Wikipedia talk:No original research

Rewrite 2004-2005: Draft • Talk "Primary v. secondary sources" subpages "Change needed": Proposal • Talk "Various examples": Examples • Talk "Transclusion example": Example • Talk

Discussed and undiscussed edits

Crum375 and SlimVirgin have made major undiscussed changes to this policy.[1][2] While they have not raised their significant changes on this talk page,[3] they demand that others discuss their changes to build consensus and deign to declare consensus outside of discussion.[4][5][6][7] The only discussion of these edits was someone expressing concern over these "bold" changes (see WT:NOR#SlimVirgin's recent edit(s)).

If these major undiscussed changes are not substantiated and discussed, I will undo them.

On the other hand, the replacement for secondary sources was discussed (see WT:NOR#Secondary sources and WT:NOR#Recent changes to secondary sources, based on the larger draft WT:NOR#Revisiting a proposal).

If these well-discussed changes are not reasonably and substantively opposed, I will reinstate them.

Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first diff. I'm really not thrilled with either of the first sets of red highlights, though I think your's is slightly better. The second set of red highlights however, yours is clearly better and reflects fairly accurately what at least 20 different 'participants' on this page have expressed numerous times over the last 4 months.

Regarding the second diff, I think Kenosis' version is more clear on the highligted sections, as a few of the other discussions above seem to be addressing as well (interpret that as others are also having problems with the revert). wbfergus ^Talk 14:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Either way, the notions that something has to be preserved because "it has 'consensus'" or because "it has been that way since X" have both been demonstrated to be false. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of making a sandbox copy of the policy page and doing all the editing on the copy? Agreeing a few simple ground rules would make this a much less contentious way of working. The rules might be:

• agree that all edits are to be made to the sandbox page until consensus is reached that a change can be copied to the live page.
• Once a change is made to the live page there is no reverting of it. All reversions and further edits must be done on the sandbox page until consensus is reached again.
• If an "outsider" edited or reverted the live page, his edit would stay temporarily, but he would be very strongly recommended to "join the party" and quickly reach consensus on the fate of his edit. No reasonable editor could refuse such a request.
• All discussion to be on the policy talk page, not the sandbox one.
• 3RR applies, like everywhere else.

A prominent html comment in the policy page would help ensure compliance. Hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  16:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) I've said this many times: I wish everybody would leave that mainspace alone until there is consensus. (What if all of us were this incautious about editing or reverting the page?) But before there can be consensus, we have to determine what consensus looks like so we'll know when we have it - and there have been strong disagreements expressed here about what consensus even means. But I do think that the argument that editing main space is justified as long as it's accompanied by volumes of repetitive discussion on the talk page is a bit unrealistic. Engaging in discussion is not the golden ticket which gives you the right to make mainspace policy changes--community consensus justifies policy changes. And there is no consensus evident on this page. If it does exist, it isn't evident to me. All the intervening mainspace edits, and their reverts, are just provoking hostilities. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I would generally agree except to say that community advertisement and discussion are the best means we have to reach and measure consensus (and they are widely touted as the best routes to building and identifying consensus). The other common measures, such as common good practice or community will, are matters identified through community discussion. In the absence of discussion, it's nothing more than a cacophony of opposing editors each claiming their "consensus" is the "true" consensus. Additionally, discussion is the means that we employ to identify when community consensus has changed. Of course, this discussion does not always take place on policy pages, as some of those changes are noted in "live" practice. For example, there have been occasions when policy has changed due to very active and broad noticeboard discussions or similarly broad and active discussions in response to ArbCom cases and actions. Regardless, discussion and community exposure are the fundamental elements of consensus building and identifying consensus. Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Junk those edits. Per comments by SmallJim, PM and for formal reasons (violations of WP:POLICY "Editors should be careful that any changes they make to a policy page reflects consensus") -- Fullstop (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The silence, both in the justification of the undiscussed edits and in opposition to the secondary sources replacement, is deafening. Vassyana (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the silence speaks volumes. With no voice of dissent, we quite obviously have consensus. Take a quick straw poll (only yea/nay, no comments) and we're done. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. SlimVirgin and Crum do not seem very active recently, I would suggest to wait a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin was plenty active enough to make multiple comments to this page ... just none putting her undiscussed changes up for discussion and none addressing this issue. I will say that a straw poll isn't going to be helpful. Some justification for unjustified edits and explanation of opposition would be very helpful though. Vassyana (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I oppose whatever it is Vassyana and Fullstop think they have consensus for. This section is gibberish. I have no idea what change you are proposing. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have no idea what's being discussed, I'd recommend you look over the post that opens this section. Vassyana (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it again. It's just too much work to try and figure out what it is you propose. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There's not a whole lot to figure out. There were undiscussed edits (outside of a single objection). If they're not discussed, they should be undone. There were discussed edits (some discussion linked) reverted without discussion. Unless the objections are substantiated, the discussed edits should be reinstated. I really don't understand what there is to "figure out" about that. Vassyana (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, on the first two links show the two undiscussed changes, merely showing the diffs. All the other links are for various places on the talk page highlighting the lack of discussion for those changes, while advocating that changes be discussed. Fairly simple, only a couple of mouse clicks to see that. It's also fairly simple to see above that it is proposed to re-revert the undiscussed changes to the original form. If you can find where those changes were discussed, so they shouldn't be re-reverted, then please kindly provide them and this should then be a dead issue, if there was agreement to implement them. wbfergus ^Talk 15:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nine days without a substantiation of the undiscussed edits or the reversion of the discussed edits. I will wait another 24 hours to allow for a full ten days, but barring any substantive comments and discussion, I will revert the undiscussed edits and reinstate the discussed edits. Vassyana (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Five additional days have passed. Since the undiscussed edits have not been justified and the removal of discussed edits has not been substantiated, I will be reverting the undiscussed changes and reinstating the discussed changes. Vassyana (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this looks better now. I have further trimmed some of the mealey-mouthed language to make it more understandable (without changing the intent). Dhaluza (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent rewording! Thanks. Vassyana (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New lead to WP:SYN

I am proposing that we add a new lead paragraph to WP:SYN. Currently that section jumps directly into the example, without any general overview. Mostly this is cobbled together from suggestions on the talk page that I found in various section of the archive, I don’t think there’s word one that comes from me, I just edited it all. Feel free to suggest improvements, or if you think it better to leave things as they are.

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the topic of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis - it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page with each claim attributed to the source that makes the claim.

This would be followed by the current lead paragraph:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. (Mr. Wales disapproves of synthesized historical theories and states: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004)) "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Brimba (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that. FYI, in an early version of WP:ATT, we had:

"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its constituent parts have been published by reliable sources. If you have reliable sources for the edits you want to make, be careful that you're not analysing the material in a way that produces a new idea or argument of your own. Just because A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, doesn't necessarily mean that A and B can be joined in order to advance position C."

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this basic approach. It's quite consistent with the "spirit" of WP:NOR and also is consistent with a primary-secondary-source analysis where editors need to debate whether something is original research as differentiated from simply expressing previously published concepts in one's own words. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it, it's very clear and helps introduce what we're trying to say in WP:SYNTH. Once again, Brimba..nice work! Do we need to specify that it is the editor's position or just leave it as advancing a position, making it somewhat more neutral? Dreadstar † 05:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a very good proposed addition. It provides a solid clarity to what is being discussed in the section. I also agree with Dreadstar's suggestion for the more "neutral" wording. Vassyana (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only caveat I'd want to offer is to suggest that the language should perhaps not include such phrases as "editors often make the mistake of... [fill in your own perception of 'mistakes often made']". Possibly some (please pardon this word in this context) "synthesis" of Brimba's proposed language and the earlier proposed language from the WP:A experiment might be useful in expressing the principle. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Go Brimba! Go! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Added in the paragraph with the “the editor's” changed to just “a”. Got to run. (still open to improvements.) Thanks, Brimba (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Certain aspects of this new lead bother me. First the phrase "an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions", because this implies that original research is something done by a Wikipedia editor; in other parts of the policy, any unpublished original thought is original research, whether it was the editor who did the research, or it is something the editor heard about through unpublished channels.

Another problem is the phrase "with each claim attributed to the source that makes the claim". This is only necessary for disputed claims; for material where virtually all the sources agree, it suffices to list the sources in the "References" section. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding point #1, perhaps we could add the word "often", making it: "Synthesizing material often occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions.. From my own experience, editors trying to validate a pov they agree with or believe to be true almost always do this very thing. This section is specifically about using published sources in a way that creates new research; unpublished original thought is covered by other elements of the policy. Dreadstar † 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I also support this approach. I believe the language as proposed helps explain the policy more clearly than current wording and would support it as is. I also agree further improvements in details are possible. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Gerry Ashton’s point #1; if someone is combining what are clearly reliably sourced statements to bolster some claim that they heard but that did not originate with themselves, then it would not technically be their own claim. I can see your point; however, the editor is still the one deciding that this particular A combined with that particular B equals the C that they heard on the street. They are still the ones concluding that the sources are appropriate to the claims made, not the guy on the street who first thought it up. Really I think if the claim is not supported by the sources, and the claim did not originate with a Wikipedia editor, then its not OR, and the problem with sourcing falls back on V, not NOR.

Point #2, yes a slight rewording is in order. Everything must be verifiable, but not every claim must be directly attributed, only those that are challenged. The current wording is not as clear on that point as it should be. Good call.

Concerning Dreadstar’s idea of adding the word “often”, I think I have negated the need for that in my answer above.

Anyway that’s my thoughts on the subject. Brimba (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the suggestion got changed to: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance a position."

That's not really correct. All material will tend to advance a position. What matters is that it shouldn't advance the editor's position i.e. a position not in any of the sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's probably okay to leave it. I just think that in a few months time someone is going to arrive objecting, but perhaps we should wait until they do. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed with each claim attributed to the source that makes the claim to with each claim being attributable to the sources. Hope that fixes the problem. Brimba (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good, Brimba. Thanks for writing it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Much better, Brimba. Thanks! Dreadstar † 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

Alrighty, what are issues regarding these changes to nutshell? Dreadstar † 17:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point in having a nutshell is to give a clear and simple overview of what the page is about, using wording that is clear and understandable even if you have never been exposed to Wikipedia before. If the nutshell is any good at all, then you can be a complete newb to WP and still “get it”, without having to even think about it (that’s what being clear means).

Which is clearer?

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable.

Or

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.

In the first you have three separate ideas: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable. -all contained within a single sentence. And the “nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view” is fairly tangent for being included in a nutshell for NOR.

“Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts.” That’s incorrect on two counts. A lot more then just “facts” must be cited and secondly only material that is directly challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations must be directly backed by citations. Everything must be verifiable, that does not mean that everything must be directly cited.

“Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses” again, this is only true if they serve to “advance a position” and are challenged. Summaries are not only fine, but very much needed.

Even if the old nutshell was accurate, it’s trying to say too much. Some people will never read anything more then the nutshell; in such cases stating things in simple clear terms is better then trying to give a more rounded view (good intentions lead simply to wordiness). Of course that is just my opinion, but its well grounded in the concept of usability. Besides if the language is clear, they might be more likely to take the time and read the lead, which is where the broad overview should be. Brimba (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As is clear by now, people grant a lot of authority to the nutshell, which ought to be more stable than the general text of the article. The older nutshell is superior because it makes clear the relationship with other content policies and is clearer about what the policy requires. The other lines of the nutshell are not incorrect. Brimba's point seems to be that NOR only applies when something is challenged. In practice, that may be true - policies only come into play when someone accuses another of not following a policy. So what? our policies should make clear what our ideal is. But if this is Brimba's only problem, it is easy to change attributed to attributable. This policy has been under assault by a variety of people including those who claimed to support the polciy but took issue with the language. When this nutshell was edited, people on all sides, people who were adamant about including the PST distinction and those opposed, people who felt the language of the policy was fine and those who didn't, all agreed on this version. Why reject it, wholesale? At least, let's have more discussion rather than one person vetoing an agreement reached by many diffeerent editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the first bullet, as it was redundant with the two points below, and the WP:V policy. I think this is better than the previous formulation above because it does not redundantly repeat the title either. Dhaluza (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me start off by stating the very obvious: The statement “Facts must be backed by citations” is NOT POLICY; not on this page nor on any other, nor has it been in the past.

Your statement that “The older nutshell is superior because it… is clearer about what the policy requires.” fails. The problem is that the statement “Facts must be backed by citations” does not represent anything NOR requires. So why is it there? When I pointed this out, you response was “So what? our policies should make clear what our ideal is.” If it’s not policy, and its NOT, then your statement is a misstatement.

“When this nutshell was edited, people on all sides, people who were adamant about including the PST distinction and those opposed, people who felt the language of the policy was fine and those who didn't, all agreed on this version.” Where is this discussion? I could not locate it in the archives. Please feel free to point me in right direction; I would like to see it. “all agreed on this version” of the nutshell? That’s quite a strong consensus; I would hate to go against it.

