. If some historians claim that our primary source contains information from now non-existent sources, then it does not mean that this source is not our primary source, but it does mean that we can cite these historians as making this claim, though these claims can only be regarded as theories. We can reproduce the text of Magna Carta for example, but it means precious little without a discussion of the history surrounding it, and the text itself would be more appropriate over at Wikisource. But the text of Magna Carta is not our source, it is the source for the historians that study it, and it is their conclusions that we are interested in. Alun 06:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I understand correctly, in the WP definition, primary sources group raw data with first interpretations of the data by the observer, and only reinterpretations are secondary. This is a problem because the raw data and the interpretation of it are different, but are lumped together in this definition. This is one of the key problems with the PSTS definitions, and I believe it is related to the different uses by scientists and historians. Dhaluza 09:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not sure how this should be addressed. There is clearly a difference between the discussion section of a scientific paper and the primary data set. Indeed the discussion section of any scientific paper usually tries to interpret the data according to current theories, debating whether the data support or undermine any given theories, and possibly modifying any theories appropriately if necessary. So clearly the discussions sections of scirntific papers are more than just primary sources because they rely on interpreting how data fit into previously constructed models or theories. Clearly then a discussion/conclusions section of a scientific paper is not a primary source, but the Wikipedia policy may well be viewed as defining it as such. Alun 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In the first case, the same principle applies as described above for scientific works. Those passages of the work that are the author's own observations (e.g. descriptions of ancient buildings, events that he/she has actually witnessed) or at least purport to be, are primary sources. The rest is secondary. I don't see any reason why parts of a work cannot be a primary source whilst other parts are secondary, but those with a superior knowledge of historiography than me should have an input here. The second case to me seems very unlikely- a primary source is a first hand "I was there, I did it..." account. I find it very unlikely that the scenario you envisage would actually happen (i.e. that such an account would wind up in any encyclopaedia except for Wikipedia, where it should be rooted out), and I strongly suspect that such cases are very rare- can you name some examples for discussion here if possible? Encyclopaedias are by definition always tertiary sources. The third example is not a primary source, it's a secondary one, involving as it does analysis and interpretation- even of one's own work. "We did this..." is primary. "This is what it means..." is secondary, interpretative. The Double Helix is (more or less) a primary source; the (short!) discussion section from Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids is a secondary one, derived from empirical (= primary) results. I agree that these things can sometimes appear conceptually difficult, which is why we have pages like WP:NOR and forums like WP:RS/N to help clarify matters when things are ambiguous. I don't agree that any move away from the accepted, recognised nomenclature of primary, sec, and tert is going to help; in fact, I fear it would actually only obfuscate matters further. We don't need to be making up new words and new concepts here on Wikipedia unless we absolutely have to, and this is not one of those cases. Badgerpatrol 06:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an old, well-used, secondhand Encyclopedia Brittanica in the other room. The article on anarchism is by Kropotkin. Many E.B. articles were written by people involved in the subject.

I find that most of what people call primary sources for political and religious theories include interpretation. In politics, if Common Sense, the Communist Manifesto, the Platform, or other works are "secondary" sources on the appropriate movements, what on earth are "primary" sources on the same?

I know that many people consider interpretive parts primary, as well as data parts. People will carry their own definitions, without checking in detail, before encountering Wikipedia definitions of these terms. Should PSTS start with the big bold passage: WARNING: Wikipedia definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary sources may conflict with other definitions of primary and secondary sources. Please read these with care. Please assess each section of each work independently of the others. Note that in politics, religion, and similar topics, there may be secondary sources without primary sources. You have been warned. ? Jacob Haller 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that was somewhat over-the-top. But the more we rely on PSTS, the more problems different interpretations create, and the more we use it for NOR, the more our NOR-driven definitions of "primary" and "secondary" diverge from other definitions of "primary" and "secondary." Jacob Haller 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

These comments just above, IMO, are indicative of yet another set of reasons why "primary, secondary and tertiary sources" (the section on PSTS) should be left firmly in place, in keeping with both the current and previous policy. To Badgerpatrol and Alun: Are there any clearly discernible reasons why PSTS should go back to "primary and secondary sources" (call it "PSS" if we wish, maybe with derivative secondary sources or some other sub-classification of "secondary")? Currently, tertiary includes encylopedias and other compendia, and I've been very recently advocating on this page that introductory textbooks should be included in "tertiary" as well. Perhaps there are other categories of publications that belong in "tertiary"; or perhaps "tertiary" should be consolidated again into "secondary" as was the case prior to October 2006. Any thoughts on this? ... Kenosis 07:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd include information from a scientific "review article" as a tertiary source.[18] (There's no Wikipedia article about scientific review articles oddly enough, given their importance). This sort of review article is very useful in science, but they are not intended to introduce new theories or to interpret primary sources, their purpose is to sum up the current state of knowledge in a given field of science. One major advantage of this sort of article for Wikipedia is that it will be written by an expert, unlike say an encyclopaedia article. Alun 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, if I read yur post above correctly, you wanted an example. This may be one, Korean Wall. It's a very bad article, based almost entirely from propaganda related to tourists by North Korean tour guides. I'm not sure if this is the kind of example you asked for though. wbfergus ^Talk 10:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To Kenosis: with a caveat stemming from my late arrival to this debate and therefore incomplete understanding of its nuances...yes, and yes. I would leave the information where it is and mainatin the distinction between secondary and tertiary sources. Badgerpatrol 11:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To Wb:...and in fairness, maybe mixed with a little bit of pure OR [19] too...but the solution to bad articles with bad sources is to find better sources and write better articles. If this is am important fortification, then I would be flabbergasted if there are not suitable scholarly secondary sources (that are either balanced in and off themselves, or are at least written by pro-western authors and military historians that can be quoted as rebuttal to the North Korean claims) that can be quoted when talking about it. In fact, one might construct an argument to the effect that if such sources can't be found, then the notability of the subject is questionable and it should be deleted anyway, ipso facto. But I was specifically asking for a) examples of how Wikipedia's definitons of P, S, and T sources depart from conventional extra-Wiki definitions; b) examples of instances of primary sources ending up as articles in a reliable encyclopaedia. Badgerpatrol 10:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that article is just really bad. I ran across it way before I got all wrapped up in the NOR discussions or even knew what NOR was, so those edits of mine on the picture text are clearly OR, as is the article itself. It would be much better if the article itself was RfD'd, but I've done one or know what the proper procedure is. My edits to the picture text were to clarify what the picture is clearly about, it's not a wall, it must be a South Korean post if it's a picture of the supposed wall from North Korea, etc. but like the article itself, there is nothing published in any reliable source. Everything is strictly from 'primary sources', and nothing is cited. My further comment on the article about a vehicle falling is (what I thought at the time) merely a rephrasing of previous wording in the article, where the height of the wall is stated and that it's to serve as a bridgehead for invasion. Having been there for two years, I can say that parts of this 'structure' do exist, but not as presented in the article, but again, it's strictly from a 'primary' (or maybe more accurately), an 'original' source. In places, where the wall is along the northern side of a hill or mountain, the South Korean Army basically made a cliff along the DMZ boundary, so infiltrations or other attempts to penetrate the 'wall' would have a minimal chance of succes (read that as if attacked). The 'wall' in these areas are pock-marked with machinegun emplacements, tunnels and bunkers, etc. to prevent invasion, not to launch an invasion, but again, this is not documented anywhere except maybe in classified military files of either South Korea or the UN Command. wbfergus ^Talk 12:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The yes, but syndrome

here in a sandbox I wrote down a summary of the problem as I had seen it. As you may see it is a list of confusions about sourcing. They may be invalid if we know what we are doing, but they are questions that have been raised that should be addressed.

