Wikipedia talk:No original research

Archives

See also Wikipedia talk:Proposal to replace No Original Research

Unprotected?

I'm probably violating something here, but I wanted others to readily see this. Why (or how) did the "Policy" page get unprotected? I though it was being protected until everybody could reach concensus and stop the edit wars on it, and it definately appears that there is no concensus yet. Does someone more vested in this care to revert it back to the protected version? wbfergus 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I will, for a week. If we resolve things before then, anyone can unprotect it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is confused. The old protection was set-up to automatically expire after a week. No one explicitly unprotected it, it just happened automatically.--BirgitteSB 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Before we unprotect the page

We need to resolve certain disputes. Based on the past week's discussion and comments from vaious people, I am singling out two specific disputes, which is more than enough to work on for now. Once we resulve these, people are free to raise other issues which we can work on, one at a time, until we resolve them.

Based on discussion, I have added a third topic: if we have a distinction, what names should we use?" I really think we need to resolve these three disputes before moving on. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• General Discussion of the Status of Wikipedia Policies is not appropriate here, but rather at the village pump or on the [wikipedia listserve] - if you are not a member it is easy to register, just follow the link.
• Opposition to NOR Anyone who is opposed to an NOR policy should develop, perhaps in consultation with like-minded editors (on your own talk pages or subpage), a specific proposal either to abolish the policy or replace it, and create a new proposal page in which you present your proposal and basic rationale, and invite discussion. You can do so by providing a link to your proposal page here, on the talk pages for NPOV and V, and at the administrator's bulletin board, and other places as well. E.g.: Wikipedia:Proposal to replace No Original Research - use this if you believe that there are forms o original research that should be allowed on Wikipedia.
• The quality of sources please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, not here. As that guideline changes, we can discuss its impact on V and NOR on their respective talk pages.
• Other issues with the current text of this policy Please "Watchlist" this page, be patient, and introduce new issues to this page after we have resolved the current conflict.

Well, there are currently two "quality of sources" locations: the actual guideline article and the NOR policy page. Much of the current controversy arises from having both a guideline and a separate policy section. Apparently the guideline doesn't have enough compelling force (but that's a personal interpretation that I'd welcome having replaced with a better characterization.) That dual-location situation is in part what creates a "can of worms." --Minasbeede 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me just add that those who entirely oppose any original research policy will ultimately fail, given that Jimbo has expressed support for such a policy several times, and I think there is a long-established consensus. Jimbo wouldn't allow that to be changed. COGDEN 20:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't as much one of absolutely opposing the policy as it is of seeing flaws in how it is applied. An analogy. A relative works for State Farm. The relative states that the instructions are to provide a settlement to the policy holder if it can be found to be justified by the policy. In other words, if the insurance policy allows the payment, make it. There seems to be a human tendency that goes the other way: if the Wikipedia NOR policy can be used to justify removal, remove. (I'd hazard a guess that some insurance companies also act in that manner: if they can find a way to avoid making a payment they use it.) Beyond that I have no comment - I truly do not want to discuss this topic at this time (and maybe never.) --Minasbeede 20:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone is misapplying this policy it is more a matter for their personal talkpage than this one. The policy can only do so much. We are still obliged to educate other editors one-on-one to bring them to a more complete understanding of the goals of Wikipedia. I understand that this talkpage is often a place for such education. And most of the time that works out fine. However, while this policy is protected we must focus on resolving the issues at hand and redirect the secondary uses of this talk page elsewhere.--BirgitteSB 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That speaks past what I was saying but it doesn't matter. I don't want to discuss that, I just wanted to point out that it is false to characterize my position as my being totally opposed to NOR. I don't want to discuss that. Nor does Slrubenstein want that discussed here, and he's correct at this time and has my full support. All mention of this issue could be archived, to great benefit. When "this time" has passed I still don't want to discuss it. You're safe from that. I did put a short essay over in the page he created. (Sorry, SLR, I hope this is the last time.) --Minasbeede 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Should the NOR policy distinguish between primary and secondary sources?

I have now slept on it and feel even more strongly than before that the NOR policy must make a distinction between primary and secondary sources. I think Slim Virgin is right (and I do not always agree with her and long questioned her on this). NOR needs to explain what "original research" is, and what it isn't and I do not think there is any way to do this without discussing primary and secondary sources.

Some people do not understand the distinction or think it opens up a can of worms but I now believe that is because they think too literally. What I mean is, some people think that things are what they are. I do not mean to go into a long philosophical debate but Wittgenstien and Pierce and Dewey - generally acknowledged to be among the most important philosophers ever in the US and Europe - argued that the meaning of things including words depended on how they are used. To a large degree, what makes something a primary or secondary source is, how it is used. Primary sources can be used to establish facts without violating NOR, but they cannot be used to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or explanatory or evaluative claims without violating NOR. Secondary sources by contrast are the only sources we can use to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims (as long as they are the claims explicitly made by the source itself).

We can, did, and I think still should provide examples of primary and secondary sources, but they are just examples. The essence is in how they can or cannot be used.

This by the way means it is conceivable for a text to be either a primary or secondary source - depending on how it is used. Let's take On the Origin of Species for example - I grant this may not be the best example, but I am just looking for a handy hypothetical. In it Darwin makes all sorts of analytic, synthetic, and explanatory claims about natural history. As a document concerning natural history, it is a secondary source ("According to Darwin, variation in finches on the Galapagos is best explained by ..."). But in it he also expresses his own beliefs and judgements. As a document about Darwin, it is a primary source ("According to Janet Browne, when Darwin wrote On the Origins of Species he was responding to ...."). In the article on Evolution we can use it freely as a secondary source (although evolutionary theory has gone far beyond Darwin, evolutionary scientists still consider the case he built to support his theory valid). In the article on Charles Darwin it is a primary source and while we can use it for facts, if we want to make arguments about what Darwin was like or what he meant, we should draw on appropriate secondary sources by historians of science, intellectual historians, and biographers of Darwin. I do not see this as a can of worms. I just see this as a more sophisticated way of thinking that understand things in terms of the ways they are used, and understands that appropriate uses depend on the context. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think distinguishing between the three main classification of sources is useful, but I also wonder about how they are included on the main NOR "Policy" page. It is nice and very useful to have them wiki-linked to the appropriate page with the full-blown description, but I question the "nutshell" approach to the descriptions on the "Policy" page. I looked over the "nutshell" on the "policy" page and the full-blown linked articles, and there are differences, though at this point in time they are minor. If those linked pages ever changed, even just a little bit more, there could be enough of a difference between the "official" definition and the "nutshell" definition on the "Policy" page, that it seems that someone could easily claim the "nutshell" definition was itself "original research", making an inference that wasn't present in the "definition" page. wbfergus 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons that a few of us felt that it might be useful to have a seperate, possibly "policy", classification of sources in project-space. For the purposes of official policy and guidelines, stable definitions that are consistent across disciplines is more useful than a reference to the general definitions that are either restricted in application or change meaning unpredictably across different domains. I would suggest further development and adoption of that page, and then referring to that from guidelines and policies (including NOR). SamBC(talk) 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This Darwin example seems clearly wrong to me. Darwin would be a terrible source to use for an explanation of evolution in the Evolution article. On the Origin of Species is a primary source for all practical purposes. It is a seminal book written 150 years ago, which no longer summarizes the state of scientific understanding of evolution. It should of course be discussed in the evolution article, but in the context of discussing the history of the concept of evolution, not to explain evolution today. Similarly, in the Charles Darwin article, Origin should be used as a source to explain Darwin's views on evolution. I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making here - in both cases, Origin is a source for explaining Darwin's views. john k 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it was chosen in haste and perhaps a bad choice, although I think you misunderstand. If someone wanted to make a claim about variation among finches, I would argue that Darwin's book is a valid secondary source. But there is no need to belabor this one example. Can you think of any texts that could be a primary source in one context, and a secondary source in another? That is the issue. If you can't think of any, I would just take that as a sign that the boundary between primary and secondary source is even clearer than I thought! What is your answer to the question that heads this section? You do not have to take a position on what I say; the question is your position on the current policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, for some this is a very contentious issue. I think we first need to resolve the basic question of whether the policy must or should make this distinction first. Then discuss editorial issues. Sambc, if you want to, creat a policy proposal page and invite discussion of your idea there. But here, the question is simple: should NOR distinguish between primary and seconday sources? That's all! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To a certain extent, people seem to react differently to "whether the policy … make this distinction" depending on what the distinction is. I would say that yes, it should me the distinction, purely because avoiding original research is best helped by different strategies in each case. However, the definition needs to be appropriate and stable, wikipedia-specific but based on real-world definitions. Is that acceptable supplementary material in this discussion, or is that still being too specific? SamBC(talk) 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In regards to MinasBeede's point about the actual "terms" primary and secondary sources differing from the non-Wiki world, how about re-phrasing them to "Primary Wiki Sources" and "Secondary Wiki Sources", etc, so that a distinction is more readily made? I agree that the types of sources need to (or at least should) be included in the "policy", but the definitions themselves should not be re-created on the policy page, unless somebody can devise a way so that whatever the "official" definition pages get edited to is always automatically included verbatim. This would really clutter up the policy page though, and I really see no benefit that the simple wiki-linked article doesn't already cover. In short, yes make the distinguishment between types of sources with just a link to what the term is defined as, for consistency. Offer examples of OR, why OR is bad, etc., but do not try to re-create a definition here when it can easily change from the linked article/definition. This page is ONLY about NOR (or what OR is), not about what type a source is or what a "primary source" is. Keep it simple, keep it consistent, and there will be far fewer interpretations of what it's "supposed" to mean or how it "should" apply. This is all very similar to what I do in real life, designing databases and getting just one simple description/rule for each and every field in every table. Everything is defined only once, though it may be linked or cross-linked in numerous places. wbfergus 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• While have I doubts about whether the terms "primary" and "secondary" are wisest choice to describe the distinction, I have no doubts that such a distinction between types of sources should be made. Although in reading the intro to the question above, I do like the idea of simply defining these terms by how they can be used rather than trying to define them by example and then dictating how they can be used. It clarifies alot of the things I find problematic about the terms.--BirgitteSB 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's another aspect of the "can of worms." Either there's a good, useful description of what makes a source "primary" or "secondary" (in the Wikipedia sense) or there isn't. If there is a good, useful description then that description alone is sufficient. If there isn't a good, useful description then every source must be analyzed (by someone) to determine if it's "primary" or "secondary" (in the Wikipedia sense.) That's hard to distinguish from "arbitrary" - which "someone" is allowed to make the distinction? In any real case there will be a Wikipedia editor who has introduced some material and another who wants to alter or remove it because it is OR. If it's OR because a ""primary" (in the Wikipedia sense) source was used then how does the first editor distinguish between policy and prejudice? --Minasbeede 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the basic issue of NOR is that it's difficult to explain. Personally, I feel like it's kind of a "I can't really define it, but I know it when I see it," kind of thing. I've previously indicated that I think the idea that novel synthesis is banned by NOR is pretty ridiculous - an encyclopedia article is by definition a synthesis, and doing things like summarizing books, or trying to describe the state of the literature on a subject, are bound to involve some degree of original synthesis. It is novel analysis that we need to be careful about, and this is what we shouldn't be able to use primary sources for. The classic OR using primary sources is essentially to go to, say, the text of some primary source and then to quote that text, out of context, to support some new argument which is not explicitly made by the primary source. But I don't know that this is something that is unique to primary sources - one can easily do the same thing with secondary sources. I think the key issue here is not that primary sources are forbidden for any particular purpose. It's that, in evaluating primary sources, we need to stand by the judgments of reliable secondary sources. john k 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and discriminate between primary and secondary and see where it takes you, but when you start juxtaposing types of sources and drawing judgments as to which is superior, you start moving toward original research. If you find contradicting evidence, you should cite all the relevant sources, then let the reader choose which one is right. Wikipedians can analyze whether a source is reliable, but once we deem a source reliable, we have no business comparing the relative reliability of two reliable sources. We can only represent perspectives based on the prominence of their views. If you simply find two sources with contradicting evidence, cite both (including the one that you think is wrong). If the contradiction is basic, like a number difference, go ahead and acknowledge that. If the contradiction requires complex reasoning to reveal, do not articulate the nature of the unrevealed contradiction (unless, of course, a source reveals the contradiction). —Kanodin 18:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If we have strong evidence that one is wrong, we should not present it. This should really all be common sense, not some kind of mystical activity. As writers and editors we must make judgments of our own about what sources are better than others. That's fine. We just need to be careful to be able to source it, and if someone comes along challenging it, the challenge needs to be either accommodated or rejected on the basis of what reliable sources say. I think the basic issue is that we shouldn't draw our own inferences from texts. This tends to be done more with primary sources, but can be done with anything. john k 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary so far, for this section/question

Well, so far it appears that everybody is in agreement that a distinction should be made in regards to the types of sources. I didn't see any objections above that a distinction should not be made. The only objections I see (maybe I'm biased or blind), is in the wording of how to label the types of sources, and whether or not the "Policy" page should attempt to offer a definition of the types of sources.

