Wikipedia talk:No original research

RFC-Specialist knowledge

Present policy reads, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Does this restriction unduly limit the use of primary sources? Does this restriction conflict with WP:NPOV by placing a higher restriction on primary sources than secondary or tertiary sources?

• There are degrees of specialization, and degrees of interpretation. No source is either totally reliable or unreliable, and all sources whatsoever require interpretation. It is not possible to write an encyclopedia without the use of intelligence, human or artificial--the necessary quality of judgment can not be bypassed. the use of intelligence in evaluating material is inherently research, and even when selecting such obviously tertiary sources as standard textbooks, we need to use intelligence and research in determining which ones to use and what parts to follow. The distinction between primary and secondary sources has proven really confusing here, because people in different subjects use it differently. To an historian, a newspaper is a primary source; to us, it is a secondary source. To a scientist, what we call a "primary journal article" is a mix of description and interpretation, and does not fit into the simplistic pattern used here. I am not at the moment sure of a better wording, but the present one is excessively rigid. DGG (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Whew. I can see the confusion with the distinction as I've run into it before elsewhere. Again we may need to use examples. And, sorry that I seem to be on a hobby horse at the moment, on the question of is this unduly restrictive, I'd need to know a bit more about why you think this might be the case, and I often work best with practical examples. dougweller (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think DGG is onto something. Even with secondary sources, some amount of interpretation is necessary. People summarize. They clean up language. They highlight stuff that's important, and remove stuff that isn't important. When is it point of view pushing? You'll know it when you see it. I don't think the test is a bad one: something that can be verified by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. But I might also add that "if the interpretation of the primary source is disputed, then it's likely original research." After all, if there is more than one interpretation, then it's no longer a fact. Randomran (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Like Dougweller says, we need examples. Per WP:NOTLAW, rules are not important; what matters is whether we are improving the encyclopedia or not. Please demonstrate a problem for which this is the solution. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the principle of the current wording in WP:NOR is OK, but in real cases there are grey areas. For example if one simply says that Shakespeare's Hamlet contains a soliloquy beginning "To be or not to be ..." that's fine. However if one comments at all about the soliloquy, even by a calling it a famous or much-discussed soliloquy, one needs secondary sources.
• OTOH DGG's "To an historian, a newspaper is a primary source; to us, it is a secondary source" raises interesting issues. If the newspaper is aWP:RS we can use the content of it articles for comment on another subject, but as soon as the newspaper, or a group of newpapers, or newspapers in general become the subject, we need external sources. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well now I'm confused as a newspaper is just a collection of articles. Surely a reporter in Afghanistan, describing some battle, produces a primary source in his account for the newspaper. Whereas a journalist reporting on some drug discovery is a secondary source because he's getting his facts second-hand from a press release or recently published primary research paper. And a op-ed is primary or secondary depending on what you are drawing from it. And so on... Colin°^Talk 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "different subjects use [PSTS] differently", I really don't see why we can't just pick one definition that suits our purposes. I've cited several web sites further up this talk page that contain definitions of PSTS that seem reasonable to me and, more importantly, useful to WP. Either we should come up with a fixed definition or else give up on categorising sources into those groups, and just describe a continuous spectrum from witness/original-writing outwards. In this spectrum model, the closer one is to the primary-end, the less interpretation/analysis/synthesis is to be found in the source, and the more likely it is that any useful interpretation/etc will require expert skills (which WP editors should not attempt to use). Colin°^Talk 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Re: "Does this restriction conflict with WP:NPOV" I don't understand this. Why should one form of source inherently have a different POV to another? How is a restriction on the use of primary material likely to lead to bias? It is much more likely that an editor will run into NOR problems when using primary sources than secondary. Colin°^Talk 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Colin, the restriction on the use of primary sources is there to discourage original research and does not usually breach an article's neutral point of view. In articles which have a high controversial political content one can see the selective use of primary sources to advance a position in secondary sources. For example From the same RAF Group briefing paper on the upcoming bombing of Dresden:

  Michael Zezima From Dresden to Baghdad 58 Years of "Shock and Awe

  "Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also [by] far the largest unbombed built-up area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter, with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter... but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most...and to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do."

  Norman Longmante in The Bombers page 333:

  Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany ... is also far the largest unbombed built-up area the enemy has got ... At one time well known for its china, Dresden has developed into a industrial city of first-class importance and ... is of major value for controlling the defence of that part of the front now threatened by marshal Koniev's breakthrough. ... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most ... to prevent the use of the city in the way of a further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.

  It is exactly this sort of difference in emphasis that this restriction places on Wikipedia editors when using primary sources, and I think that complements and does not contradict the neutral point of view policy. If someone has an example where the restriction has affected an article's neutral point of view, I think it would help us to reach a consensus on if this policy needs adjustment. --PBS (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that examples of alleged "conflict with WP:NPOV" are needed to establish if there's really an issue. DGG seems to be making a selective quotation from the policy to portray an extremely rigid distinction which in the policy is softened by "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If specialist knowledge is needed for any reasonable, educated person to understand the interpretation, then we need a published source plainly making that interpretation. The need for care to interpret sources correctly applies in all cases, and editors can discuss sources to ensure that they're portrayed accurately, but there's a particular need to use primary sources for obvious facts, while finding secondary sources for interpretations to avoid synthesising "wow, that means that...." even with the best of intentions. It's a very useful discipline, not a rigid rule. . . dave souza, talk 11:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• The separation into primary and secondary sources is artificial. There is not a hard and fast line between them. The ruel we have about "reasonably educated person" is fraught with problems. Consider a case from theoretical physics there are many by the nature of the field. Take General Relativity or String Theory. The best sources are papers published in journals. But those are primary sources! What weend up with is a situation where if that ruel iis followed a paper by Einstein could not be used. But a text book could? The reasonably educated person thing also comes into play. Who is educated enough to interpret such sources? Wouldn't one need to be a theoretical physicist? At least a grad student? Or should we pretend that such education is not needed? I think that no matter how we do this those questions neednanswers.--Hfarmer (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Many sources which are, in fact, derived from true primary sources, are considered "primary" by WP. I recall a long discussion about the use of maps, almost all of which are actually secondary sources, but which are called "primary" by WP guidelines. I also recall discussions on what "specialist knowledge" actually entails. In my honest opinion, the entire definition of types of sources is errant, and a definition of "specialist knowledge" is sorely needed. Perhaps we also need a tag for claims which may not logically follow what is said in the entire source (right now we encourage using short quotes as proof of what a source says, even if the rest of the source belies the single line). Also the entire concept of OR probably needs rework, as it encourages use of really poorly written "reliable sources" for claims which would be belied by examination of what we now call "primary sources." Collect (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If a poor secondary source is belied by primary sources, the answer is to find a better quality secondary source, not to introduce our own interpretation based on non-obvious "expert opinion" about the primary sources. . . dave souza, talk 15:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. Though my bigger concern, truth be told, is obvious expert opinion. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave that's not what I'm talking about. What I am talking about in the case of a science is journal articles. They are usually the first reports of a new discovery and thus are primary sources by the strict WP definition. This is the most true in the case of theoretical science such as theoretical physics. Just what would the primary source for the principle of General Relativity be if not a paper on the subject? Einstein's Brain, the brain of another scientist applying it to a problem. In a real sense for such sciences there are no secondary sources. Just primary and tertiary. The reasonable education clause also does not make sense. What is reasonable education to write an article about General Relativity would have to be at least a MS in Physics! Likewise for other specialist topics. But as I recall back in the WP:Expert rebellion the idea of certifying some wikipedians as experts was discounted. It's not egalitarian enough. It may just be that wikipedia has gone as far as it can while not recognizing that specialist knowledge of it's editors needs to be given some part in the process. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that any explicit privilege for experts is a DOA proposal. On the other hand, there's a very, very big difference between requiring credentialed expertise, and actively setting up people who don't understand a topic up as the deciders on the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with DGG's idea that there is no issue as the fundamental act of summarizing any source can possibly introduce OR if not done appropriately, not just limited to primary sources. A secondary source may be a scathing review of a work (something we can't do from the primary source ourselves), but to take that scathing review and then summarize down as "X considered this the one of the worst films in history" is introduction of OR if nothing about "worst film" is ever stated in the source, despite the implication that is non-obvious to make. --MASEM 13:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If a notable critic descibes a film as "one of the worst films in history", that's a worthwhile opinion about the quality of the film. We can include obvious facts about the film, such as a non-judgmental plot summary, but must find good quality critics for opinions about the film. . dave souza, talk 15:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but my example is that if the critic specifically does not say "worst film" despite it being obvious from the critic's past history that he absolutely loathed the film and ranted on it more than any other, then we, by OR, cannot state that the critic thinks its one of the worst films. That is, we can abuse OR with secondary sources just as much as we can with primary sources. --MASEM 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with much of the above: the distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is unclear and serves mainly to confuse people. And it really doesn't make a difference to the core message of the policy: no matter what the *arity of the sources, we can only describe what they already contain; we cannot analyze or interpret any source of any *arity. I suggest that the whole section on *ary sources should be kicked out of this policy into an essay. The caution that primary sources are "easy" to use for OR doesn't need the force of policy, and much of the strife comes from people thinking this caution is an additional prohibition because it is in the policy.
  Regarding specialist knowledge, I don't know what definition we might reach. If you're discussing the Higgs mechanism, is it specialist knowledge to know what a "boson" or a "gauge symmetry" or an "SU(2) doublet" is? Is the answer the same when you're discussing general physics or mathematical matrices? Anomie⚔ 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• I've posted an example below of of how this poses an immediate NPOV problem. More broadly, we run into major problems with academics and specialists who are notable but not the subject of huge volumes of secondary literature. Given that, in many fields, lit reviews and summaries of scholarship are not common, I am hard pressed to say that, for instance, we should have an article on Tim Brennan, but in that article should not summarize his work and thought. But that is going to require basic summary of primary sources. I recognize the importance of the prohibition against allowing specialists to just claim credentialism as the basis for their novel readings. But surely we can distinguish between a case where specialist knowledge is being used as a justification for one view over another, and a case where the two positions are "Source X says Y" and "I don't understand Source X at all." That is, if nobody, upon reading a source, thinks that a claim is an inaccurate summary (as opposed to simply not knowing that it is accurate), there is no problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think those who wish to remove this clause have some fundamental misconceptions about what the policy is saying. Nothing in this policy says that we can not summarize a primary source. In fact, the whole point of this section of the policy is to specifically say we can (albeit with care). The policy allows us to report on what a primary source says (including describing any interpretation, anaysis that the source makes or conclusion that the source may reach). What the policy is telling us we can not do is interject our own interpretation, analysis, or conclusions about the source or its topic into a Wikipedia article. Since we can fully describe what both the original (primary) source says, what any critics say, there is no NPOV conflict. All published viewpoints can be represented in our articles. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem remains that such descriptions do not seem to me to be cosnsitently verifiable without specialist knowledge. Again, though, my current thinking on this is that we might be best off explicitly distinguishing between situations where there is actually a controversy and where there are merely editors who don't understand the source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no NPOV conflict at issue with this clause. I disagree that the confusion comes from misunderstandings about what is or isn't a primary source. The clause reads, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." The clause requires editors stick to describing the content in the source, and not slip into evaluating the content in the source. Any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the contents of primary sources must be attributed to a secondary source. I submit that "the accuracy of the representation of the analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation, or evaluation cited to a secondary source must be verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" as well. Perhaps this isn't clear in the present wording. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it help if we were to change the wording to: "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive statements about what the primary source itself says or depicts", the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." ? Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not because it may invite more legalistic hairsplitting about when a primary can also be a secondary, etc. I admit I'm confused at times about what the dispute is here. Is it about what a primary source is? Is it about whether there is a NPOV conflict when primary and secondary sources have different rules? Or is it whether or not the "verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" language unduly limits the citing to technical sources? I foresee that this RFC will resolve nothing if we can't even come to a shared understanding of what the dispute's about. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My issue is that it unduly limits the citing to technical sources, especially because peer-reviewed academic sources - the sources that WP:RS pushes us most towards - are the most likely to be technical. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I'd like to remove the whole *ary source thing completely: eliminate the hair splitting by eliminating the hair. As far as I can tell, there are actually multiple issues here. The main question is "What exactly is 'specialist knowledge' and does prohibiting its use in understanding the source unnecessarily restrict the usability of sources?". But since it relies upon the primary/secondary distinction, the perennial background issue of "What exactly is the dividing line?" is involved in the determination of what the main question applies to. The third issue, subject to much long-winded discussion above, has something to do about whether a biographical article citing a reliably published journal article can also cite a self-published response by the article's subject; it's all WP:TLDR for me and I can't really see the connection. Anomie⚔ 21:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I do not see any conflict with NPOV. I do think there is a major confusion here caused by language. Specifically, I never liked the metaphor or word "close/closer/closest" in relation to this policy. The play "Hamlet" will in almost any context I can conceive of be considered a primary source, but who are we to say how close or far it was Shakespeare's imagination let alone the actual history of Denmark? Moreover, I think the word "restriction/restrictive" also muddies the waters. Finally, I think that there is a major confusion because many people seem to think of "primary source" and "secondary source" as a thing when it is really an idea. A courtroom transcript, a novel, a newspaper article, an encyclopedia article, these are all "things" but "primary/secondary/tertiary" are ideas about things, not things themselves. Their meaning is not intrinsic but dependent on usage. Now, I think that understanding these ideas in terms of "closeness" has an obvious sense to it but will regularly get us into trouble. I think the only meaningful way to distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is to think of them in terms of how they are used, and not "what" they "are". Tertiary sources are used for relatively concise general overviews of some object of knowledge. Secondary sources are used to learn a particular person, or group of people's, views - usually in the form of some kind of argument, involving interpretation or explanation of some object of knowledge, an argument that usually involves analysis, synthesis or both. Primary sources are used as the raw material for some secondary source. NOR prohibits any wikipedian from promoting their own arguments, period. But it makes perfect sense for me to emphasize this when talking about primary sources because primary sources so oftn invite interpretation or explanation. They are usually made available to us precisely because so many others hae forwarded explanations or interpretations of them, or to encourage scholars to come up with new interpretations or explanations. So I see value in emphasizing to our readers/editors that Wikipedia is not the place to do this. That said, I see no problem at all with describing primary sources in our articles, or using primary sources to provide a description of something. I do not see this as a restriction but on the contrary a permission, a prescription: description is okay!! I really do not see the problem here. Our policy is not regulating things, it is regulating peaople - us, and what we do. We can provide descriptions of things, and we can provide explanations and interpretations of things. When we do the former, we are treating something as a primary source. When we do the latter, we are treating it as a secondary source. I don't see the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone else appreciate the irony that determining what is or isn't a primary source requires specailast knowledege? Dhaluza (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Slrubenstein who clearly has a grip on this policy. I don't think existing policy needs to be changed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Example

Reposted from a few sections earlier:

Critical Inquiry, one of the top journals in the humanities, publishes frequently a section called "Critical Response," in which a writer pens a response to a previous essay in the journal, and the writer of the original essay responds in turn.

I do not know how many such sections have appeared in the 30+ years of the journal - they were included in almost every issue in the early days of the journal, and still appear from time to time. Some of these are landmark debates about which numerous secondary sources exist - Derrida engaged in a particularly famous one over the legacy of Paul de Man, another raged so widely as to be made into a stand-alone book called Against Theory, and a third, among Wayne Booth, J. Hillis Miller, and M.H. Abrams, is one of the most cited exchanges on deconstruction. Others are less widely cited.

To pick a lone example from the latter category, the Autumn 1995 issue of the journal has a response by Richard Shusterman to an article from the Summer 1994 issue by Tim Brennan, followed by a response from Brennan. Although we do not have an article on Brennan, he is cited widely enough that he meets WP:N. So let us imagine the article Tim Brennan.

Shusterman's response to him, being published in a prestigious journal, is surely a notable perspective, and thus would be included in Tim Brennan. But Brennan's rejoinder to Shusterman is a primary source for Tim Brennan. And as Brennan's work is specialized, there are obvious problems in using his response - simply put, we can't summarize it as thoroughly as we can Shusterman's equally specialized and technical critique of Brennan's work. (Add to this the fact that Brennan's original essay from 1994 actually quotes Shusterman extensively, and so this problem actually exists for both Tim Brennan and Richard Shusterman). But while Brennan's article is cited 19 times or so that Google Scholar can find, one is hard pressed to find a lot of secondary sources on this particular exchange, as, unlike the Derrida/Searle exchange, it is not so significant as to potentially deserve its own article.

This is a NPOV problem. One side of a debate gets disproportionate representation, and a far easier standard of evidence for inclusion. The other side is given a short shrift amounting to "Tim Brennan responded to these critiques." NPOV? No. Not even a little.

There are dozens of near identical cases in this journal alone, which is one journal in one academic field. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your example. Is the original article about the person Tim Brennan (ie an autobiographical piece) or about something else (eg how to change the spark plugs on an 1958 348 V8 Chevy engine)? --PBS (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is about something else, however being in the field of the humanities, it is not about something more or less objective like spark plug changing. In this case, it is about rap music and culture. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Surly the article that the Brennan paper would appear in is Rap music rather than Tim Brennan, so then unless the original Brennan paper could be considered a seminal paper that sparked a paradigm shift in how rap music and culture are viewed, I do not see how it can be considered a primary source. --PBS (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The norm seems to me that we would normally also summarize a scholar's work and thought in their biographical article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the norm seems to be that we would normally summarize a scholar's work and thought in their biographical article. What we don't have to do is go into great detail, or great detail as to his critic's views.

I could even see devoting an entire section of a bio article to the subject's views on a given topic, if those views are what makes him notable. In the context of a bio article, reporting on the views of the bio subject is appropriate. However, in the context of a bio article, I don't think we need to go into detail discussing the views of the subject's critics. Such in depth analysis of various views is better placed in an article on the topic about which the subject and critics have views. In fact, as long as the section has a pointer to the "topic article" (where all views should be discussed) I would say there is no real need for the bio article to go into the critics views at all.

Some may say that this creates a NPOV issue in the bio article, in that you have discussed the subject's views and not those of his critics (note that, in terms of which NPOV, this is the exact opposite of what Phil is talking about)... but within the context of a bio article, it is appropriate to give the subject's views more weight (and even sole weight) Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Though the problems in summarizing Brennan's arguments hardly disappear in this case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we are not talking about how easy or difficult it is to summarize Brennan's views, we are talking about whether doing so is a NPOV violation. My point is that it isn't. Context is everything here. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I mean, I would still say that high-profile, peer-reviewed criticism of Brennan's views is a significant viewpoint in the bio article. Especially because, in this case, we're looking at rap music, an area with a ton of academic scholarship. We can't summarize every argument there - they're going to have to get moved to ancillary articles, and the bio articles for the scholars in question are an attractive destination in that regard. But as you point out, in the context of a bio article, the weight is on the subject's views - I would suggest that heavily shortchanging them and avoiding summary is still a NPOV problem. Egregious under-coverage is also a failure to give due weight to all significant viewpoints. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I feel this does limit the use of primary sources quite a bit if they can only be used to make descriptive claims. Right now the policy is ambigously worded. I can barely understand it after reading it over several times. Perhaps it should be reworded.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

<ri> Philosophers must have quite a communication problem if the accuracy of a summary of their writings can't verified by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Agree that we should be applying the same standards to the incomprehensible writings of both philosophers, but surely any such esoteric language can be discussed and explained on the article talk page, with reference to suitable translations of any jargon. . dave souza, talk 17:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Someone mentioned a discussion about maps. I recall reading that thread. Some argued that maps were primary sources and that the simple act of reading the map and using it's scale to compute the distance between two points is OR. Some argued that say having three points on a map with a scale and using trigonometry to determine the distance between points on the map is OR. IMO something like that is just applying what to me is basic math, Trigonometry and Euclidian Geometry. To some people even that is pratically mystifying level of mathematical computation. This leads me back to my example of General Relativity. To some editors if I write that the Potential energy in General relativity is a function of r then cite Einstein that could be called OR. To take this to a totally different topic. I have been involved in the past in a dispute over weather or not different words which have the same meaning as given by a RS can be equated or is that OR? Some say it is some say it isn't. My point and I think DGG's point is that the way the text of the OR policy has been interpreted is overly broad. It has been interpreted by many in a way not in accord with WP:NOTOR. Therefore I propose this. We promote WP:NOTOR from a guideline to a policy with the same weight and force as WP:OR. That is the simplest solution.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an essay, not a guideline, and that would be a pretty drastic step. A quick glance at it shows up a few things that I think could be problematic if it became policy. dougweller (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• No change needed. I'm frankly not seeing the problem here, folks. So (to use the example) Tim Brennan published something about rap and culture. And someone else writes -- in a highly respected publication with a proper editor in charge of it -- an article that says Tim Brennan's recent paper did a good job on points A, B, C, but strangely overlooked the author's pet idea, point D: that rap music causes people to wear their baseball hats backwards. Nothing in our current rules prohibit anyone from saying "Brennan's paper was criticized as overlooking the effect on the orientation of baseball hats among rap listeners.^[ref]" Has someone perhaps confused 'primary source' with 'self-published'? Put me in the "ain't broke/don't fix" camp. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure you understand the issue - the problem is that Brennan's original paper is a primary source for Tim Brennan, but because it is a specialized paper, summary of it is not allowed in that article (even as the same summary would be fine in an article on rap music or elsewhere). Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that the original paper is a primary source for the Tim Brennan article. This is what I was talking about several long threads ago when I discussed the distinction between first/third party vs. primary/secondary sources. I would say it is a first party, secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor can we be in any way assured that "summary of it is not allowed in that article." To recap, Shusterman's article here at WP merely alludes to the fact there is a Brennan cite challenging Shusterman, but doesn't say anything about it that requires specialized knowledge as is presented here. Brennan himself doesn't even have an article at all. Another editor has already weighed in on this example, saying that the debate and rebuttal between Shusterman and Brennan aren't specialized after all-regardless of which is a primary or secondary source. This is a nonproblem, and not a good justification for changing the policy as it is now. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, simply because in the current language overwhelming power is given to veto - all it takes is one non-specialist to justify large eviscerations of content. Which is the underlying problem here - the non-specialist clause vests vast power in those who do not understand the topic they are editing. This is undesirable, to say the least. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"All it takes is one non-specialist"? Does it take just one objector to say a claim violates NPOV to remove it? Or one claimant that a published source is unreliable? With these "vast powers" given in the policy for over three years, perhaps we could find some examples of it being implemented in this fashion? PS, were disputes in Derrida article the spark triggering your concerns over this clause? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is the consequence of "any reasonable, educated person." The threshold of "any" means that the existence of one who cannot verify is sufficient to remove the line as OR. Which sets it apart from NPOV or RS, which lack the demand for unanimous consent. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So "any reasonable, educated person" is a demand for "unanimity of editors"? I haven't seen the policy implemented this way. Have you? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Groaning

Blueboar, I didn't address the issue of whether it's a primary source because I don't know enough about the specifics for the (hypothetical?) paper. But you are absolutely right that it could be considered a first-party secondary source (e.g., the class that all journalist-on-the-scene news articles fall into).