“agreement reached by many diffeerent editors.” Again, where’s the discussion on the nutshell?

Policy is formulated on the page, not within the nutshell. Doing so is a case of the tale wagging the dog. The nutshells job is to explain the policy in a concise manner. And it is not to “makes clear the relationship with other content policies”. It is to explain the policy of the page; end of story, there’s no secondary purpose to a nutshell.

“the nutshell…ought to be more stable than the general text of the article.” I might point out that your version only existed for 96 days. It in turn replaced a version that had been stable for over 7 months, and most of the wording of that version had existed for far longer. The only explanation surrounding any part of the change was this statement “I have been trying to edit the intro section for clarity and brevity - I also changed the "nutshell" based on a comment by Tim.” Not sure who Tim is, or what the comment was.

The nutshell you replaced was:

I am not sure what you found problematic about that wording? Or why it was changed? I would not object to restoring this version (meaning the one that existed for 7 months) if you have no objections to doing that.

Brimba (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the original version is better than the current one:

I was simply using the exiting version as a starting point, and not looking at prior history. The old version does not have the overlap with NPOV in the first bullet, and retains the important point in the third that synthesis to advance a position is the problem (not synthesis to make a coherent encyclopedia article from multiple sources). I have no objection to restoring the previous version. Dhaluza (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WITS (II)

Just notifying about a parallel discussion: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Primary sources --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Query

Where does the idea come from that this edit was discussed and agreed? Bits of it are clearly not correct e.g. the implication that secondary sources are more likely to be biased than primary sources. If anything, it's the other way around, because the hope is that secondary sources will have looked at multiple primary and other secondary sources. That's why WP articles ought to rely on them, and it's why they're needed when edits based on primary sources are challenged. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(moved from SV talk) Your reversion was undone.[8] Undiscussed changes were reverted. Discussed changes were implemented. You were given ample time to comment and join in the discussion. Your reversion of discussed changes and undiscussed changes must be subject to discussion and consensus, just as you advise others. Please see Wikipedia talk:No original research#Discussed and undiscussed edits. Vassyana (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I left a message on your talk page. For the benefit of others coming here, please see the very first section of this talk page. Vassyana (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, there were objections from good editors e.g. "I oppose whatever it is Vassyana and Fullstop think they have consensus for. This section is gibberish. I have no idea what change you are proposing." --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There were real problems with some of the changes, and no clear benefits. For example, this is just a minor point, but why would you want to remove that Wikipedia is a tertiary source? It's that kind of analogy that helps people to understand the distinctions. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate on your issues with the changes. The changes you made were reverted because they were undiscussed except for someone raising a concern about them. I do not believe anyone would have an issue with the Wikipedia = tertiary statement (though it is a bit superfluous), so I will restore that. Vassyana (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry's objection was that he didn't understand what was being discussed (myself and another editor provided clarification). Gerry's previous contribution to the discussion was to strongly reject another editor's suggested revisions to the proposed replacement. (I wanted to make sure I checked the archives to verify my memory before responding about that.) Vassyana (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also a question of clarity. The current version starts with:

• "Secondary sources are secondhand accounts, at least one step removed from an event."

You want to replace that with:

• "Secondary sources are references that draw on research and other references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthesized claims, or create a general overview."

Which version is more succinct, and which do you think most editors will understand more easily? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is a question of which is more accurate, essentially. Also, many editors felt the replacement was an improvement over the previous section. Vassyana (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But many thought it wasn't. And your version is not more accurate. What does this mean, for example -- "However, they [secondary sources] can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view. Care should also be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context."

Why would secondary sources be particularly biased? Why should care be taken with them in particular to avoid undue weight and ensure material is cited in context? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Very few thought it wasn't and even fewer commented at all to that effect. I do not necessarily agree with those sentences myself. They address a repeatedly stated concern from numerous editors over the past several months of discussion here. The language itself was worked out as a compromise between wide-ranging opinions voiced here during that time. It was revised according to the feedback received. Why is the advice a problem? How is it inaccurate? Vassyana (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because secondary sources don't have to be watched in particular for bias. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What about the many editors who have expressed concern? What about the widely expressed concern about biased sources? I should additionally note that most concerns I've seen people express about biased sources have been in relation to secondary sources. Again, I don't necessarily agree with the statements myself (I personally tend to think primary sources are more likely to be abused for POV), but they are reflective of the comments made here by numerous editors. Though I don't think the statements are necessary, I don't understand how the statements are problematic. I don't think it's inaccurate or harmful to tell editors to watch for bias. It's reflective of a broader view held by more people than my own. I hope that all makes sense. Vassyana (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't keep posting on my talk page. The discussion needs to take place here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a message directly addressed to you (and therefore posted to your talk page, as is appropriate), not a general comment for discussion here. Vassyana (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(moved from SV talk) Please do not restore that post to WT:NOR. It was not intended to be posted as part of the general discussion and I've retracted half of its content with an apology. Thank you for your understanding. Vassyana (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, you keep posting to my talk page, but when I move the posts here, you remove them. Everyone needs to see all the posts about this, not just me. Please keep the discussion in one place. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at the top of this page shows that the changes were agreed by Fullstop and Vassyana. That's not consensus by any stretch of the imagination. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the section again and follow the links, as that is a gross misunderstanding/misrepresentation. The replacement section was discussed and revised by more than two people. Vassyana (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (Convenience linkage for all Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Discussed_and_undiscussed_edits, Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive31#Secondary_sources and Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive31#Recent_changes_to_secondary_sources, based on the larger draft Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive30#Revisiting_a_proposal which itself was based on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive27#Taking_the_dive_.28PSTS_proposal.29)

Could you please say who actively supported your changes? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As a quick sampling: Blueboar, CBM (Carl), COGDEN, Dreadstar, Dhaluza, Fullstop, Jossi, Kenosis, Phil Sandifer, Professor marginalia, SmallJim, SmokeyJoe, Was 4.250 and wbfergus. That's a fairly diverse crowd representative of a wide variety of opinions regarding PSTS. Vassyana (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar seems to be objecting below; Dreadstar has several times reverted your changes; and I seem to recall (can't be sure) that Jossi has too. Can you show me where all these people agreed with you? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar.[9] Jossi.[10] Jossi's only concern noted and addressed.[11][12] Dreadstar.[13] Also, Dreadstar reverted the changes once, not several times as you claim.[14] Please note that the changes he reverted were the same as those he supported. It was due to an expressed objection by Kenosis,[15] who supported the insertion of the secondary sources section.[16] Kenosis' only concern noted and addressed.[17] Vassyana (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Going up near the top of this section, while Vassyana'a version isn't as concise, I think it makes it more understandable to the new or even average user. I also strongly agrre with the additional warning about secondary sources. There are literally thousands of them floating around with an extreme bias. Take practically book on politics, and quite a few books on history. The books published by 'noted historian' Bruce Cumings are another example. His books are extremely biased, if he can claim that North Korean gulags aren't really all that bad, since families are kept together and they get to catch and eat 'small animals' (rats) to enhance their normally meager diet. And this from somebody who is generally praised (usually by communism supporters or anti-America contingents) as a 'noted historian'. Unfortunately though, even if he is a professor at the University of Chicago, his books aren't peer-reviewed through the University, but are usually published through outside publishers (W. W. Norton, New Press, etc.) Hope this helps clarify some things. wbfergus ^Talk 13:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's been a busy time of year, and this isn't the only page I edit. In my opinion SV's preferred versions is clearer, and the point about using secondary sources should appear in that section as well as having the brief mention under primary sources. However, I'm willing to try to consider each clause on its merits. Concerns about biased sources and NPOV apply to all sources – one common type of "primary source" is the self-published or other source closely linked to the subject, which will commonly be biased and must be set in the context of secondary source assessment and analysis. If the caveat is required, it should be placed at or near the end of the section, and apply to all kinds of sources. .. dave souza, talk 14:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it seems that people are forgetting what this Policy page is about... the issue of whether a source is biased has nothing to do with NOR, nor with whether it is primary, secondary, or even tertiary. All three kinds of sources can be biased. As long as the article is accurately reflecting what the source says, however, it isn't OR to discuss what a biased source says. Now, I agree that biased sources are not the best sources to rely on for statements of fact. However, they can be good sources for statements of opinion, and way to deal with a biased source is through attribution. This is more an issue of WP:NPOV and especially WP:Undue weight.

Can we please keep our focus on the concept of "No OR", and resist the temptation to let other issues sidetrack this Policy page? Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Any source can be biased, and arguably almost all sources are biased in some form or another. That in itself has nothing to do with OR. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Which why we have had at least 4 months of arguing about PSTS and the current work underway at WP:Evaluating sources to finally get it out of here and somewhere more appropriate. But, in a way the above is related to the NOR policy (as it's currently written anyway). Primary sources can pretty much only be cited verbatim. It's kind of hard to do that and push a OR point. However, with secondary or tertiary sources, the editor is given the freedom to re-word it, etc. In those cases, especially with a source that can be biased, or even challenged as biased (and somehow still clamored as being 'authoritive'), care must be taken to only present material in the same context as originally presented. wbfergus ^Talk 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To get what out of here? If you mean the issue of bias, it was Vassyana who just added it. The issue of primary/secondary has nothing to do with bias, but with original research, so it's directly relevant to this policy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To get the whole 'sourcing issue' out of here. It's been argued almost the entire 4 months that primary sources are more prone to misuse than any other source, and that secondary sources are much more accurate and reliable than primary sources. It's good to see though that you agree that any type of source can be biased and inaccurate. But quoting verbatim data from a primary source is a bit more difficult to use for OR, where using a biased secondary source, which doesn't have to be used verbatim, can therefore be twisted into OR more easily. But again, if something is published, it's no longer 'original'. wbfergus ^Talk 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that I should also say that it's good to see (from your comment on the policy edit page), that silence does not neccessarily equal concensus. That has been a sore sticking point to many of the 'discussions here over the last 4 months as well, with those who support keeping things as they are (or were) stating vehemently that since nobody openly disagreed with parts of the policy in the past, their silence amounted to tacit approval. It's refreshing to see you say otherwise. Maybe we can finally put those old arguments to rest now. wbfergus ^Talk 14:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of primary sources

<undent> It's easy to misuse primary sources to produce original research, at its extreme it's called quote mining, and it's hard to deny that's what the primary source says – which is why we need good secondary source analysis or summary to avoid that as much as possible .. dave souza, talk 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

a) There is no evidence whatsoever that "primary sources" are easier to "produce" original research with.

b) quote mining (extreme example here) is just as "easy" to make with primary sources as it is with secondary (and tertiary) sources.

c) The *only* policy that quote mining can violate is NPOV, i.e use of a quote farm (not necessarily "primary" sources) to overwhelm the opposition.

d) "it's hard to deny that's what the primary source says" is no more/less true than "it's hard to deny that's what the secondary source says."

e) if the editor is simply reiterating the sources, then he/she is not in violation of NOR, regardless of whether the sources being used are primary or not.

f) the primary/secondary distinction has no relationship to the distinction between unreliable/reliable sources.

g) the simplest way to inhibit contentious use of sources is to require these to be substantiated by other sources that adhere to scientific method. For ease of understanding, this may be described by a policy that gives any unsubstantiated opinion/analysis/hypothesis/description etc zero weight.

-- Fullstop (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a complex example where there certainly seems to be original research supported by clear misrepresentation of sources. Hope that's getting sorted out to your satisfaction. My own take is that the need for secondary sources for analysis is a useful reminder to myself to look for a reliable outside opinion, even if the direct source looks good, and this came up with the Australopithecus afarensis example I cited a long time ago, where information from a scientific paper was usefully set in context by a good newspaper article about the findings. A subtle one that's still in progress appeared here,[18] where Darwin's words quoted accurately were set in a context that implied that they exemplified "academic racism was pushed by white supremacist Caucasians". The words seem as though they support that, but the context they come from needs knowledgeable assessment.[19] It's a case where an honest reading of the primary source can lead to misunderstandings, and a good secondary source is needed to avoid unintentional original research. I agree with your conclusion, but if we start demanding secondary sources for secondary sources we get into the sort of infinite loop that was the subject of debate earlier. .. dave souza, talk 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Well, it was only on a fly-by that I initially came in contact with that so-called "article." Its junk, but thankfully also bereft of any import whatsoever. ;)
2. Yes, misreading Darwin (naively or otherwise) can superficially be described to be an example of "easier" misuse of a primary source. In reality however, the cause of the mangling does not lie with the type of source but with the editor's ignorance of Darwin's time, language and social mores. A secondary source that was contemporary to Darwin would be just as "easy" to misrepresent.
3. I'm not expecting secondary sources for secondary sources (note that I did not use the words "primary" and "secondary" at all).
   What I am suggesting is that any contended^* statement should not cite the source that "said it first", but should instead cite a source that refers (not necessarily positively) to the source that made the original statement.
   Such a clause...
   a) would restrict primary sources to only where they can do no harm.
   b) it would effectively establish 'notability' at the statement level.
   c) is actually about original research ("said it first"),
   d) would reinforce the concept of reliability,
   e) would provide a source that potentially lists alternative positions, so supporting NPOV.
   Thus, the purpose behind psts can be achieved without either dicking around with the ps/ss terminology or with their distinction or groping around for substitute terminology.
   The fallacy that "A causes B" is the same thing as "A is a prerequisite for B" is what the insistence of the ps/ss distinction is based on. But even if my suggestion isn't by itself considered worthy of merit, what it demonstrates is that one can arrive at 'B' even without 'A'. There is more than one way to skin that particular cat.