I'm a simple soul at heart, and I like things to be simple. The above positions supporting the sources are all very reasonable but they do not address the problem. I get the impression that you are all used to working in an academic field and source typing is natural and obvious and it builds on your own experience of a sensible way to work.

My premise is that policy is not aimed at you. Nice though source typing is, I would say that you would all understand how to approach NOR without it. You personally would not find it essential to have the typology of sources spelt out for you: though you personally might use the technique in an informal way to test your own judgement of whether a source is safe. My analogy from the world of computing databases is that we learn about third normal form and implicitly understand it, but I would never formally use normalisation as it is obvious to me by observation.

So, if we set aside our knowledge, we look to see how the policy looks to the less informed contributor. It is here we find the "yes, but" syndrome. As I said elsewhere, a source is primary, yes, but what if it is both? Primary is an indicator of OR, yes, but not always. That fact is from a secondary source, yes, but it was posited as an original thought. It is from a secondary source, yes, but USA Today is not edited with the formal rigour of a scientific paper.

With my database example, I would not go around criticising a database because elements of it were in second normal form. In the same way that if it was in third normal form I would not accept it was an ideal design for the solution, I would want to account for the actual usage of the design, taking into account the technical constraints before coming to a judgement. I would mentally be aware of the principle, but I would not express the issue in terms of normal forms, but in terms of redundancy.

Just to continue the analogy a little further, I would also not use the rationalisation approach out of the book, because I know it leads to the most common form of error, failing to account for the time dimension of data, so people fail to recognise that the product value of a sales order item needs to be copied from the product table as the product value might change over time but the order represents a contract at a point in time. The tool is a useful guide, but it needs intelligence to apply it.

So my question to you is, yes, you are entirely comfortable with the concepts, and you see no intellectual flaw with the approach. Can you put yourself in the mind of a right-minded individual editing Britney Spears, a notable article of pop culture, and say that this policy will be obvious and useful to that editor, who may be, sad though it is, the world's most knowledgeable person on Britney Spears and simply needs guidance on why his valuable contributions are deemed unworthy? Spenny 07:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem may be that people who are comfortable with the primary/secondary distinctions may feel that removing these definitions from NOR is somehow a judgment that this concept is "wrong" which may result in unnecessary cognitive dissonance. The point I think Spenny is making above is that the primary/secondary distinction may be applicable in academic fields (although they may be applied differently) but WP is not strictly an academic endeavor--it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Yes, we may wish it to represent a scholarly work, but we will not achieve that if if the policies can only be understood by academics. So the proposals that attempt to define NOR without using the primary/secondary terminology are not meant to prove it wrong, just to show it is unnecessary in this context. It may be useful in other contexts, but the costs in terms of confusion are not justified here. Dhaluza 10:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that once again we are nearing what many of see as the problem area. NOR should be able to define itself clearly without having additional definitions of primary, etc included in the article. These are already defined in their respective articles, as linked from the policy already, and the articles themselves (at least primary, and I think secondary as well), are also older than the NOR policy. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that the NOR policy should be able to define itself clearly without confusing the issue by defining (or redefining) 'subjects' that are already pretty well defined elsewhere, regardless of whether they are a 'policy' or not. Moving beyond that stage, it becomes simply "is what is being expressed in the article 'raw, or first hand' data, or is an analysis or other interpretation of that data, and in which context is this being presented". More or less in short, why do we need a 'policy', whether this page or not, to define what primary, secondary, etc. are, when there are already better pages on Wikipedia to show those distinctions with examples? Is there really a need for policy to define these, or something else more appropriate? This area has been problemmatic for a long time (almost three years at least), and wouldn't moving this one section somewhere help alleviate a lot of the various edit wars that have occured on this page, and therefore make the policy itself much more stable? Another point that been brought up is how some wording (not sure if it's in this version of the policy) insinuated that data from secondary sources should be used over primary sources. With some of the confusion about what's primary or secondary, when the 'source' can be classified as either or both, seems to be the biggest area of confusion. If a source is both, does that negate the validity of including the work from that source over another source? It's kind of a "this source trumps that source" argument. If an article on aircraft includes things like engine thrust, is it preferred to have the engine thrust data from the article/journal or instead have it come from the manufacturers spec sheet (especially if there is a variance in the data)? The journal article is a secondary source that repeats the primary source (maybe with a typo), so is that still preferred over the original data? Well, time for me to head off to work. I might be able to continue from there depending on how busy I get. wbfergus ^Talk 11:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I was taught about primary, secondary and tertiary sources in (compulsory) history lessons when I was about 13 (and believe me, my schooling and education were unexceptional in oh so many ways...;-). I very strongly suspect that the concepts are taught to schoolchildren the world over (let's not forget, judging and classifying sources is fundamental to the study of history and is one of the most important transferable things they teach you). This is not some specialised, esoteric academic doublespeak. I would bet that the vast majority of people reading the material already have at least the kernel of an idea regarding these concepts, and as currently written it seems fairly straightforward. There will always be an element of good judgement involved, but we can't legislate for individuals' personal judgement. We should perhaps stress more clearly that user and article talk pages, as well as forums like WP:RS/N are available, and should be used for constructive debate regarding the nature of a source and whether it should be used. Even if our savantic friend User:Britneysthebest178 doesn't understand how to classify his sources (and there's no shame in that), there are plenty of others that do and can help him or her. Badgerpatrol 11:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is common ground, and though I would strongly disagree on the small point of classification of sources being, let us say common knowledge, it was simply not a concept put forward when I sat for two years having the Napoleonic Wars, Nelson and the Agricultural and Industrial Revolution dictated to me. At least I knew Jethro Tull wasn't a band.

Whilst I am not convinced, the consensus is that source typing is (at least) a useful tool to assist. I think we can say there is consensus that it should be properly associated with the various different guidance in some way.

BadgerPatrol, though it is useful, would you say it was necessary? And if so, why? Spenny 11:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I touched on it briefly in a previous post above, but could the NOR policy itself more clearly and accurately describe itself by using something like "original data" vs. "analyzed data (conclusions, etc.), preferably peer-reviewed when available" instead of delving into re-defining primary, etc. when such definitions already exist in Wikipedia are are linked already? Add a statement like "For further definitions see....". I think this is more along the lines of what many of us are trying to say, though this idea hasn't yet been clearly and succintly expressed (if it can be). I could be wrong though, I'll let others comment on if maybe this might be what some of us are trying to work towards, without weakening the policy. I also think that many of us from the groups 1 & 2 talked about previously, still fail somehow to see how moving the PSTS section from NOR (to some other, more appropriate place, not a deletion), would weaken the NOR policy. The policy itself is purely about not allowing original research into a Wikipedia article, not about how to classify different sorts of 'source material'. While one may help the other and be otherwise related, they are completely different subjects, like having an article on the Korean War with a distinct sub-section included in it that goes into detail on what weapons are, what the different kinds of weapons are used for and how they used, etc. It may be usefull knowledge, but really has no bearing on the article (or in this case, policy). wbfergus ^Talk 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but...I was not taught this; or if I was, I certainly didn't retain it. And I was fortunate enough to attend good schools, so that's not the reason. So I tried looking it up, and the first hit I found had this definition:

What is a primary source? A primary source is a source that was created during or immediately after the event or period it documents.... Primary sources can be distinguised from secondary sources, which are are sources created at some later time. A description of Ellis Island at the beginning of the 20th century, if written today, would be considered a secondary source (although it might be based on primary sources.) Primary sources are useful because they can give detailed information about a place, time period or event, as well as because they give us insight into the views and experiences of people without showing them through the lens of later events.