Personally, I feel that the details of what the various "source types" are should be defined on the separate pages already created, and this "Policy" page merely point out that different types exist and here's the link for the definition. This page is solely about NOR and should not expand (rightly or wrongly) into the realms of other subjects, no matter how contentious or how badly needed. When it's necessary to delve into those realms, link to that subject appropriately and say something like "For more clarification or discussion, see ...". Keep each "Policy" and/or "Guideline" focused only on that subject without blurring the lines of distinction. wbfergus 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for that word "everybody." I don't agree. But if it's to be done I believe the first thing that needs to be done is to clean up the terminology. "Primary" is defined in the Wiki policy differently than it is elsewhere. That being the case (and whether or not the word is or isn't used absolutely consistently everywhere else) I think some change in terminology needs to be made. The difficulty which seems to be continually unaddressed is that the Wiki definitions of "primary" and "secondary" don't seem to be solid enough so that the definitions themselves could be used in place of partial enumerations. (That's a "can of worms," but some people clearly want to have that "can of worms.")

I also favor moving source type definitions elsewhere and having a compact, cogent policy. There are clearly those who do not agree and will block any such move. Well, OK. But please clean up the language even if you never deal with the real problems - and soon. Maybe someone could re-edit the existing policy and substitute "purple" for "primary," "sienna" for "secondary," and "turquoise" for "tertiary." That's nonsensical, but at least it helps eliminate the conflict/confusion that comes from using terms that mean other things elsewhere - with confusing overlap of meaning from Wikipedia to the rest of the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minasbeede (talk • contribs)

You keep saying you object to the words primary and secondary but so far I have not noticed your suggesting an alternative. If there is no alternative, we stick with primary and secondary. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd take the material completely out of the policy. If the terms are to be kept as is then here's a draft of text that might be added to the policy:

Wikipedia distinguishes between different types of source and uses that distinction as a starting point for determining if a source is appropriate for citation by Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia uses the words "primary," "secondary," and "tertiary" (see below) to categorize different types of source. Please note that while these words are also words used outside Wikipedia for the distinction of different types of source the meanings of the words within Wikipedia are not precisely the same (as detailed below) for use within this policy.

It's a draft, I'm not wed to any of it. --Minasbeede 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, although I continue to advocate the addition of a separate (short) policy defining primary, secondary, tertiary, for ease of reference from other policies/guidelines. I might be suffering from a misconception regarding the need to refer to those terms elsewhere, though. SamBC(talk) 01:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Me, too. I think the existing "Wikipedia:Reliable Sources" already covers and somewhat overlaps (and it shouldn't "somewhat overlap," the two should be parallel) the source-classification parts of the NOR policy page. So I'd advocate making "Wikipedia:Reliable Sources" say whatever it is that some desire to say about sources, be structured so that the "bottom-line" parts are easily referenced from within the NOR policy, and then reference them. A huge bonus would be that all the discussion about sources would then be away from NOR and instead on the "Reliable Sources" talk page. Look at the history of this talk page for a few thousand posts back and you'll appreciate what I'm saying. If all the source classification stuff is in one place ("Reliable Sources") then the issue of being parallel disappears - another bonus. --Minasbeede 01:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We should make a distinction between two types of sources, but use different names

Can the (Wikipedia) definitions of "primary" and "secondary" be made complete enough and thorough enough that they suffice to define "primary" and "secondary," as used/needed by the NOR policy? --Minasbeede 20:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(copy-paste of my own previous response to implication of same question above) Well, specific words to use as terminology aside, what do people think of the definitions given at Wikipedia:Classification of sources? Could that be used to try to develop a consensus-based wikipedia-specific definition, while leaving the question of what words to use seperate, for now? SamBC(talk) 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That depends on whether primary sources are required to be "rare", and whether secondary sources are required to be "primarily relied upon". We shouldn't constrain Wikipedia practice unless we fully define what the terms of the constraint. A better idea would be just to delete the section on primary/secondary sources, and work out definitions and distinctions at Wikipedia:Classification of sources. The only thing we have a consensus on now is that sources not be used to support or create original research. If we can (1) agree what primary and secondary sources mean, and (2) agree on specific instances where primary sources are preferable, or where secondary sources are preferable, then we can work towards a guideline to that effect. COGDEN 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Classification of sources uses nonstandard definitions of primary and secondary sources, particularly with regard to ancient historical sources, most of which are secondary according to the essay, and primary according to scholarly practice. I like its discussion of the POV issues concerning both primary and secondary sources, and role thereof, but fear its dismissal of the POV issues embedded in many tertiary sources. I think the emphasis on third-party sources is misleading; for describing beliefs, though not many other purposes, internal sources are better. Jacob Haller 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Egad. Another question: just how many places (and what are they) in Wikipedia is there an attempt made to classify sources? We have NOR, the Reliable Sources guidance page, and Classification of sources. Any more? (I'd ask if the definitions in "Classification of Sources" agree with those in NOR but as a person able to read that would be sort of wrong of me.) (See my talk page.) --Minasbeede 22:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SCLASS isn't finished, although contributions have slowed down (to say the least). If you think it needs work, but could be useful otherwise, then contribute. Discrepancies with real-world uses seem, however, to be necessary because real-world uses vary and we need a consistent use, a consistent definition, that can be applied to everything wikipedia covers, more or less. SamBC(talk) 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancies with real-world usage my be necessary but I was asking about internal consistency within Wikipedia (which I could have found out for myself and which, true to form, I haven't yet done. Now I'm thoroughly shamed into doing it.) If discrepancies are necessary (with real-world usage) I think it is at least as necessary (as having such discrepancies exist) to point these out in order to lessen confusion. If terms were used that were not exactly the same as real-world terms the problem would not exist and I advocate that the terms used be different if the definitions are different. --Minasbeede 00:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the first order of business would be to stop using the words "primary" and "secondary" in a way different from how they are used outside Wikipedia. Choose/develop a different way to distinguish the usages from the Wikipedia point of view.

(Something about NOR I decided to move to my talk page, where it may languish and die, was here.) Minasbeede 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree (and I've seen discussions on other users talk pages as well), that this is an issue. However, let's try to tackle just a couple things at a time. Once the above points have finally been agreed upon (regardless of which terms are used), we can open it up to deide on which terms to use. This may also neccessitate the "moving" of the current articles on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources as well. There several different issues that need addressed before the page (policy) can (or should) be unprotected, so let's take it in small, manageable chunks at a time. wbfergus 17:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not entirely different to how it's used elsewhere, and the fact is that its use elsewhere isn't entirely consistent (see recent discussions on the use of the term referring to 'hard' science material. I think it's an awkward question. Anything else would seem neologistic or just plain awkward (such as the suggested wiki-primary-source or primary-wiki-source). However, using the familiar times is liable to cause confusion as people won't realise we have more precise wikipedia-specific meanings. My gut says to use the normal terms, and have a policy defining them in a way that isn't completely different to any of the real-world uses. Link it from every policy and guideline to which it is appropriate, and no-one will stay confused as to the meaning for very long. SamBC(talk) 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It may well be different terminology would be awkward - but the current situation is awkward. If there's external confusion about what "primary" and "secondary" mean that doesn't license the use of the terms differently in Wikipedia and it also confounds the confusion. If Wikipedia has special meanings then it would seem Wikipedia should have special terms. In a matter of policy I don't think there need be an absolute bar to a neologism, although avoiding neologisms would be best, if it can be done. The goal is (I'd think) to communicate accurately and succinctly, with as little room for confusion as possible. Either it is possible to accurately define what (Wikipedia) "primary" and (Wikipedia) "secondary" mean or it is not. I stuck the "(Wikipedia)" on just to identify the terms to which I refer. So far things seem to be such that it is not possible. If so, this whole topic is dead in the water. (Gladly proven wrong.) --Minasbeede 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, specific words to use as terminology aside, what do people think of the definitions given at Wikipedia:Classification of sources? Could that be used to try to develop a consensus-based wikipedia-specific definition, while leaving the question of what words to use seperate, for now? SamBC(talk) 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Reliable Source and Auxiliary Source, per Vassyana; however, auxiliary sources should be reliable too, so I suggest Core Source and Auxiliary Source. Jacob Haller 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think those words are simply too loaded, and feel like they refer to the role of the source within the article rather than the nature of the source or the usage thereof. SamBC(talk) 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, then the zeroth order if business is to decide whether the terms, as used in Wikipedia, are meant to apply to the role of the source in an article or to the nature of the source or to the usage thereof (if that's different from the others), something else, or some combination of these. --Minasbeede 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I had suggested moving from source classification to claim classification but that would require too much work. Anyway, I like "Core/Auxiliary" because it defines two categories of appropriate use, and then we can debate what (traditionally-defined) primary sources go in which categories (for given topics) and which secondary or tertiary sources go in which categories. It distinguishes wiki-suitability from secondariness. Jacob Haller 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, core/auxilliary is a seperate axis to primary/secondary and can't really be used instead, although their use may help to clarify different standards of suitability. It seems to me that they distinguish which sources are being 'relied upon'. SamBC(talk) 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't talk about whether the secondary/primary distinction matches, or more-or-less matches, the core/auxiliary distinction (i.e. whatever does qualify sources) unless we use two sets of words. I think the current policy reflects appropriate considerations for core sources and auxiliary sources, but describes them, sometimes correctly, sometimes confusingly, as secondary sources and primary sources, respectively. Jacob Haller 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no one simple usage outside of Wikipedia, which is part of the problem. But for our purposes, can't we just focus on the terms "primary" and "secondary" and just say that a primary source is a source that is "primary"? In other words, an original source? A secondary source is a source that is "secondary". In other words, not primary. Of all the ways the terms are used outside of Wikipedia, that seems to be the core idea. The original source of an idea, conclusion, or set of data is the primary source, while any source of that same idea, conclusion, or set of data that isn't the primary source, is a secondary source.

We could also switch to neologisms, such as "reliable source" and "auxiliary source", but I don't see the point, since reliable source is already well defined at WP:RS, and the new term auxiliary source would just be something that isn't a reliable source. COGDEN 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're concerned about the restriction of sources, that would worsen the situation. Many secondary sources, and even many tertiary sources (particularly signed articles), engage in original research. I don't believe this policy was intended to limit the citation of original research published by reliable third-party sources (in fact, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS would contradict such a position). The focus of this policy is prohibiting original research (and to an extant, just bad research) by editors of Wikipedia. Additionally, historical sources were a large part of the abuse. Any definition that allows the direct citation (without the support of secondary sources) of the Bible, Tacitus, Freud, Murray or other ancient and obsolete sources is severely problematic. Promoting discredited and obsolete theories is no less original research than promoting a novel one, and is especially troublesome since it contradicts modern reliable publications. Vassyana 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's a discredited theory, original research is not an issue. We'd be talking in that case about WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Original research, as Jimbo has described it, means original ideas that haven't (yet) been published in a reliable source. COGDEN 00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "sources of facts" and "sources of interpretations"? --Coppertwig 22:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Should the NOR policy explicitly encourage or privilege the use of secondary sources?

I would say, not exactly. It should give advice on the appropriate use of primary vs secondary sources, as primary sources are much more likely to lead to inadvertent synthesis, but can be used without it being OR. SamBC(talk) 12:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"I" think the policy should be modified very slightly , so that the word "should" is italicized (since the entire sentence is already in bold), to help distinguish the emphasis. I don't see the wording anywhere (perhaps I missed it?) that articles "must" rely on secondary sources, nor do I think it should. To me, making any more of distinction of endorsement would seem to contradict the definition. This policy should clearly describe "Original Research", and only that, without branching out into endorsements of one type of "source" over another, or possibly creating new definitions of a "source" that may differ from what it links to. OR can easily be created from all three types of sources, though it may be more likely to originate from primary sources. An article based solely on secondary and/or tertiary sources, unless strictly an entire copy and paste from those sources (is that plagiarism?) would be edited somewhat, correctly or incorrectly. During the editing process, condensing the article, or re-arranging the contents to allow the data from multiple sources to co_exist in a coherent flow, etc., the article can easily change the meaning or conclusion from the published source. I've seen this several times on various Military History articles.wbfergus 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest going in the opposite direction. At the top of a policy page it says, in part, "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow" (emphasis added.) So the word "should" is already there and applies to everything in the page. The second appearance of "should," in the sources section, is redundant. Rewrite the section so that the blanket "should" suffices. (Of course I actually advocate moving the entire sources section into "Wikipedia:Reliable Sources." I'm more making a point here. It's a good point.) --Minasbeede 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense. Would it, in that case, make sense to pare down the policy to a definition of original research and why it's bad, possibly with examples, and link to a new guideline giving advice on how to avoid and/or spot original research? I know this isn't what's being talked about principally, but if it's a plausible solution to the current mess (for want of a better word) then it renders some other elements of discussion relatively moot. SamBC(talk) 12:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct (I think). Endorsing one source type over another (even with a consistent definition of what the source type is), does not preclude anybody from still injecting OR into an article. Any source type can still be used to create OR. Just because somebody creates an entire article from ai

I hate getting linked all over just to try and get a simple explanation, but I think in this case, regarding the primary-wiki-source issue, see Primary source for the full-blown definition. It lists many examples that do get published (like official reports). wbfergus 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Secondary sources are necessary for writing encyclopedic articles. People read this policy for guidance as often as they do for dispute resolution and it should offer this guidance.--BirgitteSB 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with BirgitteSB, but I feel a further clarification may be needed. I think it should be Reliable secondary-wiki-sources, but those may not neccessarily be available to the current editor. At the same time, we (Wikipedia in general) should not prohibit that editor from making their edits either, but perhaps have a "guideline" that in these cases "good faith" editors flag that as something that needs to referenced to a reliable secondary-wiki-source. This would allow potentially valid information to be included, while having that flagged as something that needs to be verified 9similar to using the "cite" tag in an article, so somebody else looking the article over at a later date who may have access to such material can properly cite it. I also think that this should be tied in somehow with the "FA" or "A-Class" criteria, if it isn't already. All of this ties in very closely with how many articles are created on Wikipedia (refer to Wikipedia:About#Using Wikipedia as a research tool). There is (usually), and ongoing process of gathering data from all the various sources, and then several major edits and numerous minor edits; at nay one time proper sourcing, etc. may or may not be present in the article or even available to the current editor, while another potentially interested editor may have that "reliable source" information readily available, but doesn't know it needed or where to put it until after seeing the article.