Prof, I can't image why anyone thinks that a summary is not allowed. What exactly is a "descriptive claim" of a paper if it's not a summary of the paper's contents?

Solving

Would WP:PSTS benefit from either (1) a statement that editors should not confuse these terms with wikt:first party and wikt:third party and/or (2) a table showing how these intersect? I have something like this in mind:

	First party	Third party
Primary source	Notes taken by a journalist during an interview with a person accused of a crime	A court order about the alleged crime
Secondary source	News story based on those interview notes	News story about the court order
Tertiary source		Another person writes about the news story

Would something like this (with more and/or better examples) be helpful? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC) (who can't believe how many times this question has come up in the last few months)

The above definition of primary and secondary disagrees with any that I can find elsewhere. Both the interview notes and the publication of the news story (based on those notes) are primary sources. The article by a different person discussing the news story is a secondary source. The journalist writing later (in his memoirs, say) about that news story would also be a secondary source on the news story, but a primary source on his opinions. The "journalist-on-the-scene news articles" are all primary sources in any definition I can find. I'm happy to be corrected but please can folk cite some authoritative source (preferably online, but you can quote it if not) that back up the definitions used on this talk page. I feel that the above takes a "X based on Y so X is +1-ary more than Y" approach which is not only too simplistic but leads to one running out of -ary categories quickly. For example, if the journalist had recorded the interview to tape and then made notes from the recording and then wrote his article from his notes, would the news article be tertiary? Perhaps some people do define PSTS with such a rule, but I can't see how it is of any use to us. The number of stages a piece of original work goes through prior to its publication must be irrelevant to us. There's too much original research going on in folk's examples and definitions IMO! Colin°^Talk 10:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such a simple chart is would not be the right approach for a policy. I introduced the idea that there was a distinction between first/third party and primary/secondary source purely for talk page consideration... I don't think it needs to go into the policy. My point was to question the assumption that anything written by the subject of a bio article should automatically be considered a primary source, and offer a new way to look at this issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All sources are primary for something: even an school textbook (normally classed as a tertiary source) is a primary source for the fact that John Smith wrote a textbook on Biology in 1996, which had chapters on A, B and C. In an article on John Smith, it would be a primary source for this fact. In an article on biology it would be a tertiary source on aspects of biology. A review saying the biology book was very good but missed out D and E would be a secondary source on aspects of the book and its missing contents (for use in John Smith's article) but probably wouldn't be any use in the biology article. This sort of thing is why saying "X is a -ary source" isn't a good idea without context -- what facts are being drawn from it. Colin°^Talk 16:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Colin, I'd be perfectly happy with much better examples, if such a thing would be helpful (perhaps, however, on a No original research examples page). I think that the confusion between "primary" and "first person" should be addressed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It might not be all that important to explicitly pin down this idea of "first party" vs. "third party" vis-a-vis primary and secondary. After I did a bit of research on the issue, it turns out that "third party" is often presumed in the idea of a secondary source. Old Dominion University library, for instance, defines it as follows: "Secondary Source: second-hand report or review of original research that is written by someone other than the original researcher." Here are a bunch of definitions: [1]. To me they tend to lead towards the general expectation that a secondary source is written by someone other than the author of the primary source. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I support the position that secondary sources should determine the due weight that primary sources (writings by article subject, insider accounts, etc.) should be given. So, whether or not to quote a primary source, and what parts of it to quote, is a decision that should not be taken by Wikipedia editors. We have many, many WP:UNDUE problems in articles where WP editors have made such decisions.
• In the Brennan example, if no third-party source quotes and evaluates Brennan's rejoinder, then neither should we. For that matter, if the whole Shusterman–Brennan dispute remained uncovered by sources secondary to it, then perhaps we shouldn't quote Shusterman either in Brennan's article, but just
  • mention that there was a dispute between them in such-and-such a publication (descriptive, and verifiable without special knowledge),
  • give an external link to the articles and rejoinders if they are online, or include them in "Further reading",
  • and/or include their respective opinions in our article on the topic which they were debating, and on which they are expert commentators (i.e. authors of secondary sources).
• I don't think the NPOV concern is all that valid, or that changing primary-source policy is the way to address it. Notable people are to some extent at the mercy of commentators, i.e. the mirror the world holds up to them. If all published commentators are critical, then that's tough! If the only one defending the notable person is the notable person themselves, their self-serving defence should remain off-limits to us as editors, unless it's been quoted by other commentators. But let's be clear that in real life, if the person attacked has a shred of credibility, some commentators will defend them, or at least paint a different picture of them, and we can quote such commentators. All part of writing a "Reception" section. Jayen466 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This is perhaps workable for figures in the upper echelons of notability. But in those lower echelons - when we have enough sources to establish notability and perhaps even a few more - we run into problems with the number of commentators on a given side. It does seem to me that a subject's own defense of themselves is always a significant viewpoint, however. Even when that view lacks credibility, it still seems to me to have significance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my persistence, but do you have an example to show where the current policy is "unworkable" for describing a subject's self-defense against notable criticism? Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am having problems following Phil Sandifer's argument. Above he wrote, "The norm seems to me that we would normally also summarize a scholar's work and thought in their biographical article." Surely this is not the norm. Even if a person passes a certain threshold of notability (I believe Brennan does), surely we should not go by the norm. I suspect that the length and level of detail of biographical articles on scholars is bimodal, and we should have two "norms" - or, it follows a gradient. either way we should not have one norm. My sense is that the more notable a scholar, the more likely there are a range of secondary sources - biographies, intellectual histories, and so on - about that scholar. In such cases, we draw on those sources to provide a fitting account of the scholar's work, that is in proportion to her notability. Other scholars (say, Brennan) are less notable, and as Phil points out there are fewer sources. In such cases, the article will be shorter and less detailed. Since we can use primary sources for uncontroversial descriptive claims, I see no problem with using the dust jacket of Brennan's books, or abstracts of his articles, or his web-page, to say "Brennan has researched and written on x, y z." Phil Sandifer points out that there are no good secondary sources on Brennan's work, or his views in certain debates or exchanges. Okay, Phil, do you want to write one? Well, great! Write an article and submit it to Critical Inquiry or Representations or Daedalus or whatever and see if they will publish it. But do you want to write such an article here? No, Phil, that would violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, the alleged contradiction between NPOV and NOR here seems spurious to me; primary sources are generally open to a much wider degree of interpretation (and thus original research/author bias) than secondary sources. As such, the restriction on primary sources enhances NPOV rather than conflicts with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My issue here is that it seems to me an egregious creep of scope of NOR if it has grown now to encompass uncontroversial summaries of sources. I remember quite well the original scope of NOR on these matters - it was intended to prevent "novel interpretations" of primary sources in history. The shift to it now, apparently, blocking summary of the basic points of academic articles - even in cases where nobody actually disagrees about what the article says. That is a dramatic shift - one of the largest expansions in scope of a policy I can think of in my time on Wikipedia. If such a massive shift has occurred, I would hope it has been discussed and a clear consensus for that shift has been demonstrated. But in the absence of any actual evidence for such a consensus, I am forced to believe that this has been a sneakily inserted undiscussed scope creep. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

HUH? where the heck does the policy even come close to "blocking summary of the basic points of academic articles - even in cases where nobody actually disagrees about what the article says"? Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with using this example of an exchange between Richard Shusterman and Tim Brennan to create an article on this specific controversy, if it's been mentioned in other sources (and so notable). Then within that article, the responses from all parties would be equivalent. The issue seems to be, that in a biography, anything the subject writes is being considered a primary source. I'm not sure that's accurate. A primary source presents something new, never before seen, a new fact. Secondary sources comment on those primary facts. If I, comment on my own book to explain, clarify, analyze, defend, it seems like I am creating a secondary source, even though I am speaking in the first person, about my own work. Book reviews, are always secondary. Right? Wrong? Apple? Wjhonson (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I share Blueboar's reaction. Phil Sandifer now says that his problem is that the policy prohibits summarizing primary sources. I just do not see anywhere in the policy where it says this. The policy explicitly states that we can use primary sources to make descriptive claims, isn't a summary of a primary source a description of it? It seems like this debate is over. Problem solved. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to comment on the original request: Primary sources should be avoided for anything but verification of objective facts and should be quite explicit in the text which primary source was used. If there isn't a secondary source interpretation of the "summary" desired, that may be an indication that the concept is not sufficiently notable to have a neutral and well written article on the topic. This, in my mind, is part of why we have WP:N-it rules out original authorship since it demands that editors use established thought instead of interpreting. If there aren't reliable secondary sources available, why do we have an article about it? WP:IAR can be invoked, but if we are relying on original summaries of primary sources, my knee-jerk reaction is to describe it as original synthesis and inappropriate for wikipedia. SDY (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, that pretty much says it in a nutshell w.r.t. whole articles. In addition, the concept also works well for specific points WP editors may wish to make for the reader within an article. If there are no secondary sources, use the rule for primary sources and describe what the source says in a way that a hypothetical "reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" can look at the source you've cited and conclude that what you've said reasonably reflects what's in that source. If it requires specialist knowledge and there are no secondary sources that sum up what's in the source, it should raise a red flag to double-check the source's standing per WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. If it passes muster w.r.t. WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, one should proceed to use the source without apology and attempt to work out, on the relevant article talk page, any disagreements about the use of the source or about how it's represented in the article. Lacking the ability to arrive at a consensus, there are, as most everybody here already knows, additional options such as bringing it up at WP:NORN, WP:V/N. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I have been saying for the last three weeks. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Example II:A controversial case

It is in controversial articles that WP Policy get's tested tot he limit. Let us consider an old controversy which isn't controversial anymore. It features contentiousness and expert editors mixing with people who argueably could have no idea what the article is really about.

Loop Quantum Gravity A bit of proof that this policy has had considerable creep over the years.

A long time ago on wikipedia I was involved in a controversial article called Loop quantum gravity. This had it all I'm telling you. It had deeply entrenched editors such as myself and User:Lumidek and many others editing and editing like mad. There were accusations that LQG was pseudoscience, and fringe, and crackpot all over the place. It even got a bit personal. long sections or articles were created and delted and created which had peoples "Objections to the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity" In those days as this archive of the conversation demonstrates the policy OR and SYNTH etc. NEVER came up at all!

Consider how much of what was said there and is still in that article would have been called OR and SYNTH and removed based on the way peopel apply those policies now. Even if specialist argued about why such and such was relevant. It would not matter. Non specialist will always outnumber specialist. A toatl neophyte could show up at that articles page and delete vast ammounts of good information because it looks like WP OR and SYNTH that must have been hard to do.... While a specialist knows that any theoretical physicist would immediately connect A to B.

Basically I see allot of this going on. People who are educated but not specialist go in and becase they are very educated do not yield to someone who's education, or lived experience makes them inherently more knowledgeable about a given topic. They don't see how A is connected to B because seeing that connection requiers training in a given field. It may not even be something that is in an RS... like in physics much of learning it is acquireing a certain intuition, this is true in many other fields people specialize in. I hope that people see where I am commin from on this. We have to make some hard and fast provisions for specialist to come here and write articles without having to speen time building up the expertise of strangers. --Hfarmer (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Times do change...

It might be helpful for everyone to note something that was mentioned in a recent arbcom case... while the case was specifically about another issue entirely, the arbitrators noted some basic principles that do relate to what we have been discussing here. Note the top one onAcademically demanding subjects and the two or three below it that relate to experts (and one specifically on NOR). Blueboar (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about definition of a primary source

Apologies for asking something that I could in principle figure out, but this article changes so rapidly that it might take me hours: when did the list of types of primary sources lose "experimental results written by the person(s) who conducted the experiments"? That's really critical for articles about scientific or medical topics -- otherwise it becomes extremely difficult to defend against "cherry picking". If this has been discussed -- as I expect it has been -- a pointer to the discussion would be sufficient for me. Thanks, Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to replace it right now. In general, for purposes of WP, the first published report of a particular study is a primary source. Unlike some fields of scholarship, WP is simply not properly in the business of going through researchers' lab notes, field notes, etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this is going to be a battle also. FWIW, I agree it's good example of PS to list. Every week Science publishes research, often research that conflicts with earlier research published in the same journal. One recent example is a study concluding that a residue of nanodiamonds in 13,000 yo strata worldwide is evidence of catastrophic comet collisions which led to the extinction of the Clovis and large mammals. This is a solidly researched, peer reviewed, finding that's far from definitive. This primary sourced claim can't be described in a way it's given more authority than secondarily sourced claims representing a more widely accepted alternative hypothesis. Extra caution is most definitely required for citations to primary sourced research. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Change to PSTS

Per the discussions above... I propose changing the language of WP:PSTS (primary sources) from:

• Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."

to:

• "Any interpretative statement about a subject requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Primary sources should be used only to make descriptive statements about the subject, the accuracy of which should be verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

Please comment. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not match my understanding. If I use a primary source to make a descriptive statement about a subject, then I use the primary source as a secondary source. I have always understood "descriptive claims" based on a primary source to be descriptions of that primary source itself. E.g., "Jane Doe says in her autobiography that she never enjoyed being a singer"; "John Doe says on his website that he was born in 1964." These are descriptive claims about primary sources. In the proposed wording, these would become descriptive statements about the subject. Obviously, if we take them as statements about the subject rather than as descriptions of primary sources, then we cannot verify their accuracy: so they are not "verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". The old wording works better for me. Jayen466 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See, I'm actually increasingly troubled not only by the treatment of primary sources by that restriction, but by the treatment of secondary sources, as that implies that secondary sources *can* be used for interpretive, synthetic, analytic, etc claims. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

TBH, I'm OK with the language either way. This is one of those subtleties that present themselves in this editorial policy, which must work across an extremely wide range of topic areas on the wiki. The other two content policies each has its rough equivalent in terms of being difficult if not impossible to capture the exact language that will work across the whole wiki. In WP:NPOV, the most difficult quirks tend to revolve around distinguishing content forks about a particular point of view from POV forks, and in WP:WEIGHT, where the notion of "in proportion to the prominence of each [viewpoint]" is frequently meaningless when dealing with very prominent unreliable rumors, written gossip, "urban myth" and such. In order to reconcile this, we must cross over into another policy and apply, e.g., WP:V#Reliable_sources. In WP:V, we see similar problems in finding language that can apply across the whole wiki, particularly w.r.t. around RS and the always quirksome issue of distinguishing between verified and "verifiable"-- e.g., whether all uncited information should be deleted. The policy says it may be deleted, though the reality is that that doesn't work in every case. So the language, although long accepted, never quite captures the reality in every case across the whole wiki.
...... In each case in the other two content policies, we're expected to apply the consensus process to reconcile disagreements about how to apply the policy in a given circumstance. Same thing here. In general, the language works just fine in the overwhelming majority of instances across the wiki where the consensus process is applied in good faith. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Jayen, I see what you are saying... But I think both of your examples are simply an attributed way of making a claim about the subject. The "claim" is that the subject said these remarks (the website or autobio are simply the locations of the remarks). What the policy is telling us is that we can report that the subject made the remarks, but can not draw conclusions from these remarks. For that we would need to rely on secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that my own example above about the nanodiamonds and mammoth extinction could result in confused interpretations about what even "the subject" really means. The study gathers data, analyzes certain evidence and offers it up as a chink linking all these different hypotheses about comet collisions, nanodiamonds, global climate change, large mammal extinctions, and the sudden disappearance of a pre-columbian culture. It didn't really contribute any primary research in terms of findings on "the subject" that there actually were these large mammal extinctions, for example. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with published, refereed experiment reports?

I just added a paragraph to the page stating:

The classification of "experimental results written by the person(s) who conducted the experiments" (which include the majority of scientific and medical publications) as sources to be avoided is sometimes seen as puzzling, especially by scientists who are taught that these are the best possible sources. The reason for being careful with them is that it is common for important questions, especially ones relating to medicine, to be investigated by large numbers of experiments, even hundreds in some cases. It is very difficult to summarize the findings of such a large number of publications without engaging in original synthesis, sometimes known as cherry picking. Therefore Wikipedia policy strongly prefers making use of secondary sources such as review papers, perspective articles, or editorials in mainstream medical journals, whenever possible.

Phil Sandifer then reverted this, and also removed experimental results written by the person(s) who conducted the experiments from the list of primary source types, using an edit summary stating, I have real trouble with NOR actively cautioning against such a large swath of reliable, peer-reviewed sources. I believe I explained why this is necessary: can we discuss the issue? Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem may be with the parenthetical remark... It could be taken to mean that we should not cite the majority of scientific and medical publications. I am sure that was not your intent, but that is how it reads to a non-scientist. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think once we start getting too specific about particular domains, science, literature, etc., guidelines are better. I think it's sufficient here to include published scientific research papers as one example of primary research. I do like the way it's pointed out that it's often impossible to summarize a body of primary research without synthesis, which is OR here. My brain's getting numb from all the policy talk, though. Maybe this is already clear in the policy. -¿º Professor marginalia (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I flat-out oppose anything that suggests that editors should avoid peer-reviewed sources. In any field. Period. I think it's an appalling idea that serves to needlessly gut our coverage in numerous areas for no practical gain. The creep of OR from "avoid novel synthesis from primary sources" to the bloated hydra it has become where any sort of claim that is not present all but word for word in the cited source is OR needs to not only stop, but be reversed. This addition, attempting to bar sources that are as reliable as they come because God forbid, they might require actual thought to use is exactly what this policy does not need. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I agree with your reversion, though for different reasons than you give here. Thank you for making your basic position more explicit than you had made it before. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I think you forget you are on the WP:NOR page, not the WP:V page. A peer-reviewed scientific primary research paper is reliable insofar as what it presents and to the audience it is written. It's use on WP is very, very limited, mostly for NOR issues. I disagree with "avoid", but once WP editors realise just how limited such a source is, they will prefer to find better ones. The scientific and medical world is amply served by secondary sources (for example, a literature review in a medical journal) that are much more useful as sources on WP. The idea that all peer-reviewed literature is "as reliable as they come" and therefore we should never caution against their use is naive. It is much more complex than just "reliability". Colin°^Talk 20:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RE User:Looie496's offering above: For peer-reviewed sources follow the same rules as for any other source, WP:V#Reliable_sources and WP:RS analyses, as well as WP:WEIGHT and any other policies that apply. WP:NPOV directs us to give the reader a neutral "perspective" of what the reliable sources say about a topic. Avoiding "cherry picking" is part of doing this, which is why this policy says: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ..." WP:PSTS proceeds to state in somewhat more specific language the limits on the use of primary sources that we're expected to observe. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It shouldn't be, "editors should avoid peer-reviewed sources" but, "editors must use primary sources cautiously", as in "avoiding novel synthesis of primary sources", or "avoiding original analysis of the primary-sources." And please let's not trial balloon new wording on the policy page anymore, okay? We need consensus on the talk page first for anything but the most minor changes. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Looi496 wrote (except the word "avoid" is too absolute and also except that editorials are opinion pieces, so not really suitable as sources other than for the opinion of the journal's editors, which usually isn't notable). The vast majority of published scientific and medical articles are not suitable sources for an encyclopaedia with a NOR policy. However, I don't believe the text belongs in general policy. See WP:MEDRS for the appropriate guideline. Two issues that do belong here, which Looi496 touches on are:

1. Researchers are trained to read and cite primary scientific literature. We are not researchers. To avoid OR, it is preferable to cite expert analysis of the primary literature.
2. The definition of primary sources needs to include primary scientific or medical research papers. The absence of this is causing confusion. The definitions cited by this policy already include them, as do the more scientific/medical definitions I listed here.

Our PSTS section is still very poor IMO. The "key point" quoted in this policy is rubbish ("insider's guide" -- what does that mean). The key point of primary sources is that they are original materials or original thought that has not been previously published in any form in any other source. I shall have a think about some improved wording. Colin°^Talk 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The "key point" thing you refer to was added within the last year (anybody recall or care to dig through and find out when?). I'm not sure that saying "the key point about primary source is that it provides an 'insider's guide' ... " is the best way of summing it up for most readers of the policy page. Nor do I have any particularly vehement objections to it. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think that the issue is not with primary scientific literature, but with advanced scientific literature. Some subjects are hard. Not everybody can write about them well. "It's hard" is not a valid reason to avoid covering it, though. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That may be true... but, "it's hard" isn't a valid excuse for inserting OR either. Whether the topic is easy or hard, Wikipedia's goal is to report what others say about it, and not to introduce our own ideas about it. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The collapsing of "encyclopedic knowledge" to "the knowledge contained in secondary sources" is an unfortunate fallacy that does us no good. Our task is to report significant viewpoints. Those published in peer-reviewed journals have already cleared that threshold. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are, once again, quite apparently confusing the process of research -- more specifically writing about original research and adding one's own original research or synthesis in such writing, as is [typically] required for, say, a dissertation -- with on the other hand writing or editing an encyclopedia article. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It would really help if the reliability of a publication (for example, that it has been peer-reviewed) was totally divorced from issues of NOR in the use of that publication for writing encyclopaedia articles. All hard subjects, of any notability, are covered by secondary sources. This is not a question of "not covering" certain topics. It is about what sources to use when covering topics, hard or otherwise. Colin°^Talk 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is not as though Wikipedia limits itself, or is even primarily focused on "hard subjects." Second of all, while I will grant that coverage by secondary sources is a good sign of notability, it in no way follows from that fact that the whole, or even the bulk of what is worth saying about a topic has been covered in secondary sources.

This idea that anything that has not appeared in a secondary source is original research is nonsense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) WT:MEDRS debated this issue for several tedious weeks last year, and we might be able to save some time if people here would go off to the archives and read the discussions and the outcome.

Here's a short summary: Medicine-related articles are an important subset of Wikipedia articles that are affected by WP:PSTS. We (meaning all reasonable and thoughtful editors, which I assume includes every person reading this page) want to have good sources. We don't want some strange outlier to distort our articles. We want to end up with good, solid, reliable information.

The best way to get this information is to deal with solid secondary sources. You let a reputable expert (or several of them) look over all the stuff and sum it up, and you work from his or her papers. (If published in scientific journals, these are reviews, which encompass systematic reviews to answer narrow points using a stated methodology, and literature reviews or narrative reviews, which is a broader, more descriptive approach.) This is fantastic, and it neatly solves both obvious SYNTH (paper X plus paper Y equals conclusion Ω) and also the DUE problem associated with overemphasizing an editor's 'favorite' primary paper. This is good advice even if the primary paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal: Good peer-reviewed journals publish mistakes all the time, and lousy journals do it as a matter of routine. This is good advice even if the Wikipedia editor is a real-world expert: Real-world experts make mistakes all the time. This is good advice for nearly every situation, and we all want to encourage it.