So this discusses primary/secondary strictly in terms of time, and has nothing to do with interpretation. And it actually favors primary sources in this context. I don't think the definitions are as widely known or as unambiguous as some assert. Dhaluza 01:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

First 10 links when googling "primary sources definition": [20] , [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Those look pretty consistent to me. Once could make a legitimate argument against distinguishing between the concepts of secondary and tertiary sources, which is not always done, although I would personally retain the distinction. But the concepts of primary and secondary sources are crystal clear and categorical. These are commonly used terms in historiography. These links [30], [31], suggest that the discrimination of primary and secondary sources is taught to children (in the UK) as part of the national curriculum at or about key stage 2 level (7-11 years old). Any history teachers lurking would be able to comment on this with more professional knowledge than I have however. I struggle to accept however that these concepts are not therefore taught at a similarly early age to children studying history elsewhere in the world. Badgerpatrol 02:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I just don't recall it being taught in those terms, but that was also a long time ago, and I don't remember a lot of things from my school days. I was using these Google search terms to try to see if it was in the current curriculum (without success) when I found the ref above. It was actually the second hit (but the first I clicked through); looking back at the first I found: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." This is a conflicting definition because memoirs are classified as primary not secondary based on proximity rather than time. It also says that primary sources contain interpretation, which needs to be treated differently from facts from a NOR perspective. So although this definition is similar to the PSTS definition here, I think it points out some of the problems with using PSTS to describe NOR.

Looking at the first ref you give, I found this: "Primary resources provide firsthand evidence of historical events. They are generally unpublished materials such as manuscripts, photographs, maps, artifacts, audio and video recordings, oral histories, postcards, and posters...." This definition of primary sources is not helpful because it defines primary sources primarily as unpublished materials, which are not allowed as WP sources because they are unpublished, not because they are categorized as primary. Your second hit says: "Material from, or directly related to, the past...." which again is not helpful, because we also cover current topics, such as aircraft still in production. Here factual statements like manufacturers' performance data (e.g. range (aircraft)) should be treated as primary, even though it is relevant in the present, not just the past. I could go on and on, but I think the point is made that the definitions are not nearly as cut and dried as you assert. And these differences lead to irrelevant arguments over primary vs. secondary, rather than the relevant issue of OR vs. NOR. Dhaluza 10:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see anything in any of those definitions that differs in essence from the definitions we currently have. Time has nothing inherently to do with whether a source is primary or secondary, although it is true that many primary sources are composed at or near the time of an event. All that matters is that it be a first hand account, i.e. by a participant. Memoirs written years after an event are still a primary source. This doesn't jar with our definition. It's not claiming that primary sources contain interpretation as such, its rather claiming that they are (in the vast majority of cases) biased. Archaeologists select the most attractive and valuable objects from sites, not a random spread (usually) anyway. Photographers take the most striking photographs, not a random spread. Politicians tend to maximise their reputation when constructing their memoirs. Unlike the concept of P and S sources, the concept of what is a "fact" is very difficult and really would lead us down a blind alley. As a a great philosopher probably never said, one man's "fact" is another man's total bollocks.... That definition is merely stating the obvious- that just because something is included in a primary source, it doesn't mean it's a "true", unbiased account. That doesn't jar with anything we currently have, although the shortcomings of primary sources could be expanded upon. As for publication- the definition you quote specifically does not demand that primary sources be unpublished. Generally they will be unpublished (i.e. not everyone can see them and make a judgement), which is one of the many reasons that the use of primary sources is discouraged on Wikipedia. Finally, the time issue. By definition, all sources were written in the past, whether they be primary, secondary or tertiary. If the are not from the past then they haven't been written yet. Except that it rather obtusely states the obvious, I don't see how that jars with either common sense or our current Wikipedia definitions. Badgerpatrol 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Archaeologists don't do that, though some used to. Selecting the most attractive/most valuable artifacts throws off future studies of the proportions and distributions of artifacts. (For example, how common are North African amphorae - or fragments thereof - compared to Italian amphorae in Spain?) However, the artifacts are no more important than the excavation notes showing their context. Jacob Haller 17:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would beg to differ with "Time has nothing inherently to do with whether a source is primary or secondary, although it is true that many primary sources are composed at or near the time of an event." According to Internet Public Library (New York City History) (see text and link on Wikipedia:No original research/Sandbox/Various examples, time can make a distinction between primary or secondary. It all depends I guess on which school of though you 'learned'. I never did until I first came to this policy a tad over a month ago, this is all new to me, and I'm almost 50. wbfergus ^Talk 12:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just their bad phraseology- their idea of "immediate" can be taken to mean "within the author's lifetime". They are not suggesting that memoirs written by a participant 50 years after the event automatically become a secondary source. They are saying that biographies of one's life written by one's grandson 50 years after the event are a secondary source. Their school of thought is the same as everyone else's. Badgerpatrol 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• ...and it seems that that website was put together by a bunch of students anyway- [32], [33]. The interweb is a big place- not everything is of the same quality. Badgerpatrol 13:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I read it as being started by students, but now it is more in line with "peer-review', being a collaborative project of numerous Universities ([34]), but that's besides the point. It does show though that there are differing schools of thought. These are some of the people who may very well go to write some paper or whatever using these terms and definitions, and in a couple years we'll be faced with additional verifiable sources that state something different (which I think is what got us here in the first place). Why can't OR (or NOR), be clearly stated without delving into the contentious realm of what is a primary source for which discipline vs. what is a seconadry source for that same discipline? That really seems to be the crux of the problem. One school holds that OR can't be defined without resorting to broad statements about the type of source, instead (from the other school) of just making a simple case about the proper use of the source. wbfergus ^Talk 13:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It was in fact written by a student at the University of Michigan from what I can gather, but I agree that she should know better. That website is not even remotely close to peer-reviewed, but I see your point. All I can say is...it's not contentious. The definitions we have now are perfectly accurate and are universally accepted. The fact that there are some incorrect definitions available to be found on the internet suggests more about the internet (i.e. a significant amount of it is nonsense) than it does about the matter at hand. The reason to include a discussion of source types in WP:NOR is simply because anybody can potentially select and juxtapose primary sources (which may not be inherently unreliable per WP:RS) without context or analysis in order to advance their point of view. That's OR. Badgerpatrol 14:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

First, a student can also contribute to WP, and they will bring their own definition of PS with them. To imply that she is wrong and you are right, and then dismiss it saying the definitions are universally accepted is self contradictory. Second, and more importantly, in your OR example, the problem is selecting sources to advance a point, whether primary or secondary. The source type has nothing to do with the OR (except that some believe it is easier or more likely with primary sources, but this is not universal either). There is nothing wrong with juxtaposing a representative sample of related facts in an encyclopedic context and letting the reader form their own conclusion. Dhaluza 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for being somewhat dense this morning (for me anyway). Which definitions are you referring to, that we have now? The definitions of what OR is, or the definitions of what type a source is? wbfergus ^Talk 14:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>The definitions of primary, secondary (and to a lesser extent) tertiary sources as currently written on WP:NOR. The page in general could do with some clean-up- in particular I dislike any policy that makes reference to deus ex Jimboina quotes as if unquestionable wisdom; there are better ways to present these points. But the definitions of P, S and T are accurate and useful, in my view. Badgerpatrol 14:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Then I would tend to disagree then that they are "perfectly accurate and are universally accepted". The Lafayette College Libraries and Academic Information Resources page has some good information, and examples, of how the term is used differently among different discplines[35]. I think that additionally, the section on the other page they have a link to (Evaluating sources), which has a section called "How does the source under study differ from the original?". This starts off with "It is always important to consider how a primary source surrogate differs from the original. In some cases, this may have a significant effect on how an item can be interpreted. Primary sources exist in too many different forms to present anything but a suggestive list of issues to consider when evaluating how well a surrogate represents an original source". This (I think) helps show that Wikipedia's definitions (specifically the re-definitions within this policy), while being close, are not "perfectly accurate" and if there are so many variances in the definitions, then how can Wikipedia's be "universally accepted" as well? wbfergus ^Talk 15:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Published Original Research