Anyway, from what I see on on here already today, it looks like we are making progress and may readily reach concensus on these two issues. wbfergus 15:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the distinction Reliable secondary-wiki-sources to be very confusing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, not the best choice of words, but the best I could think of, since there are reliable and unreliable secondary sources, and then there's evidently the "real-world" definition of a secondary source vs. the Wikipedia use of the term secondary source. Just to me, primary seems to connote that it should have a higher precedence than secondary. It's not until after you get all involved in the discussions and read numerous articles that the distinction is suddenly made over precedence. wbfergus 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The precedence is inherently different on wikipedia compared to other pursuits, simply because the use of sources in wikipedia is different to that in a typical historical analysis, say. I think that if there's a separate guideline on avoiding original research, distinct from the policy defining and forbidding it, then it could be constructed in a way to make this easily understood. SamBC(talk) 17:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See below. I wanted the terminology to be cleaned up first. It still needs to be done. --Minasbeede 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking over the Military History Project's "source" definition, and while it (the concept) does encroach on another "Guideline", I think it may be a start for this question. It states:

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article.

I think this may be a good start to try and reach a concensus on, though of course the actual wording needs to be changed to accurately reflect the goal of this part of the "Policy". Anybody want to try their hand at rewording this as it pertains to the "Sources" section of the "Policy"? wbfergus 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No or not without major exceptions. I noted earlier that the Communist Manifesto is a primary source on Marx's and Engel's beliefs, and a secondary source on their various opponents' beliefs. It is a trustworthy description of their own beliefs, and a rather untrustworthy description of their opponents' beliefs. I think many such works are reliable when used as primary sources and unreliable when used as secondary sources, not the other way around. Jacob Haller 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That exception is already contained in Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SELFPUB). All that's needed is a brief acknowledgment of that other policy for coherency. Vassyana 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The policy should not privilege either primary or secondary sources. The pros and cons of each are to complicated to be found in a policy. Maybe some distinctions can be introduced first in an essay, then possibly in a guideline, but there should not be any blanket preference or discouragement of either in this most important of policies. The archived discussions brought out plenty of instances where primary sources are far preferable to secondary sources. But the main reason I don't think there should be a preference is that we can't yet agree on what the difference is between a primary and a secondary source. It makes no sense to say that one or the other should be "rare" or "relied upon" when we don't agree on what either means. Also, any stated preference of one over the other should describe widespread Wikipedia practice, not lead it (see WP:Policies and guidelines). This policy cannot change Wikipedia practice. It is bound by that practice. COGDEN 21:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy cannot distinguish between primary and secondary sources unless there is a consensus as to the difference. In my view, it's pretty simple: a primary source is something original, right from the horse's mouth, while a secondary source is a re-telling of a primary source. In another sense in common usage, a secondary source is a source that discusses a primary source; however, any new conclusions by the secondary source is also a primary source as to those new conclusions. On this basis, there is absolutely no reason to favor secondary sources, unless the primary source is unpublished, in which case it would not be a reliable source.

Moreover, since polices must describe widespread Wikipedia practice, not lead it (see WP:Policies and guidelines), the fact that primary sources (such as journal articles, interviews, and fictional works) are widespread, and even more likely to exist in featured articles than in non-featured articles, would seem to show that if any distinction is to be made between the two, primary sources should actually be favored. Personally, I don't think WP:OR should make a decree either way. COGDEN 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, in the original uses of the terms (from historiography), drawing new conclusions from primary sources does not create a new primary source, it's a secondary source. The primary source is the "data" the secondary source is the "analysis" and "results", to draw parallels from scientific fields. SamBC(talk) 20:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. In historiography, if you are tracing the history of a historical idea, the primary sources are the original sources of that idea, regardless of whether or not the source is also a secondary source with regard to other ideas. In fact, by definition, all primary sources in historiography are also secondary sources. For example, in an article about feminism, you might cite the historiographic work Newton et al. (1983), Sex and Class in Women's History. This work cites many other secondary historical works, but cites them as primary sources, because what the authors are citing is not the history itself, but the original historical ideas found in the (otherwise secondary) historical works.

Just so you know I'm not just making this stuff up, here's a quote from a library [www.library.mcgill.ca/human/subguide/pdf/primsour.pdf website]:

"A primary source is a document in which an event is described by its witnesses or first recorders, for example: The Diaries of Louis Riel (McL FC3217.1 R54A3). It is the raw material or data which the historian must evaluate in studying the history of a period, event, or individual. The historian produces a secondary source based on primary sources, e.g. Prairie Fire: the 1885 North-West Rebellion by B.Beal and R.Macleod (McL FC3215 B42 1984).

"The concept is relative: any document may be used as a primary source. For example, if you were to study the historiography of the Riel Rebellion, the book by Beal and Macleod may be used as a primary source."

COGDEN 21:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that any document can be a primary source - not least in a biography of the author. However, that does not mean that referring to an analysis of the second world war in order to report (on wikipedia) on the overall course of the war or the postulated reasons for certain decisions does not mean that we are using the source as a primary source - it's being used as a secondary source. If we were using it in an article on "historical commentaries on the second world war" it would be a primary source. SamBC(talk) 03:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In reference to descriptive vs. prescriptive, that is generally true, but in this case we also have a duty to the pillars and to consider the usefulness to the mission of wikipedia. Both of those points said, I don't entirely disagree with the conclusions you reach from your (in my opinion) incorrect reasoning. SamBC(talk) 20:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll escalate. Do the words mean the same thing (exactly) in the NOR policy as they do in the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources guideline article?

Well, that's a complete bust. The words don't appear there. Nevermind. (Or, maybe, pay very close attention to the status of things.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minasbeede (talk • contribs) 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think we have a problem knowing the difference between the types of sources, we just have a problem describing the difference. Who here really does not understand the distinction we trying to make between sources that reliably make "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" and those that either make purely descriptive claims or cannot offer an reliable perspective on any such claims? Does anyone truly not understand that distinction?--BirgitteSB 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you just hit the nail on the head. This is exactly the distinction we should be making in this policy. Vassyana 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

People claim to "know" the difference, but they nevertheless disagree. That people disagree on the difference is evident by how people categorize different types of material. Some people say peer-reviewed journal articles are primary sources because they are the primary source of new conclusions, others say they are secondary because they draw on raw data and make conclusions. Some people say that newspaper interviews are primary because they are the original source of what someone said, others say that they are secondary because they are drawn from a reporter's notes or a tape recording. I suggest, based on the above definition, that Birgitte would say that Darwin's Origin of Species was a secondary source because it contains "analytical, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", whereas I (and others here) would say it's a primary source because it's the primary, original source of the theory of evolution. COGDEN 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comment again and note I never wrote "primary" or "secondary". Do you really not understand the distinction be made there?--BirgitteSB 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was referring to your definition immediately above. We were discussing primary vs. secondary, and I understood you were defining sources with "analytical, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" as secondary sources. Whatever we call them, however, the fact they are analytical shouldn't be the defining factor. This type of distinction would exclude any factual information that isn't sufficiently "analyzed", which would still pretty much prohibit the creation of articles on current events, or the inclusion of most data and raw information in an article, even if it's not controversial and clearly accurate. COGDEN 00:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no privileging of one type of source over another. It has been pointed out that many FA use a lot of primary sources. The key thing is that any "analytical, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" come from sources, not from Wikipedians. --Coppertwig 22:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Coppertwig. Get guidance from guidelines. If people come to the policy statement for guidance refer them to the guidelines from within the policy. That way there'd also be just one set of descriptions, not two. There could even be an examples page (that provides further guidance) of what meets the criteria and what doesn't, with an explanation of why or why not. These could be real cases, if that doesn't offend any of those involved. The examples could be slightly (or greatly) altered to avoid offense, if offense to someone is a problem. --Minasbeede 03:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Above, Jaco Haller wrote, "I noted earlier that the Communist Manifesto is a primary source on Marx's and Engel's beliefs, and a secondary source on their various opponents' beliefs. It is a trustworthy description of their own beliefs, and a rather untrustworthy description of their opponents' beliefs." This is precisely why I think Wikipedia should encourage secondary sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability and not about truth because it assumes that all views are just that: views. One reason for favoring secondary sources is to help limit the chances of an editor putting hs or her own view in ... but another at least as important reason, which Haller brings up, is it helpe ensure that we can clearly identify the views oof others that we are including in the article. NPOV makes it clear, there is no truth, just multiple points of view. Some views may be more notable, but they are just views of the truth, not the truth itself. In some case the view is not ideological but professional - for practical reasons jurists and psychologists may have different views on insanity, or botanists and molecular geneticisms may have different views on what a species is. in other cases, the views may be ideological, so we would expect Republicans and Democrats to have different views of George W. And as Haller rithgly points out, Marx and Engels had their own view of other European socialists. We favor the secondary source because we are not claiming "this is the truth about 19th century socialism" but rather, "Here is Marx and Engels view ... and here is Y's view ... and here is Z's view..." I think this is a very important reason for the policy and for favoring secondary sources, and it shows again how much NPOV and NOR fit together. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the verifiability problem with going to Marx (primary source) for Marx's views, Owen for Owen's views, Proudhon for Proudhon's views, etc. Jacob Haller 16:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends. I think there may well be non-controversial times when ou could. But I know that there are many times when, at least in writing a Wikipedia article, you shouldn't. The problem is, Marx left over 25 volumes of writing, and there is a veritable cottage industry of different interpretations of what Marx really meant. The Bolshevicks and Menshiviks argues over it, then Trotsky and Stalin argued over it, then Kruscheve and mao argued over it - that is politics; in academia there are even a greater variety of "Marxisms." I do not think it would be at all controversial (or a violation of NOR) to write in an article "in x, Marx wrote '....'" - but as soon as one does so in order to make a more general point about what Marx believed or "Marxism" I think one is slipping into original research. I do think that there are a handful of principles and claims in Marx's writings that all so-called Marxists, as well as biographers and critics of Marx, would agree Marx "stood for" or "meant" - I could probably come up with six or seven points that any follower or critic of Marx would agree were things Marx meant. But that would still be my reconstruction of his though, based on making careful selections ... and it would not be hard at all to find a secondary source to support such a claim ... so we should back it up with a secondary source. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Same answer, but clarification with an example. To go back to the 25+volumes of writing he have of Marx, how do we know what was speculation and what was bedrock for marx? How do we know the weight he himself gave? You might say "well, those things he had published in his life-time." but there are biographers and historians who believe that many people express themselves most honestly in work they did not have published including diaries and private letters. Moreover, many Marxists rely on unpublished works like the Grundrisse. And of Marx's published work, well, he wrote vor a variety of audiences, and over the course of a lifetime. How do we know the extent to which Marx was adapting his ideas to reach a particular audience, or just expressing himself with abandon? And how do we know the extent to which what Marx wrote at one time in his life he held to with the same conviction at another time? there are many scholars - including self-identified marxists and people who do not consider themselves "marxists," who argue that there is a profound difference between the "early Marx" and "later marx" - and also scholars who reject this view. Did you know about this? If so I think you would have understand exactly why I think one is doing original research when one uses quotes by Marx to make claims about "what Marx thought." If you didn't know this, well, this is just another reason I believe so strongly in the distinction between primary and secondary sources, and the importance of favoring the latter. Here is what it boils down to to me: if all you want to claim is "In a lecture Marx gave to the German Workingman's Club of Brussels in 1847, Marx said that 'The same commodity is offered for sale by various selers. Whoever sells the commodities of the same quality most cheaply, is sure to drive the other sellers from the field and to secure the greatest market for himself. The sellers therefore fight among themselves for the sale, for the market .... Thus there takes place a compeition among the sellers which forces down the price of the commodities ofered by them .... But there is also a competition among the buyers; this upon its side causes the price of the proffered commodities to rise,'" well, I would not object and would not worry about OR. If however you were to make synthetic or general claims about what Marx believed, I will want to know that you have read most of the available works of Marx (all 25+volumes) and have studied his biography and the social and historical context in which he wrote, and understood the various audiences to whom he wrote and spoke, and the influences upon him. Fact is, you would have to be a Marx scholar and know and understand Marx and his times well enough to have been published in a peer-reviewd journal, or a book published by an academic press, or a book or article that is notable among some group of people who know something about Marx - in short, I will have expected you to have published what we here call a secondary source. And if you have, we can quote and cite it! If you haven't - well let's look for one by someone else. So this is another reason why I think it important that Wikipedia favor secondary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't finding different secondary sources for Marx, but for Owen, Proudhon, et al., let alone obscure figures. Generally, if commentaries, encyclopediae, etc. rely more on their critics' descriptions of their beliefs than their own descriptions of their beliefs, then we have a problem, but one which their own works, if available, can solve.

