Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 22

message: Can the (Wikipedia) definitions of "primary" and "secondary" be made complete enough and thorough enough that they suffice to define "primary" and "secondary," as used/needed by the NOR policy? --Minasbeede 20:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (copy-paste of my own previous response to implication of same question above) Well, specific words to use as terminology aside, what do people think of the definitions given at Wikipedia:Classification of sources? Could that be used to try to develop a consensus-based wikipedia-specific definition, while leaving the question of what words to use seperate, for now? SamBC(talk) 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on whether primary sources are required to be "rare", and whether secondary sources are required to be "primarily relied upon". We shouldn't constrain Wikipedia practice unless we fully define what the terms of the constraint. A better idea would be just to delete the section on primary/secondary sources, and work out definitions and distinctions at Wikipedia:Classification of sources. The only thing we have a consensus on now is that sources not be used to support or create original research. If we can (1) agree what primary and secondary sources mean, and (2) agree on specific instances where primary sources are preferable, or where secondary sources are preferable, then we can work towards a guideline to that effect. COGDEN 22:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Classification of sources uses nonstandard definitions of primary and secondary sources, particularly with regard to ancient historical sources, most of which are secondary according to the essay, and primary according to scholarly practice. I like its discussion of the POV issues concerning both primary and secondary sources, and role thereof, but fear its dismissal of the POV issues embedded in many tertiary sources. I think the emphasis on third-party sources is misleading; for describing beliefs, though not many other purposes, internal sources are better. Jacob Haller 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Egad.  Another question: just how many places (and what are they) in Wikipedia is there an attempt made to classify sources?  We have NOR, the Reliable Sources guidance page, and Classification of sources.  Any more?  (I'd ask if the definitions in "Classification of Sources" agree with those in NOR but as a person able to read that would be sort of wrong of me.)  (See my talk page.) --Minasbeede 22:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:SCLASS isn't finished, although contributions have slowed down (to say the least). If you think it needs work, but could be useful otherwise, then contribute. Discrepancies with real-world uses seem, however, to be necessary because real-world uses vary and we need a consistent use, a consistent definition, that can be applied to everything wikipedia covers, more or less. SamBC(talk) 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discrepancies with real-world usage my be necessary but I was asking about internal consistency within Wikipedia  (which I could have found out for myself and which, true to form, I haven't yet done.  Now I'm thoroughly shamed into doing it.)  If discrepancies are necessary (with real-world usage) I think it is at least as necessary (as having such discrepancies exist) to point these out in order to lessen confusion.  If terms were used that were not exactly the same as real-world terms the problem would not exist and I advocate that the terms used be different if the definitions are different. --Minasbeede 00:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: It's not entirely different to how it's used elsewhere, and the fact is that its use elsewhere isn't entirely consistent (see recent discussions on the use of the term referring to 'hard' science material. I think it's an awkward question. Anything else would seem neologistic or just plain awkward (such as the suggested wiki-primary-source or primary-wiki-source). However, using the familiar times is liable to cause confusion as people won't realise we have more precise wikipedia-specific meanings. My gut says to use the normal terms, and have a policy defining them in a way that isn't completely different to any of the real-world uses. Link it from every policy and guideline to which it is appropriate, and no-one will stay confused as to the meaning for very long. SamBC(talk) 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may well be different terminology would be awkward - but the current situation is awkward.  If there's external confusion about what "primary" and "secondary" mean that doesn't license the use of the terms differently in Wikipedia and it also confounds the confusion.  If Wikipedia has special meanings then it would seem Wikipedia should have special terms.  In a matter of policy I don't think there need be an absolute bar to a neologism, although avoiding neologisms would be best, if it can be done. The goal is (I'd think) to communicate accurately and succinctly, with as little room for confusion as possible.  Either it is possible to accurately define what (Wikipedia) "primary" and (Wikipedia) "secondary" mean or it is not.  I stuck the "(Wikipedia)" on just to identify the terms to which I refer.  So far things seem to be such that it is not possible.   If so, this whole topic is dead in the water.  (Gladly proven wrong.) --Minasbeede 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, specific words to use as terminology aside, what do people think of the definitions given at Wikipedia:Classification of sources? Could that be used to try to develop a consensus-based wikipedia-specific definition, while leaving the question of what words to use seperate, for now? SamBC(talk) 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I like Reliable Source and Auxiliary Source, per Vassyana; however, auxiliary sources should be reliable too, so I suggest Core Source and Auxiliary Source. Jacob Haller 20:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those words are simply too loaded, and feel like they refer to the role of the source within the article rather than the nature of the source or the usage thereof. SamBC(talk) 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then the zeroth order if business is to decide whether the terms, as used in Wikipedia, are meant to apply to the role of the source in an article or to the nature of the source or to the usage thereof (if that's different from the others), something else, or some combination of these. --Minasbeede 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had suggested moving from source classification to claim classification but that would require too much work. Anyway, I like "Core/Auxiliary" because it defines two categories of appropriate use, and then we can debate what (traditionally-defined) primary sources go in which categories (for given topics) and which secondary or tertiary sources go in which categories. It distinguishes wiki-suitability from secondariness. Jacob Haller 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, core/auxilliary is a seperate axis to primary/secondary and can't really be used instead, although their use may help to clarify different standards of suitability. It seems to me that they distinguish which sources are being 'relied upon'. SamBC(talk) 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we can't talk about whether the secondary/primary distinction matches, or more-or-less matches, the core/auxiliary distinction (i.e. whatever does qualify sources) unless we use two sets of words. I think the current policy reflects appropriate considerations for core sources and auxiliary sources, but describes them, sometimes correctly, sometimes confusingly, as secondary sources and primary sources, respectively. Jacob Haller 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're concerned about the restriction of sources, that would worsen the situation. Many secondary sources, and even many tertiary sources (particularly signed articles), engage in original research. I don't believe this policy was intended to limit the citation of original research published by reliable third-party sources (in fact, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS would contradict such a position). The focus of this policy is prohibiting original research (and to an extant, just bad research) by editors of Wikipedia. Additionally, historical sources were a large part of the abuse. Any definition that allows the direct citation (without the support of secondary sources) of the Bible, Tacitus, Freud, Murray or other ancient and obsolete sources is severely problematic. Promoting discredited and obsolete theories is no less original research than promoting a novel one, and is especially troublesome since it contradicts modern reliable publications. Vassyana 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a discredited theory, original research is not an issue. We'd be talking in that case about WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Original research, as Jimbo has described it, means original ideas that haven't (yet) been published in a reliable source. COGDEN 00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We should make a distinction between two types of sources, but use different names