The guidelines seem clear than UNpublished original research is NOT allowed, but what about PUBLISHED original research? If an article I have written based on my original research is PUBLISHED in a peer-reviewed periodical, can it be included in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadmanpaul (talk • contribs) 05:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the policy (look up, and click on the "project page" tab) - which answers your question. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In particular, see Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself. ... dave souza, talk 05:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PSTS and conflicting definitions

Some people have questioned why we do not simply use "the standard definitions", or how the wiki definitions differ from academia. The problem is there is no standard definition for the distinctions in academia, as it is highly relative to the field. In the natural sciences, peer-reviewed articles (outside of review articles) are usually considered primary sources. In the general humanities, peer-reviewed articles are considered secondary sources. In historiography and some branches of literature, peer-reviewed articles are considered secondary sources. In information/library science and some branches of literature, peer-reviewed articles are primary or secondary based on whether or not they make novel claims and/or present new data. This is only a very rough overview of the distinctions and does not come close to encompassing the various conflicting definitions used for the terms throughout academia.

These conflicting definitions can be problematic. A scientist could very well have a strong amateur interest in history and decide to edit some of those articles. Due to their background, they have learned that peer-reviewed articles presenting novel research are primary sources. However, a historian working on the same article will view peer-reviewed articles, regardless of novel assertions, as secondary sources. Let us assume they both have a solid understanding of what constitutes original research. In the absence of PSTS terms, they could both probably come to clear agreement about what is original research in the article and address it without much disagreement or even much discussion. Introduce the PSTS terms and it is easy to see how that discussion could bloat considerably into a debate about what constitutes a primary or secondary source. Please also see some of my previous comments to get a better understanding of my concerns.[36][37][38] Thanks for reading. Thoughts? Vassyana 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That gets to the heart of my opinion on the issue. I don't particularly care what is called a secondary source and what is called a primary source, so long as the sources that have always been acceptable are still acceptable and the sources that have always been unacceptable are still unacceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to pre-judge any outside input we may get, but I think there is a point being missed here. Whether a source is primary or secondary has nothing to do with the discipline of the author. It has to do with the nature of the source. Universal rules as to what constitutes a primary, secondary (or tertiary) source exist and can be applied regardless of discipline. History scholarly articles are always secondary sources, drawing from primary sources. One can't make history- but one can "make" science through novel interpretation and experimentation. Where one is quoting from a specific part of a scientific paper, then a distinction may be made between primary and secondary sources- e.g. the results are primary and the discussion and introduction may be secondary. Science review articles synthesise previous work and are thus secondary sources. Hopefully I'm articulating my point- the same rules apply, regardless of the discipline, because the classification is at the level of the individual source itself. Badgerpatrol 04:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Carl, the issue here is not so much which sources are acceptable or unacceptable, but rather the range of inferences that can be drawn from sources without being considered original research or original synthesis. WP:NOR says in relation to use of primary souces: "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." In other words it has to do with how the sources are used so as to avoid OR. ... Kenosis 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, that passage bugs me. Read literally, I think the statement means that the addition of one primary source mandates the removal of all interpretive passages from the article, and vice-versa. AFAIK, the real point is that an interpretive claim in the article requires the same interpretive claim in one of its sources. A non-synthetic claim is at least as strong as the strongest of its sources.

In addition, it's not uncommon to add unreferenced material to an article, which is a reasonable interim measure, and it is not unknown to add additional works to the references list without checking them against the article, which strikes me as incredibly irresponsible: it makes it look like the article was referenced against book and the book was used in writing the article, when neither may be true.

Because some people do this, other people, including myself, only count in-line citations, and ignore other citations. Anything which doesn't have an in-paragraph citation, and has been questioned, is an unreferenced passage.

I think most editors would agree that the unit of citation is not the article or section but the paragraph, quote, sentence, or as low as needed. Jacob Haller 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A "unit of citation"? Interesting concept. The most I can make of this commentary just above by Jacob Haller (beginning with "You know, that passage bugs me." ) is that the words "an article or section of an article" in the above-quoted passage in WP:NOR, about primary sources, might be changed to something like "an article or part thereof" or something that makes clearer what is being referred to in that passage. I am fairly certain it is intended to refer to an "issue" or "fact" or "particular aspect of presentation in an article", or something like that. This is a minor "sofixit" issue, IMO. ... Kenosis 05:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, in the other post above you said "In other words it has to do with how the sources are used so as to avoid OR". Isn't this oversimplifying it? Isn't it more in line with "it's how the text is used" instead? Couldn't I state that Bill Clinton "never had sex with that woman" and quote from his nationally televised statement (primary source) and numerous followup articles on the statement (secondary source). If I instead said that while Bill Clinton "in fact did not have sex with Monica Lewinski, she actually performed the oral sex and Bill Clinton was just the willing recipient", that's the OR, not the sources. Is that correct? wbfergus ^Talk 12:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, look, the unit of citation wasn't my main concern. As long as we're sticking to the sources, the claim is at least as strong as the strongest source, and more sources can complement each other. Adding more sources doesn't hurt. Suppose one sentence makes a factual claim and an interpretion of it. If we have one source which supports both, and we add another source which corroborates and strengthens the factual claim and can't support an interpretive claim, that does not mean we must remove the interpretive claim. Jacob Haller 17:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, WP:VER#Sources, and WP:CON. These kinds of editorial decisions need to be made on a case by case basis. In the example just given, the source that supports the evaluative claim removes it from the realm of original research and puts the remaining decisions in the realm of the other policies I just mentioned. ... Kenosis 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, say the sames sources were cited for both examples, the first merely repeats what the sources say, but the in the second example I'd be rephrasing it incorrectly, which gets to the heart of the OR matter. It's not the source per se, but how the source is used, isn't it? I'm not trying to argumentative (though it may appear so), I'm trying to figure out exactly how source types are either inherently good or bad. I've seen this 'position' (for lack of a better word) numerous times in the last month or so, but I don't remember anybody having provided a good example to that effect. wbfergus ^Talk 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as written one primary source "spoils" the whole thing. If that's not the intent, can we come up with an alternative to fix it? Jacob Haller 18:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It never was the intent of WP:NOR to mean one couldn't throw in a supplementary primary source in further support or verification of the non-analytical portion of a composite statement in an article. ... Kenosis 19:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I can see that the bit saying that articles or sections relying on primary sources mustn't make evaluative claims (etc etc) may be read to mean what Jacob is saying. It should probably be clarified, and if it weren't for the protection I'd be bold and do so - it should probably say that articles or sections relying solely on primary source mustn't do this that and the other. SamBC(talk) 20:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, since it's been pointed out, it should be stated so as to make this clearer. I imagine the addition of the word "only" or "solely" would do the job here. ("An article or part of an article that relies only on a primary source should ... " ) ... Kenosis 22:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume that, in this context, you mean acceptable and unacceptable relative to usage - even in the policy as it currently stands, and over most of the life of it if my reviews of history aren't misleading, primary sources have been perfectly acceptable as long as they aren't used to generate novel conclusions (ie, to generate original research). SamBC(talk) 17:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, that's a fantastic summary and statement of the reasoning that many of us have come to understand without, it would seem, being able to articulate it well. What occurs to me about this is that it might be useful to re-frame the current section so it doesn't read as a definition of OR. I don't think it currently is a definition of OR, but experience shows that it is read as such often enough to cause confusion. This might be acheived by changing where in the article it appears, and/or adding/changing the section introduction to make it clear that the section gives guidance on the impact/role of sources to OR questions, rather than actually specifying the policy or defining OR. After all, if one considers OR defined, the specification of the policy can be framed incredibly simply, and I think that people will generally agree that it's straightforward to define what OR is without recourse to PSTS. PSTS helps clarify and explain the definition, or rather some aspects of it, rather than being part of the definition. Do people think that sounds reasonable? SamBC(talk) 17:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we get Vassyana's summary copied over to the sand box page... I am sure others would find it helpful to refer to, and I don't want to lose it among all the other arguments and side discussions. Blueboar 18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:No original research/Sandbox/Change needed#Vassyana's Summary (2007-09-27) SamBC(talk) 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One draft referred to "statements of fact" and "statements of interpretation." I don't recall whether that lasted into Blueboar's proposal. But for source-typing, we need to consider:

• Through the entire source: Reliability
• Through most of the source: First Party or Third Party
• Section by section: Context
• Statement by statement: Statements of Fact or Statements of Interpretation
• I'm not sure where PSTS proper fits in this typology. Jacob Haller 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of those points aren't actually relevant to OR - whether a source is reliable or not doesn't affect whether using it is OR. It's not acceptable from unreliable sources, but it's then not original. The same is true for first-party and third-party, generally. Context and statements are, however, important. I believe that one way of summarising the issue with primary sources is that, whatever they look like, statements from primary sources can only be statements of fact. Whether this is accurate or not, I do not comment on at that point. I'm just illustrating the explanation of why PSTS matters in terms of the actual "teeth" of the policy as it stands. SamBC(talk) 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted above another conflicting definition I stumbled across. At bottom, I think this is very simple. We can only use statements of fact as statements of fact. What else is there to say? Dhaluza 01:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

An article or section of an article must not rely on analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims from documents or people very close to the situation being written about, but can report facts about opinions without asserting the opinions themselves by attributing the opinion to someone and discussing the fact that they have this opinion. .. dave souza, talk 11:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that no part of an article should rely on analytic etc claims from sources close to the situation. I expect we all would. However, that isn't actually a matter of original research, is it? I mean, the editor isn't conducting original research by using them. The sources are inappropriate for other reasons, but it just isn't a matter of original research. SamBC(talk) 16:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being imprecise. I meant what else is there to say about factual sources. I agree that interpretation etc. also needs a source, and an independent source is best. Dhaluza 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I added some definitions (one from this talk page, two from external sites) over at Wikipedia:No original research/Sandbox/Various examples. Not sure if this helps or not, just a few examples I decided to post after seeing once again that some say there is a difference across disciplines while others say there isn't. wbfergus ^Talk 11:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside input from scientists, historians, information scientists

I'm not really convinced that these distinctions between disciplines as to how sources are viewed actually exist or are relevant. To get more input, I've left messages at on the talk pages of Wikiproject History, Wikiproject Science, and Wikiproject Librarians, inviting experts in those fields to come here and give us their input. Hopefully their input will be forthcoming and will help us get a consistent idea. I personally have never come across definitions that differ in essence from those we already have on WP:NOR. Badgerpatrol 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's wait and see what they have to offer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, I think you are glossing over significant differences as I outlined in more detail in the section above, explaining how these differences are relevant, or more specifically how the definitions are irrelevant to NOR. But I also think this is a good idea, and I would like to see more diverse opinions too. Dhaluza 10:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

While you are beavering on bolstering up the understanding of source typing, and it is useful for understanding, this path is missing two things:

• (1) a response to the question, politely phrased as "Do you think source typing is essential for OR policy?" - or as we have suggested more informally, does it pass the "So what?" test.
• (2) you are still drawing from a biased sample. To establish understanding of source typing, how about sampling those outside the spheres of science and history? I'm not sure how you do this, as I think it is likely to be so uninteresting to Mr Joe "I changed my name to Britney Spears by deed poll" Public that you do not get a fair sample. Even if we establish compatibility between history and science, we have not addressed a wider issue.

The suggestion that people do not understand primary and secondary has been disparaged as absurd, but the point of such shorthand terminology is that it carries a lot of baggage with it, we can recognise the cardinality (or is that ordinality?) of the suggestion, but we have to go into some detail to ensure the point of it is clear. Spenny 13:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No outside input yet, so let me put forth my hypothesis: Historians are concerned with the time frame of the source--whether it was written in the time period, or later. Information scientists are concerned with proximity--whether the source is from someone close to the subject or event, or someone independent of both. Research scientists are concerned with the difference between observations and conclusions of the original experimenter, and reinterpretations of the published data. These are different perspectives of primary vs. secondary sources, and the WP PSTS definition conflates these to produce a homogenized one size fits all definition. Dhaluza 00:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I work in mathematics and regard research papers in my subject as both primary and secondary sources. These papers typically interpret old results as well as proving new results; the primary/secondary distinction is not particularly valuable to us. I don't particularly care if the guideline calls them primary or secondary so long as they can still be used in the ways they always have been on WP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Carl, does that mean that you wouldn't care if the PSTS section was moved out of this policy to a more appropriate (or logical) 'home' (existing or new policy, etc.), or do you have a preference to still keep the section here? In your work, does the 'type of source' classify the contents as 'original research', or does 'original research' become a criteria for what the 'type of source' it must be? Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 11:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings about whether that section should stay here or move. In my area, mathematics, I can divide research papers into two rough categories:

• Papers that are primarily intended to convey new results, but will also discuss and interpret older results.
• Papers that are primarily intended to discuss and interpret older results, but may also contain some previously unpublished results.

These papers can be used completely interchangeably as references in other papers. On Wikipedia, we use these papers both for the statements of fact and for the interpretations they give. We decide on a case-by-case basis whether particular interpretive claims can be stated as facts, with just a citation, or must be explicitly described as the opinion of the author of the paper. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

minor proposals

I'd like to add the following at the end of the "origins" section:

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.

Given that our discussion has involved confronting different ways people in different disciplines use sources and do research, I think that this should be uncontroversial. Any objections? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

None here... I would add some topics that are not so obviously controvercial to the list (history/pseudohistory articles come to mind). Blueboar 13:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and if you feel strongly go ahead and add "history." I don't only for this reason: I tried to limit myself to just a few examples so as not to give the imporession that I am even attempting an inclusive list. My concern is if we add history people will say "Well, what about anthropology? Sociology? Journalism? Law?" and so on and so on. I just wanted to suggest a more diverse group. And I wanted to keep it simple. But if you can think of a better wording I won't object. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read it and re-read, trying to determine if any hidden meanings were escaping me (I'm rather dense at times, especially before I get my caffiene levels to normal). I don't think I have any objections to it. It did get me to thinking though if perhaps it might be appropriate (since we are discussing the history of this policy), to also note that there has ensued numerous 'discussions' (or arguments) on the types of sources and their usage and/or preference, since at least January 2005 (the oldest talk page I can find). wbfergus ^Talk 13:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks OK to me, except the whole thing is OR, which is ironic. Probably the whole history should be converted to summary style, and the detail should be moved to another page that can cite the diffs. Dhaluza 23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't forget [this thread], where J. Wales deals with OR as it relates to history. Incidentally, the current location of the "origins" section is an appropriate spot for it, IMO. Had the participants here revisited that issue as yet? ... Kenosis 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Since no one objects I am putting it in, along with the thread Kenosis constructively provides. I don't think there has been any discussion about placement of the section. Until there is, I will leave it where it is. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A minor point, but the ref that's included is not in a proper format, throwing off the numbering by having two refs labeled as [1]. wbfergus ^Talk 11:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Can Original research be defined without defining the types of sources?