For Marx, much of the later debate among Marxists focused on addition to his theories, e.g. adapting them to Russian conditions, and "Marx believed this" or "Marx believed that" were not final arguments. So disagreement among Marxists didn't always mean disagreement about Marx.

IMO, the ideal "x believed y" reference would have both (1) a primary source by x stating his/her views about y, and (2) a secondary source about x, though I'm personally more concerned with finding (1) than (2). If these contradict each other, I think that a full discussion should outweigh a short comment. Jacob Haller 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it. If any personal analysis is made of what Marx said that's OR and it should be ejected. If someone quotes anything Marx said, with no interpretation, then it stands, probably.

If the quote is intended to show how some (properly sourced) interpretation, etc. of what Marx said is wrong then in most cases (and I can't think of what the exceptions should be) it should be ejected (more properly, treated just as such cases are routinely treated.) Why should anyone care if it's historic-research-primary or Wikipedia-primary or historic-research-secondary or Wikipedia-research-secondary or anything else? If it's OR, bye-bye to it, or change how it's used, or replace the other material with the new material, as appropriate - and I see no way anyone can, a priori, declare what the disposition should be on any basis, not just on the basis of what type of source was cited (here I assume that the citation is valid else it's a trivial case that needn't be discussed.) I can see and appreciate that this sort of situation may most frequently occur with material regarded (somewhere/somehow) as "primary" but the issue isn't whether it is Wikipedia-primary or Wikipedia-secondary, (or ...) the issue is that it's OR and the disposition should be removal (with the understanding that some other action might be appropriate so using the word "removal" is more of an example than an expression of a policy nature.)

I get it. Some people quote the Bible, etc. in a pugnacious way. That has to be dealt with. Changing the policy does nothing that helps. If the policy is made so restrictive that the policy alone is reason for removal (the apparent goal of those who want source-typing in the policy) then the policy is going to be over-restrictive and will, with a 100% guarantee, be misused elsewhere, harming Wikipedia.

Nowhere do I say that such material (abuses arising from misuse of the Bible and other "primary" sources) belongs. I'm only saying that pumping up a policy with restrictions is a bad solution, if it's a solution at all. I lean toward it's being no solution. --Minasbeede 20:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There are already phenomena for which Wikipedia itself is a primary source, such as the Bogdanov affair, and since the page histories record edits as they occur, they are thus a reliable source of which editor accounts were used to write what things. The problem with OR or usage of primary sources might be biases or the creation of hoaxes. In some of those cases, the policy is justified. In some other cases, however, in which a phenomenon develops that numerous bloggers, message board users, etc., notice before the general or mass media does, OR might be the best way of describing the phenomenon, at least as the bloggers or message board users see it. I would suggest the following: if something is quite controversial and argued over by numerous people, the controversy should be discussed comprehensively from all sides; if something such as the cancellation of a TV show provokes an enormous campaign with a rapid accumulation of signatures that suggests numerous contributors, Wikipedia should take note of that as well. Try to give the benefit of the doubt when you can. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Regroup

Let's review. As I understand what I've read here, Wikipedia policies should be descriptive, not proscriptive. Yet so far nobody has been able to accurately describe or define the primary/secondary distinctions (that are made in a special Wiki way and aren't the same as occurs outside Wiki), which looks to me like the policy section that is so very important can't even be enunciated. Surely if it can't be said it doesn't describe anything.

So let me ask for a few examples of articles where this distinction is so important: if it can't be described maybe it can be illustrated. I looked at the Wiki article on "Evolution" last night and found that, to the level I checked, it looked like it was indeed a long listing of facts with nary a word of explanation, analysis, or an any other of the things that Wiki editors are forbidden to do unless they're quoting someone else. I think the Wiki "Evolution" article is a very fine article but apparently (unless I missed something, which is possible) it cannot serve to at all illustrate why the emphasis on the superior nature of secondary sources is so necessary, as is asserted here by some. I'd think that in the over 100 sources cited there are both primary and secondary sources but one might suspect that if all the content is simple facts that all of the content could and did appear first in primary sources. So, what are a few articles that illustrate why the emphasis on secondary (as the term is used in Wikipedia) sources should be given special emphasis? --Minasbeede 11:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a debatable topic. Since you cannot identify the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" in Evolution, I must conclude you are not capable of helping us resolve this discussion. Please set aside and let those of us with the basic understanding of the issue work it out. --BirgitteSB 12:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. All topics are debatable. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Who asked for a debate? I said that the Evolution article seems to be a fine article yet it also seems to be a serial recitation of facts, something that some assert here is undesirable. Not only does it seem to be a serial recitation of facts I can see why that particular article needs to be that and must strenuously avoid "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" - so probably it is indeed a bad article to look to for what is claimed. Still, the Evolution article seems to me to be an article that illustrates that the claim made here by some (that you have to use secondary sources in order to include analytical material) isn't universal. So I asked for examples of articles that do show what is claimed.

The title "regroup" is what I came up with. the real motive was to split the section so editing would be easier. Any title is fine - and if a different title is inserted this can be removed. --Minasbeede 14:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise on archiving

I suggest that if anyone wants to continue a particular thread from the archive they should be welcome to bring that particular thread back in to activity with their new comment. We need not activate the entire recent history, nor refuse to discuss anything that is of particular interest to someone here.--BirgitteSB 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out that this page, as is, is already almost long enough to archive. We cannot resolve all disputes at once, and an attempt to do so will in my opinion simply leave the policy permanently protected. If we can reach a consensus on the two issues on the table, we can then archive this page and open discussion on two more. But no matter what - the purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the policy page. It is not a soab-box or a blog. Discussion should be limited to concrete proposals to improve the article, discussion of such proposals, including criticisms and alternatives. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was pleased to see the earlier material archived and a new start attempted. I think what BirgitteSB suggests is fair, proper, and almost unavoidable but if nobody does what she suggests that would be quite satisfying. --Minasbeede 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the length of the talk page. We can handle having multiple simultaneous topics on the same page. I just don't want anybody's comments to be shuffled to the archive page before others have a chance to respond to them. But Birgitte's suggestion sounds workable, as long as everybody is aware that there are active discussions and un-answered back-and-forth in the archives, and that anybody is welcome to resurrect any of the archived topics if they want to respond to something. COGDEN 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with BirgitteSB's suggestion, it minimizes the length and simultaneous discussion without stamping on active discussions. SamBC(talk) 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the archiving and with BirgitteSB's suggestion. There was way too much soap, with the lather removed the page's readability has increased a thousand-fold without compromising the integrity of the discussion. Dreadstar † 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I go to sleep, and then, the next day, in the afternoon, get back to this discussion and all of the old discussion, and much of the intervening commentary, has been archived. It's going to take some time to figure out what people have said. Jacob Haller 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the policy finished out it's week of protection without any success from the week of discussion. Sometimes trying any new idea is better than continuing to do what is known not to work. But please feel free to bring any thread out of the archive that you feel would be helpful to resolving this.--BirgitteSB 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is now something like 70 kb meaning half of it should be archived - yet we have made no progress! For starts, can someone refactor the discussion in the sections below this one, moving what belongs into the sections above, and anything else off the page (perhaps to anyother policy or guideline talk page?) Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How I see the source issues

I believe the sources section should have two purposes:

• It must enumerate types of sources, their appropriate uses, and certain inappropriate uses.
• It may also provide guidance on research practice for Wikipedia, but that's not its core task.

I believe that when discussing sources:

• It is better to use plain language, or at least common terms with their common uses.
  • Hence my opposition to ad-hoc redefinitions of "secondary" and "primary."
• It is better to define more types/cases than try to fit every type/case into primary-secondary-tertiary without subcategories.
• It should distinguish different sections and/or different uses within one work.

I can't really figure out where the discussion is going right now, or why. I can't see why we can't just start with "category 1," discuss whether these are appropriate sources, these are inappropriate sources, these are appropriate sources in certain contexts, or the category should be divided into two or more parts, and then move on to "category 2." I'd suggest starting with tertiary sources, where we can probably reach the widest consensus, and then move "backwards." Jacob Haller 22:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are suggesting is a good idea, but we really should be having this discussion with respect to an essay, with the goal of creating a guideline. This type of fine-grained discussion isn't really appropriate in a pillar policy, I don't think. COGDEN 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is the discussion page for the "No Original Research Policy", not for defining what category the various types of source information fall in to. Those are completely different things. All this "page" needs to do (or actually should do) is reference the different types available (preferably an official "Guideline") and note something along the lines of "Original research (OR) can easily enter an article when using 'primary source data' (whatever it getes defined as), so more care must be taken to prevent OR than is usually taken with 'secondary source data', though both types can be misused to create OR". wbfergus 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How about looking at it from a different (I hope useful) point of view. Material with no supporting citation, no matter what it says, may be and be be suspected of being OR. Material that cites sources but that has words such as "therefore," "I believe," "I conclude," "we can see," "it can be seen," "X is therefore seen to be wrong/lying/misinformed" etc. (not an exhaustive list) are probably OR unless the indicated words come directly from the cited source and are embedded in the proper content from that source. --Minasbeede 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Add to the list "however", "nevertheless", "notwithstanding", "apparently", and many others. OR is easy to spot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And if an editor finds a source that disagrees with another source that has been cited in Wikipedia it is never (hardly ever?) proper to add to the relevant article anything similar to "Aha! X can be shown to be wrong because of (blah-blah-blah) from this source (citation Y.)" That's not a proper Wikipedia construct unless the "Aha" part is a quotation from the cited source. Either replace or remove the improper existing material (if it is really improper.) Note that the spirit/philosophy of Wikipedia is such that before removing material an editor should try to see the material objectively as the original editor would have seen it. (That last sentence may need work, or burial.) Even if citation Y does make that conclusion it is still necessary to determine if the material belongs in the article in question or if the better solution is to simple remove the offending words. In other words, is it pertinent to the article in question to indicate that X is in error? --Minasbeede 00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Words like "however" are the easiest to spot but the least likely to distort the sources. I've run across passages which are cited, and which completely contradict the source. In that case FV-tagging or removal is appropriate. I've come across passages which led to disputes about their interpretation; in this case, removal is also generally appropriate. I've inserted passages which reflected one very reasonable reading of the source, and then gone over them, and found there were other possible readings, so I've removed those passages.

One of the most common OR practices involves taking "the definition of x-ism" and "the definition of y-ism" and showing either that "x-ism" is a form of "y-ism" or "x-ism" is incompatible with "y-ism." The problem here is that "x-ism" and "y-ism" invariably have multiple meanings. For example, several times per year, someone or another goes through Libertarian socialism or, for that matter, Anarcho-capitalism and declares the term is an oxymoron, usually but not always on the talk page. Jacob Haller 00:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There are of course three solutions for contradictory sources.

• You can list the sources, and what each source says
• You can try to determine the most reliable source
• You can remove all the sources and their statements

Of course, it depends on undue weight, and so on. The really nasty problems come when the claim is important, but several sources make slightly different versions of the same claim, and listing each version would take forever. Jacob Haller 00:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The question "In other words, is it pertinent to the article in question to indicate that X is in error?" was really meant as a question an editor should ask himself in the type of situation described. I can accept that the default answer is "Not really." That sits well. --Minasbeede 00:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If X is indeed in error, we will surely find a source that makes that assertion. Easy. And if we cannot find a source that makes such assertion, it is not up to WP editors to make it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The classic fairy-tale example that comes to mind is the small child who pointed out the emperor had no clothes - without having to find someone else to quote and unable to do so, since the "common knowledge" was that the emperor wore very fine clothing, so fine it could not be seen. Note that above I indicated that the default answer "Not really" sits well with me but there's clearly a strong tendency among some in Wiki-land to make that the only answer. No matter how clearly a Wiki editor sees that the common knowledge (or the common spin, or the prevalent spin) is wrong he's forbidden to say so. There's no place in Wiki-land for anyone to say "The emperor has no clothes" on his own, he has to find someone else who has said it. Once the child in the story spoke the truth there were a plethora of people who said the same thing. Prior to that nobody did.