However: solid secondary sources are not always available for every single relevant aspect of every single (bona fide/WP:N-meeting) medical condition. So the exceedingly rare Oculodentodigital syndrome, which is my favorite example of this problem, deserves space in Wikipedia, but there aren't any solid secondary sources. The best source is actually a case study that also happens to review the condition (presumably so the readers would have some clue what the author was talking about when he described his specific cases). In many more cases, a good review will exist, but we have to turn to primary literature to add information about newer treatments, current epidemiological information, or other details. In short, we cannot assume that solid secondary sources will always be sufficient. This is why WP:MEDRS says that medicine-related articles are ideally based upon high-quality secondary sources (reviews and medical textbooks), not limited to these sources.

What matters is not whether you ever use a primary paper; what matters is how you use it. (See, for example, WP:MEDRS#Respect_secondary_sources.) I see no reason why this page can't (1) identify many examples of primary sources (including the primary scientific literature) and (2) caution against their inappropriate use (with, if desired, many examples) without unduly constraining good editors. We do not want to ban primary scientific literature, but we also do not want to permit its abuse, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said, WhatamIdoing. Thanks for reiterating this perspective with such an effective summary of the issues. As to your last sentence, nobody on the wiki is constrained by any version of WP:PSTS that has ever been here since it started a couple years ago, except those who attempt to use primary sources in an inappropriate way. Those who use primary sources with the extra caution described in the policy and within the limits stated in WP:PSTS are by no means at any risk of suffering even the slightest degradation of their efforts to contribute encyclopedic material to WP. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Research papers are quite inaccurate and being peer-reviewed in a respectable journal is not nearly enough to offset this. For example, see Publish and be wrong which says, "...a study of 49 papers in leading journals that had been cited by more than 1,000 other scientists. They were, in other words, well-regarded research. But he found that, within only a few years, almost a third of the papers had been refuted by other studies." I have reverted in support of this position that we should be suspicious of such material. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The essay in the Economist oversimplifies the issue and is basically wrong. But then, you'd expect that from economists. See the original paper, which is quite readable. 1,000 citations is huge. These are papers in areas undergoing very active research and considerable controversy. Such studies beg further research. The Facts: of the 49 papers they picked, then then selected just 45 that had positive results. Of those 45, 7 were contradicted by subsequent research (16%). Another 7 had the strength of positive effect reduced by subsequent research (they weren't contradicted, we just learned more). So 84% of these papers produced results that were essentially right as far as we know today. What is interesting is that the paper drew on meta-analyses to indicate the current scientific status on the research topic (ie. to show whether what we know now contradicts what they thought then). These are secondary sources. We should do likewise. Assuming that a single primary research paper produced results that reflect "current scientific opinion" is original research. BTW: I still disagree with the inclusion of the text in WP:NOR. Colin°^Talk 13:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if we were to take an anti-journal article stance, we would be forced to rely on summaries from the Economist and other mass market news sources over what the articles actually say. Which, given the well-documented legacy of bad descriptions of science even in good papers like the NYT and the Economist, is an unsatisfying proposition to say the least.

Best, I think, to stick with the best available sources. And you don't beat peer-reviewed journals. In any field. If peer-reviewed sources are available, they are preferable in almost every case. (I'll grant an exception for peer-reviewed scholarship of popular culture, where basic historical facts about are probably better sourced elsewhere if possible). Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This proposal seems to be a conflation of WP:NOR with WP:DUE. I agree with Phil Sandifer's reversion, as any editor with a basic scientific education can eventually figure out what a peer-reviewed article abstract is saying to summarize its own experimental results, without engaging in any original research or documentary/historic analysis. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried about the new language here, because it could, I think, be wrongly taken to mean that journal articles are published experimental results. Experimental results, I think, especially in the context of the rest of PSTS, is meant to be the raw data - not the heavily analyzed, peer-reviewed, and multiply authored results of a scientific journal publication.

I do not think this change makes sense, or fits with consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PSTS revised

The PSTS section offers advice on the use of types of sources prior to defining those types. It defines the three source types backwards (a failed experiment IMO). It contains repetitive text and flabby writing. It contains material that does not belong in this policy page (such as comments on reliability). Finally, the primary sources section contains some examples that are typically unpublished and so irrelevant for our purposes.

I present a revised version that begins with a general rule, three definitions with examples, and then discussion on the use of these types as sources on WP.

The grouping of sources into primary, secondary or tertiary is governed by their originality and their proximity to the origin.[2][3][4]

• Primary sources are original material, original thinking that has not been previously published, or first-hand descriptions of contemporary events. Examples include artefacts; recordings; diaries; interviews; scientific journal articles presenting original research; letters; first-hand newspaper accounts; patents; government records; photographs; religious texts; and creative works such as art, architecture, literature and music.

• Secondary sources describe, comment on, discuss, interpret, analyse and evaluate primary sources; they are one step removed from the origin; they are typically written later, by a third party. Examples include biographies; commentaries; scientific literature reviews; humanities journal articles; second-hand newspaper discussion; specialist textbooks and monographs.

• Tertiary sources collect and distil the information contained in primary and secondary sources. Examples include encyclopaedias, almanacs, guidebooks, university textbooks, bibliographies and catalogues.

Within one source document may be both primary and secondary material. Categorisation also depends on what facts are drawn from a source. For example, a magazine article on a scientific discovery (recently published in a scientific journal) is a secondary source on that discovery, but a primary source on what the media are saying about the discovery.[5]

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source. Primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. A primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgement, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

The above definitions and examples are themselves reliably sourced. The discussion text is largely taken from the original with the flab or irrelevant material removed (for example, the use of reliable sources is a topic for another policy page). The short second-last paragraph is new, and contains material that has come up in discussions. We need to avoid absolutist categorisations of sources, as that leads to confusion. Colin°^Talk 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several issues that make the proposed language problematic.

• Journal articles are presently only considered primary sources for PSTS if they present experimental results. If they present original research in the form of analysis or synthesis they are not considered primary for the purposes of PSTS.
• I don't know what is the difference between a "first hand" newspaper account and a "second hand" newspaper account.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First hand: The reporter saw the car on fire with his own eyes.

Second hand: The reporter talked to someone who saw the car on fire. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that one of those is more or less reliable in general than the other; either both should be treated as primary, or both should be treated as secondary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Carl, reliability has noting to do with this. Let's stay focused on Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The main motivation I can see for discussing PSTS on the NOR page is as a proxy for reliability, so I keep it in mind.

But ignoring reliability, I stand by the point that a news story in which the reporter interviews an eyewitness is not "removed" in any significant way from the incident. Moreover, regardless whether the reporter describes her own experiences or quotes another witness, the story will still be read by an editor before publication, and anything that seems surprising will be fact-checked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is another caveat that needs to be mentioned if we are to rework the PSTS secton... subject context. In the study of history, at least, the same document (and not just material within a document) can be either primary or secondary depending on what the topic of discussion is.

My favorite hypothetical example of this is a book on the history of Saxon England, written by a prominent Victorian era historian. If we are writing an article on the history of the British Isles, this book is a secondary source. A lot of the material would probably be outdated, but it would still be a secondary source.

However, in an article with a more historiographical focus, (say: How different eras viewed Saxon England or the Victorian attitudes and worldview) that exact same book becomes a primary source (and subject to all the limitations that the policy now contains). Blueboar (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I must ask that if folk want to present a different interpretation of PSTS (e.g. Carl's "If they present original research in the form of analysis or synthesis they are not considered primary for the purposes of PSTS") then they back this up with sources. All sources I have found regard all primary research papers as primary sources. If the analysis or synthesis is of the researcher's own unpublished data, this is a primary source for those conclusions -- they are "original thoughts". Even so-called "experimental results" are the consequence of interpretation (the thermometer assumes if the voltage changes the temperature has changed; the researcher assumes that if the patient's temperature is down then he is better). And I wholeheartedly agree with Blueboar that making "PSTS on the NOR page is as a proxy for reliability" is a misguided approach that leads one to come up with "that's not a primary source; its reliable" sort of nonsense. A Simpson's episode is a very reliable source for what characters the Simpson's episode contained; it is still a primary source. Lastly, the text does not say '"second hand" newspaper account'. Please be precise. The bulk of newspaper text these days isn't by journalists in the field. It is a rehashing of press releases or opinion articles. The story you read about wonder drug X is a secondary source. The discussion on the Middle East crisis by someone who hasn't left Kent, is a secondary source on the situation in the Middle East. Colin°^Talk 08:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please consult the lengthy archives for discussions about PSTS. The only summary I can make of previous discussions is that there are several different viewpoints on the distinction between primary and secondary sources, but no general agreement, and that the wording used in NOR is idiosyncratic. Start by reading these sections:

• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_31#Journal_articles
• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_28#Scientific_articles
• Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_29#Recap_of_PSTS_issues_for_those_just_joining

The present list of examples of primary sources on the actual policy page includes "published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; experimental results written by the person(s) who conducted the experiments;" but it does not include other journal articles. However, PSTS says that secondary sources rely on "facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Many journal papers do exactly that, and thus meet our standard for "secondary sources".

This situation is somewhat intentional, because the present policy is listing a particular subtype of primary sources - the type that should not be used to source analytic or synthetic claims. Also, the PSTS section is (or has been) used to determine which sources are valid for establishing notability, and many journal articles count as secondary sources for the purposes of WP:N. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is abusing PSTS. What on earth does "journal articles count as secondary sources for the purposes of WP:N" mean? Such a sweeping statement makes no sense. If we are talking about whether a person is notable, then a biographical article of some famous scientist (often an obituary) in a scientific journal would be a secondary source, sure. But a single paper written by that person would not, and would certainly not establish notability. I can't see how a category of publishing can always be primary/secondary/whatever for any possible fact someone may care to draw from it.

There seems to be some confusion that if writing involves analysis, interpretation, evaluation, etc, that it cannot be primary. This is wrong. The key is whether the writing is about previously published work. The above cited discussions continue to perpetuate the flaw that WP editors are just stating their own personal definitions and refusing to agree. Let's stop that and have a source-based discussion for once. Please provide sources that disagree with the above proposed text. Colin°^Talk 13:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The nutshell for WP:N says, " If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Many journal articles are included in the set of "secondary sources" that are used to establish notability. That's what I mean when I say journal articles count as secondary sources for the purposes of WP:N.

If you insist, I will point out that the proposal above designates a source as primary if it includes "original thinking that has not been previously published, ...". This could be read to say that a monograph of new scholarship about the French Revolution, which proposes a new interpretation or explanation of of the revolution, counts as a primary source. That seems to contradict the first and third sources that the proposal itself provides (the second source only claims to describe the health sciences). Moreover, both the first and third sources provided by the proposal include include "journal article" as primary and secondary sources: [6] [7]. The latter directly says "particularly in disciplines other than science" to count journal articles as secondary sources.

My analysis of this is that there are two dimensions being considered: "originality of thought" and "analysis and synthesis", rather than a single dimension "primary/secondary". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP:N guideline requires secondary sources for the situation where the primary source is the subject being scrutinised for notability. For example, is a book, play, painting notable? The issue of PSTS is pretty irrelevant wrt real world things such as diseases, chemical reactions, galaxies, etc. Concerning science, if someone created an article on a scientific study (and there are a few notable such studies) then the primary source documenting that study would be insufficient to determine notability. However, if the study is widely cited, then there are plenty secondary sources (also journal articles) that would suit that purpose.

In your French Revolution example, the monograph is a secondary source on the F. Revolution. It is a primary source on Professor's Smith's opinions.

Please be careful with saying "Journal articles are...". I've done no such thing. Some journal articles are primary sources, and some are secondary sources. Most humanities journal articles will be secondary sources, because they describe and analyse existing primary sources (literature, artefacts, etc). In scientific research, someone actually did a real-world experiment and discovered something new. And it doesn't matter how much analysis the person did to reach that novel conclusion, or how many log books they keep and revise. The first time they publish that research, it becomes a primary source for the research. Colin°^Talk 16:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposed text says, "journal articles presenting original research", and seems to imply that the "original research" there includes not only experimental data, but also analysis or synthesis. So it appears that a monograph on the French revolution would be classified as secondary under the proposal, but the same monograph would count as primary if it were abridged and published as a paper in a journal. That seems extremely counterintuitive to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified those two examples. See below Colin°^Talk 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are (once again) faced with the problem of having different academic fields define the terms primary and secondary very differently. An original journal article is considered a primary source by those who work in the Sciences, and a secondary source by those who work in the Humanities.

The important thing to me isn't really whether a source is primary or secondary... it's whether we as Wikipedians are misusing the source in a way that introduces OR into an article. It is possible to misuse any "type" of source... but because it is easier to misuse a primary source, we need to include a special caution about primary sources and list a few simple examples to get the idea across.

Our job is not to cover every single possible way primary sources can be misused, nor to list every item that could be considered a primary source... our job is to convey a broad principle (Don't insert your own thinking into an article).

I have always had a problem with how the PSTS section ties in with the rest of the NOR policy... The rest of the policy focuses on how editors can misuse sources, and the PSTS section suddenly shifts that focus to a discussion of the type of sources. That transition is jarring... and tends to make people think that we are somehow banning the use of primary sources (which is not the intent). I think it would help if, in any rewrite of PSTS, we can figure out how to keep the focus on the misuse of sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a conflict between fields. I don't think the term "journal article" is particularly useful on its own in this discussion. Much like "newspaper article" is insufficient in order to determine whether a source is primary or secondary. Colin°^Talk 16:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike "journal article presenting original research"? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've added "scientific" prefix to the "journal articles presenting original research". And added "humanities journal articles" as typically secondary sources. The precise wording of the examples can be tweaked, but should still be source-based rather than WP-editor-belief. The absolutely vital thing is that the definition of PSTS are sourced-based and reasonable. The examples flow from the definitions. Once you go the other way round, you are effectively conducting original research on your own definition. Colin°^Talk 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The definitions in the current policy text are truly lame. We have "Primary: close to an event", "Secondary: one step removed from an event". This is at the Baldrick level of definitions ("Dog: not a cat"). How can someone apply those definitions to a novel, map or a 20-year scientific study. Plus we have the nonsense that "The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's guide to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." I'm afraid the "work of art" is the primary source and doesn't offer any insider's guide to itself. So far, nobody has offered a serious source-based attack on the definitions proposed above. Just personal opinion and distraction about reliability, proxies for this or that, or what peer-review means for PSTS. Colin°^Talk 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposed text includes "original thinking that has not been previously published" as part of the definition of primary source, even though the websites it links to indicate that certain types of previously unpublished thinking are secondary sources. For example, biographies may include novel interpretations of a person's motivations, and monographs may present and argue in favor of novel theories, but these are not primary sources. The very websites cited in the proposed text contradict themselves on this point. So the problem is not that the proposed text is completely at odds with sources, it's that the sources themselves are not particularly clear, and cannot be if they want to be general enough to apply broadly to many fields. This has been discussed at great length in the archives, which as included long lists of websites on primary/secondary typing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In so far as the biography or monograph contain facts that can be traced to the primary sources used by the authors, the biography and monograph are secondary sources for those facts. Once the author starts offering original opinions (on motivation, say) or original theories, then those opinions and theories are disconnected from the primary sources used, and the biography or monograph becomes a primary source for the opinions and theories. What you seek is a simple rule that says "source X is primary" or "source Y is secondary" for all text within the source, for all purposes and for all time. That rule doesn't exist. Colin°^Talk 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no firm line between primary and secondary sources, perhaps NOR should say that instead of attempting to define primary and secondary sources. But the proposed text does not say that. It's also not clear what is permitted when secondary sources are used that is not permitted when primary sources are used.

Back to the revolution example: If somebody writes a new monograph on the French Revolution, which includes original and previously unpublished analysis of the revolution, and we use it in our article on the French Revolution to present the theory that the author is presenting, this is a use of a secondary source. Do you agree? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with the "original: completely new and not copied or derived from something else"[8] definition. If the theory is grounded in the primary sources used by the monograph, it isn't truly original (merely new). Once the theory becomes speculation (suppose X.. then Y and Z make sense) then it may well be original but the monograph starts to become opinion and can be cited as a primary source of that opinion. I accept that in history the dividing line between opinion and fact can be blurry. Colin°^Talk 21:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really want to stick with this, because I think it may either expose some common ground or expose a more fundamental disagreement. I am talking about the specific WP article on the French revolution, not an article about some particular theory. The topic of the WP article is the French revolution.

Suppose that there is a particular paper from the late 20th century that presented a previously-unpublished interpretation of some event of the French revolution. Suppose that I cite that paper for the part of the article that describes the interpretation presented by the monograph. I would say that I am using the monograph as a secondary source at that point.

I would argue further that it is completely impossible for any new primary sources on the subject of the French revolution to come into being. Any newly written source about the French revolution must be a secondary source, since the revolution ended over a hundred years ago. Compare: [9] [10]. The latter is particularly interesting to me:

"[Secondary sources] are usually in the form of published works such as journal articles or books, but may include radio or television documentaries, or conference proceedings."

— Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a humanities expert so you've got me out of my depth here. You've lost me with the paper/monograph bit. Which are you citing and which is based on which?

Looking briefly at the French Revolution article I see there's some recent speculation that an El Niño lead to a famine that sparked the whole thing off. If on WP you wrote "The French Revolution was caused by famine resulting from an El Niño" and cited a scientific research paper first proposing this original idea, then it would be a primary source for the El Niño aspects of your article. For the famine aspect of your article, it would be merely one of many possible secondary sources.

I'm not sure what is "interesting" about the quotation. How does the publication format (book, radio, TV, Web) affect whether it is primary or secondary? Colin°^Talk 21:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that what I had hoped was an area of agreement may actually be an area of disagreement. The article by Groves that speculates on El Niño and the French Revolution is still a secondary source for the article on the French Revolution, because it's impossible to create a new primary source about the French Revolution. Perhaps of a different WP article, The El Niño theory of the French Revolution, Grove's research article would be a primary source, But for the actual article French Revolution the journal article by Grove is a perfectly relevant secondary source - it analyzes primary sources to provide an interpretation of the events, and it was greatly separated in time from those events. There may be other reasons, such as undue weight, not to emphasize Grove's theory, but "primary source" cannot be one of them.

The thing that is interesting to me about the quote (also in the sources listed below) is that journal articles are classified as secondary sources. That question has been discussed on this talk page quite a bit recently. I am supporting my claim that "Journal articles are presently only considered primary sources for PSTS if they present experimental results." by presenting sources, as you asked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

On Grove: this is the kind of dispute that doesn't have anything to do with OR (though the claim describing the research might be slightly exaggerated). The point of the PSTS in this policy isn't to categorize every source into whether it's primary, secondary, etc. The objective here in this policy is delineate and eradicate wikipedian original research. If the primary, secondary, tertiary source says, "El Niño caused the famine", then it's not original research to cite the claim here. If the primary source says, "El Niño changed worldwide weather patterns between 1789 and 1793", and the wikipedian says, "El Niño caused the famine", that would be original research. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Very true. However, I think it safe to be able to define PSTS without the baggage of what people are going to do with the categorisation. This is why I despair when I see PSTS being altered or stuck with one form merely so it can prop up WP:N or WP:V, etc. BTW: "experimental results" is too restrictive. I'd prefer "scientific journal articles presenting original research". For example, an epidemiological study does not involve an experiment. Analysis of in-patient injury patterns does not require an experiment. Colin°^Talk 23:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we can separate the definitions in PSTS from the purpose we want to use them for. The definitions we pick are certain to depend on the use that we have in mind for them. The fact that PSTS is used in WP:N may be unfortunate but I think it's too ingrained to change at the moment.

Re "experimental", one distinction is between "lab science" and "theoretical science" that develops models axiomatically rather than gathering data. Theoretical papers often fit more closely into the "secondary source" mold, since their role is to analyze patterns form other research by providing frameworks for those patterns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't a problem with WP:N's request for secondary sources. This is obviously a good idea when the primary source is the topic being analysed for notability. But it is also true for other primary sources such as a diary of a person or a primary research paper. The latter doesn't establish notability of anything. It is only once other scientists start citing that research that the research (or researchers) become anyway notable. I can live with "scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results" if you insist since they are just examples, not an exhaustive list. Colin°^Talk 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many topics that are only presented in research papers, but not in textbooks, and which would never be deleted in an AFD debate. Since WP:N requires "secondary sources" there are a few possible resolutions of this dilemma:

• WP:N is worded poorly
• Journal articles sometimes count as secondary sources for the purposes of WP:N

I find the second of these more pleasing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You continue to say "journal articles" as though we've put them all in the primary source pot. We haven't. Please explain how a "scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results" can be used to establish the notability of any topic for which we will consider it a primary source (for example, the results, the study itself, and the journal article itself). Note that such a journal article is a secondary source for facts discussed in the "prior work" section, which cite earlier papers (as indicated by the proposed text: "Within one source document may be both primary and secondary material."). Colin°^Talk 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Some quotes from online sources

Since it was asked whether merely consulting sources can clarify primary/secondary source typing, I looked up a selection of sites on primary/secondary sources that classify journal articles as secondary sources. Any emphasis here was added my me.

• From U.C. Berkeley [11]: "A secondary source is a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event. Examples include scholarly or popular books and articles, reference books, and textbooks."
• From Indiana U [12]: "History textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, interpretive journal articles, and book reviews are all examples of secondary sources."
• From Sonoma State U: [13]: "Secondary sources analyze, interpret or comment on the primary source materials. These include books, encyclopedia articles, critical essays, articles, reviews, dissertations and more."
• From U. Michigan [14]: "In contrast, secondary sources are works that interpret or analyze the content of the primary sources. Most reference books, text books, and scholarly publications are secondary resources ... The key to determining whether a source is primary or secondary is the amount of time between the events recorded in the document and the time the document was created. "
• From U. Victoria [15]. Describes "A scholarly article interpreting the symbolism of a kiss in Dante's body of literature" as a secondary source.
• From U. Albany [16]: "The most important feature of secondary sources is that they offer an interpretation of information gathered from primary sources. Common examples of a secondary source are: ... Biographies ... Dissertations ... Indexes, Abstracts, Bibliographies (used to locate a secondary source) ... Journal Articles ... Monographs"
• Eastern Connecticut U. [17] "Examples of secondary sources are biographies, journal articles, and documentaries written some time after the event being studied."

— Carl (CBM · talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you. I note most of those sites lean towards the humanities.