-- Fullstop (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Vassyana, I have had enough of your insults. You're previously me a bald-faced liar; you revert my edits calling them disruption; and now because I ask who agreed with your changes, you say I'm making wild accusations. [20] Quit it, please. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I self-reverted those comments immediately after making them, as clearly shown by that link. It's utterly inappropriate for you to dredge that up when it was immediately self-reverted before any comments were made. Since it was raised, those comments were an admittedly kneejerk response to your blatant implication that I was being dishonest. Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to let this kind of nonsense go unanswered. Addressing your other two claims of NPA violation: The first is most certainly not a personal attack, but rather an observation of an obvious falsehood (at worst, poorly worded).[21] The second is not a personal attack, and quite notably it was in response to actions of the sort that you have repeatedly and forcefully told others is disruption. Vassyana (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am telling you again to quit the personal attacks on me. I won't take them from you anymore and every time you do it, I'm going to call you on it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, SlimVirgin: I respect you both enormously and find the above exchange quite disturbing. Could you make an effort and stay focused on the discussion at hand instead of dragging this debate in a personal direction? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To address SV's observation that "The discussion at the top of this page shows that the changes were agreed by Fullstop and Vassyana."

That "discussion" is not about a proposition, but about SV's undiscussed changes to the policy page. There were no "changes" that were "agreed" to by Vassyana or myself, but rather the general agreement that no one should be writing undiscussed changes of any kind into policy.

To suggest that that talk section is about anything else is disingenuous and/or symptomatic of an inability to read, exemplified for instance in Gerry's "Oppose" for "I have no idea what change you are proposing" (itself a rather strange response to Vassyana's request for "Thoughts? Comments?").

Either way (and really all I had to say in that section), SV's unilateral modifications to policy have - once and for all - buried the specious supposition that PSTS is cast in stone (i.e. that things need to remain they are just because they have been a certain way for N years).

-- Fullstop (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This policy has never said that secondary sources are more likely to be biased. That is a new thing added by Vassyana without consensus, and even if it had consensus, we shouldn't add it, because it's just plain wrong. Also, the policy needs to be written clearly so that people understand it, and so we look as though we understand it ourselves. The latest edits don't give that impression, just as Wikipedia:Evaluating sources doesn't, and for the same reasons.

SV, I must take you to task for making such a demonstrably false assertion. Here are two diffs [22] and [23] where you previously removed similar language yourself. So for you to say this "is a new thing added by Vassyana without consensus" is simply untrue, unless you mean that if you alone disagree there cannot be consensus. You have also made numerous changes to this policy without consensus, so that is not a moral high ground you have any legitimate claim to.

Your assertion that this says that "secondary sources are more likely to be biased" is also untrue--it simply says that secondary sources can be biased by their authors and publishers, which is completely correct, and an important consideration in using sources wisely, which is what this section is purportedly dealing with. The idea that primary sources are biased and easily misused, but secondary sources are somehow immune to bias or misuse is what's incorrect. Not to mention your further assertion that we should ignore consensus and follow your individual divine wisdom instead. Dhaluza (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It really does seem to me that the people causing a problem over the primary/secondary thing simply don't understand it, because these are very simple and useful concepts, and they can and should be written about simply and with clarity. There's no need for tortured language and inaccurate descriptions. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

SV... I disagree with your contention that "the people causing a problem over the primary/secondary thing simply don't understand it." But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct in that contention. If so, doesn't that tell us that a better explanation is needed? It's not as if there are only one or two people who have issues with the section, after all. I'm all for simplicity and clarity ... that is one of the reasons I don't think PSTS belongs in this particular policy... it isn't simple and clear. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they won't accept a clearer explanation. They want to make the language as tortured as possible, then they complain they don't understand it. How much clearer could this be? "A primary source is one close to and with direct knowledge of an issue. In contrast, secondary sources are at least one step removed, and provide secondhand accounts or a general overview." Where's the difficulty? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion needed

Well, I hate am happy to say it, it looks like more discussion is needed. As Jossi does, I have enormous respect for Vassyana and SlimVirgin both. Now, I may be wrong, but it appears that Slim reverted a change that contained a new element she disagrees with and doesn't make sense to her - (secondary sources more likely to be biased and tortured language and inaccurate descriptions). Even though I've agreed with some (or all) of the proposed changes, I'm going to revert that out again so it can be discussed here. And I do admit that Slim's comments have given me pause...so I'd really like to see further discussion - from everyone...

I know this is frustrating, but the changes she disputes were discussed and implemented during a short time that coincided with a lot of other things, and with the amount of traffic this policy has seen recently, I think it's only fair to allow further discussion before implementing. There was a call for more time to be given for Slim and Crum to comment, and I believe an editor eariler had expressed confusion over the complexity of changes. Let's give it a bit more time, shall we?

And please, let's try to focus on the editorial content of the policy and not engage in fingerpointing or further comments about the other contributors. Let's start the New Year off right! Dreadstar † 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's clarified the two options being considered and it will be worthwhile going over it clause by clause with the aim of clarity and effectiveness, will try to find time to contribute. Perhaps a good idea to archive the personal part of this section? Happy new year! ... dave souza, talk 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not do so myself, but I would request that the two significant undiscussed changes be reverted as well.[24][25] If a well-discussed version needs more discussion, undiscussed significant changes certainly need some discussion of their own. Vassyana (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

These principles have been discussed on this page going back years. Your reverting and talk page edits are very unhelpful, Vassyana. You've been editing this page only since July. In that time, you've become the 3rd highest poster (compared to the top two who've been editing it since July 2006 and March 2005), with 493 edits in five and a half months, which works out at roughly 22 posts to this page every single week. Most of your edits to the policy have been to try to undermine the use of secondary sources, or to revert anyone who disagrees with the changes. You're a relatively inexperienced editor with 1,400 mainspace edits, yet your attitude seems to be that you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong, or isn't really disagreeing; and everyone who tells you that the material you're objecting to has been in the policy in one form or another for three years is also wrong, and if they produce diffs and remember editing the policy themselves back then, they're hallucinating. And when I complain about you calling me a bald-faced liar and for posting in edit summaries that my edits are disruptive, it's how dare I bring it up, and I'm being disruptive for mentioning it. The whole thing is too strange. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I politely request that you reconsider/retract your comments. Vassyana (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, even if it looks that way, but it's increasingly hard to see what you're trying to achieve here, and also becoming hard to assume good faith, given the personal attacks and the sheer number of posts. The most significant differences between the two versions below are these:

• You left out of your version that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." But this has been in the policy, in some form, for three years. Yet you somehow manage to twist my restoration of it as my addition of it, and you start complaining that I'm just editing whatever I fancy into the policy, while preventing you from doing the same. This is a distortion, I hope inadvertent.

• The second difference is that you have added: "Secondary sources are valued for analysis, broader context, and a more independent view. However, they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required ..." This has never been in the policy. First, it's wrong, and indeed ridiculous, to imply that secondary sources are more likely to be biased than primary sources, when (if anything) the opposite is true. But more importantly, as several people have told you (even, I believe, Fullstop, who is on your "side"), the issue of bias is completely unrelated to the concept of NOR. And yet again, my removal of it to the long-standing version that makes no mention of bias is disruptive, while your very recent addition of it without consensus is fine.

This is a policy. It has to be stable, yet since July, it has been protected seven times. I've not yet looked to see how many of these protects were triggered by edit warring over your proposals. The need for stability doesn't mean it can't be edited, but if copy edits are made or the ideas are tightened, it has to be done in a way that doesn't change the fundamental concepts within the policy. That requires some understanding of the policy (letter and spirit) and some knowledge of its history and intent, and experience of how it's used and misused. But the people on this page who have that experience and knowledge are precisely the ones you want to pay no attention to, whereas if you would only collaborate with them, instead of constantly resisting, it would be a win-win situation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy that says a policy has to be stable. But there is a policy that says all policies must represent community consensus. Stability is not an alternative to consensus, stability comes from consensus. Let's put things in proper perspective. Dhaluza (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And look -- you constantly berate others for not discussing issues you decide we need to discuss, and if we don't want to, you take silence for assent, and go and change the policy. I therefore posted below the two versions side by side, and stood ready to discuss them with you. And what happens? No more mention of those issues from you (that I have seen). Just a request that someone else revert for you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me if I object to being misrepresented.

I didn't say "the issue of bias is completely unrelated to the concept of NOR."

I said "there is *no relationship* whatsoever between source-type and bias (or reliability or ease/likelihood of misuse etc)."

Which in plain English means "your distinction between primary and secondary is gratuitous."

• Moreover, I prefer not to be considered on any "side" other than Wikipedia's. And anyone with even a marginally intact sense of priority will have long realized that -- to Wikipedia -- the PSTS gunk is one of the most destructive things around; your "need" to edit, the grief it causes, the other edit warring, the reams of talk page round-about, two fork pages, and so on and so forth. And this is just whats happening here.
• Now, if that ludicrous ps/ss distinction had some purpose, that would be one thing. But it doesn't.

-- Fullstop (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would politely request that you reconsider/redact your comments. Vassyana (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to be both as blunt and as polite as possible here.

My high volume of talk page edits has a lot to do with working on proposals and efforts towards compromise and consensus. Contrary to your belief that my edits here have been unhelpful, a wide swath of editors have repeatedly praised my efforts towards that goal, even while disagreeing.

I strongly object to your insulting and inaccurate portrayal of my behavior. I strongly disagree with your characterization of some of my comments as personal attacks, and really wish you would drop the issue instead of waving it like a flag. I tried walking away from that particular discussion, but you have pushed the issue multiple times after Jossi (quite reasonably) implored both of us to move away from that.

Regarding your confusion and difficulty in assuming good faith towards me, I feel similarly towards you when you persist in using misrepresentations and outright falsehoods, and apparently hold yourself to a quite different standard than you exhort to others.

There is no distortion or misunderstanding. The policy page changed. I was not responsible for those changes. Saying it was X way at Y time in the past is not a valid excuse for circumventing discussion and consensus. Consensus can change, as you well know, and undiscussed restorations of some past version that completely ignores the discussions and changes that have occurred since is simply wrong.

I note you disagree with the bias statements, and as I have said (repeatedly), I have far more concern about primary sources than secondary sources. It arose as part of the compromise language in response to months of discussion and concerns raised during that time.

All I've asked is that opposition to discussed edits be substantiated and that substantial changes to policy be discussed. I've also suggested that editors who refuse to join in the discussion or do no more than !vote be discounted when considering consensus. This is nothing more than you have asked and suggested in multitudinous policy discussions. Regarding the side-by-side comparison, I find it saddening that my lack of immediate response within hours is used as a criticism. Vassyana (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I respect everyone's judgment and experience here more than my own, which is why I've been content to sit on the sidelines with the confidence that the best Wikipedians are working on it. I like both versions a lot, but SlimVirgin's a little more so. They are nearly identical too operationally in how they instruct people to write then encyclopedia, even though it may not seem so if you've been looking at it up close for a long time. Without getting into the specifics, I think SV's sticks to the point more closely so as to define PSTS in a clear, concise way. Vassyana's includes some admonitions and editorial commentary (such as keeping NPOV and avoiding UNDUE) that, though important, are covered elsewhere. These are a little distracting because they tend to imply that those admonitions are somehow part of the definition of PSTS. My main hope is that once people do agree on a final version we can leave this alone for a while, and establish the kind of united front of consensus needed to defend the policy against those who would call the policy disputed or radically change the way we think of sourcing and NOR. Wikidemo (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that sticking to the point and avoiding overlap with with other policies are laudable attributes; but I disagree that on balance the version attributed to SV is better because it includes the contentious assertions as fact that: 1) primary sources are easily misused and 2) that Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. As to the first point, there has been no proof that primary sources are easier to misuse than secondary. That may be a widely held belief, but to assert an asshole estimate as fact in a policy is not good policy. As to item 2, secondary sources are valued for providing context where there are a range of opinions or a large volume of data that must be mined. In fact heavy areas, where there is little room for interpretation, we actually prefer primary sources for facts. For example, the salient characteristics of an aircraft are not the subject of any meaningful debate. They are established facts, and that is what an aircraft article is based on. Sure, we value secondary sources for background and additional insight or context to the extent they are available, but they are not essential to creating and encyclopedic entry on an aircraft. The other obvious example of this is populated place articles created from census data. Again, secondary sources make the articles better, but the thousands of bot created articles were based on a single primary source. There are probably other examples as well. So basing an article on secondary sources is valuable, but not essential in all cases. It has also been suggested that for very mature topics, basing an article on tertiary sources may even be preferable. So we need to jettison this excess baggage. Dhaluza (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What is missing from your comment, Dhaluza, is addressing contentious, disputed, and/or controversial subjects and facts. In these type of subjects, the use of secondary sources is imperative, and the use of primary sources, discouraged. On non-contentious subjects, or those about which there are no disputes (such as the wingspan of a Gulfstream IV, or the number of inhabitants of Guam, the use of secondary sources is, I agree, ancillary. So, I would not call this excess bagagge", on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dhaluza is at least admitting that the version I'm restoring contains 1) primary sources are easily misused and 2) that Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources; the points Vassyana seeks to remove or dilute.