Another example (possibly obscure) just occurred to me. It's the Gary Larsen cartoon of a bunch of geese walking in a V formation. One looks up and sees other geese flying in the same direction in a V formation and says "Hey, look what they're doing." We are, according to some, supposed to only walk as we migrate south. --Minasbeede 11:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is now too long and must be archived, and we are no closer to any resolution. Please put all talk that is simply critical of NOR in another page. Nothing is stoping you from creating a page to propose replacing NOR with a different policy. But stop bitching about the policy here It is not the place. Be constructive. Discuss how to make the NOR policy stronger, or discuss on another page an alternative to NOR. You are free to do either one but they belong on separate talk pages.

It is pertinent to NOR but I quite agree this particular discussion can be deferred/archived/whatever - and I'll be glad of it. What I wrote was in response to Jossi. Please, in the future, aim fairly and aim at him (or whoever it is) the same as you aim at me. Otherwise you would seem to be prejudicing the discussion to favor your point of view, which tendency might also apply in the case of the insistence on giving special preference (with some nebulous justification) to secondary (in the unclear and apparently indescribable Wiki sense) sources. .--Minasbeede 11:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment was meant to address many people which is why I did not use any names. In any event, talk that questions the value of an NOR policy itself can now go here: Wikipedia talk:Proposal to replace No Original Research Slrubenstein | Talk 12:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice of draft revision

My impression of the current policy (not based on any factual checking of the edits) is that it grew over time to include the terms and definitions that now appear contentious. Those same issues really don't belong on the policy page though, as they "really" have nothing to do with the NOR policy, their presence seems to have been added for clarity, but have now become a point of much discussion. So, if the policy was "rewritten" so that it only pertained to NOR, and then had very brief explanations of the other "terms" with links to those pages/guidelines, the policy would be easier to understand for other newbies like myself, and any problems people had with "Sources" or anything else, could be discussed and handled there, where they should be, instead of here. NOR has has nothing to do with defining sources or synthesis, though those are areas where OR usually appears. Keep them separate.

What I created in my Sandbox is an attempt (probably poorly done) to show how some minor changes could help improve the policy and minimize future disruptions of the policy, without actually changing the policy. In previous discussions (now archived) it was asked several times "...then how would you propose to reword ...", and people rarely did. I think Vassyana was the only one who took any effort, but that was solely towards the "Sources" problem. My attempt was to create something to minimize future disruptions of the policy, that others can see and edit without an edit war on the policy page (which looks really, really bad). Others who have problems with the current policy are invited to make their proposed changes there as well. Additionally, if anybody else agrees that removing the "contentious" sections from the policy and having those discussed and maintained separately would benefit the overall policy, I would invite those people to help with rewriting those and appropriately linking them. I don't think this can all be done (and agreed upon) very fast, but I see it as a better use of people's time than just constant "discussing" here. After all, more than a week has gone by with the policy locked, and no progress has been made.

I have two variations. One (using primary, secondary and tertiary source info) is at Sample NOR Policy.wbfergus 10:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The other, using Vassyana's sources proposal is at Sample NOR Policy #2.wbfergus 14:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. What you are doing is a good step in the right direction. --Minasbeede 17:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Over a year

I've been looking, and the discussion about primary/secondary has been going on for over a year in this talk page. One can look at a long effort like this and see either of two things:

(1) a diligent effort to reach consensus on something

(2) a diligent effort to escape consensus on something

Those who see (1) probably feel that to remove the something now as destructive of a long period of good, hard work. Those who see (2) probably feel that to remove the something now ends a discussion that should have ended far earlier.

At one point in the history I see complaints about a secondary discussion page having been created. I'm not one who asserted "stealth" but the discussion at that time sure resembles an objection to stealth. Sadly, I didn't keep track of when that was, but it was less than a year ago (as I have only looked a little more than one year back in the history.) When I see the date 1 September 2006 on primary/secondary discussion (that doesn't look all that different) I can only shake my head in wonder. --Minasbeede 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Are journal articles primary and secondary sources?

I've been asked to contribute on this topic and don't think that I can't really add any new arguments, as they have been all repeated many times. Instead, I think it would be useful to look at scientific papers - one thing I know well - to illustrate that it is impossible to classify some sources as either primary or secondary.

Take this 2004 paper as an example A trypanothione-dependent glyoxalase I with a prokaryotic ancestry in Leishmania major.

In the fist paragraph of the Results section I quote some dissociation constants I measured. If a Wikipedia article cited these results, it would be using the paper as a "primary source" - a source that presents novel, previously-unpublished data.

In the first paragraph of the Discussion on the other hand, I discuss previously-published data on Methylglyoxal synthase in the light of my results and bring these data together and interpret them. Here, if a Wikipedia article cited the paper on the possible problems caused by methylglyoxal synthase, it would be using the paper as a secondary source.

Scientific papers are neither primary nor secondary sources, they contain elements of both. Tim Vickers 01:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that, in practice, many sources are thus - it's one of the problems of using the distinction at all. I think one thing that we've started to tread into that will be a fruitful avenue for discussion would actually be to forget the distinction for a while and talk about why we ever wanted to distinguish, and see if there's other ways of acheiving the goal. SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea was brought in so as to have a good hammer to beat the kind of people who find some out of context quotes from, say, Marx, and then quote them out of context and put their own bizarre interpretations on them and make them into some hugely disproportionate part of the article. Clearly, our policy needs to make it clear that that kind of nonsense is unacceptable. john k 14:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may extend the metaphor, it makes sense to do that in a way that isn't using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, even if it's a particularly annoying nut. SamBC(talk) 14:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say that all material must be cited, with facts backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts, and interpretations and syntheses attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses? Tim Vickers 17:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A journal article could also be considered a tertiary source if it collected related primary and secondary source material from other articles. But if you quoted it as a source about itself, then it would be used as a primary source. This is all very interesting in some sense, but I don't see what it has to do with the WP NOR policy. The NOR policy is really about keeping WP from becoming a primary source. So whether a source is written or used as primary, secondary, or tertiary is not material, it is only when the material is used to fashion a novel interpretation that is relevant here. Dhaluza 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree we're getting away from NOR policy. However, I think how you classify a citation to a scientific article depends on what you're citing the article for. If you are citing the original research, conclusions, or analysis found in the scientific journal, you are citing it as a primary source: it's the original source of the new idea. If you are citing the journal article solely for its references to previously-published information, you are citing it as a secondary source. If you are citing an author for some novel synthesis of previously-published sources or data, then you are citing to a primary reference for the new synthesis; however, such a reference would obviously be secondary as well, to the extent it is just repeating prior sources. Really, the thing that ought to be classified is the citation, not the source, because any source can cited as either primary or secondary. COGDEN 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with the statement: "If you are citing the journal article solely for its references to previously-published information, you are citing it as a secondary source." If you are simply using am otherwise secondary (or tertiary) source simply as a witness to a fact, perhaps because you cannot access the original primary source, then you are still citing it as a primary source, but not an original source. A bare statement of fact would remain primary source throughout its chain of custody. If you also included commentary or contextual information from the source, then that use would be citing a secondary source. So, for example, if you were to write simply: "Archimedes calculated the value of π lay between 3 + 1/7 and 3 + 10/71" citing a math textbook or encyclopedia because you don't have access to Archimedes' primary source documents, you would only be using the cited reference as a witness to the fact, and it would still be a primary source, even though it was published more than 2000 years after the fact became known. If you went on to cite the source saying that his method of calculation was a major advancement in mathematics at the time, that would be a secondary source citation. I think the definition we have for primary sources does not make the distinction between primary and original sources clear. Dhaluza 11:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Above, Tim write, "Why not just say that all material must be cited, with facts backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts, and interpretations and syntheses attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses?" Every bolicy starts with a box explaining the policy "in a nutshell." I'd have no objection to this being the nutshell, or part of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is only material that is controversial or likely to be challenged that needs to be cited. We don't require citations for common knowledge because that is obviously not OR (to most people, at least). So such a broad statement could be mistakenly used for wholesale deletion of unreferenced content, which would not be supported by current consensus. Dhaluza 10:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To a limited extent, that's already in WP:V#Burden of evidence, and is not limited to controversial material: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. [...] Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." Jakew 10:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why has this become so complicated?

At bottom "No original research" means that Wikipedia should not be written as a primary source. This policy used to state this explicitly as: "Research that creates primary sources is not allowed." until this significant rewrite during the time that the controversial depreciation of primary sources was being integrated into the policy.

I think that we should go back to basics and focus on the problem--editors generating new not-previously-published primary source material in WP articles, rather than trying to limit the re-use of existing published primary source material. The arguments about whether basing an article on primary or secondary source material creates laudable or deplorable articles is not relevant to this policy. We are only concerned here with whether the material is new or novel, not whether it is good or bad. Trying to stretch this policy to cover these types of subjective value judgments has only caused confusion and contention over what should be a very simple concept. Dhaluza 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've come to agree over the past few weeks. Although I think there's merit in creating some guideline for when different types of sources are preferable to other types of sources, this is a complicated issue, and we need to build up a consensus from scratch, since nothing we've been discussing has emerged with any sort of consensus yet. We can just not discuss the issue here at all, and leave that for a future guideline such as Wikipedia:Classification of sources. COGDEN 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of sources vs. article quality clearly does not belong here, because it is not directly related to NOR. And since that is what is at the bottom of the edit warring, those who want to passionately pursue these arguments should take them to another forum as you suggest. And cutting this policy down to the basics and building up consensus from there is what we need to do now to repair the collateral damage this sideshow has caused. Dhaluza 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a page that could be entitled something like "Wikipedia:Wikipedia policy for Dummies" (or possibly something more original) that gives a clear and consice version of the main policies and guidelines that avoids what is known as instruction creep. MrMurph101 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:A? That conveys the main issues of WP:NOR and WP:V clearly and concisely, in a way that's much more useful for beginners and Dummies.... dave souza, talk 11:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Answering the main question from the section title, this has become so complicated because a simple policy about NOR, over time, was "expanded (wrongly in my opinion) to include things that are not about OR/NOR but instead trying to re-define existing definitions from other subject areas, such as "Sources" or what "Synthesis" is. wbfergus 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems unfair - I doubt anyone was trying to (re)define those for the sake of it. The tone seems to ascribe all sorts of ulterior motives to the additions. SamBC(talk) 13:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't mean it that way. To me, it seems as if over time, as issues cropped up, people added a bit here, a bit there, and pretty soon this policy was no longer strictly about NOR, but "encroached" into other subject areas that had no real bearing in a policy about NOR. Those issues, while very real and needing explanation, should have been handled on different (and linked) pages. It's just an inadvertent consequence of trying to accomodate people's questions without proper forethought, in my opinion. wbfergus 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that at best, this is a case of WP:CREEP, but more likely this is really a case of WP:COATRACK where people have taken a simple policy and obscured it by hanging extra things on it that were not supported by a broad consensus (whether well intentioned or not). And the only way to address this is to take the coats off by "brutal reduction" as that essay suggests to get back to the essence of NOR. Dhaluza 10:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not need a policy for dummies. What we need is patient editors who are willing to explain things to newbies - that is one of the things that makes this a collaborative project. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are examples original research?

Many articles on law, science and other complicated stuff have examples to help the reader understand. The examples are not referenced. Are they original research? (For example, "Concepts" section of mens rea). --Kaypoh 06:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The examples you mention are not OR, just unsourced statements. However, giving an example that is not clearly exemplary of the thing in question might well constitute OR. If I were to say "Musical genius has occurred in a wide variety of cultures over time, for example Bach, Beethoven and Britney Spears" that would be OR, because without a citation to support the rather strange assertion that Britney is a musical genius, I would be advancing a point of view that is not proven. --Slashme 07:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know whether they are unsourced but true, or someone's analysis. It's common for people to include examples in articles based on their own analysis rather than from a citable authority (c.f. the huge lists of examples attached to fourth wall which it took four AFDs to finally delete). In general we want to use examples which out sources cite as examples. Mangoe 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people might not consider Bach or Beethoven to be musical geniuses. So it violates NPOV. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Should that read "outside sources"? --Minasbeede 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between examples, which can easily lead into OR or NPOV issues, and a recition of facts from a primary source, like the transcript of a speech would be. Kaypoh's "examples" aren't really examples, they are facts from a primary source, which if needed, should be included verbatim (if allowed) in Wikisource, and appropriately linked in the article. wbfergus 14:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Concepts section of mens rea was not a good example of this type of "example used to explain" (don't know what to call it). Below are a few examples of what I really mean.

See this from Fallacy of many questions:

An example of this is the question "Are you still beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and if it has not been agreed upon by the speakers before, the question is improper, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.

And this from Intention (criminal):

For example, suppose that A, a jealous wife, discovers that her husband is having a sexual affair with B. Wishing only to drive B away from the neighbourhood, she goes to B's house one night, pours petrol on and sets fire to the front door. B dies in the resulting fire. A is shocked and horrified. It did not occur to her that B might be physically in danger and there was no conscious plan in her mind to injure B when the fire began. But when A's behaviour is analysed, B's death must be intentional. If A had genuinely wished to avoid any possibility of injury to B, she would not have started the fire. Or, if verbally warning B to leave was not an option, she should have waited until B was seen to leave the house before starting the fire. As it was, she waited until night when it was more likely that B would be at home and there would be fewer people around to raise the alarm.