I just went over Google and search for +"original research" +definition. There are couple of interesting hits (and a bunch of 'bogus' hits). One 'hit' that doesn't delve into what the 'source-type' is, is [39]. It is also interesting to note a somewhat similar discussion taking place on [Wikiversity:Scope of research/En]. There appears to be numerous examples of how other 'entities' seem to be able to define this term fairly easily without resorting to what the type of source is (or was). If other 'entities' can do so, why can't Wikipedia? wbfergus ^Talk 14:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That link does nnt work. In any case, "Original research" is a term coined in WP to address a specific constrain in the aims of the project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

For me, that link brings up a University of North Florida Library student guide page which is headed "What is Original Research? Original research is considered a primary source." What was that about it not delving into what the 'souce-type' is? .. dave souza, talk 07:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The point was, can this policy define NOR without getting into the definitions of different types of sources (like other 'places' seem to be able to do, this is not a Wikipedia-specific term). While the first link does start with "Original research is considered a primary source", it does not state that use of other primary sources is original research. Nor does it anywhere state any definitions of primary, secondary, tertiary or anything else in those terms, though it does give a brief definition of journal, magazine, etc. without 'typing the source'. The only reference that is made to 'primary source' is that original research itself is a primary source. This goes hand in hand with WP:NOT#OR, which says that Wikipedia is not a primary source. The second link, to Wikiversity, was merely included to show that another Wikipedia (sister project?) is also contemplating NOR issues, but instead of primary source, etc., there is a reference to "original research"/"secondary research" which may be of use (I don't know). Also, while the link I first provide was the correct page header (or article title, like we use here), the actual URL is [40], which appears to be a beta version of Wikiversity. wbfergus ^Talk 11:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with PSTS—Insufficient granularity

I posted a hypothesis above that the definitions of PSTS, and specifically the primary/secondary distinction in NOR, do not distinguish between time, proximity, and interpretation, but instead conflate these into a homogenized definition. For example, a diary is written in the moment, and memoirs are written later, but both can contain observations and interpretation by sources in close proximity to the subjects. An authorized or auto-biography is similarly close interpretation, but an independent biography has more editorial distance. A research paper presents original data and analysis by that is close and recent, but a review paper presents independent analysis at a later time. A news report is written by an independent journalist at the time of the event with minimal analysis, while an editorial is also timely but primarily analytical. A historical account may be written at a much later time, with or without additional analysis.

The problem is that time, proximity, and interpretation are three somewhat independent variables, but there are only two possible output states, primary and secondary (ignoring tertiary which is a different case). If we take the inputs as binary variables, there are eight different permutations. What is needed is a taxonomy of sources, or more specifically their use, that provides more granularity than PSTS offers. Dhaluza 01:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As you indicate, it's all relative to context, and setting the line is a judgement call. You seem to want to substitute a complex and rigid taxonomy for judgement and discussion to reach a consensus. However, the output is binary - whether a source can only be used for obvious fact, or whether it can be used for analysis, opinion or conclusions about the facts which are the subject of the article or section. ..dave souza, talk 07:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So then in the context of NOR, are you saying we should only be concerned with whether a source is factual or interpretive, and analysis of time and proximity are not related to NOR (but may be important for other reasons)?

I was thinking that if we must discuss sourcing in detail in NOR, as many have argued here, it needs to be a honest analysis, rather than an oversimplified one like the present PSTS. That would suggest a broader taxonomy, but not necessarily a complex and rigid one. The NOR policy at present also seems redundant and repetitive, and it might be more clear under a "unifying theory" that better integrates the various points.

The conflation of time, proximity and interpretation just leads to pointless arguments over where to draw the line between primary and secondary. I think it's been fairly well established that a source may have both characteristics, and a secondary source can be used as a primary source about itself. So, although PSTS was probably intended simplify source judgments in theory, the devil is in the details, and by glossing them over, PSTS actually makes source judgments more complicated than they need to be. Perhaps a broader taxonomy would be more clear, and ultimately more concise as well. Dhaluza 08:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

perhaps, rather, a more specialized taxonomy. In the natural sciences, its fairly clear that the primary sources means the primary journals in which research or calculations are reported. The actual ultimate material being research is the data, not a publication. And a secondary sources is either a review article, or an indexing and abstracting service. In history, the primary sources are the data being studied, the narratives or monuments. Everything else is what is wrtitten about them , and secondary. The WP definition is an uneasy blend between the two. DGG (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Uneasy blend or not, the WP definition is simple and explicit: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about." Answering Dhaluza, I'm saying that in the context of deciding if the source as being used (not necessarily the source as a whole) is factual or interpretative, we also have to decide if the source is very close to the situation being written about. If it is, we should only rely on it to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Thus, if the source is the subject of the article or section and makes descriptive or analytical claims or conclusions, we must report these as the claims made by the source, and look for secondary third party sources for analysis. It appears that you know this, but want it put into another policy. However, it's directly related to the evaluation and use of sources that are dealt with by NOR. It does seem that the terms have specialised meanings in certain academic contexts, but people familiar with these contexts should be erudite enough to accept that their meaning isn't universal. A statement to that effect might strengthen the policy. .. dave souza, talk 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I think you are saying both interpretation and proximity of the interpretation are important, which is reasonable. The case you mention is where we use a close interpretive source only as a factual source about itself. I hadn't thought that that belongs in a separate policy, but on further reflection, maybe it does. This case is actually not OR in that it is original in relation to the subject, not the WP editor, and maybe this is part of the confusion here. This really overlaps with WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, and perhaps the scope there simply needs to be further clarified to cover self-produced material, even if it is published by another party without independent analysis. This may simply be a case of multiple definitions of the same problem in different policies. WP:NOR should focus on WP editors putting their own opinions in articles, and WP:V can address inclusion of non-editors' opinions about themselves. Dhaluza 13:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave... I think I see what you are trying to say... but I have a question. You say: "Thus, if the source is the subject of the article or section and makes descriptive or analytical claims or conclusions, we must report these as the claims made by the source, and look for secondary third party sources for analysis. ... it's directly related to the evaluation and use of sources that are dealt with by NOR." How? I agree with your statement that, if a source is the subject of the article, we should note that fact and attribute the claims or conclusions made to the subject, but how is this tied into NOR? As Dhaluza points out, such analysis and/or conclusion is that of the source and not the WP editor who discusses and cites to it. NOR is about the originality of statements made by Wikipedia editors... not about the originality of statements made in a source. As long as a claim or conclusion is made externally to wikipedia, discussing and citing to that claim isn't OR. It might fall under WP:Fringe, it might be unreliable under WP:V and WP:RS, but it doesn't constitute OR. Blueboar 14:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Blueboar, it's OR to the extent that the editor is selecting or synthesising their interpretation of the subject and not finding a third party interpretation. WP:V doesn't cover it at present if the source is reliable, published by a reliable publisher rather than being self-published in the sense set out in WP:V. Thus for example a biography of the subject can provide analysis, comment and conclusions, an autobiography can only provide facts however worthy the publisher. Similarly, in writing an article about, say, a science book which itself is a secondary source on its subject, we can report obvious facts from the book, but must look to a source writing about the book for secondary analysis. It ties in with the evaluation of whether we're reporting facts or reporting evaluation etc. which your proposals set out, and in my opinion fits well with them as an expansion on the description of OR which they could provide as a first section after the intro. ... dave souza, talk 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, so if an editor is inserting their opinion, but citing a close source that agrees with them, is that OR or not? I think that if it's previously published, it's not OR. It's using an inappropriate source per WP:V and possibly also WP:NPOV if the editor is also selectively excluding third party opinions. I think I'm starting to see what all the fuss over PSTS is about, but my conclusion is that NOR has become a WP:COATRACK for important points, that really are not fundamentally about NOR. Dhaluza 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I get what Dave is concerned about... taking things out of context (ie not "sticking to the source") or making a synthesis based upon the source is indeed OR. I would even go so far as to say that most occurances of these two forms of OR use what the policy currently defines as primary sources. The problem is that in trying to say "don't do this" the current language seems to indicate that there are no situations where using a primary source, or a source "close to the subject" is appropriate. By focusing on the type of source, and not on the usage of the source, the policy policy becomes skewed and misinterpreted. That is the what I am concerned about. Perhaps part of the problem is that we focus so much on the ways such sources are improperly used... and don't discuss the ways they can be used properly. Blueboar 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sticking to the source is OR. But what about sticking to a close source without synthesis? If someone puts self-congratulatory material from an autobiography in a Wikipedia biographical article, that's a problem, but not an OR problem, is it? It is advancing a position, but not an unpublished one; nor is it a novel interpretation of history, since it is probably rather predictable. It would seem to be out of the scope of the NOR definition. Dhaluza 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What about when the source is the interpretation? For example, foundational texts of political movements, and later texts which are not commentaries on earlier texts. These are almost all primary sources, and are mostly composed of interpretations. Jacob Haller 18:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