Dhaluza, you talked somewhere else about my "imperfect memory," but I have been writing and editing this policy for three years, and it's only a few hundred words long. I've therefore become very familiar with the text, and the nuances it can throw up, as well as the ways in which it's used and misused by editors. I can tell you that the caution regarding primary sources has been in it for three years, as has the recommendation in favor of secondary sources, howsoever worded. There is now a concerted effort to undermine those points, which is fair enough -- people are allowed to propose policy changes -- but what's not fair enough is the attempt to do it but pretend it's not being done; and the claims that those defending the policy are in fact trying to change it; and that if people don't take part in a discussion, they are ipso facto placing themselves outside consensus and may safely be ignored, and then attacked if they revert. That is the atmosphere that Vassyana wants to maintain here, and it's not on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is demonstrably incorrect, and I have corrected you on this point before. I have posted this diff several times to this discussion. It shows the definition of primary source was first added a little less than three years ago--the "recommendation in favor of secondary sources" did not come until later, so it was not here for three years as you assert. Regardless of how long it was here, how does the argument that something was in the policy for X years carry any weight? It has been presented frequently, but is the best argument that can be offered?

Furthermore, you mischaracterize the debate. I don't think there is any one seriously trying to undermine the basic principle of getting interpretation and analysis from sources, not from editors. There is disagreement over how to express this, and what other baggage it carries into this policy. You further mischaracterize Vassyana's objection to your failure to discuss changes on the talk page during an extended comment period, while immediately criticizing them once posted in an a reversion edit summary. He is not suggesting that your input can be ignored, but he is objecting to how you express it. Dhaluza (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that of the 2+ million articles, only a small fraction are contentious. They may take up a lot of editor's time, but we still should not base policy solely on this. The problem is with the absolute statements which are not absolutely correct. Since they are narrowly focused, they have the potential to do more harm than good if widely applied. While these absolute black/white policy statements may seem helpful in beating editors over the head, that is not how things are supposed to work in a consensus based community. So for a broad based policy, this is excess baggage. Perhaps we need a separate policy for addressing contentious articles, so we don't clutter up the core policies with things intended to address special cases. Dhaluza (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Slim, once again, the changes are not reflective of my personal opinion. I am personally strongly supportive of secondary sourcing and adverse to primary sourcing. I have simply sought to work out a compromise between the very diverse views of the matter.

If someone does not participate in the consensus building process, they are not part of the consensus building process. It's pretty much common sense. One editor disagreeing does not give them the right to revert discussed changes nor does it give them the right to revert to a previous version without discussion or consensus. Anyone who disagrees with the standing wording of a policy is free to post to the talk page and join in the discussion. Simply "voting" means nothing. Reverting discussed changes without discussion is disruptive. I'm not asserting anything out of the ordinary in this, but rather just reiterating the fundamentals of a consensus-based wiki process. Your implications otherwise are confused and/or rooted in acute misunderstanding, assuming good faith. Vassyana (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not getting away with that. You are not going to blackmail people into discussing everything you think needs to be discussed, and if they won't, you embark on revert sprees of your changes until the article needs to be protected. If people don't respond to you, it may mean they don't agree with you. If they revert you, it's confirmation that they don't. Their revert is their comment to you.

(outdent) SlimVirgin, it's hardly blackmail. It's exactly what you have exhorted to people on multiple occasions, so please pack away that false righteous indignation. Similarly, your claim that reversions are comments is contrary to both policy and what you have repeatedly told people in the past. This double-standard treatment and outright distortion is simply revolting and ridiculous. Vassyana (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a core content policy, not an article, and the presumption is in favor of stability, not change. From now on, unless I actively agree with one of your changes, please take my silence to mean that I disagree, and my revert to mean that I disagree strongly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like Wikipedia is closed now, per Slim's comments above. Her silence will mean she disagree's with anything anybody says, and she is therefore to revert freely without discussion to show that she strongly disagrees. The only way anybody will ever know if she agrees with anything is if she actually writes a comment stating so. So, in all essence, this is now Slim's Wikipedia to do with as only she sees fit. Any changes made by anybody else can be reverted at her whim, no discussion or explanation neccessary. wbfergus ^Talk 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the point is that there are people who feel that unless everyone instantly responds to their edits, it means their edits are automatically "approved by consensus". This is a false premise, especially so for core policies. Not everyone is inclined to respond to every wild claim and engage in discussion. As SlimVirgin noted above, the presumption for core policies is on stability, and any non-trivial change requires consensus. Consensus is achieved by getting the editors who have historically contributed to a given policy to indicate their approval in an active manner. If such an editor reverts, it is a clear sign of no consensus. The true owners of the core policies are all of us — we need stability, and we trust the established editors that contributed the most to the policies to maintain that stability for us. Crum375 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no demand for "instant response". Instead, there were months of discussion, including policy RfCs and many advertisements of discussion at the policy village pump. Additionally, you and Slim were given opportunity, and even directly encouraged, to justify your edits and reversions. So, please do not engage in such distortions. Reversions are not a replacement for discussion. If you object, you have to explain yourself on the talk page just the same as any other editor. You are not exempt from participating in consensus-building if you wish to have your voice heard in the determination of consensus or non-consensus. Vassyana (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, just what exactly is an "established editor"? I've seen SlimVirgin use the same phrase in similar situations. So, again, what exactly is an "established editor"? Cla68 (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such presumption in the WP:Consensus policy, nor does it support your statement above. What policy are you following? Dhaluza (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:Consensus:

When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.

Our core policies are the foundation of the entire project — it is essential that their stability be maintained, otherwise, like all buildings with a shaky foundation, everything else will crumble. This means that to make fundamental changes to core policies a wide consensus is required, not a majority of a few editors on a talk page. Crum375 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that to make fundamental changes to core policies a wide consensus is required, not a majority of a few editors on a talk page, but that is a two-way, not a one-way street. It is essential that policies represent consensus, from which stability will come. It is not essential that we maintain stability in lieu of consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

By default, any existing Wikipedia policy represents consensus, until proven otherwise and changed. Crum375 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that assertion. Typically a policy description should be edited over time with ample discussion and input to form a broad and stable description of consensus. But this is not always the case. The simple fact that policy page was edited to make some point, particularly when there was only limited input and discussion on that point, does not make it by default represent consensus. You are fundamentally misapplying the principle of "silence implies consent". Consensus is what it is, and the written description of it is always imperfect, and sometimes just plain wrong. Dhaluza (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We especially can't have someone who is posting around 22 comments to this talk page every week for six months dictate to users who don't want to respond to them that we're thereby placing ourselves outside consensus. Several good editors who helped to maintain this page for a long time have been driven away because of the absurd amount of discussion, and the expectation that even the tiniest copy edit be discussed, and investigated, held up to the light, and twisted this way and twisted that, lest the change of a comma to a semi-colon imply that, ZOMG, primary sources are totally banned!! Enough already. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Further polemics. My high volume of talk page edits has a lot to do with working on proposals and efforts towards compromise and consensus. Contrary to your belief that my edits here have been unhelpful, a wide swath of editors have repeatedly praised my efforts towards that goal, even while disagreeing. I beg you to drop this antagonism and distortion. Vassyana (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Random break

Okay, I suppose that you must mean things like this [26] must be discussed and approved then, since they were pretty massive changes, far from just afew minor copyedits. And as you've stated before, the silence of the community evidently doesn't amount to consensus for those changes, it just took some of us a while to notice the changes, and since then many have disagreed, so there therefore is no consensus for them. Regarding Crum's statement above about "instantly responds", it also seems like that is how Vassyana was being held to regarding the side-by-side versions, yet when he requested comments over a week long period, that wasn't time enough.

I don't mean to nit-pick or attack you. You seem to have the respect of several other editors that I respect, yet there seems to be a double-standard at play here as well. I could easily go back through the last 4 months of archives, and pick out statements by supporters of your position that when applied to the other posistion, don't carry any weight, like they (the supporters of your position), clearly stated numerous times, that silence did in fact equal agreement, so therefore consensus was met. Now, when Vassyana makes an edit after being offered for dsicussion for a week or longer, changes made when their were suggestions or objections, etc., suddenly the silence no longer means consensus, but tacit disapproval? There's many other similar cases of what seems to be double-standards at play here as well, that's just one example off the top of my head.

Can we just agree to stop all of the nit-picking, etc., lay down some new 'ground rules' for here on out, and everybody agree to play nice and treat each other with the same respect and courtesy they expect from others, and that everybody plays by the same set of rules? That doesn't seem to much to ask. wbfergus ^Talk 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice, wbfergus, but it would require people to inform themselves about the content of this policy, and stop claiming that things they have personally not seen before are new. I know it's a nuisance to have to search through diffs, but it's important not to accuse editors of adding new material if you're not willing to do it (I don't mean you personally).

The other problem is that some people seem to see changes in meaning where there aren't any, and don't see substantive change when it's obvious. But yes, in principle, if we can overcome these issues, I'm very willing to help set up ground rules if it will stop the nitpicking. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Contended" statements

(partial/edited cross-post from elsewhere)

1. Yes, misreading Darwin (naively or otherwise) can superficially be described to be an example of "easier" misuse of a primary source. In reality however, the cause of the misuse does not lie with source-type but with the editor's ignorance of Darwin's time, language and social mores. A secondary source that was contemporary to Darwin would be just as "easy" to misrepresent.
2. What policy should say is...

Any contended^* statement should not cite the source that "said it first", but should instead cite a source that refers (not necessarily positively) to the source that made the original statement.

Such a clause...

a) would restrict primary sources to only where they can do no harm.

b) would effectively establish 'notability' at the statement level.

c) is actually somewhat related to 'original research' ("said it first").

d) would reinforce the concept of reliability,

e) would provide a source that potentially lists alternative positions, so supporting NPOV.

(end of adapted cross-post)

The above-mentioned a—c are the crux of what the whole PSTS shebang is purportedly there for.

• Yes, there is no ps/ss distinction needed to express what they want to say, and no need to use the words "primary" or "secondary" either.
• Yes, the reason why they can't explain it is because they themselves have only the vaguest idea of what it is that they were groping for. In their minds keeping cruft out has vaguely something to do with ps/ss which has vaguely something to do with NOR. Not wrong per-se, just all very muddled. Of course, what they meant by "primary" all along is that what comes first.
• Yes, they will probably write my two-liner off too. But my point is that one can arrive at 'B' even without 'A'. There is more than one way to skin that particular cat.

And yes, I've know this for some time, but until today I didn't imagine that there were actually people who supposed that they were more discerning than anyone else. Fine, call me naive. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

When facts are contested by other reliable sources (not just by WP editors) then we should defer to other reliable sources to characterize and contextualize the debate, rather than allow editors to add their own views or analysis. Note that it is not necessary to use source typing terms like secondary or seccond-hand to address this--plain language works just fine. Dhaluza (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Fullstop's point above that the policy should say "Any contended* statement should not cite the source that "said it first", but should instead cite a source that refers (not necessarily positively) to the source that made the original statement."

That's more or less what it does imply, Fullstop, though it would be wrong to state it as strongly as you have (your formulation would reduce primary source use even more, and there's clearly no consensus to do that). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the restriction applies only when a statement/attribution is contested (cf asterisk next to the word "contended"). This is conform with both Dhaluza notes above as well as what Jossi notes above what I said.

It is easy enough to determine whether the idea has "no consensus" or not, or whether its just a question of phrasing.

But the real hurdle is whether you are personally prepared to get over the superfluous ps/ss stuff or not.