And this from Mistake (criminal law):

For example, if a defendant goes into a supermarket and places eight items in a basket which is presented to the cashier for payment in the usual way. Both honestly believe that all eight items have been scanned, and the defendant pays the sum shown on the bill. A store detective, however, notices that a mistake was made by the cashier so that only seven items were actually priced. This detective arrests the defendant after leaving the store. Since the defendant honestly believes that he has become the owner of goods in a sale transaction, he cannot form the mens rea for theft (which is usually dishonesty) when he physically removes them from the store. Accordingly, he should be acquitted.

And this from Self-defense (theory):

For example, a person who unknowingly chances upon two actors practising a fight would be able to defend his restraint of the one that appeared to be the aggressor.

--Kaypoh 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For the examples you just posted above, I don't see why those can't be included in the article if they can be found in what is (currently) called a secondary source and properly referenced. If they can be referenced, then they are not original research. If they can't be referenced, then they may be classified as original research since you wouldn't be able to prove that they were not your "ideas", correct or incorrect as they may be. wbfergus 14:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The examples are original research. Track the edit history - I would bet that these passages were added to the articles before 2003 when this policy took full effect. It should not be hard to find sources for the examples, and one way to improve Wikipedia articles is to find stuff just like this, and look for soruces! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If the examples are obvious and straightforward, noncontroversial extensions of clearly-verifiable ideas, then I don't think it should count as original research so long as a person without special expertise would be able to verify that the example merely illustrates the ideas that have already been set forth and attributed. In that case, you are not actually putting forward original research; you are just re-stating what has already been said and attributed in a more user-friendly way, by an example. Other encyclopedias use examples, and it's not often that you find suitable examples in primary or secondary sources. Tertiary sources like textbooks, maybe, and if such examples can be found, all the better. But if nothing "original" is actually put forward by the example, and specialized knowledge isn't required for the reader to verify the correctness of the example, I don't see how it's original research. COGDEN 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering these comments, I would add only this: sometimes what is original research is a judgement call and that judgement is best left to those editors who have been working on an article. As COGDEN suggests, eidts that are uncontroversial sledom if ever require editors to turn to policies for guidance; the more the controversy, the more salient the policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the key is whether the examples are illustrative or interpretive. If they simply explain what has already been set forth, and there is no new thought, then this is no different than paraphrasing a source to avoid copyvio. But if the examples involve interpretation or new ideas, then that would be OR without a RS to attribute them to. Dhaluza 10:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is merging data tables from diverse sources OR?

I have looked at articles that had a couple of funky tables and then looked at the referenced sources as well as others, and wondered if constructing a single table that merged the data from the various sources would constitute OR.

In the case of oil wells, there is a list of them with data pulled from multiple sources which seems not be OR, while a I have a feeling that creating a similar kind of compilaton for Palestinian census data would be seen as OR. I've concluded for the time being that I will fill in existing tables with info I find, but I won't create any because I now see it as minefield - one's structuring of data is a POV.

But perhaps this should be handled with a policy more like that for images and other original artwork? The objective is to present the diverse facts and analysis in some coherent fashion, right? Mulp 01:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's somebody else's analysis, and is backed up with proper references for the analysis. Regarding the table, on the surface it appears that it would not be OR, if for example, you created one large table from a source of oil wells in Oklahoma and then another source of oil wells in Texas. There wouldn't be any overlap of oil well data in that case, so it would not be up to you to decide how to handle the cases where there was overlap. It might also be contentious if the data from the two sources were in different formats, and you performed some conversion of the data so the table could be uniform, like if one was reported in meters and the other in feet. Suddenly, even though it's a simple conversion, you changed the original data, so some could claim that as OR. Personally I wouldn't, but I think quite a few others would, at least enough to cause a major discussion on that page and here. That's just my opinion though. In that particular case, it may be "better" to contact the source of the information and ask if they could provide it in the same format as the other, that way nobody can claim that you modified the original data. If it's USGS data, I happen to know some of the folks over there, and it probably wouldn't be that big of a deal to accomodate that kind of request. I do it all the time with many of the data requests I get (I'm in a different group). wbfergus 10:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary

Is it OR to say that X term, that some people describe as a neologism, is not found in the OED or [insert name here] other specific dictionary? Obviously the OED is a primary source in this case and the factual accuracy is easily verified. 136.152.153.36 22:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the neologism rule has gotten way out of hand. Sometimes an article needs just the right adjective to modify a noun. If the adjective-noun combination doesn't crop up in any sources, or "worse" yet, does turn up in primary sources, some editors will object that it is a neologism.

Anyway, the OED is a dictionary, and dictionaries lead to analytical OR. Jacob Haller 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's not original research, because whether or not it exists in the OED is something anyone can verify just by looking at the book, without making a novel interpretive leap. I don't understand what Jacob Haller means by "dictionaries lead to analytical OR". Certainly dictionaries, especially one as academic as OED, may contain original research, but citing them is not original research unless you inject novel interpretations of OED into the mix. COGDEN 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries offer tidy definitions, even when historical usage does not. Tidy definitions encourage people to draw analytical conclusions, e.g. Benjamin Tucker supported individual ownership and free markets, "therefore" (analytical OR) he was not a socialist and/or he was pro-capitalist (he was involved in the socialist movement of the time, and his economic ideas are basically adaptations of Proudhon's; anyway there have been a variety of definitions of socialism).

There are some recurring analytical OR edit wars which are just wrong:

• "Libertarianism refers to opposition to the state and opposition to collective ownership."
• "Socialism refers to a form of collective ownership which requires the state."
• "Therefore, libertarian socialism is an oxymoron."

And there are some where I agree with the analysis, but not its inclusion:

• "Anarchism refers to opposition to the state and opposition to hierarchies."
• "Capitalism refers to a form of economic hierarchy which depends on the state."
• "Therefore anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron."

It's reasonable to note that some groups currently called L. or most groups ever called A. oppose S. and C. respectively, but these arguments should draw from history not from dictionaries. Jacob Haller 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another editor redefined left-libertarianism based on a dictionary. In this case, the dictionary is just wrong, and would define most left-libertarians out of left-libertarianism entirely. However, the dictionary was a tertiary source, while the descriptions by left-libertarian organizations, individuals, etc. were primary sources, and were deleted. Jacob Haller 00:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that anarchism refers to "opposition to hierarchies"?? A dictionary maybe? If we go by your reasoning, then anything that calls itself a form of anarchism is a form of anarchism, including anarcho-capitalism, and that therefore we should adjust the definition of anarchism to include anarcho-capitalism. That would require removing from the definition of anarchism that it is opposed to hierarchies. Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorojourner (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I get the definition from discussion with other anarchists, and find it in some written sources as well. I think it's fair play to challenge the credential of "anarcho-capitalism" on anarchism or anarchism and capitalism, with proper sources, but not in the intro to anarcho-capitalism.

I just got sick of hit-and-run OR "clarifications" to libertarian socialism and the same standard which limits these on LS also limits them on AC. It's Wikipedia's role to describe ideologies, and their positions, and the controversies they are involved in, not to tell readers whether the ideologies are self-consistent or not. Jacob Haller 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have gotten off-track with respect to addressing the issue I was interested in. There is an article that says "X is a term that...". Some verifiable academics say this term is a neologism. Some Wikipedians want to mention that the word "X" was published much earlier in books A, B, etc. Other Wikipedians want to mention that "X" is a not included in the OED or any other dictionary. Both of these statements are based on easily verified facts discovered by Wikipedians, and potentially they both add useful context to whether or not X is a new term (or perhaps a rarely used old term that has taken on a new meaning). So, consistent with the OR policies regarding primary sources, is one allowed to mention both, neither, just one, etc.? 136.152.153.15 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for removing the coats from the coatrack

The arguments for and against the use of specific types of sources in specific situations need to be discussed more fully, and in the context of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:Notability. I think we can work toward a potential guideline for this. In the meantime, however, to get a consensus, original research policy that we can all live with, why don't we get back to basics. We can avoid the controversy for now by paring back to the fundamental ideas we all agree with, which I think are represented in the following text, which I would propose as a near-term replacement for the "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources" section:

===Use of sources===

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

When citing a source in support of a proposition in a Wikipedia article, the proposition should (1) be verifiable to the source by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no novel analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims based on the source.

Even if people want there to eventually be more than this in the policy, maybe this is an acceptable step that we can build on. COGDEN 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How about offering comments or suggestions, or even making some edits to the two variations I put together in #Notice of draft revision above? It's an attempt to address this specific situation, of taking the "parts" that don't pertain to NOR and getting them into their own article, so this policy can be less contentious. There's also another variation in the works that I've seen as well, but I'll let the other person "announce" it once they're satisfied with it's content. wbfergus 10:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

While I think the alternative proposals are useful as illustrative examples, we should be able to edit this policy here to preserve the edit history. I've taken a shot at diffusing one of the controversial items already. Dhaluza 11:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What you've done is good. Preserving the edit history is good. I think the classification of sources language needs to be moved elsewhere. I suspect you left them in to avoid an edit war. I think that was a good idea and action (or lack of action.) It looks like there is a visible consensus for moving them elsewhere. Can that be assumed and discussion turn to the issue of where to move them and how to reword that section, if that is needed? --Minasbeede 13:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are immediately verifiable statements OR?

I would like to give an instance that possibly hones the edge of the point being made by the "example" discussion above.

I recently edited an article of a person X where I wanted to say that "X is often referred to on the web as Prof. X". Later I show that his official biography says he was not a prof. This I felt was important to the article, since many readers may come to the article with a view that he is a Prof. An encyclopedia is being written against the backdrop of this common perception, after all.

Now in stating that "X is often referred to on the web as Prof. X", I have no "source" that makes this full claim. However one can cite hundreds of webpages that say he is a prof. It is a claim that is immediately verifiable, and backed up by these sources, which are completely "reliable" for this purpose - ie. they are clearly referring to him as Prof. X.

We are not introducing a new theory / original idea / term/ argument - it is just the immediately verifiable statement that "X is often referred to on the web as Prof. X". My question is - should it constitute original research?

I am referring to the article on P. N. Oak, where I have made this claim recently. If there is a consensus here that this is OR, I will remove the statement. mukerjee (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem comes with the word "often" - it's OR to assess the frequency of such references in any way. You can say that he is referred to as such with a single citation, although more is better. To say that such references occur often without it being OR, some reliable source must have made the assessment. SamBC(talk) 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

a proposal - just the intro

I have been trying to edit the intro section for clarity and brevity - I also changed the "nutshell" based on a comment by Tim. I want to propose changing the intro of the actual policy to the following, and I will not do it unless there is general agreement.

My approach has been conservative - to change content as little as possible, but to streamline.

Here goes:

---

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

• Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way.
• Our neutral point of view policy (NPOV) forbids editors from inserting their own views into articles. Instead, our verifiability policy (V) demands that Wikipedia present established and notable views.
• Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our Wikipedia:No original research, or NOR, policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately.
• NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies. Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

---

Any strong objections? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Slrubenstein. No objections from me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. The only part I wonder about (though minor), is the policy on living persons. It appears that it is also a content policy (as it's categorized), and that it is also a core content policy. Should it or should it not appear then "...four principal content policies..."? wbfergus 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that BLP is a tightening of V and NPOV, and as such it is an extension of both. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what NPOV means. Jacob Haller 17:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I think it's better than the current intro, although we might want to re-word the NPOV paragraph, possibly like this:

* Our policy forbidding OR is a corollary to two other policies: our verifiability policy (V), which demands that Wikipedia only present established information found in reliable sources, and our neutral point of view policy (NPOV), which demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by COGDEN (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Synt check requested

Can an article have a SYNT problem by implication? The article George Washington and religion contains what I find to be a subtle form of synthesis... using original documents in a way that very strongly "implies" that Washington held certain religious beliefs (specifically that he was a Deist). However, the article does not actually come out and say: "Thus, Washington was a deist". Is this a NOR/SYNT situation or not? I would appreciate an uninvolved opinion. Blueboar 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's a matter of legitimate controversy (both words matter, I'd say) (and relevant to the article in question) then NPOV requires both sides of the issue to be presented, so a step backward can be taken and should be. It looks like this is a small part of something much larger. What's the best way you can find to resolve this - or can it be resolved? --Minasbeede 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If this question refers to the Abercrombie quotation it would seem that it is verifiable that Abercrombie said it. I don't think anyone would claim that Abercrobmie is the definitive source on Washington and religion and it's likely that Abercrombie meant no compliment by the words (and could have meant that Washington's actions sure looked like the actions of a deist, which Abercrombie deplored - both deism and looking like a deist by one's actions. The quotation as given doesn't indicate that Abercrombie spat but that seems very possibly to be the sense of his words.) The article itself seems to indicate the question of Washington being a deist is still "up in the air" and that overall message of the article would seem to neutralize any false interpretation or promotion in importance of what Abercrombie said. I'd not automatically delete the passage. --Minasbeede 20:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent POV-pushing