• Your Indiana U site says "A column in the Op/Ed section of a newspaper ... is considered to be a secondary source... Bear in mind, however, that primary and secondary sources are not fixed categories. The use of evidence as a primary or secondary source hinges on the type of research you are conducting. If the researcher of the 2000 presidential election were interested in people’s perceptions of the political and legal electoral controversy, the Op/Ed columns will likely be good primary sources for surveying public opinion of these landmark events." This is the point made in the second-last paragraph in the proposed text above (which also has yet another citation to the same point). This point is also repeated in your U. Albany site. I think it is a valuable point (context is necessary) to add to the policy to help clarify things.
• The U. Michigan site says "In English, History, Social Sciences, Literature and most other liberal arts, primary sources are works that were created during the time period about which they are written or by eye-witnesses of an event. In Science and Mathematics journal articles that discuss new discoveries, as opposed to summarizing previously written material, are considered primary sources, along with all the materials included in the liberal arts primary source list.
• The U. Victoria site gives examples of primary sources as "Articles containing original research, data, or findings never before shared" and goes on to give the specific example of "A scientific article reporting on the growth rates of Douglas fir trees on Vancouver Island.".
• From Timken science library [18]: "Primary sources present information that has not been previously published in any form in any other source. These sources may evolve through either formal or informal channels of communication. Journals, patents, and technical reports are examples of primary literature that have been evaluated through a peer-review process and are disseminated through published sources. Other primary sources, such as laboratory notebooks, memoranda, e-mail or listservs, are not usually published, but are nevertheless an important resource." [19]: "Secondary literature sources, including indexes and abstracts, encyclopedias, handbooks, reviews [Colin: which are often published in journals], and other reference sources, facilitate the assimilation of information originally disseminated through the primary literature. They integrate and improve access to the ever-increasing body of primary literature by organizing, repackaging, compiling and editing primary sources."
• From James Cook U [20]: "Sources of information are generally categorised as primary, secondary or tertiary depending on their originality and their proximity to the source or origin.", "Primary sources present original thinking, report on discoveries, or share new information.", "They are usually the first formal appearance of results in the print or electronic literature", "They present information in its original form, neither interpreted nor condensed nor evaluated by other writers." Primary sources include "scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results". "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." Secondary sources "are works which are one or more steps removed from the event or information they refer to, being written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. " including "journal articles, particularly in disciplines other than science".
• From Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science (ODLIS) [21]: Primary sources: "In scholarship, a document or record containing firsthand information or original data on a topic, used in preparing a derivative work. Primary sources include original manuscripts, periodical articles reporting original research or thought, diaries, memoirs, letters, journals, photographs, drawings, posters, film footage, sheet music, songs, interviews, government documents, public records, eyewitness accounts, newspaper clippings, etc." [22] Secondary source: "Any published or unpublished work that is one step removed from the original source, usually describing, summarizing, analyzing, evaluating, derived from, or based on primary source materials, for example, a review, critical analysis, second-person account, or biographical or historical study."
• From U. Connecticut [23]: "The initial release of information in a formal setting is considered primary literature. Primary sources present information which has not been previously published in any form in any other source. In scientific literature, journals, conference proceedings, and technical reports are usually considered primary literature. Also, data upon which these publications are based can be considered a primary source.", "Secondary sources describe, comment on, interpret, analyze, summarize, or evaluate primary sources. They rely on evidence previously published in primary sources and are written after the time period when the experiment was conducted or the event noted in the primary source occured. ... Publication types that are usually secondary sources in the sciences include books, review articles, newspaper articles, and indexing/abstracting services"
• From Washington State U. [24] "Primary Source: A primary scientific paper is defined as the first publication of original research results that is in a form with sufficient detail whereby the author’s peers can critically evaluate the research process and could repeat the study to test the conclusions.", "A secondary source is an information source that does not have as a major component the description of formal observations or experiments but rather is synthesized from some combination of primary sources, experience, or authoritative belief (dogma)."

I don't see any of those sites contradicting each other. I'll concede that journal articles in the humanities are generally placed in the "secondary source" bucket but assert that in the sciences there are two clear types: articles publishing original research are primary sources, articles based on previously published research are secondary sources. Plus there's further evidence of the point that even a secondary or tertiary source is also a primary source on itself, its author or its author's profession.

Can we find some way of tweaking the proposed definitions and/or example text so that it fits these sites, which are more authoritative than your opinion or mine. Colin°^Talk 22:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

After watching the discussion about primary/secondary source distinction for some time, I have the conclusion that there really isn't a solid definition that is generally applicable. But I also still don't know exactly why we are defining primary and secondary sources on the NOR page, and without that knowledge I don't know what sort of definition would be the most useful. Can we button that up first? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, what you've just said really implies you should recuse yourself from the discussion. Really the problem with the PSTS discussions is (a) people coming up with their own definitions, which confused everyone and (b) people saying the issue is confused when it really isn't and (c) people seeking a use for PSTS before they have established proper definitions. Defining a word one way just so that you can use it a certain way, is an Alice in Wonderland approach to language. The sources above (both yours and mine) are completely in agreement. The humanities and sciences classify their journal articles differently but this is easy to deal with and still broadly fit the definitions of primary vs secondary. What happens with this talk page is that ideas are discussed to death and we still have a policy page that is poorer than the proposed alternative. Compared to just about any of the sources cited above, our current policy page definitions of PSTS are rubbish and embarrassing. Colin°^Talk 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Colin, I like most of your proposal, but I'm not keen on the "Within one source document may be both primary and secondary material" paragraph because, as I've argued before, I want to see better understanding that the policy is about "original research", and reduce the misapprehension that it's primarily a "don't use primary sources" rule. And I've never been in a dispute where I think elaborating over what kind of secondary sourced content can appear in a primary source document would have helped much. I can't remember one now at least. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well let's drop that and discuss it later. It is a point mentioned by at least three of the cited definitions and one I have seen people trip up on. Absolutism wrt to saying "X is a primary source" leads to folk getting all confused and thinking there is no solution. But it can wait. Colin°^Talk 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are peer-reviewed sources primary?

I mean this as a sincere question. As I look at the primary sources section, it seems to stress the immediacy of the primary source - which is what makes it so difficult for us to use. Basically, the primary source is uninterpreted data - whether that data be experimental results, historical documents, or literary.

Nowhere in the text does it say anything that comes close to a peer-reviewed, academic source being a primary source - and that makes sense to me. In the sciences, there's a huge line between lab notebooks (what are banned by PSTS) and published results, which tend to have A) repeated experiments, B) analysis of data, C) multiple authorship, D) peer review, and E) editing in response to peer review.

In the humanities, some of this disappears - but I know of nobody who publishes without getting extensive comments from their colleagues, and then peer review and editing still take place. So we're still, with academic sources, dealing with stuff that is very, very far from immediate. And academic publishing is not about presenting an insider's view of events - it's about summarizing research, explaining conclusions, and presenting things so that they are known and referencable. Which is very, very different from primary sources.

I'm wondering if we should not expressly say that peer-reviewed sources are not primary. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the major source of trouble source typing itself? What you've suggested has been discussed before, surely more than once. I think Blueboar is on the right track when he says the real problem is misuse of sources, not the type of source misused. We are shown examples of how editors have misused primary sources. I think Blueboar's position is that it is the misuse that is bad, and that would hold no matter what type of source was misused. Also, logically, showing that primary sources are sometimes abused does not provide grounds for forbidding the use of primary sources. Secondary sources surely are also misused. I recognize that such use is not forbidden: only careless use of primary sources is forbidden. To me that would mean that an editor is wrong to remove any material because (and only because) it is based on a primary source. What the editor should demonstrate is that the source was used carelessly. Which is pretty much the same thing Blueboar appears to advocate: don't misuse sources. If the editor can show that the source was used carelessly (or simply improperly) it doesn't matter whether the source was primary (by either accepted or Wikipedia-specific definition), secondary, or tertiary. The matter based on careless/improper use of a source should be removed.

I am far from the first to suggest that source typing be expunged from Wikipedia:NOR. I still think it is not just a good idea but is the best idea. Let the focus be on the proper use of sources. What useful purpose is served by Wikipedia having strained and idiosyncratic definitions of "primary" and "secondary"?

I was taught (as a chemist) that for experimental articles the experimental data in a journal article is pretty generally reliable and that the interpretations are less so. Minasbeede (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am open to the idea that PSTS does not have consensus, or that it is, at best, guideline-level consensus. It has always been the most controversial part of this policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely. A book by Richard Dawkins (or Carl Sagan) is less reliable than a peer-reviewed article by the same man, since it has been checked by fewer people, even though it comes from a major publisher and hits a bestseller list. Of course, either could be out of date and superseded by better theories or more accurate experimental results. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's bracket academic press publication, which amounts to peer reviewed books. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, you may be sincere but this is really misguided. Please find a source for your observation that "the primary source is uninterpreted data". All the sources I have found (e.g. this) group both lab books and the initial publication of results as primary sources. To quote:

"Primary sources present information that has not been previously published in any form in any other source. These sources may evolve through either formal or informal channels of communication. Journals, patents, and technical reports are examples of primary literature that have been evaluated through a peer-review process and are disseminated through published sources. Other primary sources, such as laboratory notebooks, memoranda, e-mail or listservs, are not usually published, but are nevertheless an important resource."

The levels of edtiorial and peer review that a work of literature has undergone has nothing to do with PSTS. It certainly affects reliability, but that's another story. Colin°^Talk 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, literature doesn't go through peer review as such, and I'd argue that the editorial review is substantially different once you introduce the idea of artistic vision. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the word "literature" to mean published writing on a subject, rather than specifically artistic literature. The "scientific literature", for example, is often peer-reviewed. But this remains a red herring wrt NOR. Colin°^Talk 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"less reliable" sort of implies that Dawkins and/or Sagan (as examples) were ineffectual in creatng and reviewing their own work to make sure it is valid. Either of those authors, I'd strongly suspect, would be able to distinguish between solid material that they take from another source and less solid material - material that amounts to a being a new, untested hypothesis. I'd also suspect the two could make that distinction even if they were in agreement with the hypothesis: they'd recognize the nature of the process needed to bring the hypothesis from untested to established (or possibly to rejected.) In dealing with the content of such a book the task of the Wikipedia editor is to make a similar distinction and to avoid using material that is has not been generally accepted as though it has been generally accepted. In any event, the emphasis isn't on "reliable" as far as this discussion is concerned (which may be bad or good: I'm just repeating something I read in the discussion.) Conceivably there could be a passage in such a book which has content that has been fully peer reviewed and is generally accepted - but still might be misused by a Wikipedia editor. (In other words I'm lobbying for the concept that it is misuse that creates the problem, not the type of source used.) If the problem is misuse then there is no amount of effort that can be put into rigorous definition (even if idiosyncratic) of what "primary" means that will cure the problem. The definition effort is misguided: it is misuse (even if unintentional) that corrupts Wikipedia, not the type of source cited. Minasbeede (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Minasbeede, I agree that proper use of any source is more important than a classification of the source. I would be happy if WP:PSTS were removed from WP:NOR and demoted to a guideline or essay. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on... having been through several debates that proposed both removing PSTS and demoting it to a guideline, I know there is a strong consensus against doing either. I can all but guarentee that any attempt to remove it will be met with adament objections.

I think a far more productive discussion is whether we should shift the focus of the section from "Because people often misuse Primary sources, we have determined that you can only use primary sources to say X" (which causes a prolbem because we can not agree on what X is, not to mention agreeing on what exaclty falls into the category of Primary source) to "Primary sources are easy to misuse, so be very very careful... here are several examples of ways primary sources can be misused... and here are some ways they can be used appropriately."

Keep the focus on the broad principle of not adding original research. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it is "consensus" I am aware that there is strong advocacy of source typing. At one time I think that Wikipedia:Consensus warned of a situation in which over time the same objection is raised and fought off by a faction, with the result that those objecting give up, to be later replaced by others making the same objection.

It seems that (a) source typing is particularly favored by a group of editors whose focus is on social sciences and humanities and that (b) those in physical sciences are frequently disturbed by source typing, which appears to fly in the face of what physical scientists do and find reasonable. The source typing advocacy has a narrow focus (social sciences) but the advocates wish to make it a general policy, across all of Wikipedia. It also seems to be the case that source typing ought to be in Wikipedia:verifiability but doesn't really work there, so it is instead put into Wikipedia:NOR, where it resides uncomfortably.

In addition Wikipedia:NOR forbids original research, which is fine and proper. If a use of a source amounts to original research then the material needs to be altered or removed. That seems to be the major point. How the source material is classified is of far less importance than the fact that it is misused. Further, the actual use of the source typing clause in Wikipedia:NOR appears to be as a reason to arbitrarily (without discussion) remove material. The policy says to use primary sources with care but the actual usage is consistent with an interpretation that says don't use primary sources at all.

I agree: "keep the focus on the broad principle of not adding original research." I think source typing removes that focus. My involvement in this discussion started in November, 2007 (or before.) Back then there was discussion of what was and wasn't a "primary" source. Today the same discussion continues. That seems to me to be a sign that source typing is too spongy in its definition to ever fit in a policy.

I fully agree that source typing advocates were adamant and likely will continue to be so. I take comfort in the notion that most Wikipedia editors do a good job and are actually unaware of this long-raging conflict. That is, however this discussion goes and no matter how long it goes on most editors will do things which enhance Wikipedia, with this discussion (and source typing) not mattering much at all.

In any event this has come a long way from being a means of preventing the advocacy of screwball theories. I'm not convinced that all the additions to Wikipedia:NOR have effected an improvement in it. Minasbeede (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Primary source" and "peer reviewed source" are two separate characterizations that may or may not overlap with a particular source. Why is it that its "peer review" now getting dragged into the PSTS discussion? What has peer review to do with the original research policy? Seriously! Professor marginalia (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the concern is that by adding "experimental results written by the person(s) who conducted the experiments" we are somehow "banning" peer reviewed journals (because such material appears in peer reviewed journals). I think this is a good time to remind people that this policy (even in it's current state) does not BAN the use of any primary source... it limits how we use them, but not their use. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I see. Then my short, sweet answer to the question, "If we should not expressly say that peer-reviewed sources are not primary?" is absolutely not. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Something I am still fuzzy about is exactly what is permitted of the sources that NOR calls secondary that is not permitted of the sources that NOR calls primary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That is actually quite easy... Statements that analyse or interpret something, or reach a conclusion about something must be backed by secondary sources. You should not base such statements on primary sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what NOR says, though. It says that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Interpretations of secondary source material do not (apparently) have this requirement. For the record, if NOR clearly said what you just said I would have no strong objection to it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all clear that if the so-called primary source is itself the subject of the article text (for example, the novel) then you need a secondary source on the novel in order to include analysis of the novel on WP. This is why we say "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source". Note that this is "must" not "is preferably". But if the primary source is merely close to the subject (a diary of a person, a report of a scientific study) the need for a secondary source becomes just strong advice rather than a requirement. Far better to cite the biography of the person, or a literature-review of the scientific topic, than to attempt to become a biographer or reviewer oneself. That path leads to original research... Colin°^Talk 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in general terms I agree.

One thing that I have noticed is that our standard practice is to use mainly primary sources when writing biographical articles about prominent people. For example George W. Bush and other articles on current politicians are written mostly from newspaper articles. So the idea that we should not be biographers ourselves, while it has some merit, is only followed when there is a sufficient mass of historical research that we can rely on secondary sources. As a though experiment, imagine if our article on Mahatma Ghandi was written so that more than half the citations were to newspaper articles written during his lifetime. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On cherry picking and gun jumping

Rather than getting bogged down in definitions, I'd like to focus on the practical problem. In medical articles, it is very common for people to want to insert a passage dealing with some off-the-wall idea that hardly anybody takes seriously, justifying it by saying that it comes from a reputable source. It's also common to want to alter an article to reflect the latest provocative paper. Those of us who work in science know that on many questions, it's possible to find reputable sources to justify nearly anything -- just by statistics, if you have enough studies, a substantial number of them will come to wrong conclusions. How do we defend against this? This is a genuine problem that comes up every day and will rapidly turn Wikipedia's medical articles into crap if we don't have a principled way of dealing with it. In practice, the people who maintain medical articles mostly follow the policy that I wrote out, and I don't see any realistic alternative. It would be nice if WP:NOR would back us up. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example so I know what I'm looking at? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Schizophrenia#include early intervention section for the issue that brought me here. See also Talk:Caffeine#Pregnancy for a similar issue. Looie496 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that problem with medical writing. I'm not sure that "originality" is the issue, though – in the situation you describe the material is published, but we want to exclude it for other reasons. I usually argue against these sorts of inappropriate additions using the "due weight" section of WP:NPOV. It may be that in the context of a medical article, the due weight is zero for a new study that is not supported by any other studies and is not covered by reviews. But in other fields the due weight of a newly published paper may be higher. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a dispute illustrating a problem involving original research, primary research, peer review, NPOV, and all the rest.[25] I'm going to be delicate describing the dispute because this is a BLP and its subject was editing in his own WP article. We had the situation of the second of two primary sources, both peer reviewed, being offered as a study confirming the findings of the first. As I said, these were primary sources, peer reviewed. The author of the study was lending his own first hand description of both articles on the talk pages-a qualified expert in every sense. In terms of solid credentials of the authors and academic peer review of the papers, they'd rank much more impressively than most secondary sources would do. However, the editor (also author of the first paper) was attempting to impart a conclusion, an opinion, from comparing the two primary sources. The fact that the two papers are primary research and peer reviewed gives them credibility over secondary sources in academia where forming opinions or conclusions from them is welcome. It is not welcome at WP! The opinions or conclusions that can be drawn from primary sources must come from secondary sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The first was an excellent example, Looie496. The conclusion the editor made was not the conclusion given in the abstracts of studies. Perfect example of how carried away things can easily get with primary sources! The second example illustrates a problem with WP:Undue, but not original research. Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough, but it doesn't look like this was a primary source misuse at WP, though maybe one in the secondary source. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The misapplicatin of WP:NOR is a common problem... I have seen people cite the PSTS section for the arguments that are really WP:V/RS issues, WP:NOR issues and even WP:N issues. One thing that the NOR policy does not do well enough is explain exactly what we mean by Original Research ... as used in this policy, the term does not apply to published research that may be original... it applies to our own ideas or research. In other words it does not apply to our sources, it applies to what we write about the sources. We need to get back to that. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

One way to deal with problems like this is to introduce citations to sources that contest the validity of the source in question. There may still be undue weight issues even in this case though. Ultimately authors need to come to consensus about what sources they consider reliable. Dcoetzee 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

When you have dozens of peer-reviewed articles that all express subtly or not-so-subtly different viewpoints, only a expert can integrate them in a sensible way. Having non-expert Wikipedia editors trying to express all the viewpoints with appropriate weight just leads to an incomprehensible hash. There's really no workable option except to rely on review papers whenever they are available. Looie496 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No option apart from editing articles on subjects that you are familiar with? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, if only one could get rid of those ignorant other editors :-) While WP is the encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit", anyone really does edit. Any idiot can find a PubMed abstract on Google. At least with a review, we have the opinion of someone we know is an expert, imperfect though they may be. The whole purpose of a literature review is to conduct the kind of research, evaluation and synthesis that we are prevented from. Colin°^Talk 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to get rid of anyone. But we do need to have a core mass of people who know something about the topic of each particular article. Apart from those who follow a few "controversial" topics (which are a tiny fraction of all articles), most editors I have met have no difficulty recognizing the benefits of staying close to the existing literature. The degree to which it's admissible to do a literature survey and summarize the results varies widely between fields on WP – not all fields are like medicine in favoring review articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Carl, you're way off on this suggestion. No option. And it's often when we have good editors working on subjects they aren't familiar with that the problems are identified. It's impossible to ask wikipedians to adequately or accurately determine the consensus or weight of opinion of topics in medicine and science by wading through published primary research. Good gawd, what a mess that would be. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been under the impression for a long time that the only way to determine the consensus of opinion in various areas of science is to be broadly familiar with the contemporary literature. (Not that this is directly related to NOR). If I am not familiar, in a somewhat reasonable sense, with what has been published in a particular area, there's no reasonable way by which I could decide whether some claim was in agreement with the consensus of the literature or not. Putting blind faith in the accuracy of review articles carries all the pitfalls of blind faith. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite a package of issues here!