Reaching consensus on the phrasing of the two-liner is (comparatively) trivial once people...

a) are aware that it is not necessary to use source-typing to deliver the message and

b) are prepared to get rid of what is redundant.

c) agree to work on the phrasing of the idea of the two-liner in full awareness that it makes the PSTS section redundant.

The ball is in your court Slim, the PSTS cruft is your baby (now turned monster).

-- Fullstop (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, the PS/SS/TS classification of sources is an extremely useful way to explain our sourcing and content policies. It helps editors understand and qualify sources, and sources are the essence of this site. This is a widely accepted classification, not one invented by Wikipedians. If you understand the distinction between PS/SS/TS, odds are you understand sources, and will know how to use (or not use) them. Crum375 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1. >>"classification of sources is an extremely useful way to explain our sourcing and content policies"
   Explaining "useful ways" is not the purpose or objective of THIS (or any other) policy. Besides, "useful way" is by definition GUIDELINE.
2. >>"This is a widely accepted classification, not one invented by Wikipedians"
   Incorrect on three counts:
   a) The subject of this policy is "original research" by Wikipedians.
   b) The meaning of those terms is not universal, leave alone a "widely accepted classification."
   c) it is (arbitrarily) chosen by Wikipedians with a meaning and purpose specific to Wikipedia. It applies nowhere else.
3. >> "If you understand the distinction between PS/SS/TS, odds are you understand sources"
   I'm terribly sorry for you if your idea of "sources" is formed by the understanding of the distinction between a fountain, a hydrant, and a faucet. St. Augustine had already figured this out 1700 years ago. One doesn't have to know what a "poodle" is in order to know what a "dog" is, nor does one comprehend what a "dog" is by understanding the distinction between a chihuahua and a great dane.
   Even a four year old child knows what a dog is, even it doesn't know (or need to know) what breed. Its also not necessary to distinguish breeds in order to establish that dogs can bite.

PSTS is not there to gratuitously classify sources. PSTS is there to make a point. And that point does not require ps/ss distinction to make it.

-- Fullstop (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See also my reply below, timestamped "21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)". NOR is here to explain to editors not to add their own research. PSTS is an extremely useful framework to explain that, and evaluating sources in general. Policies are written to be understood, so they can be properly used. Crum375 (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found that it was Fullstop who originally wrote this: "In the humanities, materials that are potential objects of academic research but do not themselves constitute academic research are considered 'primary sources'." Could you say what it means, please, Fullstop? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop, please read this. It is in the policy:

"Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

We can't pin things down as much as you want to. Sometimes even when edits are contested, using primary sources will be appropriate. What the policy says is that it's easier to misuse primary sources, and articles should therefore be based on secondary sources. It doesn't mean primary sources can never be used. You're all reading things into the policy that aren't there, then demanding they be removed, then writing new versions in poor English that don't say what you want them to say, and do say what you don't want them to say, and demanding UN Security Council resolutions before a copy edit's allowed that might clarify things.

The bottom line is that every educated native English speaker understands what primary/secondary means, even if they'd disagree about the application in borderline cases, and the distinction is helpful and used all the time on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, sometimes when edits are contested, a primary source will be appropriate. That is however not the issue. The issue is that the position being described by the primary source should (not 'must') be acknowledged by a secondary source. If for no other reason than to establish that the reading is correct. Which would then also be conform with what NOR policy is all about.

ok, you say the pathetic prose of the PSTS section is the root of all troubles. I'm inclined to disagree because I believe that the pitiful prose is a natural consequence of trying to define a chimera. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and see what you come up with.

I once wrote a complete PSTS in 4 sentences, but which apparently wasn't conform with the then "prevailing" idea of what p/s was and the insistence that ps/ss/ts could only be adequately "summarized" with an essay. Your ideas as more in line with mine, so perhaps you're going in a sustainable direction. I've given up trying to track changes on the policy page itself, so please give me a heads-up some other way. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you wrote this description of a primary source: "In the humanities, materials that are potential objects of academic research but do not themselves constitute academic research are considered 'primary sources'." Could you say what it means? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That was not one of the sentences I was referring to.

Ignore it. This is an inversion of what a secondary source is, which I inverted to (sort of) line up with what the "in the sciences" part was then saying (thats all gone now).

1. A primary source is a novel^* intimation^{(abstraction, concept, conclusion, conviction, determination, design, doctrine, experiment, estimate, exposition, explanation, hypothesis, idea, impression, interpretation, judgment, notion, perception, rationale, scheme, solution, story, suggestion, supposition, theory, thought, view)} that has (to anyone's knowledge) never been made/scrutinized before. Additionally, any statement that does not reflect scientific method is a primary source.
2. A secondary source is a methodical exploration^{(acknowledgment, analysis, examination)} of a primary source.

In both cases, "source" is relative to the target statement that draws on that source. Of course, someone is going to argue about those definitions, but thats not what you asked for. :)

This still isn't what I was referring to when I said "I once wrote a complete PSTS in 4 sentences". I can't find it, its buried somewhere in the archives.

BTW: As far as WP need care about contestable determinations, those that have never been scrutinized/reiterated by any other source "do not exist." This is an implication of the due-weight clause in WP:NPOV since editors may not assign weight themselves (which would again be OR) but must have a source to do it for them.

-- Fullstop (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My position here is intermediate. I believe source typing is an effort to address some important underlying policy needs, such as ensuring we do not rely on subject/viewpoint proponents to establish the notability or significance of their own subject/viewpoint even though we can rely on them for other facts. I believe the typology can be useful. However, I believe that source typing is sometimes imprecise and/or unnecessary and hence is sometimes "overkill" for addressing the actual policy requirements, and moreover that its appropriate use will vary somewhat from field to field. For these reasons, I believe that PSTS should appear in a guideline, not policy, and suggest that the proposed Wikipedia:Evaluating sources guideline may be the appropriate vehicle for this. I suggest that core policies such as WP:NOR attempt instead to articulate, clearly and directly, the actual underlying policy needs which led to PSTS being proposed. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think understanding PSTS is essential for understanding sources in general, and for NOR specifically. Many editors simply fail to understand why, for example, adding a minor comment along with a source is considered OR. Once they fully grasp the distinction between PS and SS, they realize (for example) that they took a PS, and by adding their minor comment it, Wikipedia effectively became a secondary source, hence they added OR. These subtle points are much harder to make without the underlying framework of PSTS. Yes, PSTS does not always have sharply defined boundary lines, but the concept is always there, and it is extremely useful, and widely used, as a general guideline in assessing sources and pointing out OR. Crum375 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1. If the subtle point is supposed to be what PSTS is clarifying, then it has botched the job. That is why there is so much grief about PSTS itself.
2. insisting that only a ps/ss distinction can make the point is sheer stubborness. There is not only one way and no other.
3. the point that the misrepresentation of a PS can make Wikipedia a secondary source is painfully redundant. Misrepresentation of any kind of source is what NOR is supposed to be preventing.
4. Please read what I said at the top of this sub-section. Your point about misrepresentation of "primary sources" is addressed there. It does not require a distinction of ps/ss to make that point. The point can be made even without the essay on distinction.

-- Fullstop (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

PSTS has not "botched the job". When I joined WP and read the policies, it was very useful in helping me understand the spirit behind the rules, so "it worked for me". PSTS is the conventionally and widely accepted way to classify sources. Strictly relying on sources is our job here. NOR is all about relying on the proper sources, and not adding to them or changing what they say. If you have a better way to explain the NOR concept, please propose it and obtain consensus. My own inclination to understanding any rule is to understand the underlying concepts, and PSTS is the underlying concept of sources, and hence a critical part of NOR. Crum375 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to help turn Wikipedia:Evaluating sources into something that could ever be proposed as a guideline, please feel free. When I last checked, it contained gems such as "In the humanities, materials that are potential objects of academic research but do not themselves constitute academic research are considered 'primary sources'," and advice such as "sources must be evaluated in context," which reminds me of a sentence I once found in The Holocaust that said "children also suffered." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I rather like this idea, though as a complement to psts rather than as an immediate replacement. However, defining "contended*" could be a can of worms, and open articles on hot topics such as creationism or homeopathy up to endless demands for additional references commenting on every source cited. .. dave souza, talk 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The two versions

SlimVirgin's version	Alternate version
For the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are defined as follows: Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. 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 source. Any interpretation of primary-source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. 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 research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.	For the purposes of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are defined as follows: Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. 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 reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. 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 research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. Unsourced eyewitness accounts or other unsourced information obtained from personal experience should not be added to articles, as this would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for the added information (see Wikipedia:Verifiability).
Secondary sources are secondhand accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.	Secondary sources are references that draw on research and other references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthesized claims, or create a general overview. Secondary sources are valued for analysis, broader context, and a more independent view. However, they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view. Care should also be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context.
Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory textbooks may be considered tertiary to the extent they sum up multiple primary and secondary sources. Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources describes some criteria for assessing reliability of sources. Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on individual article talk pages.	Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up many secondary and primary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory textbooks may also be considered tertiary to the extent they sum up widely accepted results of large amounts of primary and secondary sources. Tertiary sources can be useful in providing context and avoiding original research in topics where there exist very large amounts of primary and/or secondary sources. All sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable. Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims are included in Wikipedia articles, use appropriate sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors. Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on individual article talk pages.

Discussion

These are the two versions. I've copy-edited mine slightly to make it tighter than the version that was on the page. Vassyana's is copied directly. By all means, explain how hers is an improvement. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the inaccurate labeling of that as "my" version and included a brief footnote for explanation. I've also created a notes section so the footnotes are visible. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It was most certainly the standing version before your changes. My change was purely a replacement of the secondary sources section in this instance. Vassyana (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a few questions about the changes. Why was the last paragraph of the primary sources section removed? Why was the second to last paragraph removed? Why is there an additional exhortation about tertiary sources' reliability? Isn't the vast bulk of tertiary sources (encyclopedias, textbooks, review articles) more reliable than the average source? A few questions that immediately come to mind. Vassyana (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, should the objection to addressing the bias of secondary sources be equally applicable to addressing the reliability of tertiary sources? Dhaluza (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What seems a bit disproportionate is that WP:NOR should contain a "warning" regarding the use of primary sources, while this is not balanced by a "warning" regarding the use of secondary or tertiary sources (which have their own WP:NOR issues). For example: Source A writes an opinion piece in a newspaper. That would make source A a primary source. Source B is a book that pretends to cover the domain on which Source A had written his opinion piece. In this example Source B is published by a respectable publishing house, which would make Source B a secondary source. But suppose Source B misquotes Source A. This happens all the time, and scarcely less in high-standard publications, so in this example I go from the assumption that Source B can not be excluded for WP:V/WP:RS reasons, so this is not a WP:V/WP:RS issue. Source B has also some valid points in its own right, so the source couldn't be excluded for WP:NPOV reasons either. In this case it would nonetheless be incorrect to give the secondary source precedence over the primary source, when it comes down to presenting the view of Source A in Wikipedia.

Examples regarding tertiary sources can also be given: since tertiary sources condense condensations of primary sources, something might have gone lost (without such tertiary source becoming an unreliable source for that reason). Such tertiary source might give hints which Wikipedians try to expand a bit more (for example for WP:MOS reasons, trying to make fluent sentences - or to doctor a succession line of kings where the appropriate designation would be "warlord" - see for example Haakon the Red article based on tertiary sources like Nationalencyklopedin), easily leading to misrepresentations in Wikipedia.