I reverted recent POV-poshing aimed at giving more slack to artcles based solely on primary sources. This encourages a deplored practice to create aricles by "quote farming" from google searches. The reverted significant changes in policy must be thorougly discussed in the policy talk page. `'Míkka 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

per another editor's request, I protected the page again in the form it was in before it was unprotected. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mikka. I would prefer having the article protected in the last version by Mikkalai, which was the last consensus version before Cogden started edit warring to get his non-consensus version in. The article should revert back to the last version by Mikkalai instead of reverting back to the non-consensus, contested version by Cogden. If a version is to be picked to protect on, this was the last consensus version before the edit war. Dreadstar † 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not often that I agree with Mikka, but this is one case which I do. There is no need to dilute the spirit of NOR that would encourage the use of primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi hits it right on the mark, there is no need to change the wording to encourage the use of primary sources, a change which would indeed dilute that important aspect of NOR. Dreadstar † 16:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this substantially mis-characterizes the essence of the debate. I have not seen any arguments encouraging the use of primary sources. The question is whether dividing sources into primary and secondary categories, then treating them differently in this policy is supported by a broad consensus of the Wikipedia community. Many editors have questioning the wisdom, necessity and/or relevance of the disputed text in the recent comments, and it is important to remember that policy must reflect consensus of what editors actually support, not what some editors think other editors should support. Dhaluza 00:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored it to the version that was last protected in part because it seemed like the only disinterested way I could act, given that I have argued for my own views here. If an editor who has not been involved want to change the protection, I won't object - but check with the page protection policy. We are uspposed to protect it at whatever version it is in when the conflict calls for protection. I think one could reasonably argue that with policies, reversion should be to the pre-conflict version. Anyway, it could be a touchy subject. i did what I thought was prudent and won't object if another admin has a better idea. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Strict rules of editing policy pages supersede formalities of protection ("metapolicy supersede policy"), so I regretfully have to restore my reversal of non-discussed changes to previous consensus version. Policies are highly visible, influential pages and we cannot afford "The Wrong Version" here. `'Míkka 17:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Míkka, I would take a look at the archives. This issue has been very heavily discussed, and it's clear that there is no consensus as to any particular decreed rules distinguishing sources based on whether they are deemed "primary" or "secondary". The strict rules of editing policy are that any policy rules must represent and describe widespread consensus. Given the controversy, the status quo is 'no policy. If we can agree on positive language relating to the merits and disadvantages of particular types of sources, we can put that in, but in the meantime, we risk damage to the Wikipedia institution by maintaining a non-consensus and controversial policy. COGDEN 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to look into archives. It is your job to present your arguments now, when you intend to edit (including exact references to relevant past discussions, rather than simply saysing RTFM. And you have to endure the discussion of your changes, not of what was spoken in the past. `'Míkka 19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

COGDEn is bein disingenuous. The distinction between primary and secondary sources has been a stable component of this policy for most of its existence. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "primary source" language was around for only about 25% of the policy's existence. But that's not the point. The point is, it does not describe Wikipedia practice and consent today. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Rather, it prescribes what one faction of Wikipedia editors want Wikipedia to be someday. We need consensus now, not a year from now. COGDEN 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, people can't agree on what it means. Jacob Haller 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cogden, If you persist in unilateral modification of the policy, then, rather than protecting the page, you will be blocked from editing until you understand the basic rule of editing the policy pages: seek for consensus before significant edit. What is more, you have discuss each change separately, to avoid confusion and conflation of items. `'Míkka 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the rule for Wikipedia content pages. Policy pages have no such inertia. Please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which is an actionable policy that I am enforcing here. If non-consensus and controversial items in policies and guidelines could not be removed without consensus, then non-consensus policies would be permanent in every case, since by definition, there will always be a faction opposing the change. COGDEN 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are badly mistaken: policy pages have the largest inertia, otherwise there would be a complete chaos. `'Míkka 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"faction opposing the change": you are mistaken again: wikipedia is not democracy. Policies are shaped by arguments, not by factions. `'Míkka 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. COGDEN, if you want to change the policy make a formal proposal. In the meantime, just because you don't like the policy doesn't mean it should go. You do not have a veto over all of wikipedia. And since policies are the framework that guide the composition of articles, of course they have the greatest inertia. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

None of us can veto true Wikipedia policy and consensus. But I do have the right to enforce Wikipedia policy with respect to how controversial policy pages are created and maintained, which requires that policy pages reflect current widespread Wikipedia practice and consensus. COGDEN 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the disputed sections don't seem to guide anything, they just feed edit wars. Jacob Haller 19:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And by definition, any policy page section that is that controversial is not a true Wikipedia policy. Policy pages are supposed to encode broad areas of agreement and practice among Wikipedia editors. When something is so controversial as this, it's a sign it doesn't belong in the policy page. COGDEN 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

controversial policy pages? This is official policy. Current widespread Wikipedia practice? Is exactly what this policy reflects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Look around. See how primary and secondary sources are used. Jacob Haller 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To Jossi: Obviously not, if you read the archive pages and the discussion above. You should also review the history of WP:ATT, which was, supposedly, an "official policy", but got demoted after it was reviewed by a wider body of Wikipedia editors and it became clear that there actually was not consensus for the principles described in it. Had WP:ATT required a consensus to demote it, it would still be an official policy today. Rather, the standard for promotion was to show that there was no consensus for the controversial statements, just as there is none here. COGDEN 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that there is no consensus because you do not agree is at best disingenuous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was so confused when I first came here. I pretty much am still confused, but at least I have a bit of background now to make a slightly more informed judgement call though, aand I still think the disputed section "Sources" should be on it's own page, so these "discussions" can happen there instead of here. I also think that the "Synthesis" section will eventually have the same sort of problem (maybe not though) and should also have it's own page. A policy should be fairly stable and have the overwhelming majority support, not be a place of constant edit wars and disagreement. I still fail to understand why a policy on "No Original Research" has definitions of what a "primary source" or "secondary source" is, or when to use one over the other, etc. It has nothing to do with "No Original Research". It's a completely different animal, though it may be relevant to some examples of how original research can occur (not neccessarily does occur). "I" think that as long as the "Sources" section stays, this policy will be a place for edit wars. The original inclusion was probably well-intentioned at the time, but it looks like all the arguments back and forth semm to center around this one small (on this page) section. If you go to the linked pages on the various sources, not only do you see better (more complete) definitions and examples, but you will also notice some discrepenicies between this policy and those pages. wbfergus 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment. I created the WP:PSTS shortcut to this section back in June, because when I needed to refer to it, I couldn't find it where I expected to find it in WP:RS. Since then, I have wondered why these definitions were here rather than there. It really seems out of place. Dhaluza 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

protection

I do not kinow why the page was unprotected, but it was protected for a reason and i protected it again in the version it had originally been protected in. Mikka, do not screw with this. we have page protection rules for a reason and you have just proven the importance of our policy - bias the protection and you just unleash a new edit war. Now it is protected, nothing in the page has changed since it was firsdt protected by another editor, let's hash out conflicts here and reach consensus before unprotecting and changing the policy page. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

While the page is protected, does anybody object to keeping the disputedtag template introduced to the section by User:ChazBeckett? This would at least temporarily alert readers that this section is the subject of dispute. COGDEN 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The very fact it is protected makes this very clear - the disputed tag is onloy needed for articles that are not protected, as people might think such articles are entirely uncontroversial. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are also rules about who should and who shouldn't protect, and those engaged in the conflict are in the "shouldn't" class, are they not? --Minasbeede 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think I have a ocnflict of interest you are free to accuse me of that, but please note I protected the version that was protected before I became active here (i.e. I just extended the protection initially made by someone else). Would you have done it any other way? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is't it up to the individual administrator to carefully determine whether or not that administrator has a stake in material for which there is an edit war? --Minasbeede 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made a careful determination, acted and explained myself on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see: "During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." You are or are not a party to the dispute. --Minasbeede 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus I protected it at the version that was first protected at the time of the original edit war. In other words, I protected a version I had no stake in. All i was really doing was extending a protection another admin had made, because the issues that led to protection had not been resolved. But it is evident that the version I protected did not reflect my own edits or preferences. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm a relative newbie. What do I see (rhetorical)? --Minasbeede 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I only placed that tag to replace one that I felt wasn't as appropriate. [1] Chaz ^Beckett 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version (protection log)." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This sniping over the technicalities of the page protection are not productive. The real issue is that the policy has to be repeatedly re-protected due to continued edit warring, which is disgraceful. Besides the disputed language, the discussions and related scrutiny have identified other facets of the policy that also need to be addressed, and it is impossible to make progress on these issues as well. Dhaluza 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least keep the page stable enough that editors can mark all disputed sections? - for the sake of those reading disputed sections as well as to improve the debate. Jacob Haller 04:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As usual, the admin has protected the wrong version. <Sigh> -- But|seriously|folks  04:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As usual, an editor is too lazy to read. Please take the monumental effort to shift your eyes up seven lines. A protected page is never the right version, and never the wrong version. It is the protection of a page in the middle of an edit war. It is by definition under contention. Anyone who wants to see what it looked like before protection can with the flick of a button. Awww, I guess that is too much work for some people. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to the question of what policy should be

I was just alerted to this debate via a notice at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). As one who has not participated in the policy debate, I can say that somebody has made a royal mess of things here.

I'll bypass the questions of who has consensus, what version is protected, etc. People seem to be playing king of the hill regarding which version of policy language is consensus and which version is the new proposal, and I am in no position to decide who pushed who of that hill.

Returning to first principles, I believe it is a founding principle of Wikipedia that we are built on secondary sources. It is one of the five pillars. Jimmy Wales speaks on it at length. It is his reason for setting this up, and our reason for being here.

It is also indisputable that there are some occasions where primary or tertiary sources are allowable, and than a complete ban on them would be inappropriate. Also, there is room to disagree on the definition of what is primary versus tertiary, and whether various ways of gathering or surveying primary sources constitutes synthesis or original research.

My opinion is that those occasions should be very limited (you could use the word "rare" or whatever other descriptor), and not used when there is a suitable secondary source. They should be assigned to narrow categories for which criteria can be applied, and any individual instance of breaking the rule should be subject to a common sense test of whether it is really original research.

The page is protected for ten more days, which should be long enough to break a log jam. For those ten days it does not matter what the old consensus was or what language is approved. To focus the discussion, what should those "rare" occasions be? What occasions, if any, are uncontroversial (forget about old consensus - what has consensus here and now)? Which are the ones that need some debate? Where are the disputed boundaries of what is and is not a secondary source, or how to enforce and administer the rule?

If you think that's not worth restating for a know-nothing like me, fine. It's just hard for an outsider to know what's going on, and I see that some of the people in the thick of the debate may have lost sight of the broader question of what the policy ought to say, not just who followed correct procedure. Wikidemo 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: one final thought. With respect to this edit, the version on the right is a little wordy. I've found it's best on policy pages to avoid extended definitions, expositions, expositions, rationales, examples etc., and to put them if necessary in their own separate section or associated guideline so you can see clearly what rule is being made. I'm don't think the comment about "source-based research" adds anything. The statement that the "rare exceptions" are "descriptive" cases that any educated person should agree on is on the right track but seems too broad. We don't want to require our educated reader to visit the primary source to actually observe and describe what is seen there; merely to confirm it says what the article claims it says. Any more work than that and it's not really a good source. Wikidemo 23:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with your assessment that people have lost sight of what this policy should be about, and are apparently trying instead to defend territory, I was not aware that using secondary sources is a founding principle. A quick search of WP:FIVE did not find the word "secondary" in the current text. Perhaps you can cite some sources to help us verify that your assertion is not OR. Dhaluza 00:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, I get your drift. Maybe I'm wrong. I just thought that secondary sources was part of the bedrock formulation b/c compiling information from original sources is by definition OR. If that's not true then that subject's up for discussion too. Incidentally, it is permissible to use OR and TS when arguing policy, just not for writing articles.Wikidemo 00:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to aggregate primary source information without introducing any "original thought", which is what the founding principles involved concern, IIRC. SamBC(talk) 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Wikidemo. While I think you were being honest and sincerely trying to help I think Dhaluza has it right: "secondary" was not part of the founding principles - and that was not a case of overlooking something that should not have been overlooked. It's also not true that relying on primary sources is "original research." It's "literature research" in almost all cases and that literature research is the foundation of Wikipedia. That means no special language or justification is needed to cover the use of primary sources: all the existing language applies to them just as it applies to secondary sources - or, more simple, just "sources." Furthermore, the sole issue that has been identified as the reason for the policy is the occurrence of some instances of a type of use of primary sources that amounts to (at best) original research. It's not the sources that are at fault, it's the use made of them in a subset of editing behavior. Attacking the sources shifts attention away from the use (which seems already to be forbidden, and rightfully so) and also clutters up the policy. Having the policy mandate reliance on secondary sources also results in objections to the wording of the policy: such objections keep recurring. To make matters worse, "primary" means different things in different fields so that the source characterization isn't really that well focused. The existing (i.e., pre-edit-war) version of the policy didn't make a clean distinction since it only used the word "secondary," which likewise has different meanings in different fields. There seem to have been muddled (in my opinion) attempts to promote "primary" scientific sources to (Wikipedia-specific and as a result rather confusing) "secondary" status but that's so convoluted that I suspect few understand it. The promotion of "secondary" sources to preferred status seems to be an affront to the "be bold" principle and an invitation to ignore all rules. The policy would work just fine of all the source-discriminating language disappeared forever.