• Part of the instance raised by Looie496 (18:43, 12 January 2009) is about the limits of WP:RS. Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science regards the eagerness of mags and author for spectacular new ideas as a reason for the high "mortality rate" of peer-reviewed articles - in medicine, the field Looie496 was concerned about. In paleontology artciles I prefer sources in the 5-10 year old range for that reason, and when using more recent sources give the date and use more cautious phrasing, e.g. "In 20nn X concluded that ..."
• Re Looie496's "no workable option except to rely on review papers whenever they are available" (22:41, 12 January 2009), it depends who's writing the review. E.g. you'd get very different opinions in review papers by Caron and Butterfield about the "Halwaxiids". I agree with CBM (23:17, 12 January 2009) about the need for editors to know the subject reasonably well and to avoid "blind faith in the accuracy of review articles".
• [26], quoted by Professor marginalia, looks like a completely different issue. Unfortunately the third of the links in that discussion showed me an empty page. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the articles said fairly similar things. It's quite likely that a WP editor who understood the subject could validly write that "X, Y, and Z agreed that beneficial mutations had more chance of becoming fixed in sexual than asexual populations (all other things being equal)". OTOH X, Y and Z might have slightly different reasons for coming to this conclusion, and if the reason were relevant to the subject of the WP article, the differences would also have to be mentioned. The only way round this type of situation is discussion between knowledgable editors. It's impossible to apply WP:NOR, WP:SYN, etc. absolutely literally because WP articles have to select, summarise and paraphrase - partly for brevity, partly to make technical subjects intelligble to non-specialist readers, and partly to avoid copyright problems. --Philcha (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Carl: "I have been under the impression for a long time that the only way to determine the consensus of opinion in various areas of science is to be broadly familiar with the contemporary literature." What you're proposing, that wikipedians can wade thru primary research to determine to what degree each particular work is currently generally accepted in the field, is pretty close to original research of kind. Anyway, no. The way we as editors can best determine the level of acceptance scientific or medical ideas have is to consult those secondary and tertiary RS which write about it. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Philcha: Re Desai. Not so, not at wikipedia. The policy is, the claim, "Paper B validated Paper A", needs either 1) a source that says, "Paper A is validated by Paper B" or 2) Paper B to say, "this validates Paper A". But if you're saying, "Paper A's conclusion was X" and "Paper B's conclusion was X", then wikipedians can be the first to claim Paper B confirms Paper A? No. Paper B can conclude "Socrates was a man", with Paper A earlier concluding, "Socrates' daughter was a man", but one can't accurately say the analysis in Paper A was confirmed by Paper B. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, Professor marginalia, Socrates' daughter is a straw person of indeterminate gender, and "man" is so ambiguous that it's impossible to use it for any clear and obvious deduction. OTOH the abstracts of the 2 Desai papers (I'd have read the full text if editing an article) said much the same thing except that one explicitly cast doubt on one of the theoretical models and the other only hinted at this. So it would be fair to say that Desai's opinion was mainly the same in the 2 papers - unless the development of Desai's opinion on the theoretical models was relevant to the WP article. That apart, you could translate one of the abstracts into the other with the aid of a good dictionary. --Philcha (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're at a disadvantage to sort the dispute now - the Snoke dispute was confusing then, and all the links to the related articles don't work . The comparison wasn't between the two Desai papers. It was between those two and a third, earlier, and highly controversial paper that was alleged to imply something about irreducible complexity. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) "What you're proposing, that wikipedians can wade thru primary research to determine to what degree each particular work is currently generally accepted in the field, is pretty close to original research of kind." As long as they don't try to put their own conclusions into the article, editors should read broadly in the fields they edit in and get a sense of the literature. NOR does not proscribe editors researching the sources, NOR only discusses editors actually writing their own opinions into the wiki articles. Talk page discussion is not covered by the OR policy, and editors are free to use their broader knowledge when making editorial judgments. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that Wikipedians can wade thru primary research to determine to what degree each particular work is currently generally accepted in the field. I discussed whether specific authors X & Y agreed with Z. I agree with your point about identifying consensus, in fact it's such a can of invertebrates that I avoid it unless 110% clear. --Philcha (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds nice when you say it that way, but go to autism and try to get a handle of the question of whether mercury plays a role in causing it. Or… well, I could go on listing things, but it's just hard to really grasp the problem if you haven't tried to deal with a topic with a large and contradictory literature, and lots of editors with strong feelings about specific points who say "the article obviously needs to say X, here it is documented in a refereed journal paper!" Looie496 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the autism-mercury issue is an interesting and important issue, due to the widespread publicity given to the alleged connection. It's mainly a WP:V#Reliable_sources, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT analysis, and a very difficult one at that. But one thing that should definitely be ruled out is to have WP editors parsing through the primary-source research to arrive at article content, no matter which side of this issue those sources may seem to support. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from researching sources, how would we want people to arrive at the article content? And editors are very correct that if something is included in a refereed journal paper then WP:NOR and WP:V have no objections to including it in the article. There may be editorial issues, or questions of undue weight, but there's no issue with NOR provided the claims are kept descriptive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In this particular instance, the editors at autism apparently have chosen to sum it up according to reliable secondary sources. Here is an earlier permutation of the issue. Since then, the users participating in that article have gotten a firmer handle on the issue, which is presently mentioned in the second lead paragraph and at the end of Autism#Causes, relying on secondary-source summaries of the alleged vaccine connection. (See, e.g., current footnote 57.)... Kenosis (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How do they know that these secondary sources are not themselves biased or out of agreement with the consensus of experts in the field? But, on a different point, medicine is somewhat unique in its use review papers. The humanities are not at all the same. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How do they know? They don't. They were applying a reliable-sources analysis and WP:WEIGHT. And (in the end at least) they avoided cherrypicking the primary sources, just as they should have according to the policy, since there were plenty of secondary sources at their disposal, summary-type secondary sources that they then proceeded to use in preference to primary sources in order to sum up the issue for the reader of the article. All in accordance with existing policy, AFAICT. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone doesn't actually know that what they are adding is right, they really shouldn't be adding it at all. Choosing the reliable secondary sources is no simpler than choosing the reliable primary sources, especially since bias in secondary sources can be more difficult for untrained readers to notice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused - the discussion seems to veer further and further away from any original research issue. Potential bias, reliability, or factual accuracy of sources--these potential problems aren't meant to be addressed here in the NOR. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But these are exactly the issues that the language about primary/secondary sources addresses. The arguments above against the use of primary sources all refer to the supposed inaccuracies that come from their use. The arguments are not, particularly, about "originality"; the parts of the arguments that are about originality have little to do with the distinction between primary and secondary sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looie:"It sounds nice when you say it that way but..it's just hard to really grasp the problem if you haven't tried to deal with a topic with a large and contradictory literature". Nuff said. It's not just a naivete about editing controversial subjects at WP, it's naivete of the field of science/med itself. That's not what their academics do either. It's not like it's this simple a thing to derive the "consensus" in science by simply conducting a "primary" lit review! Professor marginalia (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. In controversial topics even review papers need to be used with care, as much may depend who wrote them. That's why I think knowledge of the field and the players is important (see the "large and contradictory literature" at Halwaxiid, and see Orthrozanclus for a bit of a spat in public), and why it ultimately depends on the judgement of editors who know the subject. --Philcha (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about "naivete about editing controversial subjects at WP", but I've had plenty of experience with WP editing. And in my field it is perfectly reasonable to do a literature review to find out what people have written on some topic. I still haven't seen any other proposed way (on this talk page) to judge consensus in a field apart from being familiar with the literature in that field. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We are just editors here. We are often asked to judge what weight to give some claim by examining how much weight it receives in the best published secondary literature. But this isn't directly equivalent to the process in which discoveries take hold in the field of science and medicine. The peer reviewed publication of primary research is just one of many levels of review most new research findings will undergo. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to forbid the use of all "primary sources" in medical articles, e.g. RCTs, is ridiculous. In some areas, e.g. anabolic steroids, there are few large scale RCTs, but there are tons of review papers, and they sometimes draw contradictory conclusions on various topics. Because of their scarcity, the good RCTs often get published in prestigious journals, e.g. NEJM, while the reviews have to settle for lesser venues. The common sense thing to do in these cases is to label the source accordingly in the wiki text: "A RCT on nnn patients determined that...", "a year YYYY review that surveyed XX studies concluded..." You can't prescriptively solve all these issues with a paragraph in a policy that's supposed to apply equally well to math, paleontology and medicine. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do wish people would read the policy... at no point does the policy "forbid" the use of all primary sources. It does set limits on what we can say based upon primary sources... ie how we can use them... but this policy does not forbid primary sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar is correct. Note, for example, that the article on hyodeoxycholic acid is written in complete accordance with this policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For more obscure topics, e.g. hyodeoxycholic acid, there may be no review paper in existence. Usually the best review in this case is the introduction section of a recent paper on the topic. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no review paper, I would have to ask whether something like hyodeoxycholic acid is all that notable. But, that is an issue for WP:N and not for WP:NOR.

As far as this policy is concerned, there is no ban on citing the introduction of a recent paper... This policy does not forbid any source. This policy isn't about sources. It is about what we can and can not say about a topic. The fact that there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss hyodeoxycholic acid does not mean we can not discuss hyodeoxycholic acid, it simply means that there is a limit to what we can say about hyodeoxycholic acid. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if parts of the introductory section of a paper give a general description of a subject rather than specifically discussing experimental results than those parts of the introductory section are a secondary source, rather than a primary source. Moreover, as Xasodfuih says, these are often the only sources available for somewhat obscure topics. For example, the first page of this paper [27] is clearly acting as a literature review rather than presenting novel information (except for the final sentence). The remainder of the paper presents experimental results. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that this policy does not (and should not) "forbid" discribing the research paper or the experimental results... it simply limits what we can say about the paper or those experimental results. Neither the paper, nor the results are Original Research as that term is used in Wikipedia... they can't be since they exist in a published source that is external to Wikipedia. What might or might not be Original Research is what we say about the paper or the results. Because the paper is a primary source, there is only so much that we can say using that source. Again... WP:NOR is not about sources... it's about how we use sources... its about what we write in our articles.

Now... there may be other issues involved in mentioning a given source. The source may be considered unreliable, the paper might not be really relevant to the article's topic, mentioning it may give undue weight to a fringe concept, etc. But these are not WP:NOR issues. As far as WP:NOR is concerned, the paper can be used, but we are limited in how we use it. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Introductory sections of papers

This text was added and removed from the policy:

"A scientific paper that presents original results often includes a section, typically the introduction, where related work is reviewed. This may constitute a suitable secondary source in the absence of dedicated review papers in that area."

The edit summary for removal was "You misunderstand the concept of Original Research". Now, I am very comfortable with the WP concept of original research (I've been participating on this page for quite a long time). I don't see how the concept of avoiding original research affects our use of an introductory section of a paper as a source. Moreover, the language quoted above seems like a perfectly good description of the actual practice I have seen employed in various articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my edit summary is not worded correctly... I have explained my revert more fully below (we cross posted). Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New edit

Xasodfuih recently added the following to the PSTS secton: A scientific paper that presents original results often includes a section, typically the introduction, where related work is reviewed. This may constitute a suitable secondary source in the absence of dedicated review papers in that area.

I have reverted... It does not matter whether the introduction of a scientific paper is primary or secondary... the point is that it is a perfectly good source for us to use as long as we don't misuse it in a way that violates NOR. Furthermore, there is no need to list every single example of "this is OK... this isn't". FOCUS people... this policy isn't about the sources... it is about what WE say about the sources in our Wikipeida articles. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above. If the policy is not about sources, or about trying to divide sources into primary/secondary.... then why is that section in the policy?

What this policy is "about" is that our articles should not make claims, either explicit or implicit, that cannot be sourced to reliable publications. It isn't about "what we say about sources in our Wikipedia articles". Our articles are not about sources, they are about topics, and so the policy discusses what sorts of claims we can make about those topics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you blueboar. I know I'm repeating myself, but the policy is not about labeling sources as primary, secondary, or tertiary. The policy is to not engage in original research. The hairsplitting about what sections or passages of a scientific research paper might be categorized as "secondary" is just pedantry. We already have guidelines written that talk about the use of sources in science and medical articles. These niggly caveats just aren't helpful here in the policy page! Professor marginalia (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Carl: "It isn't about 'what we say about sources in our Wikipedia articles'." Many original research disputes are over "what we say the sources show in our wikipedia articles." Professor marginalia (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As for why the PSTS section is in the policy in the first place... time for a history lesson:

The section started out as a simple one sentence statement: "Wikipedia should not become a primary source for information." It was thought that this statement needed further explanation, so people understood what the policy meant by "primary source." This in turn led to explaining what a "secondary" (and eventually "tertiary") source was. But... and this is important... the original intent was to make it clear that WIKIPEDIA should not become a primary source.

Unfortunately, as people started to add examples to cover their own areas of expertise the focus shifted. People began to debate the examples and whether they were or were not primary/secondary. We lost track of WHY we were discussing primary and secondary sources... to the point that, in one revision or another, someone took out the very sentence that caused us to have the discussion in the first place... the sentence that tied the discusion to the rest of the policy. The debate over definitions had taken on a life of its own.

We need to regain the original focus this section started with (and which the rest of the policy still has)... focus on the use and misuse of sources... not on whether a source is primary or secondary. Get the section back to focusing on the concept that "Wikipedia should not be a primary source for information." Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha. Editors reject using scientific papers but conduct votes to decide if Joe the Plumber is or isn't a plumber (like that's not original research). I found it looking through the (otherwise fine) contributions of Kenosis. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time arguing policy; got articles to write. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about rejecting the use of scientific papers? Are we having the same conversation? Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What you say, Blueboar, doesn't seem to at all explain why there is a faction who adamantly insist that PSTS remain in policy. This dispute goes far beyond simple clarification of what "primary" means. (Nor does the bulk of what appears seem to actually clarify, given that the starting point is that "primary" means different things in different fields. OTOH, "Don't introduce your own new ideas" seems pretty clear, as does the concept that Wikipedia is, by design and intention, not the place for any new idea to appear.)Minasbeede (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that phrase is helpful. You'll get people claiming that because they are citing primary sources (say) that they build their ideas upon that that makes the WP text a secondary source for the information.

I know you guys are weary of the PSTS thing but I'm trying, in the above proposed change, to base the section on external definitions. I think this has been achieved and contrary to expectations, there's no great clashing of humanities vs sciences that shall never be resolved. Once we have these definitions placed on a solid sourced foundation, future attempts to alter or re-debate the text can be closed off with "show us some reliable sources that say otherwise". Just like with our best articles -- they become stable when they are well cited. The current section is vastly deteriorated compared to what it used to be. It's backwards for goodness sake (yes I'm aware of the discussion that changed that). It needs to be improved and based on reliable external definitions. It should not be abused with baggage from other policy or guideline requirements. You will never get peace with the current section text -- it is just too awful and inadequate. Colin°^Talk 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorta weary. There is WP:RS, which is the policy on reliable sources. Properly, PSTS belongs there if it belongs anywhere. Unfortunately there are some who regard some uses of primary sources as OR, so they insist on PSTS and insist it be in WP:NOR. For a very long time there has been discussion of PSTS in this talk page and resolution seems no closer now than it ever has. Minasbeede (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly be one of those who feel that some uses of primary sources is OR... what is unfortunate is that there are some people who seem to feel that any use of primary sources is OR... and that is not what the policy says (nor what the policy should say).

We will get no where if we attempt to remove PSTS. That is an argument that has been done to death. There are people who feel that it is vital to the policy (as opposed to my view, which is that it is useful, but not vital) and who will ardently oppose any attempt to remove or demote it. So... instead of removing or demoting it, I am proposing that we keep it, but try to refocus it back to where it was originally. Blueboar (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The examples that I have seen presented of how primary sources can be used in a way that violates NOR don't actually involve the primaryness of the sources. The examples involve editors who add conclusions to the article that are not supported by the literature; bu these examples of NOR violations would continue to hold if the sources used were secondary instead of primary. Maybe the issue is that I still haven't seen an example where it was literally the primaryness of the source that made a certain claim OR (but not an issue of undue weight). Phil Sandifer's post of 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC), below, explains this in more detail. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"I would certainly be one of those who feel that some uses of primary sources is OR." Sure. I agree. (Any type of source can be so misused.) The proper issues here are whether PSTS does anything to reduce the such occurrences and whether PSTS has unneeded and unfortunate side effects on material that is not OR. Does it create confusion for editors? (The answer to the last question is, of course, "Yes.") It is difficult to see how a policy section that is still misunderstood makes a positive contribution to Wikipedia. PSTS is so clumsily worded that it is hard to imagine it gives useful guidance to any editor. All that remains is for PSTS to be used as grounds for another editor to remove material - which happens, and happens without any explanation on the talk page. Let me be fully in accord with the principle of good will and assume and assert that all such material removed deserved to be removed: the removals are righteous. Was PSTS in WP:NOR needed to make such removal possible? If the removed material constituted OR was it necessary to have PSTS in WP:NOR to make the removal possible?

WP:NOR isn't just an article, isn't a guideline, it's a policy. The unfortunate thing is that PSTS makes it a policy that is unclear and which, no matter how worded, is jarring to many editors. The "people who feel that it is vital to the policy" surely are free to believe that yet do they have some obligation to make PSTS clear enough in its wording that the discussions no longer occur? You have put a lot of your time, thought, and effort into this, Blueboar, yet the problem persists. Might it be that there is actually no stable way to have PSTS be part of WP:NOR? Minasbeede (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

actual source for this

Depending on the quality of the journal, such reviews may constitute a usable source. Certainly the National Library of Medicine , Web of Science, and many other indexes code long articles with extensive references a "review", along with articles specifically labeled review in the journal, or from journals devoted primarily or entirely to reviews. Obviously, there is always a possibility of such a review being partial or biased or selective or unreliable, but this is also true of all other review articles. So i have always taught my students as a biomedical librarian, and teacher of librarianship, at Princeton and Rutgers, just as was taught to me at Berkeley. And so the textbooks have it also, in all sciences--from literally the first one I picked up, the standard book for chemists, Maizell, How To Find Chemical Information (2nd ed), p.205 has a perfect statement:

"Not all reviews appear in journals or books specifically devoted to the subject. A good review can appear in almost any chemical journal or other information source. Reviews are frequently labeled as such... however, any article or book with an extensive list of references, and a good discussion of these, is potentially a review,, whether or not it is so labeled. Patent sources can also provide an excellent review of prior art." DGG (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I continue to not see the sense of this. It looks like the issue is one of undue weight, of failure to attribute tentative results to the people offering them, and to properly frame things. It's not a matter of what sources should and shouldn't be used. The current language - including the change to include "experimental results written by the person(s) who conducted the experiments" - is a ridiculously broad overreach that renders the whole of scientific literature primary source material, and thus heavily restricts its use.

This should be rolled back to [28]. The expanding of PSTS to cover seemingly all scientific journal articles is ridiculous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Actual evidence" of what? Sorry, I'm confused. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I reworded the heading, I meant an actual published citable academic source (Wiley) that such articles do count as reliable sources. and if you examine most journal articles, they have a pretty minimal introduction. Phil, you may not see the sense in it, but it nonetheless is the accepted standard in all academic fields. I have , btw, just written to the PubMed people to verify their exact current indexing standards for using the designation "review" DGG (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Experimental results language

I continue to not see the sense of this. It looks like the issue is one of undue weight, of failure to attribute tentative results to the people offering them, and to properly frame things. It's not a matter of what sources should and shouldn't be used. The current language - including the change to include "experimental results written by the person(s) who conducted the experiments" - is a ridiculously broad overreach that renders the whole of scientific literature primary source material, and thus heavily restricts its use.

This should be rolled back to [29]. The expanding of PSTS to cover seemingly all scientific journal articles is ridiculous.

Can someone point me to the talk page section where this change was agreed upon? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with this is that the following paragraph says, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". This is completely counterproductive, especially because of the value of journal results in scientific topics. This was a bad change, IMHO. Bastique ^demandez 23:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"It's not a matter of what sources should and shouldn't be used"-it doesn't say this either. We're going round and round. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Because it says, very clearly, in PSTS, that "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." So any time something gets labeled as a primary source, we are explicitly saying it should be used more sparingly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First: "scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results" are considered primary sources by all authoritative definitions I have found. That you may be uncomfortable with the consequences of this is a secondary issue. We must stop abusing these words to mean something that suits an agenda. We define them the way authoritative sources define them. There's really no option. And extrapolating "scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results" to "seemingly all scientific journal articles" is itself ridiculous hyperbole. If the following paragraph (about descriptive claims) breaks, in some peoples minds, due to the change then perhaps it is that paragraph that is wrong? Would you guys listen to yourselves. You cannot define PSTS to fit current sentences in this or any other policy. The Earth is round. Deal with it.

Second: many expert writers on WP believe "scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results" should be cited sparingly. And I'm talking about mainstream editors who believe in science. There are good NOR reasons for preferring secondary sources when describing the "facts" learned from a research study. But even supposing your view had consensus (which, from the discussions we've had at WP:MEDRS, it doesn't) then the wording of any restriction to place on such primary sources should be examined. Not the definition of PSTS itself. Colin°^Talk 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that I don't see why NOR needs to be broadened to get the result you want. If what you want to stop is overbroad conclusions from journal articles, first of all, WP:V already lets you go "Source doesn't say that" and take it out. After that hurdle you have "This gives undue weight to a viewpoint espoused by one paper." And after that, you have the fact that a claim along those lines should be narrowed and sourced - not "X works in treating Y," but "In Paper Z, X was found to have the following effects with regards to Y, but further research in the area (has not been done/did not verify the results/whatever is applicable)." Remembering, at each step, that the onus is on the person who wants to add the information to come up with a workable formulation of it. How on Earth, given all of that, do you need a modification to NOR to solve this problem?

I'm glad you have consensus on MEDRS, but that is a subject area content guideline. It does not spill out into other sciences, little yet to a site-wide policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to stop using science and medicine then to predict calamitous consequences of the PSTS clause in NOR. This policy says "don't make novel claims from primary sources." It emphasizes it. Why? Because in academics researchers, writers, analysts, etc are encouraged to rely on primary sources to come up with some new insight, analysis, etc. This is what secondary sources normally do. But this is not what wikipedia is allowed to do. And a lot of editors don't get it, wouldn't get it, unless a policy told them. This policy (tries to) explain this-and make it plain, this Is Not The Place to share your own insights about what it says in the Bible, or in this month's latest research finding in autism, or your discovery that the lyrics in Stairway to Heaven are the same as the words in Leaves of Grass in reverse order. These are clearly examples of original research from primary sources. And continue to occur every day here at wikipedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but on the other hand it's idiotic to suggest that there is anything particularly tricky about summarizing what it says in an academic source. We shouldn't make novel claims from any sources. The problem is that people have some very puzzling ideas of what a novel claim is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, you say I am trying to change PSTS "to solve a problem". That's exactly what I'm trying not to do. I do have opinions on the use of sources, which have come up, but I'm really trying to get us to accept a definition of PSTS that is independent of our views on how sources should used and any caution we should apply. As long as this policy page disagrees with what people are taught at Uni about source classification, we will keep confusing people.

I think there is an issue with our rules concerning primary sources that needs to be clarified. We use primary sources in two ways: as sources about themselves, and as sources about something else. The former is the classic source=novel in an article about the novel. We have rigid rules about "descriptive claims" and require secondary sources to say anything more than that. This is good. But where the primary source is about something else (a diary used to source a claim about a person, a research paper describing a potential new cause of autism used to source a claim that the cause of autism has been found, an editorial used to source a comment about a newspaper's stance on an issue) then our NOR (and other policy guidelines) tend to be more advisory rather than preventative. This is not perhaps clear in our current wording and is possibly leading to Phil's problems with the inclusion of certain sources in the primary box. Colin°^Talk 10:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"As long as this policy page disagrees with what people are taught at Uni about source classification, we will keep confusing people." The difficulty is that different people learn different things, depending on their field; there isn't any single "true" definition of primary and secondary sources.