WP:NOR should indicate such easily made abuse of secondary and tertiary sources, or alternatively, no provisions singling out primary sources for this danger should be included at policy level (i.e. move the "easy abuse" aspect to a guideline like WP:RS or an essay like WP:EVAL). I think Vassyana and those who support the version above on the right would like to follow the first of these alternatives. For myself, I rather tried to follow the second, for which I wrote WP:WITS, which does not differentiate between p/s/t sources on the point of "ease of abuse" for a proposed policy-level formulation. I really believe that in Wikipedia practice all types of sources are abused as easily, maybe for different reasons, but definitely "as easily" and as often. Anyway, if "ease of abuse" would be the only reason for explaining the p/s/t distinction at policy level (and then targetting suspicion on only one of the three types), that would be counterproductive. I think there are other (!) valid reasons for introducing the p/s/t distinction at policy level, and that's another reason why I wrote WP:WITS: some things that imho are valid at policy level are included there, without currently being clearly covered by WP:NOR (I mean, maybe somehow they are obliquely covered in WP:NOR, but in a way too confusing language). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your observations, I disagree with your suggestion that this could be addressed in WP:NOR. These misuses of sources are not related to original research. OR is going beyond the source, and using it to support a statement not directly contained in the source. Made up facts, or facts synthesized to advance a point, are OR. Using a published source to say what it says, but in an unencyclopedic way is not an OR issue. For example, using a self-published source to include self-congratulatory material or advertising from that source, (without characterizing it as such) is not OR, because the material is not original. It's not appropriate, but that's a different issue. Dealing with conflicting sources could become an OR issue if the editors try to resolve the conflict outside of the sources, but that is again going beyond the sources. We need to keep WP:NOR focused on OR, and not expand it to cover all appropriate use of source problems. Dhaluza (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To whom were you replying? My suggestion remains NOT to address this in WP:NOR ("at policy level" as I called it). Really, I think we have more consensus than the words indicating disagreement suggest. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my more elaborate answer: Wikipedia:Evaluating sources#SWOT analysis on primary, secondary and tertiary sources --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of secondhand

Gerry, read the reference -- a secondary source is one step removed. "One step removed" in English means one step, or two, or 50, or 5,000. "Secondhand" in English means secondhand, third hand, fourth hand, 50,000th hand. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted a change to the policy that indicated that secondary sources are secondhand accounts. The first hand is the participant or eyewitness. The second hand is the publisher. Most eyewitness or participant accounts are secondhand by the time a Wikipedia editor sees it, even though the account is a primary source. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry, I'm sorry, but you're just making this up as you go along. The eyewitness is the first hand and the publisher the second? :-( SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. From my point of view as a Wikipedia editor, firsthand information is information about things I witnessed or participated in (i.e. I've operated a fire engine and can therefore spot certain bogus information in the Fire engine article. Secondhand information is accounts communicated directly to me by a witness or participant (my uncle told me that in the Western Theater in World War II, some days the soldiers were ordered not to take prisoners). Everything I read that was not written by a participant or witness is thirdhand information. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are seeing things only from your own point of view i.e. as if you were the primary source. Your uncle's information is firsthand (primary source) because he was there.

Look Gerry, the point is that words in this policy have to mean what they mean everywhere else in the English-speaking world. The definition of the terms has to be the definition used by universities and professional researchers and publishers. The policy should be written clearly and succinctly -- should be well written, not confusing, not tortured, not ill-considered, not implying things we didn't mean to imply, not language gone on holiday. I'm sorry if I'd being short, but I'm still recovering from an attempt to copy edit Wikipedia:Evaluating sources, the confusion of which some people are trying to import into this policy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the following, and it has never been in the policy before to the best of my knowledge (it's also false, if anyone cares, that secondary sources are ipso facto more likely to be biased than primary sources):

"Secondary sources ... can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view."

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been in the policy until you removed it at least twice (see diffs posted above); so the best of your knowledge is not that good. It really strains your credibility when you repeatedly make demonstably false assertions. This is a wiki, and anyone can check the historical facts with a little digging. I suggest you do some checking before relying on your imperfect memory to back your historical arguments. Your assertion that this statement says secondary sources are more likely to be biased is also not supported by the quote you are citing, so ironically you are engaging in a form of OR. Dhaluza (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please say which diffs rather than vaguely referring me to something posted above, and quit the digs -- I've really had enough of it. If I did remove it, it may have been because it was added without consensus, so you'd need to do more than provide a diff showing removal. The very existence of the sentence does imply that secondary sources are more likely to be biased, because no mention of bias is made in relation to primary sources, so why mention it here? But the more important point is that the issue of source bias is separate from the issue of OR, and this is the NOR policy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that the only possible firsthand information about Wikipedia or any other publication is the physical attributes of the publication, such as "Wikipedia is responding fast today" or "My American Heritage Dictionary weighs 6 pounds". For practical purposes, the only firsthand sources that could be used by a Wikipedia editor are sources written by the editor him/herself. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what a primary source is, in that case. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry, perhaps we could write the policy from your perspective by having firsty sources, secondary, thirdy, fourthy, and so on. Would that help, do you think? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As usual, this policy does not use terminology consistent with the viewpoint of the reader of the policy, a Wikipedia editor. Primary, secondary, and tertiary are not directly related to firsthand, secondhand, and thirdhand. Primary, secondary, and tertiary are properties of sources; a secondary source will remain a secondary source until it becomes so old it becomes a historical source. Firsthand, secondhand, and thirdhand describe how a piece of information came to be known by a particular person. This policy should either avoid the word secondhand altogether, or be written from the point of view of a Wikipedia editor who has aquired a piece of information and is thinking of puting it in an article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"[A] secondary source will remain a secondary source until it becomes so old it becomes a historical source." Could you explain the difference between a secondary source and an "historical source"? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Some argue that sources that would have qualified as secondary sources at the time they were written (Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum for instance) should now be treated as primary sources because they are outdated, and while they may not have seemed close to the events related when originally published, they seem close from a modern perspective. I don't take a position about whether this is a sound definition of secondary source or not. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. A secondary source may become a primary source with age. You confused me by calling it an "historical source." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the word secondhand from the project page. Note that the source cited for that passage, http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html#secondary does not use the word secondhand.

1. there is no "more" or "less" of anything that can be attributed to any characterization of "primary" or "secondary." There is *no relationship* whatsoever between source-type and bias (or reliability or ease/likelihood of misuse etc). Typing has no influence on the ability to misuse/misrepresent a source.
2. A dog is a dog, and regardless of whether it is a poodle or a great dane, any dog can be maltreated. Defining (and arguing about the definition of) the type of dog is not an effective way to inhibit maltreatment. It does not matter whether 'poodle' is a "simple and useful concept."
3. Similarly, the insistence that PSTS is the only (?) way to prevent misuse of sources is nauseatingly un-constructive. The distinction of primary/secondary is not the magic bullet.

-- Fullstop (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. In 4 months of bickering back and forth, I haven't seen one single (real) example presented of how a primary source, when used correctly, injects OR into an article more than the same conditions based upon a secondary source. Once it is published in a reliable and verifiable source it is no longer original, regardless of the source type. So what if the source type is primary? If it is quoted, cited and used correctly how is that more prone to OR than something from a secondary source that used incorrectly, and how does that make the statements based upon the secondary source inherently more reliable? wbfergus ^Talk 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been explained a thousand times. You can't have been reading very carefully, with respect. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Slim, could you please point me to one or two of these explanations? I seem to have missed them. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed them somehow also. I've been browsing through the archives and can't seem to find any concrete examples. All I've been able to find are just some generalized statements that it happens, but no examples. Any help in pointing out these examples would be appreciated. wbfergus ^Talk 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like secondhand, "1a: received from or through an intermediary;" covers not only " secondary, thirdy, fourth, etc" sources but any content that is "not written by a participant or witness"..thirdhand is still seocondhand information - it appears that thirdhand is pretty specific, but secondhand is more general. If I buy a secondhand car or other merchandise, I don't take it for granted that it only had one previous owner. So, generally speaking, it looks like anything that is not firsthand is secondhand.. And, um, no revert warring please... Dreadstar † 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Would a translation of a primary source be a primary source or secondary source? So, for example, would an English translation of the Bible or the Qur'an be a primary source, or secondary source?Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A translation is in essence the same work... just in a different language. So a translation of a primary source is still a primary source. Blueboar (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is, in general, not true. While it is possible in some cases for a translation to be "in essence the same work", it often is not. In particular, translations from one culture, especially one from a different era, to another must translate concepts and lack of concepts from one language to another. Consider the difficulty in translating a religious text from a culture lacking the concept of a monolithic God. Further, human words always have multiple meanings, and any translation will translate from one set of meanings to a different set of meanings; not to mention an entirely different set of connotations. Poetry is especially difficult ... WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The King James Bible is a primary source for a direct quote from it, but is a secondary source for the meaning, expressed in English, of the texts it was written from. And neither one is the best source for an issue like "Do the ten commandments forbid 'murder' or 'killing'?" The whole "primary" versus "secondary" issue is a distraction from the real issue which is the issue of proper use of sources for claims expressed in Wikipedia. Both primary and secondary sources can be misused and neither can be blindly accepted merely due to their being primary or secondary. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that a translation is primary source? Secondary source? No general guideline - matter must be decided on a case by case basis?

BTW, the sources I had in mind were English translations of the Qur'an, and English translations of sayings of Muhammad (collected from hadith and Sira).Bless sins (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Source typing in controversial articles

copied from above

What is missing from your comment, Dhaluza, is addressing contentious, disputed, and/or controversial subjects and facts. In these type of subjects, the use of secondary sources is imperative, and the use of primary sources, discouraged. On non-contentious subjects, or those about which there are no disputes (such as the wingspan of a Gulfstream IV, or the number of inhabitants of Guam, the use of secondary sources is, I agree, ancillary. So, I would not call this excess bagagge", on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that of the 2+ million articles, only a small fraction are contentious. They may take up a lot of editor's time, but we still should not base policy solely on this. The problem is with the absolute statements which are not absolutely correct. Since they are narrowly focused, they have the potential to do more harm than good if widely applied. While these absolute black/white policy statements may seem helpful in beating editors over the head, that is not how things are supposed to work in a consensus based community. So for a broad based policy, this is excess baggage. Perhaps we need a separate policy for addressing contentious articles, so we don't clutter up the core policies with things intended to address special cases. Dhaluza (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose to work out some wording that addresses the issues of PS and SS as it pertains to their use in controversial, disputed, and/or contentious subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16

10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to Jossi's wording... however, I am concerned that it will be yet another addition that has no relation to the concept of "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH"... Jossi, please make sure that anything proposed directly relates to this concept. If your intention is to say that OR is acceptable if it is non-contentious, I very much disagree. To my mind OR is bad no matter how contentious, and no matter what kind of source it cites to. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to keep the page on-topic. Any discussion of bias, for example, belongs on NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to having special provisions for "controversial, disputed, and/or contentious" subjects, but not articles. The point is that the dispute should be reflected in the sources, not just the article talk page and edit history. An internal Wikipedia dispute is a separate problem. We can discuss whether this belongs in this policy, another existing policy, or a new stand-alone policy based on the content. If it is directly related to the fundamental definition of original research, then it belongs here. But we should not expand the concept of OR just so we can attach important provisions to this policy as a rider. Dhaluza (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

SlimVirgin made a series of undiscussed edits to the policy.[27] Also, I linked to the relevant section of WP:V.[28] I am just posting this so people are aware and the changes may be reviewed. Personally, I think changes are mostly a positive revision. My only nit is that "material" should be clearly used as either a word for references or a word for article claims. I think the usage both ways muddles things a bit. At the least, I would recommend restoring the "claim" wording (or "article statement" as a replacement) in the first paragraph of "Reliable sources". Vassyana (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have made a suggested revision of wording in a sandbox.[29] Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still going over the new revision, but I'd agree with SV's apparent belief that using "claim" is poor word choice. Imagine the WikiLawyering possible over what constitutes a claim...Someguy1221 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This was a light copy edit, not a change, Vassyana. Please stop this language of "SlimVirgin makes undiscussed edits!!!" whenever I fix some punctuation or tighten wording. There was no substantive content change. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It didn't change the substance (in my opinion, someone else could disagree), but it was a significant rewording. They were undiscussed edits. I didn't revert them. I didn't impugn them or you. On the contrary, I agreed explicitly with the changes, barring a nit regarding a single wording choice. I don't understand this antagonism when I'm essentially agreeing with you. Vassyana (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Following on from SlimVirgin's rewrite of part of the Sources section earlier today, in which she addresses the editor directly[30], can I suggest something like this for the first para under the Sources header:

“ As a Wikipedia editor, you are encouraged to undertake research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources, within the provisions of this and other content policies. This is "source-based research" and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, you must take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, and not to use the sources in ways inconsistent with their intent, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. ”