These can only be used as sources about themselves, but this is not an OR issue, it's an NPOV issue. We can say that the organization's self-stated purpose is... then quote from these texts, and it would be completely appropriate. The issue there is putting the close source in context. But taking a published source out of context is not OR, publishing new material is. Dhaluza 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If PSTS was moved, is this policy weakened?

Once again it appears that we are going around in circles and getting sidetracked on side-issues. So, in an attempt to gain further clarification on just this one point, I would like to ask the following questions so that we can address this one point. wbfergus ^Talk 12:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• 1.) If PSTS was moved from this policy (not removed from Wikipedia) to some other (as yet undetermined) 'home', how would this policy be weakened? Some examples would be great.

• 2.) Does moving a very brief definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources out of this policy suddenly allow original research? These definitions would still be available elsewhere on Wikipedia.

• 3.) Can Wikipedia define 'No original research' in a clear and forceful enough manner without having a brief synopsis' of primary, secondary, and tertiary, like other places seem capable of doing (see #Can Original research be defined without defining the types of sources? above)?

If PSTS was moved comments

I still am unconvinced that we need to classify sources as primary or secondary to evaluate OR. We can simply evaluate them to a more descriptive standard, and avoid any argument over an arbitrary primary/secondary dichotomy--just say what it is, and nothing more. My first impression of PSTS was "why is that here?" and I still have that question unanswered. I don't think moving the definition out of NOR will weaken it, I think it will strengthen it by avoiding unnecessary diversions around source typing, and allow a more precise focus on OR. Dhaluza —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be weakened. Someone else has summarized this policy as "do not use sources inappropriately." I have made it clear consistently that at stake here is indeed how sources are used. But the point is this: it is not enough to say use sources appropriately. Different kinds of sources should be used in different ways or put proscriptively different kinds of sources should not be used in certain ways. To explain this clearly we must differentiate between types of sources. NutThus it is always two issues: types of sources, and how to use them appropriately? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on these points please? Can't rebuttals to 'OR edits' be plainly stated as "This is a statement of fact, from a Primary source, and these interpretations (or conclusions, etc.) are not made in the statement of fact. In order to include these in an article, they must have been previously published by a reliable and verifiable third-party."? Somehow (I am rather dense at times) I still fail to see how the definition of the types of source directly relate to whether something is original research or not. If I cite an article that explicly states "...yada, yada, yada, red hair occurs naturally in caucasions...", in a 'secondary source', I still cannot make an edit that states "Most caucasions have red hair". That would clearly be OR, but the type of source had nothing to do with it. I guess that is where I (and others) are getting lost in the discussions. In this case, 'source-typing' has nothing to do with whether the statement was OR, as by several of the previous discussions over the last month or so would seem to indicate the 'usual' criteria for determining OR is if the material came from a primary source, and in this (bad) example, the material was clearly a misapplication of information from a secondary source. PSTS had no bearing, and would only confuse the issue, not make it more clear. wbfergus ^Talk 14:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A good question which requires widespread and serious consideration before any moving takes place. I've just pointed out above a way in which policy would be weakened, and the response was that this hadn't been thought about, but we could rewrite part of WP:V to compensate. What other effects haven't been thought about? Of course all this concern about which policy this part should fit in would be overcome if we amalgamate the policies into WP:A. Seems a good answer to me. ... dave souza, talk 15:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need to carefully consider the alternatives, and the best one may not have even been discussed yet. Each option has costs and benefits, including the do nothing option. I think it is unfortunate the WP:A effort failed, but it is too soon to revisit it now. We are left to address the conflicting definitions and provisions of the content policies within the current framework, and I think serious discussions about what belongs where are important. At least you are willing to engage in thoughtful discourse on the individual points. The dismissive comments and blanket denials thrown around are not helpful to understanding what is important and why. The idea that everything is just fine the way it is ignores the fact that all of these policies have developed over time, and there is no reason to believe that they just happen to have achieved a perfect state at the current time. Dhaluza 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not only would the policy be weakened by the removal of PSTS, in many applications it would be flipped over backwards. Remember, the original purpose of WP:NOR was to prevent people with crackpot interpretations of sources such as mathematical theorems, physics formulas, historical documents and such. Within months it was expanded to cover all topic areas, because its implications pretty much covered the entire wiki. A year ago it was expanded from "primary and secondary sources" to PSTS to more effectively conceptualize where encyclopedias and such fit into the picture. PSTS instructs WP users who use primary sources to write about the topic in a way that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." Thus, PSTS explicitly counters the almost inevitable argument that in such cases it's best to go back to the original sources as a basis for writing about obscure or debatable topics or issues. ... Kenosis 17:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I went back and checked the article history. I think it's also important to note that until March 2005 it said Wikipedia is a secondary source, then it was changed to say that Original research is research that produces primary sources or secondary sources. The definition used to support this was: "Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data." So the original definition of PSS in NOR was based strictly on factual vs. interpretive sources, and the rest of the coats were hung on this rack over time. Dhaluza 19:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it would be weakened, and weakened considerably. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see why it would weaken it, perhaps someone could explain. NOR is a little confusing to new readers and not the first place one would think to look when trying to figure out if a source is appropriate. Perhaps by posing PSTS as a choice of source issue rather than an original research issue, it makes more sense so people wil follow it more readily.Wikidemo 17:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes the policy would be weakened: a) because PSTS works in tandem with WP:SYN. b) because PSTS defines how a primary source (eg an episode of a TV programme in an article about that episode or the series) can be used without becoming original research. Removing PSTS from here is not helpful.
2. By not explaining how to use a primary source appropriately there will be confusion about what is and is not defined as OR. IMHO the definition of a policy should be as detailed and centralized as possible. Again moving or removing PSTS is not helpful.
3. I would rather suggest that a complimentary section should be created at WP:RS to explaining how reliable certain sources are. WP:NOR needs this here, without it the policy is not 100% clear and is not comprehensive. Having information here on sources is obvious to me. By definition if an editor is using primary sources (e.g evidence or court rulings in an article about a crime that were not commented upon by journals/books/articles/documentaries about the crime) then they are conducting original research.
   The fact that new users find NOR confusing is an issue, but to my mind a separate one. If somebody could write a concise and to the point lead and nut-shell that would help newbies considerably. However, removing PSTS from NOR is unhelpful for the project because it introduces a new loophole in policy. IMHO this policy can't exist without defining what is a primary source and how to use one--Cailil ^talk 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand this claim that "if an editor is using primary sources ... then they are conducting original research," but it has already been used to prevent the use of perfectly good primary sources. Of course, you are using a much narrower definition of PS than PSTS does, and PSTS uses a much narrower definition of PS than many editors do. Jacob Haller 18:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Jacob, if an editor is using primary sources in ways other than to describe obvious facts then the editor is involved in novel thought. For example if an editor goes to a play and then says "the performance was terrible" using the performance as a primary source - that's novel thought. But if they find a review of that performance (a secondary source) saying the same thing and says The New York Times review described the performance as "terrible" - that's not novel thought. Now I don't see how I'm using a stricter definition. Primary sources are sources "very close to the" the subject of the article. This is the standard definition in academia. This has been the situation on WP for as long as I've been here (reliable sources are secondary sources independent of subject - WP:RS WP:N).
I do think the wording of PSTS should be looked at. But the spirit of rule, the idea that WP is not here for novel interpretations, that WP is here to present verifiable, mainstream knowledge should not change - we wouldn't be wikipedia any more if it did--Cailil ^talk 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, primary sources were originally defined as factual, rather than close sources. That bit was added later. Dhaluza 19:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's always been factual in some important sense of the word "factual", and remains so today. Where the facts revolve around what was actually written in a leading philosophical treatise or a literary work such as a novel or play, that's primary, and broadly speaking it's factual about what was written. When it involves interpretation beyond the plain meaning of the words, it's interpretive, or secondary. ... Kenosis 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Where in WP:RS does it specify that only secondary sources are reliable? SamBC(talk) 20:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sambc - I quoted the wrong policy - I was referring (& should have said) to WP:N--Cailil ^talk 20:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and there it becomes a little irrelevant. WP:N has the additional requirement of being secondary purely for the purposes of notability. Sources establishing notability should generally be secondary, but no policy says that a source must be secondary to be a reliable source of factual information, that I'm aware of. Plus, WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, as in fact is WP:RS. SamBC(talk) 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I take your point that WP:N is a guideline but while the quote is from WP:N the point is taken from WP:RS - independent or "third party" published sources. Primary sources cannot be independent of the subject (ie third party). Yes primary sources can be used to describe unambiguous/obvious facts (ie the names of characters from a TV show are obvious from an episode of the TV show and so an episode can be sourced) and yes they have a place on WP but an article or section composed only (or mainly) of points made from primary sources is original research. That sort of writing is an essay, a piece of original argument--Cailil ^talk 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• If it is removed now - perhaps weakened in some aspects, perhaps strengthened in others. The current phrasing encourages edit-warring, discourages appropriate use of primary sources, and encourages synthesis from secondary sources, for editors who think in terms of primary vs. secondary instead of sticking vs. synthesis.
• If it is removed after Blueboar's addition, or another similar addition - perhaps weakened in some aspects, certainly strengthened in others.
• With suitably-written additions we can make PSTS redundant, and move PSTS elsewhere without any trouble. Jacob Haller 18:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs of the edit warring? It's not something I can recall. .. dave souza, talk 19:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. Why does "any interpretation of primary source material" require a "secondary source?" Many primary sources make their own, perfectly clear, completely unambiguous, interpretive claims. Nonetheless, many editors interpret PSTS to justify the removal of interpretive claims found in the primary sources. Jacob Haller 19:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, attribute the interpretation or claim to the source and make it a fact that they hold that opinion. .. dave souza, talk 19:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between "John Doe argued X [ref John Doe]" and "According to John Doe, John Doe argued X [ref John Doe]."