For example, some people believe that if a newspaper writer interviews someone and then writes a news story, that makes the news story a secondary source. Others will believe that all news stories like that are primary sources. Some learn that a source that presents interpretation or synthesis is a secondary source by nature, while others are more concerned with the originality of the work. In some fields, like medicine, the distinction is more experiment/review than primary/secondary. In mathematics, the primary/secondary distinction is of little value, and we never use those terms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Show me an authoritative definition that would allow the first interpretation of the news story being secondary. That sounds like someone is confusing second-hand with secondary source. If PSTS is relatively unimportant in the field of maths then fine. Let's have some evidence that "there isn't any single "true" definition" rather than just repeating it like a mantra. Colin°^Talk 13:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that there are "authoritative" sources here, but some examples are [30] and [31]. I disagree with the analysis of these, but I have seen it around. I think someone called this the "librarian" definition, vis-a-vis the "historian" definition. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"This policy (tries to) explain this-and make it plain, this Is Not The Place to share your own insights about what it says in the Bible, or in this month's latest research finding in autism, or your discovery that the lyrics in Stairway to Heaven are the same as the words in Leaves of Grass in reverse order." But this has nothing to do with the primaryness of these sources - you also should not share your own insights about a review paper, or your own insights about material covered in textbooks, unless those insights can be sourced. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, but the reason we ask people to be much more careful with primary sources is that they contain fewer insights and often lack context (or people forget that context is important). So it is much easier to commit OR (or fill the gaps, or extrapolate the facts) when using primary sources than when using secondary sources. The same abuse is possible with either, but less likely with one. This is why the rules we have on primary vs secondary should often be advisory rather than fundamentalist. Colin°^Talk 13:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not universally more likely to see OR from primary sources. In mathematics articles, the OR that I see is much more often from someone who looks through a couple textbooks and then tries to synthesize a new theory from them. It's very uncommon on WP to see someone look at numerous mathematics journal papers and do the same thing (not only because the journal papers are much harder for an untrained person to read). — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also dispute the universal validity of the claim that secondary sources include more insights than primary ones. In other fields such as mathematics, new insights are primarily published in journal articles, while textbooks contain very few new insights compared to the research literature. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an exception other than maths? It seems that pure maths is an exception because ideas aren't based on texts or people... there are no tangibles being discussed or analysed. Colin°^Talk 16:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also the humanities, and theoretical physics and theoretical computer science. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

At least in literary theory, the textbooks are bloody useless. And in a fair chunk of hard sciences there's a "lying to children" problem with the textbooks, where simplified models of phenomena are given in intro books. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I confess this looks like a storm in a tea-cup to me. Both wordings make it clear that raw data from experiments, etc. is off-limits. From what I've seen of the people involved in this discussion, we'd all agree that conclusions based on these data are admissible if published in a reputable journal - although, if there has been insufficient time for the work to be replicated, scrutinised etc. by other scientists, it would be prudent to write e.g. "In YYYY author A concluded that P is the case" rather than simply "P is the case". All this is just common sense. However we probably have to clarify the whole WP:PSTS thing because it seems to generate more heat than light. --17:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove PSTS altogether?

If we removed the whole PSTS section and replaced it with the following, how would that affect the way this policy is applied?

"Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about published material so long as they have been published by a reliable source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs another source."

--Phenylalanine (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that discussion of PSTS really belongs at WP:RS IMO. We don't need to discuss terminology at all in this policy to explain the intent of the policy: "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about published material so long as they have been published by a reliable source." If editors want a detailed account of what kind of sources are most reliable and preferred, etc., they can look at Wikipedia:Reliable source. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

At first I was sympathetic to Phenylalanine's "discussion of PSTS really belongs at WP:RS" (12:15, 14 January 2009). however when I checked I saw that WP:RS and WP:V don't really cover the primary / secondary / tertiary sources issue.

However it might be a good idea to transfer WP:PSTS to WP:RS (including the redirect), so that everything about selection and use of sources is in one place. My reasoning is that WP:NOR and WP:V are pretty easy to grasp in principle, but the detailed rules about use of suorcesd are not, and a one-stop-shop would be easier to look-up and to keep consistent. I'll cross-post to WT:RS and ask for discussion here (WT:NOR). --Philcha (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since my general belief is that the PSTS section here is intended as a proxy for reliability anyway, I have no objection to moving the PSTS section to WP:RS. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain this belief. What makes primary sources unreliable compared with secondary? Colin°^Talk 13:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Higher on this page, you said, "... the reason we ask people to be much more careful with primary sources is that they contain fewer insights and often lack context (or people forget that context is important)." These are exactly the sorts of concerns that I believe motivate the PSTS sections – and these are all concerns about the reliability of the source for use on wikipedia, rather than questions about originality of research.

The NOR policy is that we cannot add any new insights, even implicitly, to our articles (regardless whether those insights were inspired by primary or secondary sources). So when we are comparing the use of primary sources vs. secondary sources, we have to be talking only about things that can be sourced, since otherwise the distinction is irrelevant. So, given that we are now talking only about things that are actually sourced, what reason is there to favor secondary sources over primary sources? The only reasons I can think of relate to reliability. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How is "fewer insights and often lack context" a reliability issue? Reliability is about whether a type of source is typically right or wrong. Please can you give some examples of where a primary source is typically more reliable than a secondary source? Colin°^Talk 16:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on folks, this discussion is supposed to about where where WP:PSTS should live, not about what the details of its content should be. --Philcha (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The PSTS acronym pipes to the pertinent clause in OR. But distinctions about the benefit/use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources are found in other policy/guideline pages besides this one. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Examples, WP:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, WP:Notability (fiction)#Secondary sources, WP:Notability (web), WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:Fringe theories#Identifying fringe theories, WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Primary and secondary information, WP:MEDRS. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodness. That WP:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section has got itself well confused. It says "Primary sources can be reliable in some situations, but not in others... Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction)." Reliability doesn't come into it. It just isn't a source for the "analysis" at all. How far has this "PSTS is a proxy for reliability" confusion gone? Colin°^Talk 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That bit in WP:RS started as something I added... If you look through the discussions at RS and RSN, a lot of people were under the impression that primary sources were not reliable under any circumstances (and pointing to PSTS to back the argument, even though PSTS says nothing of the sort). I wanted to correct that by adding a line that essentially said that reliability and source type are not connected. Some primary sources are quite reliable, others are not. Unfortunately, there has been some instruction creap since I added my initial comment. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, Colin, that coming to at least a common, general, and widely accepted definition of primary, secondary sources will eliminate one area of confusion. With that, the policies and guidelines can focus on the wording of the advice in their use as relates specifically to that policy or guideline. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Silly Question

Why is wikipedia concerned with verifying information by citing mainstream sources of information that may be and in many cases are susceptible to bias, and not concerned with truth? This is an encyclopedia, not a mirror of mainstream information sources. Has this fundamental issue been raised before, if so where can I find the discussion? And why was the emphasis not changed? If not, I'd like to discuss why wikipedia is not concerned with truth, yet claims to be an encyclopedia. It should also be noted that WP actually allows original research in images. Nick carson (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:V covers this. --Ronz (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that we don't care about "truth"... it's that "truth" is subjective... there is often a legitimate debate as to what the "truth" actually is. Thus, we use use a different standard... verifiablility. If something is both verifiable and true... so much the better. Blueboar (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, sources that can reasonably be regarded as reliable don't use the word "truth" to describe what they're asserting. Why should an encyclopedia such as WP assert such a thing as "truth"? Does any remotely credible encyclopedia assert it's putting forth "The Truth"? Even the Catholic Encyclopedia asserts no such thing. Rather, encyclopedias tend to say they're putting forth information of some kind. Did I miss anything important? ... Kenosis (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I speak of truth in terms of reality, fact, etc, such as the 'sky is blue' statement. Many of us working with detailed or obscure information that may be significant and noteworthy as per WP policy, are forced to omit such information fundamentally because it is detailed or obscure or unknown by mainstream, verifiable sources of information as per WP:V.

There are alot of things that are true, yet are not verifiable as per WP:V, surely we don't wish to omit crucial, true information from WP. Need we mention the tendency of WP to favour mainstream points of view, a contradiction as it conflicts with WP:NPOV, and thus the omission of significant, notable, important information that may also be obscure or unknown by many.

I simply can't agree that sources of information subject to bias and lack of quality constitute a better standard than original research encompassing multiple sources of information which may or may not include direct factual observation. Nick carson (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand the puzzlement behind the original question. The "verifiability" bit is largely to prevent people from pushing their own personal points of view - a problem which often arises in an open encyclopedia, but which can usually be dealt with by citing WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS etc. and deleting the offendinging content.

But WP:RS sets what it regards as minimum standards for reliability, and admits that sources that meet these criteria may not be reliable in particular cases. For example a scientific article several years ago by a reputable author in a reputable journal may have been refuted in the meantime, so you could either ignore that theory or cite the later refutation and any theory that is now regarded as "true" or even promising, provided you don't over-hype the later theory. In practice it's mainly just common sense, and the rules only get an airing when there's a dispute. --Philcha (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Nick carson's later post (11:33, 14 January 2009) goes a bit too far. "The sky is blue" is generally an uncontroversial statment and does not need refs - except in some special contexts, e.g why it's blue or how it looks to people with certain colour-vision deficiencies. Re "sources of information subject to bias and lack of quality", the formal, usually process-/organisation-based criteria at WP:RS are only a start, and relevant cricisms of one WP:RS by another WP:RS are fair game. However there is no conflict between WP:NPOV and WP:V, as WP:NPOV stresses the need for WP:RS. These policies are needed to prevent WP from being deluged by WP:FRINGE theories and their enthusiasts. --Philcha (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Grouping non-mainstream subject matter into WP:FRINGE isn't fair. Just because a theory, musical act, town, suburb, river, etc isn't well published by a RS and notable within the mainstream doesn't mean that it isn't important or notable. Granted, I imagine there are alot of people out there who push untrue, fundamentally fictional, fringe theories and subject matter, but what about genuine subject matter that may only be known directly by a 'fringe' minority that may not publish their information in the conventional sense? Such an example would be a piece of artwork that influences a group of artists that subsequently influence mainstream popular culture at some point down the road. Another example would be a musical act who's work in melding particular styles/genres is genuinely original and is later picked up by another mainstream popular musical act who then gain credit as they are published in the conventional sense, years down the track? WP policy has progressed to encompass reliable blogs, what about reliable zines, street press, etc? Why can't we progress now?

Not only this, but I know of several editors and estimate many thousands, who spend a significant portion of their time contributing to WP trying to cite resources for information that they could otherwise prove and verify with OR or direct observation. Surely in such a case as OR and direct observation are used, the information can still be challenged as in other WP policies, and if it is a genuinely false fringe theory or subject matter, the false information will inevitably be discovered and corrected. Sorry for the passionate diction but I'm baffled at how things such as OR have become somewhat of a dirty word on WP, there are just as many arguments for why they can be used as a progression of current WP policy and verified in the same manner. Nick carson (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC

It is very simple. Wikipedia, by design, is not the place for original ideas or results to appear. There are many venues where original ideas and results can appear and if these are suitably notable then the ideas and results reported elsewhere can appear in Wikipedia. Therefore, anyone with a great new idea should automatically not think of Wikipedia when considering where to first publish it. The restriction has nothing to do with the utility or merit of the material that is forbidden, it's simply a chosen policy. Allowing only already-published material to be used as a basis for Wikipedia greatly strengthens Wikipedia, to the extent that the restriction is honored.

You didn't say it but you could have that the major print encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica, has often times solicited major articles from world experts (Albert Einstein, for example.) In all probability such experts have, in the material they contributed, included some original research - and that original research enhanced the value of the contribution. Wikipedia works in a different way and has, in effect, chosen to forbid such enhancement. Given the open nature of Wikipedia that is a good choice.

Nothing I say is meant to deprecate the value of the sort of research you appear to desire to be done. The exclusion of OR isn't based on value or lack thereof. If you want to do original research, do it. Just don't publish it first in Wikipedia. Minasbeede (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of encyclopedic geekiness, are you aware that "the sky is blue" is challenged (in a way) by the article: Distinguishing blue from green in language

However, on a more serious note, if something is not verifiable, then it is unfair on a reader to state it as a fact, so we have agreed that it is outside our mission. For example, a newspaper might say that "Chocolate mousse is a delicious, satisfying snack", and a reader will assume that is the opinion of the food critic, or may think it to be a fact. But if we say anything at all, we should only say "Chocolate mousse is marketed as a snack food, that the Boggington Chronicle says is both satisfying and tastes good." At least that is my simple-minded way of viewing verifiability.

Nick, could you post examples of facts that you would like to put in Wikipedia but cannot as they are unverifiable?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, it is unfair to the reader if a verifiable piece of information was cited from a source that favours mainstream POV, let alone anything that is not fact as synthesised through OR or other means. If such information is outside of our 'mission' then why not increase the 'mission'? I merely ask, why not?

I can, one can be found in the band "Ohana", who have incorporated in their work elements of minimalism, math rock, post-hardcore and post-punk to create an original sound that is as yet unheard of in Australia at least. Such information can be ascertained by direct observation by people with knowledge and experience in such areas and has thus been published in countless zines and street press articles. One of the more 'mainstream' sources being several issues of the magazine "Mess+Noise".

Another example can be found in tracing fashion trends from sub- and alternative cultures that permeate into mainstream/popular society. Such information that is currently not included in WP but is well known to many and well published by reliable unconventional sources.

However, this example is not my reasoning for attempting to generate discussion on the topic. I'm looking for some in depth discussion into how we can improve the core WP policies by encouraging a progression of their contents and goals and introducing new ideas that can increase the inclusion of notable and specific information on WP, the quality of articles in general, the inclusion of OR assessed on the individual's knowledge, experience in the field and the reliability of the sources they are working with, and to decrease WPs reliance on mainstream sources of information by making WP policy inclusive of unconventional sources such as zines, blogs, street press and other alternative forms of information conveyance, not just published, but synthesised and collated. For what more is WP without such things than a mere reflection of mainstream, popular, conventional society? There is alot more to life than that and to exclude such information from an encyclopedia is to ignore a significant portions of one's own history and present. Nick carson (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hroðulf, nice catch re Distinguishing blue from green in language!

Nick carson's comments (12:22, 14 January 2009) highlight that "mainstream" is ambiguous. I was thinking mainly of science because that's mainly where I edit, but in the arts, including popular culture, a lot of significant ideas start as "non-mainstream". However the next sentence of his comment shows the problem with "non-mainstream" anything: if no-one outside those directly involved pays attention to a theory, musical act, town, suburb, river, etc., then by real-world standards as well as WP:NOTABILITY it isn't notable. Without this rule WP would simply be the world's biggest free advertising billboard - and widely ignored, as very few people deliberately look at ads (yes, I can provide refs for this).

Re Nick carson's examples of innovative art, music, etc., it's not WP's job to predict future trends - an activity in which the success rate is rather low. Per the 2nd Sturgeon's Law I would guess that the great majority of innovative art, music, etc. is soon and in most cases deservedly forgotten. Almost by definition the ones that succeed and are notable in the real-world sense are those that are noticed by "mainstream" commentators.

Re the difficulty of sourcing material that's widely accepted but not obvious to primary school kids, I sympathise. In science articles, editors often need to obtain decent text-books to source all the basic stuff that's not discussed in academic journals - public libraries and Google Books have been good to me. Since my interests are not confined to science, I realise that it's harder to find text-books on non-academic subjects - but Google Books is still worth a try. If you're that keen on the subject, you'll make the effort to find sources. There are other methods - asking at Wikiproject pages, asking specific editors who are active in that area, finding enthusiast societies and asking them (that's how I got info on the contributions of Adolf Anderssen to chess problem composition). --Philcha (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I think we have ventured well away from the purpose of this talk page... which is to discuss the NOR policy. I probably started us down the road in the first place, by attempting to be nice and answering Nick's question... and I now appoligize for that. Ronz had it right to begin with... this is a discussion that should be taking place at WT:V, WT:FRINGE and perhaps several other guideline and policy talk pages. It isn't, however, a discussion that we should have on this talk page... it does not involve WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have moved it to WT:V at the outset, but since we didn't, it is ok to have an off-topic discussion if it is an answer to a question that the original poster thought was on topic. The original post was not spam, which should be the only reason to kill a thread based on topic.

Here's my attempt to draw this to a close: Nick Carson wrote:"why not increase the 'mission'". Wikis can of course be more flexible about verifiability and truth, to investigate non-mainstream parts of human knowledge - that is one reason why there are many other wikis, such as those at Wikia.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

<- I'm sorry, but the mere use of the word "truth" as a proposed standard for writing an encyclopedia is a total red herring. As opposed to what? Editors are lying? Engaging in a conspiracy to selectively mislead WP's readership? I think not. Or is the assertion that the lack of an official standard of "truth" results in an unnecessarily high rate of untruthful information? No, it's a red herring, a phantom. WP already deals with this issue by its three existing content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement that no one pays attention to to a theory, musical act, town, etc who is not directly involved is unsubstantiated. And even if it was, attention is no grounds for classification of notability or importance. Please explain what you mean by 'real-world standards', I hope you don't mean mainstream/popular society standards. Success and notability regarded by mainstream commentators is no indication of a subject matter's, particularly in the case of music, art, film, etc, notability or importance. Note that my use of the word 'truth' stems from the fact that it is used in this policy itself.

My words are being taken somewhat out of context, some examples... I never said it was WPs job to predict future trends. I never suggested that WP editors were lying, nor did I suggest they were engaged in a conspiracy, let alone did I even introduce such words into the discussion... Please understand what I wrote, re-read it if you like and absorb it. Other unsubstantiated and uneducated comments were made including... Innovative art, music, etc is 'deservedly forgotten'. The assertion that these discussions belong in WT:FRINGE.

Philcha, I guess part of my argument centres around the fact that one or a number of sources used to cite particulars and prove their verifiability is not as reliable as a synthesis and collation of a collection of sources, as conducted by one or more or an entire team of editors, as is the case with many article re-writes and wikiprojects.

In regards to Blueboar's suggestions, I totally understand but have in the past been passed around the 3 core policy talk pages, where is the discussion be had regarding the progression of these policies if not on their talk pages? Am I to copy and paste discussion so that it appears on each talk page simultaneously?

In regards to Hrothulf, that may very well be what inevitably happens to WP, editors may move to more specific Wikis which will ultimately be disjointed and separate. Why deal with detailed and specific information by palming it off to all sorts of sub-wikis? Why not keep it within it's original context, located within a centralised source such as WP itself. Nick carson (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick, your question was, "Has this fundamental issue been raised before, if so where can I find the discussion?" The policy against original research is one of the few "fundamental" rules in wikipedia-goes way, way back. (2004?) I don't have a crystal ball, but I think it's safe to say the odds of this policy being reversed are nill. If you go to the bottom of the main policy page you'll find there some links to some of the earlier discussions about it by Jimmy Wales. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I never requested or suggested the policy be reversed, I'm initiating discussion as to how we can improve upon it. Early comments by Jimmy Wales helped to establish the current versions of the core policies which as you said, perhaps go back to 2004, I'm looking for discussion that is a bit more recent than 4 or 5 years ago. Why are contributors to policy talk pages more keen to set the policies in stone than they are to keep them progressing, evolving, encompassing? Perhaps this is a case for WP:IAR in that the core policies are not willing to be amended and improved upon thus preventing editors from improving and maintaining WP. Nick carson (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

With Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not an anarchy in effect, Ignore All Rules would be a futile waste of time. Start with an essay and see it you can inspire some kind of a grassroots movement among editors interested in changing the policy. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

<-- The reason for the fundamental policy mandate which says "Verifiability, not truth" is, I suspect, that the word "truth" lies somewhere in the area of both useless and meaningless as an editorial policy. From the perspective of WP readers who may wish to question anything in WP, the only practical question of any relevance when someone writes something in WP that the person writing it asserts to be "truth" is, essentially, "where can I, the reader, double-check this?" Without a doubt there are things-in-the-world that are truthful but not independently verifiable, but the mandate for us, which began to be set in place as early as 2003, was that WP should be limited to things that are verifiable in the event any question arises about the veracity of a statement. See, e.g. the earliest version of WP:V . See also, e.g., this email from WP founder Jimmy Wales, which explains why the relevant standard is "verifiability, not truth". ... Kenosis (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Such a mandate is outdated as it excludes information which is "true" yet not independently verifiable, thus excluding crucial information from inclusion in WP. My argument is that there is a better way than mere verifiability and better goals than merely the inclusion of only verifiable information. In the meantime, or in the event that editors are reluctant to amend and progress such policies, such exclusions render WP unreliable as a result of its uncomprehensive nature. Professor marginalia, I may just take up your advice, though I wish there was 10 lives I could live to create the time needed to devote to the many things that I feel are worth devoting my time to. I fear much of this discussion has glazed over a portion of its contributors whom have subsequently resorted to policy reiteration. Nick carson (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick, turn your complaint around and you can see the flaw... How do we know whether information which isn't independently verifiable actually is "true"? You say that "crucial" information is being excluded... can you give us an example? Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick carson, the only actual example you've mentioned is a band called "Ohana". I Googled for "Ohana" and for "Ohana band" and the only hit I got that looked relevant was an entry on MySpace. I guess many WP editors get a little frustrated about the rest fo the world's lack of interest in some of their favourite topics. Hell, I could re-write Fermi Paradox right now to include my views on the serious omissions in all the analyses I've seen - and it wouldn't last 5 minutes, because I can't cite sources (apart from that ultimate authority, me). So instead I edit articles on subjects for which I can find sources. --Philcha (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit sad. What is holding WP back from becoming more detailed, specific, encompassing, inclusive and less reliant on mainstream, conventional sources of information? I'd like to see some comments contributed regarding the rather than poke holes in my example and keep telling me that WP policy is holier than the bible and will never progress! Nick carson (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be a fully comprehensive compendium of everything everyone has thought about a particular subject. Without its policies on verifiability and reliable sources it would, at least for many, lost what I see as its heart.

Experimental results removal

Today the following was removed as examples of primary sources, "published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; experimental results written by the person(s) who conducted the experiments"[32], and described as a "controversial" language change in the edit summary. Can I ask, what evidence is there of any controversy? The language was there at least 15 months, until it disappeared in a general reshuffling of the order in which PS, SS, and TS were described. I can't find any controversy raised about it, at all, until in the last couple of days. And that concern was sorted out, from the looks of it to me. Published experiments are primary sources. There's no "controversy" over this. Guidelines for articles related to published experiments (science, medicine, fringe theories) do urge extreme care in their use, and aren't used as a basis for a novel claim. What controversy persists over this? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually "written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations" is the older language that had been in NOR for a while; maybe the removal of the second sentence was accidental? I agree that the "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" is not very controversial, since it only refers to experimental results. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Random Qtrly versions: "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" was there in September 08,[33] June 08,[34] March 08,[35], Dec 07,[36] and Oct 07[37]. Not there in Sept 07[38]. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding it back in. I have other concerns about PSTS in general, but not with that specific example. Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

15 months? I reverted to a version from a few days ago, based on the discussion a few sections up in which multiple people expressed reservations about the "experimental results published by the person(s) actually involved in the research" language as seeming to broadly cover a huge swath of journal articles. The language was not in the page a month ago: [39] and, so I have trouble painting it as a long-standing revision. If someone wants to go through and find an explanation for its vanishing and return, I'd be interested in understanding what's going on here, but this seems to me language that was, at the very least, gone for quite a while, and language that multiple users have objected to.