In general I prefer to see policy written in terms of "you must do this" rather than the passive "this must be done" as it engages more directly with the reader. I think further policy rewriting in this style would be beneficial too. Comments?  —SMALLJIM  23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Without expressing a preference about any particular wording, I want to agree with Smalljim's preference for active rather than passive voice. At times, this policy has been confusing because it was unclear whether it was discussing something written in a non-Wikipedia published source, something unpublished but not written by the Wikipedia editor, or something written by a Wikipedia editor. When we write this policy in the active voice, we tend to make it clear who it is that that wrote the material we are interested in. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Active voice is of course preferred over passive, but second person pronouns are not necessarily appropriate. It is probably better to say "editors should..." and not "you must do this". We want policies to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. While policies should describe good editing behavior from the editor's perspective, it should be readable by anyone. For example consider the perspective of a mediator or arbitrator reading the policy. Dhaluza (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Policies are descriptive and prescriptive, obviously, or we wouldn't be bothering to write the descriptions down. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We write it down to describe how we do things, not to prescribe how we do things. That is a fundamental difference. Dhaluza (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to describe if not to prescribe? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that is not how things work in a consensus based system. A consensus means that people agree to follow the consensus opinion. So we try to describe the consensus opinion as best we can, and then we expect people to follow it by consensus. We do not prescribe that because of a "past consensus" you must do things in some rigid precise way. The distinction here is that when differences arise, we invite further discussion to interpret the consensus, and allow that consensus can be difficult to describe and subject to change. In the prescriptive case, the rules can take on a life of their own, and become part of a self-sustaining bureaucracy, which Wikipedia is not. Dhaluza (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that "you should do this" is shorthand for "current consensus indicates that you should do this, else you will probably be reverted". Sounds sensible. Is there then any place in policy wording for must?  —SMALLJIM  12:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No place; Wikipedia policies should be phrased in terms of "should" instead of "must". — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this your opinion or is it an existing consensus, Carl? The exhortation appears in all three content policies.  —SMALLJIM  13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very established in practice. In WP:V, the only "must"s are in the nutshell and in a single sentence referring to NPOV, which is a foundation issue not a local policy. Moreover, there are many more policies than the content policies (protection, blocking, deletion, etc.). The biggest violator of the "should" convention is this particular document. I encourage you to look through the policies and search for the word "must" to see how infrequently it is used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I'd expect it to appear more often in the "big three" policies. I think it's really being used as shorthand for "current consensus strongly indicates that you should do this, else you will almost certainly be reverted and warned about it too" (cf above). You seem to be recommending the downgrading of some of the uses of must in this policy.  —SMALLJIM  14:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "descriptive, not prescriptive". Wikipedia is driven by consensus. Policies and guidelines are written to document what consensus has established. They describe consensus. They don't prescribe behavior. Anything else would go against the spirit behind "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" and "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". (And thus "should" is preferred over "must".) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm shooting off at a bit of a tangent here, but if it's true that policies and guidelines document current consensus—and I don't see why that shouldn't be so, it seems a very "wiki" way of doing it—then all the recent discussions that have taken place here (and at WP:EVAL) about the definitions of primary and secondary sources with reference to what external organizations say about them are not only irrelevant but seriously erroneous. What we should therefore be doing here these days is looking around article space, AfDs etc, noting which types of sources are being accepted as primary and which as secondary, and then documenting the results at WP:PSTS. Maybe if we did this it would become evident that much of the P/S distinction is irrelevant…  —SMALLJIM  14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that WP:NOR should include discussion of how the articles that we consider to be the best use their sources, and which uses of sources are commonly rejected. I think that would be more useful than an attempt to choose an arbitrary definition of primary/secondary, which many people will find hard to use because it confliucts with the definition they have already learned. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do now seem to be arguing for two incompatible points of view.[31] I think that's the point you're making. Never mind, it's said to be good exercise :-) And both do express my dissatisfaction with the existing PSTS.  —SMALLJIM  16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop's description of a primary source

I'm copying this from above, in case it gets lost. It's Fullstop's description of a primary source in Wikipedia:Evaluating sources, and I'm trying to see here how people's minds are working about this, so it would be good to clarify it. She wrote:

In the humanities, materials that are potential objects of academic research but do not themselves constitute academic research are considered 'primary sources'."

When I asked what she meant, she wrote:

1. A primary source is a novel^* intimation^{(abstraction, concept, conclusion, conviction, determination, design, doctrine, experiment, estimate, exposition, explanation, hypothesis, idea, impression, interpretation, judgment, notion, perception, rationale, scheme, solution, story, suggestion, supposition, theory, thought, view)} that has (to anyone's knowledge) never been made/scrutinized before. Additionally, any statement that does not reflect scientific method is a primary source.
2. A secondary source is a methodical exploration^{(acknowledgment, analysis, examination)} of a primary source.

In both cases, "source" is relative to the target statement that draws on that source. Of course, someone is going to argue about those definitions, but thats not what you asked for. :) This still isn't what I was referring to when I said "I once wrote a complete PSTS in 4 sentences". I can't find it, its buried somewhere in the archives.

BTW: As far as WP need care about contestable determinations, those that have never been scrutinized/reiterated by any other source "do not exist." This is an implication of the due-weight clause in WP:NPOV since editors may not assign weight themselves (which would again be OR) but must have a source to do it for them. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of the above means. A primary source is not "a novel intimation (abstraction, concept, etc) ... that has (to anyone's knowledge) never been made/scrutinized before." Is the problem here that people still don't understand what a primary source is?

Fullstop, if I'm sitting next to you in a restaurant when you drop your fork, I'm a primary source for anyone wanting to investigate whether you dropped your fork. Even once the story is written, published, scrutinized, I am poly-graphed, the fork is DNA tested, people dig us up in 1,000 years and do more tests on the fork-dropping incident, my story is still a primary source. Is there something about this that is still unclear? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a primary source, unless you go on to assert how or why the fork was dropped--then you would become a secondary source. Dhaluza (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, that's not what Fullstop says, and I'd like to hear what his understanding is, given that he's a key objector to the policy.

But to address your point, it would depend what I said. If I said "I think she dropped her fork out of fatigue, because her eyes looked pretty red, and I think she might be the same woman I spotted drinking a bottle of vodka in a bar last night," I'd still be a primary source. But if I said, "I think she dropped it because I read an article somewhere that that particular brand of fork is really slippy to hold," then, yes, secondary source. But how often do we need to get into these details on Wikipedia? Dhulaza, Fullstop, or Vassyana, please show me an actual example of when you last had to wrestle with this minutiae in an actual article? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go into that kind of minutiae. I also disagree with Fullstop's framing of primary/secondary. Vassyana (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The point was that the difference between a primary and secondary source is not so black and white, even if we agree on a precise definition (and I do agree with your clarification). As to the point of how often we get into this minutia, this source typing invites us to get into this unnecessary minutia, because it treats different types of sources differently based on their nature. What we should be talking about is whether a source is used appropriately, regardless of type. So in your examples, both your primary source opinion and secondary source analysis would be irrelevant, and the source typing is completely unnecessary. Dhaluza (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dhaluza, you wrote that this kind of source classification invites us to get into this minutiae, but it really doesn't. For the vast majority of articles, a source will either be a primary or secondary source. I've edited a couple of articles where there was a source who was both primary and secondary -- primary because involved in the issue, secondary because he started pontificating about issues he had no knowledge of -- and in fact, it has become a big issue in Holocaust historiography, in particular. You have sources who were there, and who can attest directly to some of the facts on the ground, but then they start speculating about how, if the Allies had done this or that sooner, then such-and-such could have been avoided, and of course they're not in a position to say that. Yet they insist that, as primary sources, they know more about the Holocaust than the historians who are secondary sources, which has given rise to a debate about so-called "survivor versus expert discourse," which is basically a debate about the value of primary versus secondary sources. But the areas in which this ever becomes an issue on Wikipedia are few and far between, and when the issue does arise, it makes for an interesting article, so long as it's explained properly. But that's no reason to throw the classification out. You seem to be saying that any classification we use should be perfectly and invariably illuminating, but life isn't like that, and nor is research into life. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We have seen on this talk page (and others) how a question over what is original research morphs into an argument over what is a primary/secondary source. I think this is counterproductive, and ultimately the PSTS construct in the context of NOR does more harm than good. It may be useful in other contexts, but that is not for us to discuss here. In your example, if the survivors are including their own opinions in articles as WP editors, that is OR plain and simple--no need to decide if it's primary or secondary. If editors are including survivor's accounts from published RS alongside historical analysis, then it is an issue of NPOV and relative weight, not OR. Whether the PSS distinction is relevant in the NPOV context is not an issue we sould be discussing here. Dhaluza (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

@SV

First, you asked for *in the humanities*. Empirical methodology is not "in the humanities."

Second, iff I were to transport your fork-dropping "example" (nothing real-life on hand?) to the humanities,...

• for example in exegesis of a fictional encounter with slippery silverware, then your observations and suppositions are both -- from the point of view of the person who is analyzing the novel -- a primary source. The analysis thereof is then a secondary source for whoever cites that source.
• for example in a history of fork-dropping, where yours is the original narrative, then your observations and suppositions are both -- from the point of view of the person who is analyzing the narrative -- a primary source. The analysis thereof is then a secondary source for whoever cites that source.
• for example as in the religion of fork-dropperism, where yours is divine revelation, then your revelation and doctrine are both -- from the point of view of the person who is analyzing the beliefs -- a primary source. The analysis thereof is then a secondary source for whoever cites that source.
• for example in the writing of an encyclopedia -- which is a purely philological excercise -- a summary of the hypothesis on fork-droppage is an example of the use of a secondary source because the conclusions are -- as with anything experimentally/empirically determined -- always dependent on a preceding dataset. That dataset, the observation, is the primary source material.

The fundamental problems of the one-size-fits-all approach of primary/secondary differentiation have been rehashed a gazillion times (see almost any request for interpretation assistance, including the current [#Translation]]).

Ipso facto, sources are sources are sources are sources are sources are sources. Sources only become "primary" or "secondary" when the purpose and context for which they are being cited is known.

It will not make any difference whether you rewrite the policy to have it your way once more or not. The talk/edits/reverts are bound to continue ad-nauseum as long as there is any differentiation artifice. What you are trying to do has already been done seven ways to Sunday, though usually without misrepresenting anyone.

-- Fullstop (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

SV said "I'm trying to see here how people's minds are working about this". So here's my take - it seems to me that Fullstop is expressing a concept somewhat similar to the one I set out last month[32] which can be summarized as:

• A primary source is (a) an "observed thing" that is relevant to the topic; or (b) someone describing their own thoughts about the topic or their experiences of it.
• A secondary source is someone discussing other people's thoughts about the topic or their experiences of it.

The benefit of these definitions (see above link for the caveats) is that they are truly exclusive: in relation to a particular topic there can be no doubt(*) as to the P/S classification of a source. This is in contrast to the existing definitions with their easily-misinterpreted and non-exclusive terms very close and one step removed. And this formulation gives the "right answers" too(*).
(* as far as I can tell)  —SMALLJIM  12:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

An issue with this proposal is that it doesn't seem to distinguish between a newspaper article reporting eyewitness testimony and a peer-reviewed scientific paper. If the goal of the source typing language is to point editors to the most reliable sources, we want to encourage the use of peer reviewed papers(which will hedge claims that are merely speculative), and point out that eyewitness testimony must be taken with a dose of salt even if it has appeared in a newspaper article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that the above definitions don't say which is preferable to use, I agree - that's the main job of WP:RS, not PSTS. The full proposal does include a "using sources" section though (I've copied the model to my user space here for further work). As far as I can see, source typing has just two purposes: 1. to define "secondary source" for the purposes of WP:Notability and 2. to warn WP editors that (the type 1b) primary sources may not be reliable or neutral (yes I know, secondary might be just as bad).  —SMALLJIM  19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Smalljim, can you tell us how these two purposes relate to concept of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH... if not, we have yet another reason to move this section to some other policy or guideline. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what NOR looks like without the PSTS section. The "Using sources" section should probably be expanded a bit to compensate, but it doesn't appear to be a big loss to me. PSTS as a separate guideline would be fine, I think.  —SMALLJIM  20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree... and this is something that multiple editors have been saying for several months now. Unfortunately, there is a small but vocal group who seem to think PSTS is in some way vital to the concept of NOR and resist any attempt to shift it to its own guideline (or to move it to some other policy or guideline where it more directly relates). I just wanted to know your thoughts on the subject. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. While PSTS is no doubt useful in some contexts, it is not essential to understanding NOR. On balance, it actually detracts from that understanding because it is unnecessarily complex, and somewhat ambiguous in practice. In a conflict situation, this ambiguity has been seen repeatedly to start new side arguments over what is primary vs. secondary, rather than focus on what is or is not original research. So, taken all together, PSTS has an unfavorable cost/benefit ratio. Dhaluza (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But I think the complexity is being invented by people who themselves don't understand the issue (and these people tend to congregate here because they want to change it -- but it's being used all over Wikipedia without problems).

As I wrote above to Blueboar, the distinction is: "A primary source is one close to, and with direct knowledge, of an issue. In contrast, a secondary source is at least one step removed, and provides a secondhand account or a general overview."

Seriously, where is the complexity in that? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin wrote "A primary source is one close to, and with direct knowledge, of an issue. In contrast, a secondary source is at least one step removed, and provides a secondhand account or a general overview." That contains a few confusing points. Is a source a person or a thing? This says sources are people, because only people have knowledge. Wikipedia editors can't use their own knowledge, nor knowledge from interviews, we can only use inanimate, verifiable sources. So the reader of this definition has to make a mental translation between this definition, which is about animate sources, to the book and journals they are reading, and mentally reword the definition so it applies to things, and not people.