As an example, see Talk:Benjamin Tucker#Spurious_Edits. [41]. Note that beyond POV-pushing, those edits add others' descriptions of Tucker's views and remove Tuckers' own descriptions of his views.

Intangible argues, in defense of the removal of Tucker's self-description: "Also read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. One should only use quotes of Tucker himself in a descriptive way, to illustrate a point made from a secondary source. Intangible2.0 11:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)"

Full Shunyata argues, in defense of the inclusion of Tucker's self-description, as well as the removal of Yarros' description: "The quotes from Tucker are used in a descriptive way. They are describing his views on Anarchism and his views on the various topics discussed in the paragraphs I put them in. For instance, I quoted his take on labor unions because labor unions were the topic at hand in the paragraph I inserted the quotes. The first couple of sentences in that paragraph claimed that Tucker was opposed to labor union actions. Which is not entirely true as can be seen from his own words in support of labor unions. And very few of my quotes are from secondary sources, many are directly from Tucker. What makes Victor Yarros and Wendy McElroy so authorotative on the subject? Are they God? Are they more authoritative on the subject of Benjamin Tucker than Benjamin Tucker himself? Full Shunyata 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)"

Remember, we're talking about Tucker's beliefs, not his actions; people can boast about their actions, so we may want secondary sources there, but it's hard for people to boast about their beliefs.

This was a complicated dispute involving neutrality and undue weight issues as well as different interpretations of NOR. Nonetheless, I think the edit war on the article and the dspute on the talk page attest the misuse of PSTS to remove legitimate primary sources. Jacob Haller 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And the point is what? That those writing the article about American anarchist Benjamin Tucker are unable work out the content disputes because of the way WP:NOR is presently written? The language of the section on PSTS is adequately clear that these users have an understanding of what the primary sources are in relation to Benjamin Tucker's own writing. The editors at that article are permitted to use Benjamin Tucker's own writing to convey what Tucker wrote (within practical limits of a brief article, of course), but only if any reasonable person could tell what he meant on a plain reading. If interpretation is needed, use the secondary sources. If there's disagreement about interpretation, use the secondary sources, in keeping with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. If something said or written by Benjamin Tucker is argued by other editors to be taken out of context, use the secondary sources. ... Kenosis 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the point. A conflict about the proper use of the subject's quotes in an article about the subject, became an argument over primary and secondary sources in relation to NOR. This was an unnecessary distraction, and only compounded the original problem. Dhaluza 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Up at least until September 11, 2006 this policy still had the following 4 sentences, though it appears it was beginning to change around this time, I'm still browsing the edit history to see why it finally disappeared:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

[42]

It appears that many of the last months edits and discussions wouldn't have happened if that paragraph was still here. wbfergus ^Talk 22:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this paragraph diasappeared on this edit diff]. I can't imagine that it was done intentionally, but as much as this 'section' was being discussed during this timeframe, I find it equally unimaginable that nobody noticed it's disappearance. I can't find anything on it in the relevant talk pages either. It looks like there were so many edits and discussions, that this somehow slipped through the cracks. wbfergus ^Talk 22:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it also appears that that diff is the one that first introduced the conflation of close and factual sources as well. I think putting back the lost clarification on primary sources, and removing this close source description, would be a very good start at cleaning-up NOR. Dhaluza 23:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Focus and awareness

We need to decide what the focus of PSTS, or any replacement, will be set upon. Are we concerned about "raw facts" or "purely factual" sources? Are we concerned about sources close to the subject? Are we concerned about both? There seem to be two parallel trains of thought being expressed in regards to this.

I feel that PSTS, or any replacement since it will be built upon its legacy, needs to take into account the differing accounts of the P/S distinctions and their purpose as a framework for original research. We are trying to create unified definitions for a policy that discourages original research. This apparent dissonance to the original purpose of the terms/concepts and the variety of definitions needs to be consciously taken into account and addressed in the section.

We need to additionally bear in mind the context of the other policies, which put a strong preference on independent references that have solid editorial oversight. Ancient histories, diaries and similar sources are often considered "primary sources" and lack the editorial oversight that is expect of reliable sources. On the other hand, some typically "primary" sources (such as the U.S. census or EU economic statistics) are generally considered very reliable, but also "very raw".

Thoughts? Vassyana 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)