Certainly I see no discussion establishing consensus for it. I'm fine with language about data and lab notebooks, but as phrased "experimental results" seems to me to render a huge swath of journal articles to be primary sources, and thus restricts their use to only what non-specialists can grasp. I am very much skeptical of the wider consensus for this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I presented the links showing it's been there for 15 months. The first mention of it on the talk page was here, asking in effect "where did the 'experimental results' example that used to be here go?" (Wikipedia talk:No original research#Question about definition of a primary source.) It disappeared in this major restructure[40] (since essentially undone). A review of discussions on the talk page during that time frame don't show anyone objecting to it in particular. The editor who made the change said that all he intended was to reverse the order, and "I just want to remind people that my proposal is just to reverse the order. If anyone agrees with that but doesn't agree with the wording I have here - well, just change the wording!" Wikipedia_talk:No original research/Archive 39#Reverse the order of sources. Nobody complained at the time that "experimental results" needed to be removed. The words were just overlooked or ignored as unimportant. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well. Now we seem to not be overlooking them, and they seem rather unfortunately broad. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We who? And what problems, exactly, do they have with it? I'm asking for some focus in order to settle it and move on. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Both Bastique and I raised objections several sections above. The objection is that, as phrased, it makes a huge swath of publications primary sources, and thus restricts them under the "no specialist knowledge" clause, which is very burdensome for such sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on your objections? I'm unable to find what "'no specialist knowledge' clause" refers to. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To PS. As was pointed out, the clause isn't guilty of "making it sound like they're primary sources", the fact is "they are primary sources", in the academic definition. [41], [42], [43], etcetera. So the argument would be that an exception should be made in the category of "experimental results" to allow claims be made from them that are not verifiable except to those specialist knowledge? So let's be clear here. The published experiment is a primary source, whether it's listed as a specific example in the policy or not. Unless we're welcoming the misapprehension that it isn't a primary source, then why insist on leaving it out? Isn't it simply still the case that your real problem is "the specialist knowledge" clause? Correct? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To Ronz. The wording is, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." I think the objection raised was that if "published experimental results" are listed as examples of primary sources, then the "without specialist knowledge" rule applies to those as well. I think the objection is for a special exception of sorts for those sources typically written at a technical level for experts in science and medicine, which are the main two areas "experiments" are performed. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, experimental results are primary sources. Should we have an exception for them? I'm not convinced. The review processes of the journals that publish such results vary tremendously, and journals are created for the specific purpose of allowing researchers to get around more strict reviews. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Professor marginalia. Let's define PSTS properly and then deal with the consequential rules built round it. If they need adjustment, so be it. Colin°^Talk 21:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please can folk compare the current text with that proposed in #PSTS revised above. IMO both the definitions and the examples are better, and the rules aren't significantly changed other than to remove redundancy or repetition. Professor marginalia would prefer to drop the "Within one source document may be both primary and secondary material" paragraph as being too detailed/fussy. A number of third-party definitions have been cited above (by Carl and me) that are all broadly in agreement despite claims that no two people share a definition of PSTS. Even Carl's blurry example concerning newspaper accounts being possibly primary or secondary if based on unpublished interviews (ie. second hand), depending on who you ask, is not a big problem since the example given "first-hand newspaper accounts" is clearly primary in everybody's definition. Carl would prefer "scientific journal articles reporting experimental research results" to the "scientific journal articles presenting original research" of the proposal, and I can live with that.

So I ask again that we consider replacing the current woeful text. Not only would our current "Primary sources are sources very close to an event" definition get zero marks in any exam, it isn't even grammatical (comparing an object with a period of time). Tweaks and sourced objections are welcome but let's please ignore any "we can't make that a primary source, because that means this rule now says X" objections. We can discuss the rules once we've got the definitions right. Colin°^Talk 21:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposed text is a definite improvement.

Because PSTS applies to just about every policy and guideline where sourcing is discussed (especially WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV), I'm wondering if it might be better to have a separate PSTS article, which can then be linked to and summarized in proper context in those policies/guidelines. Having PSTS as its own article would hopefully make it easier to define the terms while centralizing the definition, and allow us to discuss rules at length. See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Transfer_WP:PSTS_to_WP:RS.3F for a related discussion.

Colin's edit summary also reminded me that I've always been surprised that WP:IS hasn't been expanded and promoted to the point where it's more helpful. Maybe it's an argument against making PSTS it's own article? --Ronz (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the "revised" language is any better. Subjecting the bulk of science journal articles to only non-expert summary remains a ludicrous move. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you separate the two issues, what a primary source is from nonexpert-level verification is needed? There seems to be some consensus that lingering confusions over our description of primary source is confusingly complicating discussions about what is desirable in policy. I can't, for example, envision why we'd be interested in requiring "non-expert summary" for the verification in every area except primary sourced experimental results, so I think this is an illustration that conflating the two so much might lead to an even more incoherent policy. I'll try to explain it again-you've removed the example, but you didn't change the policy at all. The "non-expert summary" clause STILL applies to published "experimental results" because published experimental results are still primary sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, for me, the issue is this - as long as the non-expert summary clause applies to primary sources, I think it is inappropriate to label, effectively, all science research as a primary source for our purposes. Regardless of a normal definition of primary source (which we have already departed pretty far from), it's just bad policy to restrict science research that way, and it gives way, way too much power to various science cranks - just think of what would happen on Creationism topics if Creationist editors could remove all the complicated science because it's journal articles that are being cited in ways their poor non-expert brains can't handle.

We need to be pragmatic, and this expansion of the policy is reckless. If we want to drop the non-expert summary clause, I'm fine with the expansion to cover experimental results. But the two cannot both be in there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I think you need to study some of our best controversial articles and examine whether the are built on primary (by everyone's definition but yours) or secondary sources. Take Evolution and Autism. Click on the PMID links, for example, and PubMed will inform you that the vast majority are review articles in scientific journals. The mind boggles, in fact, at the thought of trying to build Evolution from primary research papers. This "can't use almost all science" nonsense has to stop. In areas such as Creationism, our best defence is the use if high quality secondary sources. I'm the last person to try to prevent us citing good science. Colin°^Talk 07:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, two points:

• Edit warring over the "experimental results" example doesn't change the policy. It doesn't have any impact. Claims made about primary sourced experiments still must be verifiable to educated persons without specialized knowledge. I can't add my own translation of the Rosetta stone to an article even though there is no list of do's or dont's which list "Rosetta stone" specifically.
• I've contributed to creationism and science articles. You have diagnosed the problem there all wrong. Creationism claims will never be sourceable to "experimental results" published in prestigious scientific journals. And creationists routinely mine for evidence against evolution, the Big Bang, radiocarbon dating, etc., through published primary research in the sciences. This is standard operating procedure in creationism. This is what creationists at the ICR and so forth were almost exclusively concentrating on for decades, if not still doing so. While science rarely, as in "almost never", conducts experiments about creationist theories. This policy, if nothing else, clamps down on the same kind of idiosyncratic interpretations of published research taking hold at WP. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you now saying that translation from a foreign language is OR too? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

An obscure language that no one has spoken in 2000 years? Yes. That would be OR, in my definition. Or do you think the "no original research" rule really isn't intended for cases like that of an anonymous wikipedian adding their own translations of otherwise unpublished decipherments of ancient hieroglyphic texts? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking, if nothing else, that the headaches associated with opening a translation as OR can of worms are utter madness. If the standard is that no one has spoken it in a long time, presumably Latin would also be out? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the "slippery slope" absurdity could be applied to every policy in the wikipedia. NPOV opens the "can of worms" that we have to include every view ever published anywhere. RS opens the "can of worms" that the medical textbooks written in 1628 are more acceptable than published experiments in JAMA. IAR opens the "can of worms" that we don't need to follow any of the rules. We don't allow unpublished translations of 2000 year old hieroglyphics - we do allow editors to source texts in Spanish and French. WP hasn't withered and caved - maybe because most of its editors don't go to ridiculous extremes with policy, and if they do, they won't get away with it. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A new approach to the PSTS question

At WT:RS several people have been discussing how the current PSTS section may be trying to do too much for too many different people... that source typing relates to several of our policies and guidelines... that the issue of appropriately using (or inappropreately misusing) different source types may need to be discussed in more places than just WP:NOR (for example, the appropriate and inappropriate uses of primary source material are currently discussed at WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and at WP:N... and are hinted at at WP:FRINGE and other guidelines).

What I would like to suggest is that we need multiple short "PSTS" sections ... a NOR/PSTS section that would focus on OR issues... a NPOV/PSTS section that would focus on POV issues, an RS/PSTS section that focuses on reliability issues. All of these would link to a new broad concept summary guideline... that would explain what the different source types are (including how different academic fields define the terms)... and summarize the various policy and guideline statements.

For this policy, it would mean the PSTS section would focus less on defining the terms (that would be done elsewhere) and more on how OR can result from misuse of the various types ... for some of the other policies and guidelines it might mean beafing up existing sections, or even creating a new one ... and of course we would have to write the summary guideline.

In other words... don't remove WP:PSTS... spread it out to several locations as appropriate. thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, how can OR result from the misuse of the various types of source? Seems to me OR results whenever a source is used to introduce a new idea that does not appear in that source. (If that new idea does appear elsewhere, in some reliable but uncited source, the real problem is one of carelessness since citing that other source would make the material fully adherent to the policies.) Isn't this a simple situation being made complex by the very effort of trying to meticulously define primary sources (which definition depends in part on the use made of the source) and then specifying what can and cannot be done (with the cannot being used to forbid usages that result in OR.)

Were we working on the article on mutations I doubt we'd try to meticulously list every mutation - and we'd be correct to avoid that. Instead the article would discuss what is common to all mutations and perhaps use some few as examples, never attempting to make a complete list. Why torture ourselves by trying to do something even harder in policy articles? Minasbeede (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! The whole section could be summed up as follows and nothing of direct relevance to the policy would be lost:

• "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about published material so long as they have been published by a reliable source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs another source."

The PSTS section should perhaps be moved to WP:NPOV, since that is where it seems it would be the most relevant IMO. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I'd scrap PSTS as an ill-advised attempt to codify something that should be rather simple. Results of this ill-advised codification include debates about whether academic journal articles are primary or secondary sources, suggestions that review articles are "better" than new research articles on a subject (review articles are convenient, but represent the author's opinions and I've never seen critical responses to a review artcile, so IMO they are less well scrutinised in the medium term).

It would be much simpler to say e.g.

When using any source all you can do is summarise or quote it. You are not allowed to add any comment, interpretation, assessment or criticism of your own. If you think interpretation, assessment or criticism are needed, you must find additional sources that comment on the original source or the ideas or other content it presents, and where it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that they comment on the original source or its content. --Philcha (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I might say "the Battle of Waterloo was a hard fought and costly battle." I can say that by citing several secondary sources, even if they do not use those precise words and I have to combine a couple, to prove the point (don't bother with SYN because it if definitely not a novel novel conclusion). To say the same thing using primary sources that do not use those precise words and needing to combine them to say such a thing is a breach of WP:PSTS. --PBS (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC Wellington said Waterloo was "a damned close run thing". If another commmander involved said something very similar, these woudl be statements from acknowledged experts and I wouldn't worry about PSTS any more than I would worry about 2 recent scientific journal articles advancing the same theory on a science subject - and we already know how PSTS gets itself in knots over science journal articles. Of course if another acknowledged expert published a different conclusion we'd be obliged to report that too, under WP:UNDUE. PSTS is too complicated for its own good. What really matters is the difference between simple, literal-minded summarisation (allowed) and interpretation / commentary / criticism by WP editors without support from reputable sources (not allowed). If there's a dispute, PSTS gets editors into theological wrangles about when a source is secondary or primary (which can often vary depending on the context). I think what I suggested would enable editors to resolve disputes by asking "What words in what source(s) support the words in the article?". --Philcha (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Philcha here... if PSTS is somehow barring us from citing the Duke of Wellington for the statement "the Battle of Waterloo was a hard fought and costly battle" then there is a serious flaw with PSTS, not the citation. PSTS has taken on a life of its own... beyond its original intent of saying that we should not make WIKIPEDIA a primary source for information. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong but my impression is that the reason for PSTS arises in situations like this. Suppose several secondary sources have concluded that the Battle of Waterloo was more of a skirmish and overall was minor. Then someone finds the Wellington quote and puts that into the Wikipedia article, indicating that Wellington, a key participant, thought the battle was hard fought. The PSTS advocates would (it seems to me) call that "improper use of a primary source" because the primary source indicates something other than what the secondary sources have concluded. One of them would summarily remove the Wellington quote. In the past it was indicated that PSTS arose from the field of historiography (that is, editors active in writing such articles inserted PSTS into WP:NOR.) The idea seems to be that even if Wellington thinks the battle was hard fought subsequent writings by authors of secondary sources take precedence over anything he wrote or said - and the editors who want PSTS as part of WP:NOR feel fully justified in removing any reference to Wellington's contrary opinion (again, this is an assumed example) and will instantly do so. They want PSTS to be a part of policy so that they can cite PSTS as justification for their removal. Minasbeede (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Given your senario, I would say that removal on PSTS grounds would be a misuse of the policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia itself and similar sources, I think we should probably have a clause somewhere that specifically forbids the use of wikis (and their clones), with the partial exception of those where editing is restricted to acknowledged experts in their fields (I saw one about a month ago, of course I can't remember its name). Because of that experts-only wiki I wouldn't put too much emphasis on WP:SPS, although with any SPS I'd look for other sources in order to avoid problems with WP:UNDUE.

Re the hypothetical disagreement about the significance of Waterloo between Wellington and historians, the historians are greater experts on history, although I might be interested in why there was a difference of views. Re whether it was hard-fought, I'd more probably go with Wellington's view unless there was good reason to suspect him of hyping. That's partly based on this page by a renowned chess historian, which says historians should do history and players should do analysis of play. --Philcha (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that you're probably referring to Scholarpedia. Looie496 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I deliberately choose my words carefully. Wellington did not say it was hard fought he said it was "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life." The point I was making is one can amalgamate and summarise several secondary sources into one or more sentences providing they do not contradict each other as that is part of the editorial process. What one can not do is amalgamate and summarise several primary sources even if they do not contradict each other, because it is original research, for which historians get paid and we can not do. For example: "The RAF raid to show the Russians when they arrive in Dresden what Bomber Command could do, started at 22:14 on 13 February " (1st primary source: an RAF readout at the briefing shortly before the attack, 2nd primary source: master bomber's report) The sources do not contradict each other, but taking that from primary sources is original research and in this case distorting the major reasons for the raid. --PBS (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> I think the general definition of what primary, secondary and tertiary sources means, with examples, should be consistently worded in all the guidelines and policies where it's relevant. Keeping them consistent can be tricked out with a template or something so that the same words appear in all policy/guideline pages. I think it's more helpful that it appears in the policy/guideline page than it would be simply posting a wikilink to it. I don't see a value in page hopping to find out what a primary source means. I disagree with removing the PSTS in the policy altogether. I do see value in emphasizing that intepretations come from secondary sources, not wikipedians, and that wikipedia is not the place for users to analyze, synthesize, scrutinize, bastardize, polemicize or any otherwize interpretize primary source materials. That's what secondary sources are for. :0) Professor marginalia (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Would the people who are edit warring over the inclusion or non-inclusion of various phrases in WP:PSTS please knock it off already! Add a {{dubious}} tag if it contains stuff you don't think it should, or remind yourself about WP:The Wrong Version, but please stop.

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that there seems to be growing consensus that PSTS may need to be majorly rethought ... so edit warring over the current language is a bit pointless. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How about throwing the whole thing into a volcano, as a sacrifice. Problem is, these sorts of sacrifices tend to bring only temporary relief, and after awhile another sacrifice is needed to keep the gods happy. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's rethink first about the purpose of PSTS: is it to provide needed guidance to editors or is it to create a policy clause that enables instant deletion of material characterized as being inappropriate use of primary source material? As noted above, my notion/impression is that PSTS is there to prevent editors from citing primary sources that disagree with secondary sources on the same issue and to give license to editors to cite PSTS as grounds for removal of such material. I have moderated in my view: maybe the removal is righteous (in Wikipedia policy terms.) I can't say/don't know. The OR which seems to be forbidden consists of consulting a primary source and finding it differs from secondary sources. I can easily believe the secondary sources are generally better thought out (or substitute a better term than "thought out" here) than are primary sources but that word "generally" may indicate a problem (since policies aren't for the general case, they are universal.) Minasbeede (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What is needed is some sort of "constitutional convention" concerning source-typing issues in WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:P, and WP:RS, which would be a sort of re-boot, perhaps moderated by a respected Wikipedian such as someone from the Arbitration Committee. Everyone who participates in the process would have to agree that they would abide by any consensus achieved during the process and not try to either "change it back" or to reintroduce something for which consensus was not established during the process. Nothing gets back into the draft unless there has been an established consensus. COGDEN 19:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, let's demand proof of consensus, and lacking a clear demonstration of such to the satisfaction of all critics of the policy, just delete it, maybe make a guideline or an essay out of it. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rescind all the existing policies, and engage in a community wide "constitutional convention" presided over by the Arbcom? -- Goodgahdahmitey, I think I need a drink. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to "think first about the purpose of PSTS". That's what has got us into this mess. Get an independent and sourced PSTS definition up, with examples. Then we can discuss how policy and guidelines fit around them. For example, I see two separate sourcing issues:

1. A primary source used in WP text that is discussing that source. For example, the novel as a source for the article on the novel. There's a great deal of consensus about this and when we need secondary sources. We are currently quite firm about this.
2. A primary source used in WP text about a topic other than the source. For example, citing a diary vs citing a biography in an article on the person. Or citing a randomised controlled trial vs citing a review in an article on a drug therapy. In this case, there's less consensus and our guidelines reflect that one form of source tends to be better than another, etc. We probably can't come up with firm rules but may develop guidelines, some of which might be topic-specific.

A proper discussion on our application of PSTS can only occur once we all have a common definition. As long as some of us say "I don't want that to be a primary source, because it affects my argument" then we will get nowhere. Colin°^Talk 21:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Colin... If a policy statement has no purpose (as some are arguing), it shouldn't be in the policy in the first place. And if it does have a purpose (as others argue), surely we need to at least reach agreement on what that purpose is before we address the issue of what it says. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the "policy statements". I'm talking about definitions. There are too many places (as noted) where policy and guidelines mention primary and secondary for us to leave them undefined or inadequately defined (as is at present). Now, if we decide that certain restrictions are independent of primary vs secondary issues, then we can state them without referring to primary and secondary. But I think we'll find that some (both hard restrictions and soft guidance) will benefit from using those terms. So lets agree on the definition of those terms and then discuss the "policy statements". And I agree that purpose comes before text. All I want is that definitions are independent of Wikipedia and its peculiar restrictions on the use of sources. Colin°^Talk 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Minasbeede's "Let's rethink first about the purpose of PSTS: is it to provide needed guidance to editors or is it to create a policy clause that enables instant deletion of material characterized as being inappropriate use of primary source material?" (18:33, 15 January 2009) gets close to the heart of the matter. I'll be blunter: are we trying to guide editors, or to provide grounds for wiki-lawyering? I think the current PSTS is good only for wiki-lawyering. In a previous thread I suggested an alternative guide that focussed on the principle of WP:NOR - in sumary, "interpretations / assessments / criticisms based only on WP editors' own opinions are not allowed" - which I think is fairly easy to understand, even for newbie editors. --Philcha (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of PSTS should be to define PSTS. What we say about NOR may or may not refer to primary vs secondary, but that should be free for discussion. We need to stop linking policy rules with definitions. Colin°^Talk 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Minasbeede presents a false dichotomy. There is a middle ground between providing guidance and enabling instant deletion. We don't need to argue which end of the spectrum is better than the other. We need to find a sensible solution that meets the usual overall goals of all Wikipedia's policies, which are to simultaneously provide:

* general principles AND

* education for those unfamiliar with the concepts AND

* enough detail that people of good will don't end up with radically different perspectives AND

* room for editorial judgment and common sense.

There's nothing in any policy except BLP that mandates the instant deletion of disputed material. Let's not pretend that PSTS will do that, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While I could argue some of your points that seems unwise, given how long this has been discussed/argued (enough, already.) I say "Great! find that middle ground!" I like your four bulleted points. I'd say you've made a useful positive contribution.

Any more from me would probably be argument masquerading as something else. Not needed. Minasbeede (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "Let's not pretend that PSTS will do that (mandate the instant deletion of disputed material)". Like any yother rule related to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS, PSTS will enable editors to claim that others' edits are inadequately sourced, and deletion is permitted in these circumstances. The sad thing is that some editors use the rules to harass other editors, which is why wiki-lawyers are are unloved as other types odf lawyer. I support the principles of WP:V, [WP:NOR]] and, with more reservations about the details, WP:RS. The amount of debate recently about PSTS, which I did not start but in which I've participated, indicates that PSTS is complicated and difficult to interpret, i.e. wiki-lawyers' heaven. I suggest it would be better to replace PSTS with a statement of what it treisd to achieve and what it tries ot prevent, in language that newbies can understand.

If we could do that, I'd also support any move to produce a simple, 1-page summary of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS that we can issues to new editors, and perhaps have incorporated into the mastheads of Talk pages (except User Talk, where WP:CIV and WP:DE are all that really matters).

This is not bleeding-heart liberalism on my part. The NY Times and The Economist have both written about the harm done by wiki-lawyers. The NY Times piece is a commentary on a book that someone's written about how to avoid trouble with wiki-lawyers. --Philcha (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think everyone (except wiki-lawyers) recognizes that the PSTS section devolved out of an accident, and that it now dilutes and corrupts NOR policy's real message. As the numerous discussions make clear, the section is bad, but a {{contested}} tag voids the whole policy, and we can't have that.
Instead, we (effectively) ought to really throw PSTS "into a volcano", by which I mean move it. Here is why:

• The PSTS section is based on false premises, and, in its present form derives from a version written by people whose first encounter with the term "original research" is this page itself. By adding two plus two, those people vaguely "knew" that its bad for the 'pedia, but do not really comprehend why, nor did they really understand why NOR policy had the phrase "Wikipedia is not a primary source" to begin with. The present PSTS is a product of those unfavorable circumstances, and the lack of comprehension is (for example) still evident in #1) the specious premise that primary sources are especially subject to OR, and #2) the sui generis premise that there are different definitions of p/s/t sources, and #3) that the 'pedia has a need to adopt one that is different from that used elsewhere.
• These erroneous premises aside, in its conclusion the PSTS states that "deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable" is a matter "of common sense and editorial judgment." This is an explicit declaration of what all the 'should's of PSTS already imply, i.e. that PSTS is a guideline and not policy. And this license to interpret PSTS any way one wants is deeply ironic. After all, interpretation is what NOR policy is supposed to prevent.
• Whatever the PSTS section's redeeming features (if any), a p/s/t distinction has nothing to do with NOR policy, which is simply stick to the source. And that means any source. Whether that source is primary, secondary or bazzilionary does not affect whether that source is accurately parroted. "Original research" is the production of something new, and it does not matter what that new content is based on. It can be anything.
• The rationale for NOR policy is this:
  Because Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference work, its articles cannot contain ideas that have not been expressed before. In contrast to academic research (where new ideas based on older ones are welcome and are known as "Original Research") inferences may not be made in a reference work.
  The explanation of this basic tenet originally used the terms "primary"/"secondary" etc. But it is not necessary to use p/s/t to express that idea, and further, the present-day PSTS no longer reflects it.