Another confusing point is secondhand account; I think what is intended is that an author, who has no firsthand knowledge of a subject, viewed or listened to media, or conducted interviews, became knowledgeable about a subject, wrote something, and had it published someplace other than Wikipedia. There's a lot of places where a reader's interpretation of this could go astray; who is it that has no firsthand knowlege, witnesses who were interviewed? the author? the publisher? the Wikipedia editor? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Books contain knowledge. There is no need to get excited about the difference between the author and the products of the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources are either people or their products. For Wikipedia, everything has to be published, so a source for us is mostly the text. But we do think of sources as people too, because sometimes the authority of a text is bound to the authority of the person; for example, when we use a blog. The "mental translations" will therefore have to continue, Gerry, but at least we can rest assured that we're helping our readers stave off Alzheimer's. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you ask where is the complexity. Well the problem with the current method of source-typing arises from the fact that the definitions of primary and secondary sources are not exclusive and they do not occupy the same plane. I think we'd all agree that ideally there would be a sharp dividing line between the two definitions (piano keys are either black or white). Failing that, a continuum from one extreme to the other would be acceptable, because when a source is placed on that plane it's then a matter of reaching consensus as to which category it falls in (is that shade of grey "dark" or "light"?). However, what we have is a state where there is no continuum between the primary and secondary definitions to negotiate (that cloud is grey, but what shade of orange is it?).

Look at the current PSTS definitions (as they are as I write this):

• Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic.
• Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.

See what I mean? The definition of "primary" talks about closeness, origins and topics. But the definition of "secondary" is concerned with accounts, steps and events. There's no sharp dividing line, nor is there a continuum to negotiate.

To just take one element, how far away from the origin does a primary source have to be before it stops being primary - and, most importantly, what does it become then? Another: is the "event" the same thing as the "origin"? What is the "event" in a scholarly book about carrots? I suggest that you only think the definitions are not complex because you have had long experience of using them as tools. But new WP editors won't have this and there is considerable potential for confusing them.

Finally here's a test. Pretend you are a new WP editor, and using just the above definitions and none of your experience of using them, source-type these two cases (the article is about the accident):

1. A newspaper item about an accident that happened outside the newspaper office just an hour or so before going to press.

2. An eyewitness account of the accident written down ten years after the event.

 —SMALLJIM  13:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC). Revised 14:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The newbie editor unfamiliar with the penchant for instruction creep is probably going to run away screaming.

But the newbies who stay - very likely because they has an agenda to publish - are not going to care until someone hits them over the head. In which case they will argue that "SV said" 1. is a primary source, and 2. is a secondary source. And they'd be formally correct.

But even per the ideas behind SV's notion, if 2. cites 1., then 2. becomes a secondary source. Thats normative horsepuckey. (continued in next outdented comment)

(outdent)

There is no such thing as a pre-definition of "primary" or "secondary" as a whole. To return to SV's construct of the fork-dropping: If her publication is being cited for the fork-drop observation, then the citing statement is using her publication as a primary source. If her publication is being cited for her debunking of the previous study by ForkedUpInc, the citing statement is using her publication as a secondary source. The only time pre-definition works is when a publication is pure fiction/historiographic account that refers to no preceding material.

That Plato cites Aristotle doesn't cause Plato to be defined as secondary source. Only a statement that cites Plato on Aristotle is using Plato as a secondary source. Use ... As.

As the {{Notable Citation}} banner at the top of this very page demonstrates, even the assumption that "Wikipedia is not a primary source" is patently false.

-- Fullstop (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that in practice whenever we need to decide which type a source is, we already have a particular topic/context in mind. So… are you agreeing with my assertion that the current definitions of primary and secondary are severely flawed?  —SMALLJIM  17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the editors I have to deal with don't have their sources before hand. They know what they want to say, and look for sources to support it.

But ideally the editor will already have a particular context in mind. But then, can anyone read minds?

And yes, the definitions are severely flawed. They will also forever remain flawed because the premise is flawed.

Thanks to gbooks, OR is predominantly from so-called "secondary" sources.

-- Fullstop (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To reply to your first point, if the editor already knows what they want to say, they must already be aware of the topic/context, so when they do find a source, 'typing' it will not involve those complex considerations you listed. But that point does raise an interesting idea that could usefully be included in some best practice guideline: "Don't write anything until you have at least seen a reliable source for it". Thanks for the rest of your reply.  —SMALLJIM  20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the concept of source typing for identifying OR is fatally flawed. Regardless of whether the definitions can ever be improved to a point where they are easily understandable without "specialist knowledge" (an ironic self-contraindication from this policy) the question remains as to it's relevance to NOR. Can we fully describe what NOR is without using defined terms like this? I submit that we can, and we should, and I have made a proposal to that effect for a streamlined replacement for PSTS below. Dhaluza (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think you've replied to a question I didn't ask! As you probably know from yesterday's comments here, I agree with you that source-typing is of little use in identifying OR - I've had a quick look at your proposal, and will comment. In case you haven't seen it, I've already made a copy of WP:NOR with the PSTS section excised, and it doesn't appear to be fatally damaged by the loss. However we do know that source-typing is of use in some circumstances, so can I ask your opinion on whether the current definitions of primary and secondary sources are flawed (per my long reply to SV above)?  —SMALLJIM  20:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was responding to Fullstop, but to answer your question, the problem with the PSTS definitions here is they are trying to be all-encompassing, and the fallacy of that is reflected in their complexity and persistent ambiguity. For example, the internal definition of primary source conflates factual, original (i.e. first-hand) and close (i.e. self-published) sources, which are different concepts that may not fit together in different contexts. We have also seen that the external definitions are different in the hard sciences, information science, and the humanities. So trying to reconcile all these differences shows the PSTS concept fails in the context of NOR (whether it is useful in other contexts is another matter). The bottom line, as you point out, is that PSTS is not essential to NOR. Dhaluza (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread the indentation - thank you for replying. I think I can take it that your reply indicates your general agreement with me - I'm sure you'll say if this is not the case. However, to take up your point about the futility of attempting to create all-encompassing PSTS definitions, I don't think there is any great difficulty in creating all-Wikipedia-encompassing primary and secondary definitions. This can be done if we abandon our reliance on those external definitions, which were, I believe, created for specific, limited, academic purposes and are thus ill-equipped to deal with our need to cover the whole of human knowledge.  —SMALLJIM  00:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, and other have too, the Law of primacy is a problem with redefining terms in existing use. So, even if it were possible to come up with an all-encompassing definition for WP purposes (and this is a very tall order), people will have difficulty separating that definition from their already familiar one, and this will only cause confusion and misunderstanding. There also is a widely expressed objection to creating neologisms for a new definition as well. So, the best thing is to just describe what it is in plain language, and avoid jargon altogether. Dhaluza (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive naming

Would anyone object if I went through and renamed/moved all the archive pages so their names were of the form "Archive 1" rather than "archive1"? Doing so will mean User:HBC Archive Indexerbot will be able to index them, and {{archives}} will be able to auto-list them. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable--we should follow standard convention. Dhaluza (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. There are a freaking huge pile of subpages under this one. Prefix Index. A few of the archives even have their own archives. Unfortunately, the archive indexer bot only knows how to archive one level of pages (per index), so to find a discussion that's in one of the sub-archives, one will still need to go digging. But it should be better than it was, at least. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It looks like a big improvement over how it was previously. wbfergus ^Talk 20:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thanks for the good work. Its much better now. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"consensus changing" tag

I see we are back to people wanting to tag the policy with a "consensus may be changing" tag. I am of mixed feeling about this, but if we are going to have a tag in the article then it should only apply to the PSTS section (as that is what all the debate is about). Consensus is definitely not changing as to the bulk of the policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks...

.... but these discussions are becoming nothing more than a pissing contest. I am taking this page off my watchlist for one month. See you around then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When two parties to an argument that should be resolved by compromise, which is to say an argument in which both parties have flaws and valid points to their argument, attempt to win the argument by offending or damaging each other. There's no winner, both parties wind up damaged.

Refocus

We keep getting sidetracked by arguments over details... what makes something a primary source, under what circumstances could a primary source become a secondary source, etc. etc. etc.

Let's refocus. I am still having difficutly understanding how the current PSTS section directly relates to the concept of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Maybe I am being dense... but if so, then I am not alone. Could someone please explain it to me (us) in blunt simple language? Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually making a primary source into a secondary source is one form of OR; the other is making Wikipedia a primary source. Really that is all there is to it, and if we just said this in the PSTS section we would be done. OK, maybe we would need to add that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but we don't need all the excess source typing baggage that PSTS has accumulated over time.

One important use of source issue is the opposite of your example, making a secondary source into a primary one. The PSTS section does not address that important point at all. Dhaluza (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are dense, then you are not the only one. I asked this numerous times over the last 4 months, and as far as I can remember, on the rare occasions it was answered, the answer was along the lines of either "It's been here a long time and there is consensus to keep it" or "This is a very importatnt part of determing OR. We use it all the time". When asked to clarify the first type of answer, the reply was that since nobody objected, there was obvious consensus for it (being snarky, but sound familar?). The second type of answer, when asked for some examples of how it's been used in the past to 'solve problems' was just ignored. If have a feeling that this will also suffer the same fate (being ignored). wbfergus ^Talk 19:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for PSTS

I line with my comments above, could we replace the current PSTS section with a streamlined version that focuses on NOR only, similar to this:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of new facts or thoughts, but is a compendium of knowledge drawn from existing material published by reliable sources.

• Wikipedia does not publish newly discovered previously unpublished facts—that would be original research making Wikipedia a primary source for those facts.
• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis—that would be original research making Wikipedia a secondary source for those thoughts.
• Wikipedia does publish collected and summarized facts and analysis—that is source based research making Wikipedia the tertiary source it is.

I think this stays true to the original intent of the policy as reflected in the history, and also uses the familiar terms, but without redefining them. It makes the important points easy to understand, dropping the unnecessary complexity accumulated over time that has expanded the definition of NOR beyond its original purpose. That material can be absorbed by other policies or guidelines, existing or proposed, if it is useful to their specific purposes. But anything that is not germane to NOR should not be included here. Dhaluza (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely the approach I proposed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source#Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Except that I didn't use the term "source based research" which seems a good idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it for the most part. However, I'm wondering if something can be done with "newly discovered facts". That seems a bit vague in how it relates to this (OR). It kind of sounds like primary source couldn't be used if they contained something new, and I think it's supposed to mean that Wikipedia doesn't publish those unless they come from something already published. Is that correct? wbfergus ^Talk 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've corrected it with a strikeout. Dhaluza (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dhaluza: I doff my hat. Your suggestion may be just the ticket out of the quagmire.

A few suggests with regard to readability/grammar,...

• Wikipedia does not publish previously unpublished facts. Such material is original research and would make Wikipedia a primary source for those facts.
• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis. Such material is the product of original research and and would make Wikipedia a secondary source for those thoughts.
• Wikipedia publishes only existing facts and analysis. This is source based research and makes Wikipedia the tertiary source that it is.

Your suggestion is fundamentally good, and these are just minor readability issues.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to put 'tertiary' first (i.e. the lines in "descending" order). That might compensate for the lack of distinction between "source based" (presently at the end) and what is effectively 'published but unacknowledged' (in the middle). Just a feeling though.

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this line of thinking a lot and I think it has promise. I particularly like the idea of using the PSTS terminology, but only as actually needed, and without making Wikipedia policy a slave to all the typology's unintended and sometimes undesired implications. I think this is a promising way out. If we are going to continue to use the terms "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" at all, I think it would be best to keep the order as the one Fullstop proposed. This wording is limited to statements describing Wikipedia and its requirements only. It avoids making any claims about the outside world. I believe this approach is a very sound one. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I like this general approach. It's the first time I've seen something that's tied the PSTS material into NOR in a way that has actually helped me make sense out of it, while not making me worry that it is going to cut too broadly. It's also clean and simple and clearly and explicitly states what is prohibited. --Lquilter (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think Fullstop's wording is attractive. Compared to the existing policy wording, it explains much more concisely what is and what is not allowed by the policy, and, more significantly, it does so with far greater clarity, indeed with truly exceptional clarity in my opinion. - Neparis (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think Fullstop's version is an improvement. I would like to tweak it a bit further, and propose the following refinement:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of new facts or thoughts—it is is a compendium of knowledge drawn from existing material published by reliable sources.

• Wikipedia does not publish previously unpublished facts. That is original research, which would make Wikipedia a primary source for those facts.
• Wikipedia does not publish new commentary or analysis. That is the product of original research, which would make Wikipedia a secondary source for those thoughts.
• Wikipedia only republishes existing facts and analysis. This is source based research, and makes Wikipedia the tertiary source that it is intended to be.

-- Dhaluza (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tags on PSTS

Recent attempts to tag the PSTS section to highlight the discussions here have been removed with edit summaries to the effect of "Please do not..." and some form of tag, deface, etc, without discussion, even though the use of the tags have been discussed on this talk page. What is the objection to placing a tag to show the topic is being discussed and consensus may be changing? The tags exist by consensus, so they do have appropriate uses. And there is active discussion, as the links in the last tag show. Yes, that particular tag is rather large, but every other tag that has been tried has been removed as well, including one designed as a compromise. If the tags are unsightly, should we just remove the policy tag at the top instead? Dhaluza (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)