Nor do I think that that many editors come to WP:NOR for source-choice guidance. With the current wording any that do are likely to leave confused. I thought that the secondary-sources-are-preferred policy demotes Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" since it's a primary source. (Please, no discussion of how it might sometimes be primary and sometimes be secondary. It's already been said enough times.) That apparently is a misconception - but the wording used induces that misconception. That's surely a major flaw in policy wording. --Minasbeede 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to help cut through some of the "wordiness" mentioned above, it seems that the key dispute revolves around these two sentences. IMHO, this isn't about defending territory at all, but a dispute on how restrictive the wording should be on the use of primary sources. I agree we can make the policy more concise, but not at the expense of eliminating or diluting restrictions on the use of primary sources. Dreadstar † 00:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is significant objection to the restriction on using primary sources only for descriptive claims without interpretation because that is central to NOR. It is those two sentences that do not appear to represnt a broad consensus opinion. By defending territory, I was referring to the comments supporting continued inclusion of these sentences based on inclusion over a period of time, and the assertion that consensus must be demonstrated to remove them, rather than to include them. Dhaluza 03:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the primary/secondary source issue is an unhelpful contrivance as much as the word research is an unhelpful word to use when we do not really mean research. The principle is more "no original thought". Some observations require no analysis, but do require to be validated, say the height of the Empire State Building may get corrupted over time due to Chinese whispers. The best source to prove such a fact is a primary source: any secondary source which refers to the original source introduces the possibility of corruption - especially as we drift into the world of the press and so on. Similarly the principle of synthesis is a contrivance as it is a special case of the basic principle.

I would rather we had a much simpler statement of principle which avoids these terms, as I know darn well that the principle of primary/secondary sources is being used to disrupt Wikipedia - rubbishy secondary sources are held above good quality sources using this principle (and debating whether the source is a primary or secondary source is used to obfusticate). Any source can be examined to understand whether the fact, or analysis or point of view is contained within that source. A single source is not sufficient to verify whether it is a valid viewpoint, with the exception of sources such as peer reviewed journals. The principle of dividing sources breaks down once you go outside peer reviewed journals or other sources where it is a clear body of opinion (government inquests for example).

I would say the focus on secondary sources is damaging as it potentially holds dubious press articles in higher regard than the documents on which the press reporting was based, with no mechanism to validate the analysis. Which is better, the text of a Government Inquiry, which is a review of the evidence presented, or a press report on that Inquiry? I would hold the inquest is best, even if we are reporting the findings of the Inquiry - using it as a primary source. Only if we assert the findings are flawed, or accepted, do we move into OR territory. Spenny 09:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And who is to say a secondary source is "rubbishy?" You? Your examination of primary sources reveals the secondary source to be rubbish? We should publish your own research rather than provide an account of what professional researchers have done? You have just proven that we need to make the distinction between primary and seconsary sources. In every criticism of the distinction that I have read, the argument is always, ultimatey, that "I" (the editor of Wikipedia) "know better than the secondary sources." That is original research, and it violates NPOV. It just proves that the people who are most frustrated by this policy are those who want to violate it. Well - good!! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as an editor, I evaluate the sources. The primary/secondary source concept only works if you have a tightly defined definition of a secondary source which is of high quality and peer reviewed. As soon as you expand that concept into, for example, journalism, you have to introduce the concept of evaluating the quality of source, getting multiple citations to prove that these lower grade sources are reasonably reliable. The concept does not extend from the academic world to the general world of Wikipedia. See example below. Spenny 16:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Spenny implies some secondary sources are "rubbishy" and that these particular rubbishy sources are used by some other editor to overcome non-rubbishy primary sources. The characterization of "rubbishy" is surely Spenny's own but unless there's some way to prove that what he implies cannot ever be true we owe him the benefit of the doubt: what he alleges has happened may have happened. (Perhaps Spenny can provide an example.) The policy wording in question implies that all primary sources (which, once again, I will point out is still a vague concept within the policy) are inferior to all secondary sources. The wording in the policy implies that primary sources are "rubbishy" - all of them. The sin committed in that policy section is orders of magnitude greater than the sin alleged to have been committed by Spenny - and it's the same sin, with "primary" and "secondary" interchanged. The editor who it is alleged argues "I know better than the secondary sources" has at least looked at the primary and secondary sources and made a judgment. He has not alleged, a priori, that one particular source is, by being primary or secondary, better than another. Not so the policy.

Nor is every instance of reliance on a primary source an instance of using that source to counter the content of a secondary source, yet all such reliance on a primary source (in a manner that fully satisfies the verifiability policy, the policy that mandates sourcing) is put under a cloud by the policy. --Minasbeede 14:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Example: The BSE crisis in the UK had a Government Inquiry. It spent some time investigating the causes and specifically eliminated some speculative ones. It came to a definitive conclusion, based on its review of various scientific data. It was published. It summarised its conclusions. It is a highly regarded piece of work. First question, is that a primary source or secondary source? I would say that it's conclusions are peer reviewed and even if I quoted from it directly, to show what the report said, there should be no issue that I am not advancing an original viewpoint. Others would say that this should be discounted as it is a primary source on the subject of BSE disease. We then take a Reuters report which says that scientists blame Factory Farming for BSE.

what you say about the inquiry isn't accurate. It blamed factory farming for the epidemic. You have to read the entire report to find that, of course (and it's long), but journalists were briefed, and those journalists reported that factory farming was being blamed, which led Germany's chancellor to call for an end to it. We can't use our own interpretations of primary sources (and the inquiry is a primary source for our purposes); we have to go with the interpretations of reliable secondary sources. Yes, the primary way the disease was spread was feeding cattle to cattle, but it was the entire system allowing that practice (and feeding supplements to calves instead of milk, spraying animals with pesticides, and on and on) that was identified as the facilitator. Bottom line: we can't insert our own opinions. We must stick to what reliable secondary sources say.

References: The Inquiry [2], a DEFRA summary of the Inquiry (a reliable secondary source)[3], the secondary source used to cite the analysis:[4]. Now, given those 3 sources, which would you go with? At least three editors (two admins) have edit warred to maintain the insistence that factory farming should state that BSE is caused by factory farming based on that single last citation. Spenny 16:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article (List of speeches that appears to be based entirely on secondary sources. There are no references, though there are eight external links, two of which appear to be "Paid" web sites (actually, different "pay-to-view" articles on the same website). Much of the content is linked to a tertiary source (another Wikipedia article). Some "research" or "decision making" had to have been done, as I followed the link for Top 100 Speeches of the 20th Century, and it lists "Adopting the Declaration of Human Rights" by Anna Eleanor Roosevelt as number 100, but it is not in the article. What that site lists as #5 is also missing from the article. Therefore, without using any primary sources, and relying soley on secondary sources, the author(s) has taken the decision making process upon themselves to determine which speeches, as they put it, "This is a list of speeches, that have gained notability. They are listed in chronological order". The author(s) have arbitrarily decided for themselves where to draw the line in what is "notable", which surely must be OR.

So, the type of source used for an article is, by itself, insufficient to gauge whether or not the article does, does not, or may violate the NOR policy. Furthermore, if the "source type" issue is insufficient to guage this, why does this issue belong in the NOR policy, other than as a brief explanation that improper usage that may lead to OR? Wikipedia has an article on policy (in general, not specific to Wikipedia policies), that has a section called Policy content. The inclusion of "Sources", in it's current form, seems to violate the last principle stated in that section (Some policies may contain additional sections, including), "Definitions, providing clear and unambiguous definitions for terms and concepts found in the policy document".

I would therefore contend that this policy does not, and cannot, define the 'source issue' (my term), in a "clear and unambiguous" way, without making the policy more confusing than it currently is, and leading to many more edit wars in the future. In Wikipedia, with all the various users and editors there are of it, I would further contend that Policies need to be short, focused, and clear in their intent, to avoid, or at the very least minimize, confusing the users/editors. Convoluted, long, and/or contentious examples and definitions should be referenced as applicable guidelines, but not included within the scope of the policy itself. This is a policy on "No original research", not a policy on "Source type definition and usage", and this subject doesn't belong here since it's inclusion does nothing to identify clearly and succinctly how the types of sources inhibit or prohibit OR. wbfergus 11:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lists are a special case, probably because they don't actually present material of a type that needs to be sourced. Unless there is some commentary about an item (which in many cases should be sourced), a list just points to things and makes no factual claims about its items, except implicitly that they're members of the category being listed. As such, a list drawn from primary or tertiary sources is usually fine. Even the minor claim, though, that an item is a significant member of a class, often needs secondary sources. Take a look at (and PLEASE don't nominate for deletion - it keeps the newbies from messing up more important articles) list of Internet phenomena. It's a constant battle to keep spam off that list, and everybody wants to add a list item for something they just found on Youtube. The only way people keep the list orderly at all is to demand that every entry have a reliable secondary source. A primary source won't work - people are constantly claiming that the video itself, or its Youtube view count, establishes notability, but that would be a mess. Nor is the link to a Wikipedia article a good source to say something belongs on the list. The people watching the article would have to do an assessment of each remote article to see if it's really notable, and proper, and belongs on the list, i.e. further analysis that is inconvenient and inconclusive. The best way for this particular list is to require a reliable secondary source that states that a particular meme is an Internet phenomenon. But again, even though lists sometimes need secondary sources they are not normal articles. Wikidemo 15:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are mainly proving is that this policy cannot stand alone. Which is true. NPOV and V remain as independent policies that must also be followed in editing articles. A final point: NPOV will never be achieved by just one editor or one source - if an article is lopsided in its use of secondary sources and thus is not NPOV, the solution is for other editors to do more research using other sources and add to it. There is no getting around that - no policy can address this issue, it is the very idea of a wikipedia: articles are always works in progress, never finished, and anyone can, should even has to edit to make it work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Since no single policy can address the issue/example I supplied above, and as you say (paraphrased from here), it seems beyond the scope of this policy to attempt to cover such a diverse subject as "Sources". There are simply to many convolutions and interpretations to begin to address the issue here (this policy), especially with all of the newer users/editors on Wikipedia. This policy would suffice on it's own addressing "No original research" by linking to a "Types of Sources" article, which in turn would point to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources as major guidelines, with [[Primary source, Secondary source and Tertiary source appropriately linked in for further definitions and examples. This is a classic case of how no single policy can stand by itself, but is supported by other policies and guidelines. It seems that the inclusion of the "Sources" section is an attempt, however well intentioned, to make the policy more self-supporting. wbfergus 12:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense to move the sourcing part of the policy to WP:RS because that's a more logical home for it. Of course that requires WP:RS accepting the addition. If they do not it will have to be a new guideline; the material shouldn't simply be dropped because nobody will have it. Also a good idea to minimize the definition-making both in policy and guideline pages. Wherever we put it there is a strong need to avoid primary and tertiary sources in articles. If you say Haydn wrote 94 string quartets and 55 of them are in a major key, or Martin Luther King made 287 speeches in his life, or the Bible mentions sin 2,000 times, is it really a valid source to link to the primary material? I wouldn't think so. HOw is that different than saying "I measured it and you can go out and measure it too" to support a claim that a hill is 2,000 feet tall, a city 5 miles wide, or a pond contains 1,500 organisms per ml. All of this stuff isn't verifiable without considerable effort, and someone else will come up with a different result. In the haydn example, there are some things that may or may not be a string quartet depending on how you think about it. If a book about him makes that claim, though, at least you can trace the fact to someone who presumably knows what they are doing. You have found someone who has done the research and stands behind it. For tertiary sources, I don't know which ones we are considering but Wikipedia itself and its forks are certainly a poor source for anything, not because it's got low standards but because of the feedback loop that propagates errors and makes them virtually untraceable if articles can cite each other as sources. Wikidemo 15:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

One more comment. Secondary sources are crucial for establishing notability. Primary sources just sit there. They don't make assertions of their own importance, generally (e.g. if you didn't know what the Bible was, linking to it doesn't tell you in any straightforward way why it is so important). And allowing tertiary sources to prove notability would let things bootstrap their own way into the encyclopedia without actually being notable. Whether you consider this a matter of WP:OR or not is another matter. Wikidemo 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was very perceptive of you, Wikidemo. The need for secondary sources is definitively related to notability, and the misuse of primary sources often leads to OR, being that the reason we ask for secondary sources in WP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record... the section on types of sources was duplicated at WP:RS at one point. It was removed because people kept editing it in a way that contradicted what was said here.

Which raises an important point... WP:V and WP:RS are closely related to each other and to WP:NOR. What is said on one page affects what is said on the other two. Both V and RS are currently in flux. It is vital that those of you who care about this page get involved in the changes being made at the other two, to avoid the potential for conflict (don't assume that those editing on the other two pages share the same intent as you do). I think that a joint effort is needed to sync all three pages to ensure that they all agree with eachother. Blueboar 16:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)