So... since PSTS tells us that the section is a guideline, then it belongs in/on a guideline page and not willy-nilly stuffed into a policy where it contributes nothing and only serves as a distraction. Once moved, it will cease to compromise NOR and RS policies. If PSTS's high priests continue to think that it is policy material, then they can RFC it as such. Either way, PSTS's rape of WP:NOR (and, as we see, of WT:NOR) has to end. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be much happier with the world if PSTS were a guideline instead of part of a major content policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fullstop, congratulations on your elegant and comprehensive demolition of PSTS! --Philcha (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSTS's rape ? of WP:NOR? LOL. I really think it might be time to throw the whole section into the volcano. I'll start a proposal section below. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion: The debate between the "PSTS inclusionists" and "PSTS deletionists" has gone round in circles for two years at least. It's not going to be settled in a "don't edit war" thread. And it won't ever be settled unless there's a clear choice put to us, with ample notice given the community, and clear evidence of the "community will" given. Anybody remember the WP:ATT trainwreck? Lotta hard work, lotta wasted time, lotta complaining when it was finished, only to be reduced to "an essay". This is a pillar policy. Realistically, a big change to it will require a huge amount of work behind it to give it any chance of "sticking". The battle between "PSTS inclusionists" and "PSTS deletionists" won't end any differently than before riding same merry-go-round-and-round like we're doing now. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  Fantasy visions of "PSTS inclusionists" and "PSTS deletionists" aside, a suggestion to "do nothing" is not a suggestion. Besides, I didn't say it ought to be deleted. I said move it. Let the high priests of PSTS put their money where their mouth is. They have nothing to lose if the religion that they are preaching is the right one. Their claim that its god given (its been there forever) is not a rational argument in an enlightened world where the real meaning of "primary"/"secondary" is actually known, where the orthogonal relationship between these and NOR policy is actually understood, and where PSTS is recognized for the irrelevance that it is. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Returning to regularly scheduled programming: Consensus is that the section sucks. The ball has been in the PSTS-high-priest's court for ages, and the offer to move is their last chance, playing by their own WP:POINTy rules. If they refuse to take it, then point-match-game, and the ring-a-roses is over. Goodbye idiocy, sanity prevails. Enough of the filibustering! -- Fullstop (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The "last chance" lol? Maybe the "edit warring" thread is an apt place to discuss the proposal after all. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Prof, was your edit summary "banners all bravely unfurled" statement of WikiCreature allegiance :-) --Philcha (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's one interpretation :) Professor marginalia (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It was predictable that a demand to end the filibustering was responded to with another digression, which includes the usual failure to address the point, and going off on a tangent once again. Some people just don't get the fact that their opinion don't count when they don't express themselves. Attention silly rabbits! We will not follow you down your rabbit hole. If you can't stay around on topic, then we'll end up having tea without you. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts then. Don't edit war on the policy page. Waiting to hear yours with any relevance to the thread's topic. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT predicted that yet another feint would came along. The last one ironically about not following the thread. My comment was in fact a direct response to top-post's remark about the dubious tag, and why it is bad, and what should instead be done. The call for move may also be seen vis-a-vis WhatamIdoing's call for middle ground. My comment may also be seen in contrast to, say, gratuitous remarks such as "don't edit war on the policy page" while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the problem that precipitates those edit wars.

A sustainable argument for keep has not once, ever, been put forward. Never. Instead, every comment that says don't keep is either followed by an off-topic nonsense, or no comment at all. With no sustainable arguments for keep, and no sustainable arguments against not-keep, there is only one consensus evident. And that is not-keep. You lose Professor, and that is because of inane comments that count for diddly. If you (plural) want to count, then get off that high horse and play ball. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So let's play ball then. Anyone who says this thread titled "Edit warring" posted on the NOR talk page (which resulted from a series of reverts of a single phrase of the NOR policy) is the appropriate place to gather the solid and sustainable consensus needed for either a) trashing *four* policies, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:P, and WP:RS outright and rebuilding from scratch or b) removing/relocating the PSTS clause alone, is either brand new here or grandstanding. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's trying to build a case for trashing or re-building from scratch WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:P, and WP:RS? I've argued that PSTS is too complicated, a magnet for wiki-lawyers, confusing to most editors (frankly I read half, foundit unhelpful and went back to what I was doing)) and its aims could be achieved by a simple "editor's are not allowed to interpret sources". IMO that's an attempt to make WP:NOR effective without the confusion and ill-will that wiki-lawyering creates. --Philcha (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left an invitation at the village pump for the broader community to weigh in below, so as to try to get either a clear sense for how much opposition there is to WP:PSTS as policy and/or to get some kind of basic affirmation of consensus in favor of it as part of WP:NOR.
..... It's at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal_to_remove_WP:PSTS_from_WP:NOR. Perhaps someone might like to also start a policy RfC to invite yet broader feedback so as to try to get a better handle on this. If it's true, as some have said, that consensus was never demonstrated for WP:PSTS as part of WP:NOR, then we ought be able to get a better sense of where it stands in the eyes of the broader community, rather than just among those who frequent this talk page. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about getting "a better sense of where it stands in the eyes of the broader community, rather than just among those who frequent this talk page". As soon as possible, or leave it for a day or two so that arguments on both / all sides of the issue are fully developed? --Philcha (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of WP:PSTS from WP:NOR

Straw poll: In light of complaints about WP:PSTS and assertions by several users that PSTS should be removed from this policy, it might be useful to get an idea how many users are currently in favor of deleting WP:PSTS outright and placing the existing content on a new page that tentatively downgrades it to a guideline. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as part of WP:NOR. Despite vociferous complaints from some, the PSTS section plays a useful role as an editorial policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep in NOR. But polling "those currently in attendance" on the talk page is a bare beginning. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - "editor's interpetations of sources are not allowed" is sufficient --Philcha (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilcha, or Move and file RFC for elevation to policy status. Hypothetical and never rationalized notions of its "role as an editorial policy" contradict the section's own statement that it is A) a guideline and B) superseded by editorial decisions. As noted above, if there were an iota of policy material in the PSTS section, then the prophets of PSTS should put their money where their mouth is and make the contents of PSTS run the same course that turns wannabe-policies into policies. As such, the contents need to be on their own page, for which an RFC is then filed. If the RFC turns out as the prophets are convinced it will, then a transclusion into this one would be justified. Such a validation was never made, and needs to be done. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (actually, move to a separate page that is a guideline.) PSTS fails as a policy because it has proven impossible to find wording that does not provoke continued controversy. It also fails as policy because it consists of a strange mix: primary sources are allowed, but using primary sources can serve as justification for removal of an edit, often without any explanation at all on the relevant talk page. In other words, PSTS is so unclear as to be useless as policy and tends to be sometimes used in what appears to be an arbitrary manner. An alternative would be to alter the wording of PSTS so that it no longer provokes controversy. Blueboar has attempted to accomplish this for over a year and it hasn't happened so this alternative may be an impossibility. In effect, too, PSTS is an attempt to begin to enumerate the ways OR can be created. Such enumeration is an unnecessary and impossible task. As a guideline PSTS might assist editors in analyzing what they intend to include and determine whether it is OR, and as a guideline PSTS could be both detailed and open-ended, since as a guideline it does not have to be definitive. Policies should be definitive, or at least not ambiguous. Guidelines (it would seem) ought to cover all major points but if something is overlooked or left out that has no bad effect with respect to policy since a guideline is not a policy. When it started out back in 2005 PSTS encouraged the use of both primary and secondary sources. Editors should be cautious in how they use all sources; singling out primary sources as needing caution falsely paints such sources as being less desirable, seemingly in all cases. If the policy wording has the sense of "secondary sources are preferable most of the time" then the policy provides no useful guidance (and certainly no grounds for summary removal) since in all cases the policy is applied to specific articles - "most of the time" means that some of the time secondary sources are not preferred, which might easily be the case for any specific article. If the policy wording attempts to enumerate all the exceptions in which primary sources are preferred (or acceptable) then the policy wording will never be complete and the attempt to make it so will drag on for years. "Drag on for years" - sound familiar? Minasbeede (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It's an exceptionally useful part of WP:OR, helping guide editors on how to identify and resolve the most common OR/SYN problems. PSTS issues are indeed complex, and preventing OR/SYN problems is often difficult and controversial. Complexity is no reason to remove it, but an indication that it needs to be improved, as multiple editors have indicated their willingness to do. Wikipedia without controversy is impossible. Often controversy is a strong indication that we are improving Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You may (or may not) have a point. It may (or may not) have already been addressed in the last longer comment in the section above this one. I.e. the one before Kenosis and Professor marginalia attempted to hijack the discussion. The notion that PSTS is useful is voided by the fact that it explicitly says "do what you will". The notion that it "guide editors on how to identify and resolve the most common OR/SYN problems" seems to indicate guideline, and since p/s/t distinction has nothing whatsoever to do with OR or SYNTH, everyone here would surely appreciate an explanation of how such a thing might occur. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep are you nuts? Semitransgenic (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you literate? If so, could you care to explain why anyone would/wouldn't be "nuts" to do whatever you suppose isn't/is "nuts"? -- Fullstop (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • take your head out of your arse for a minute and switch your humor module on. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself --Philcha (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment.: Note to new additions: A sustainable argument for keep has not once, ever, been put forward. Never. So, if you think you have a sustainable argument for keep, make it now, and that means more than just "I think so". With no sustainable arguments for keep, and no sustainable arguments against not-keep, there is only one opinion (with any weight) that is evident. See also WP:VOTE on guidance. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"With no sustainable arguments for keep, and no sustainable arguments against not-keep, there is only one opinion (with any weight) that is evident." Only if the information in dispute is relatively new, which is not the case here. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fullstop, why are you pointing us to WP:VOTE after you yourself have voted? And your analysis of the argument so far is merely your opinion so please don't threaten editors to "comment or else..." I think it makes sense to divorce the PSTS definitions from policy, but don't know where on WP they would go instead. I'm happy for policy pages to choose to refer to PSTS or not depending on WP opinion of editing policy. What I'm not happy is for WP opinion on editing policy to influence PSTS definitions. Colin°^Talk 00:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"What I'm not happy is for WP opinion on editing policy to influence PSTS definitions" thoroughly baffles me. As best I can tell there is essentially full agreement with NOR and therefore isn't any "opinion on editing policy" that could influence the definition or does influence it. Good faith attempts are being made (not by me) to try to find PSTS language that does not cause concern. There has long been discussion centering on that, but it's far too much of a stretch to call that "opinion on editing policy influencing PSTS definitions." Were the PSTS definitions solid enough there'd be no discussion. The flaw is in PSTS itself. Minasbeede (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Uncertain: I fully agree with the content of the section, but some parts of it have little to do with original research; in particular, the distinction between tertiary and secondary sources is completely irrelevant to original research. What's interesting about this section is that it has very little force of policy, because it doesn't actually forbid anything that isn't already forbidden by NOR; it doesn't restrict the use of tertiary or primary sources. It just provides broad suggestions. The last sentence reinforces that it's not to be taken as restriction. In light of the fact that this section is already written in the form of a guideline, it might make sense to either move it to a guideline page, or simply mark this section as non-normative guideline material. Dcoetzee 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. In the areas I edit in it is a very useful. --PBS (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  The three areas I tend to work in are military history, international law, and subjects with a very high POV content like genocides in history. If people were allowed to string together primary sources in those types of areas, then restrictions on OR would go out of the window. While I appreciate the arguments for moving this section out of NOR into a guideline, it would make the task of stopping the incorrect use of primary sources harder. How many seconds would it be until someone quoted "Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." ... ? Neither should it be deleted. I also appreciate that in some areas of interests it is much harder to decide whether something is or is not a primary source, but once demarcation has been made the principles are the same (where this line lies can either be decide in project groups or on the local talk pages or both). --PBS (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the material on secondary and tertiary sources (see proposal below). --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Central concept, long held by the community. Strawpolls never trump established policy, BTW. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, of course straw polls never trump established policy. I'm trying to get a handle on what the extent of objection is here, in light of some lengthy reasoned criticisms and in light of several assertions on this talk page that consensus has not been demonstrated for WP:PSTS as a core policy. I count about five or six users who've held this basic position on this talk page. If there are more, we should find out and bring it more directly in front of the broader community. It's turned out to be very high maintenance; and the opposition, though scattered and limited to a few users, has been quite vocal and at length. If PSTS's opponents represent a broader constituency, by all means let's begin to find out, and if not, then it's time to find that out too and stop responding to a lot of the extremely lengthy criticisms of it. Either way is OK with me, but I've only got limited time to devote to apparently endless arguments. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how these polls work, but if you ask people out of the blue if they think some large chunk of the policy should be removed, I'm not surprised if many would be highly skeptical. Wouldn't it be preferable to clearly lay out the arguments for and against such a change so that editors have some sense of why they are voting in the first place? --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just a straw poll. The assertion has been made that WP:PSTS doesn't belong as policy and/or that its development was haphazard and never really achieved community consensus as a policy. If the opposition to WP:PSTS-as-policy is broad and not limited to just a relatively few vocal opponents, a poll ought give some preliminary indication of the possibility that a lot of WP users oppose WP:PSTS as policy. Perhaps it should instead be a guideline on its own page; or perhaps it has no place in WP at all; or perhaps it should not have the language limiting use of primary sources to supporting only descriptive content of what's in a source that can be double-checked without expert knowledge, thereby requiring a secondary source in all topics that require specialized knowledge (if this is removed, then there's no need for WP:PSTS as policy and it's properly reduced to a guideline without any real change in its effect, because the only real policy statement is essentially that we're limited to expressing in writing what's actually in the source, be it primary, secondary or tertiary, thereby rendering the PSTS distinction pretty-much completely moot, at least as a policy). Whatever the grounds, this is only a straw poll to try to discern who really objects. Because if there are not a lot of objections to WP:PSTS, then probably the proposal to remove it from WP:NOR goes nowhere, as FM just indicated somewhat to my chagrin. So, if I were a strong opponent of WP:PSTS in its present form, I imagine I would want to to leave a talk-page note or send an email to everybody I know who opposes it, including those who've opposed it on this talk page before, because here's a chance to make a case that there's this major, broad opposition to this WP:PSTS policy. Like I said, it's just a straw poll to get a very rough idea of whether the lengthy complaints have really achieved a lot of supporters that might call into question the notion WP:PSTS is a reasonable and sustainable part of WP content policy, but rather is arguably un-reasonable and un-sustainable and hence might belong somewhere else other than on a policy page. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether it is central or not, the question is where the PSTS section belongs. Discussion of primary sources is directly relevant and helpful, not so for secondary and tertiary sources. The current PSTS section belongs at WP:NPOV or in on separate guideline page, not here. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The only real question in this admittedly limited "straw poll" is whether one advocates that WP:PSTS should be kept in WP:NOR or should it instead be deleted/removed from its policy status in WP:NOR. I should think it's a reasonable opportunity for all opponents of WP:PSTS-as-policy-in-its-existing-form to get together under one tent for a change. That tent can reasonably be described as follows: If you think that "WP:PSTS in its existing form doesn't belong here in WP:NOR", then please say "delete". Either way, please feel free to articulate your perspective at reasonable length, and if need be to continue such argument(s) at greater length in a separate section. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as a significant and useful part in showing and determining the line between original research using the subject of the article as a source, and finding expert opinion on the subject which is to be accurately summarised, as well as providing the required third party basis of articles and sections of articles. Recent examples include a perennial debate at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed where numerous editors want to disregard expert opinion, and base the article on their own impressions of the film. From another aspect, there's a wealth of primary material available on Charles Darwin and I'm careful to work within what expert historians say about this material, relying on these secondary sources conclude about the material rather than summarising the primary source without such references in a way that would inevitably mean me drawing my own conclusions. Primary sources are invaluable as part of the process, but the care set out in the PSTS section is needed to avoid original research. . dave souza, talk 11:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This troubles me. You equate secondary sources with "expert opinion" and then base your reasoning on that. Surely there are secondary sources that are written with a strong bias (such as would happen with almost everything written in the old USSR. Milder forms of that sort of bias exist today.) Such secondary sources should normally be shunned by Wikipedia editors (shouldn't they?) So what you really mean is "secondary sources that are also relatively unbiased expert sources." Which means care is needed. Which is no different from care being needed in the use of primary sources. If proponents of PSTS always pick examples in which the primary source chosen is used badly and the secondary source chosen is used well all they're really doing is finding examples of lack of care for primary sources and the application of care for secondary sources. It isn't the source type that is inherently bad or good, it's the style of the editor who didn't edit with proper care when the primary source was used. There are no doubt things in Darwin's writings that could be quoted or referenced in an article about Darwin. What really matters is if the quoted material enhances the article. A priori it is probable that in general the secondary sources will be more condensed or broader and thereby more suited for a Wikipedia article. That's what matters, that's what promotes secondary sources over primary sources with regard to Darwin. If, however, a particular quote or reference highlights Darwin's early appreciation of something that only later was explained that could enhance the article by showing that Darwin recognized some particular kind of effect was occurring even though he had no glimmer of how that worked. If that were appropriate for the article in which it was quoted it would be a good use. But if all I'm doing is describing a particular kind of care in the use of primary source material then I'm doing no more than illustrating the need for care, and such illustration is secondary to the purpose and thrust of a policy. Minasbeede (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition

To the subsection, "Using Sources," in the "Sources" section, I would like to propose adding this line: "Remember that citations must accurately reflect the context of the source, and take care to avoid the original research of introducing a meaning not intended in the original source." Credit for the wording and suggestion go to Dave Souza, who suggested this on another talk page. I think it is a good idea. The point is that a quote may be taken out of context; a quote is a sample from a source, and should be used to make the point the source makes (doing otherwise would be original research). The suggested addition is meant to clarify and reinforce this point. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The start of section "Sources" already says, "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. Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources" (emph as in the original) --Philcha (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The suggested addition is meant to clarify and reinforce this point. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this change - it's not clearly implied by the current text and is important. I would reword slightly to "take care to avoid introducing a meaning" - no reason to emphasize that this is original research, the whole page is about OR. Dcoetzee 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:PSTS

Primary sources

All analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about published material must be referenced to other reliable sources, rather than original analysis of the source material by Wikipedia editors.

Editors must be especially careful to avoid original analysis when using primary sources, which can be defined as providing "an inside view of a particular event".

For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; experimental results written by the person(s) who conducted the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's guide to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is especially easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation. Without that other source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs another source.

Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.

I propose we replace the PSTS section with something like this. Feel free to propose alternative wordings for the text, but I'm convinced that the focus should be on primary sources. We could maybe add a link to secondary source and tertiary source somewhere in the text, but more than that would be unnecessary in my opinion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

When I first read mention this proposal in the previous discussions, I thought it would be a good solution. Now that I have the well-written alternative above to compare with the current wording, I've changed my mind.

I think the current mention of "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources..." is important and extremely valuable to keep. As with the discussion of primary sources, this information helps editors resolve some of the most common OR/SYN problems.

I think the other information on secondary and tertiary sources is valuable, but doesn't fit into WP:OR other than to provide context for the rest. I certainly wouldn't want this information deleted, but moved to an existing or new policy/guideline. --Ronz (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources..." has everything to do with the Neutral point of view policy, but not much to do with this policy. When used with special care, primary sources pose no problem in regards to the original research policy. So explaining to people that they must be especially careful when using primary sources in this policy is helpful, but telling them to rely mainly on secondary sources in this policy is not helpful as it suggests that this is required by the original research policy, when it is in fact required by the neutral point of view policy. That is why the real focus is primary sources. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole purpose of "should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources" is to globally forbid using material from primary sources that indicates secondary sources are in error. Surely some of the time that is correct, surely some of the time it is incorrect. The guidance needed (and which can never be provided in a policy nor in a guideline) is how to tell the cases apart. Over and over it has been argued that sometimes (or the equivalent) this restriction is useful. "Sometimes" isn't good enough in a policy. Forget source typing, think only in terms of what policy is and isn't. A rule that is only valid part of the time is bad policy. Efforts that have been going on for over a year have not succeeded in solving the real problem, which is defining when "sometimes" is. How can the policy ever define, to the level necessary in a policy, when primary sources can and cannot be used? If the blow-this-issue-away answer is "it's up to the judgment of the editor" then sure, I agree. But if the judgment of the editor is the ultimate determiner then the presence of PSTS in the policy is entirely superfluous.

I hardly edit, this touches me slightly or not at all. Were I to edit I would try very hard to exclude OR from what I inserted and would in essence ignore PSTS. As I don't even know what PSTS really means (in terms of policy) ignoring it is the only option. Minasbeede (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So, do you support my proposal? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If calling it WP:PS implies a separate guideline page, yes, I support your proposal - in particular, making this a separate guideline page. My memory may be faulty but I think your first paragraph pretty closely approximates what WP:NOR said back when it was only 500 or so words long. I think that was good. Minasbeede (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of having this text replace the PSTS section on the policy page. We could move the current PSTS section to a guideline page or the NPOV article. I'm surprised there is no discussion of PSTS at WP:NPOV. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Primary sources are not "those giving an insider view of a particular event." that's confusing them with COI, POV, or first person sources. Not that I think we have a clear definition, and I am not sure there is any useful one generally. In history, primary sources are the immediate contemporaneous records of events about which history gets written. This does not directly apply to any other subject. In literature, they are the works being discussed. In science, they're strictly speaking the usually unpublished laboratory records, and we misuse primary sources here to mean "primary journals", the ones that report such results. My own view on this policy page is that the terms should be deprecated on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:10, 17 January 2009

Hi DGG, I have no problem removing the definition and just having the examples illustrate what primary sources are. What do you think? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the starting point for any explanation is the way these categories are functionally related. Secondary sources are used as the principle sources for tertiary sources. Primary sources are used as the principle sources for secondary sources. "What" is a primary or secondary source can be fleshed out after this, but the main point is that we should think less about what something "is" and more about how it is "used." Slrubenstein | Talk 03:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why it is useful to explain that primary sources, as illustrated by the examples, are especially easy to misuse in relation to this policy. Secondary and tertiary sources are not really relevant to this policy. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing neither a need to reword the original part of the policy nor an improvement in this version. I oppose the proposed changes. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The need is that secondary and tertiary sources are not relevant to this policy. The current PSTS section should be moved to a guideline page or to WP:NPOV. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the first para does the job clearly and thoroughly. A few more examples would be helpful, e.g. (assuming the citations stand up) "Authority A comments on Hamlet" is OK but "Authority A's comments on Hamlet are dubious" is not, while "Authority B wrote that Authority A's comments on Hamlet are dubious" is OK - etc., etc., etc.

Might also be helpful to say a little about the limtis of clear and obvious deductions, e.g. if a reliable census results table shows a population decline, it's OK to write "The population declined" (and that's all), but it would be improper for editors to express opinions on the development of Shakespeare's ideas or style based on output from computer analyses of his vocabulary and phrasing. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)