message: Let's review.  As I understand what I've read here, Wikipedia policies should be descriptive, not proscriptive.  Yet so far nobody has been able to accurately describe or define the primary/secondary distinctions (that are made in a special Wiki way and aren't the same as occurs outside Wiki), which looks to me like the policy section that is so very important can't even be enunciated.  Surely if it can't be said it doesn't describe anything.
So let me ask for a few examples of articles where this distinction is so important: if it can't be described maybe it can be illustrated.  I looked at the Wiki article on "Evolution" last night and found that, to the level I checked, it looked like it was indeed a long listing of facts with nary a word of explanation, analysis, or an any other of the things that Wiki editors are forbidden to do unless they're quoting someone else.  I think the Wiki "Evolution" article is a very fine article but apparently (unless I missed something, which is possible) it cannot serve to at all illustrate why the emphasis on the superior nature of secondary sources is so necessary, as is asserted here by some.  I'd think that in the over 100 sources cited there are both primary and secondary sources but one might suspect that if all the content is simple facts that all of the content could and did appear first in primary sources.  So, what are a few articles that illustrate why the emphasis on secondary (as the term is used in Wikipedia) sources should be given special emphasis?  --Minasbeede 11:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a debatable topic.  Since you cannot identify the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" in Evolution, I must conclude you are not capable of helping us resolve this discussion.  Please set aside and let those of us with the basic understanding of the issue work it out.  --BirgitteSB 12:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. All topics are debatable.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regroup 

message: I've been asked to contribute on this topic and don't think that I can't really add any new arguments, as they have been all repeated many times. Instead, I think it would be useful to look at scientific papers - one thing I know well - to illustrate that it is impossible to classify some sources as either primary or secondary.
Take this 2004 paper as an example A trypanothione-dependent glyoxalase I with a prokaryotic ancestry in Leishmania major.
In the fist paragraph of the Results section I quote some dissociation constants I measured. If a Wikipedia article cited these results, it would be using the paper as a "primary source" - a source that presents novel, previously-unpublished data. 
In the first paragraph of the Discussion on the other hand, I discuss previously-published data on Methylglyoxal synthase in the light of my results and bring these data together and interpret them. Here, if a Wikipedia article cited the paper on the possible problems caused by methylglyoxal synthase, it would be using the paper as a secondary source. 
Scientific papers are neither primary nor secondary sources, they contain elements of both. Tim Vickers 01:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that, in practice, many sources are thus - it's one of the problems of using the distinction at all. I think one thing that we've started to tread into that will be a fruitful avenue for discussion would actually be to forget the distinction for a while and talk about why we ever wanted to distinguish, and see if there's other ways of acheiving the goal. SamBC(talk) 09:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea was brought in so as to have a good hammer to beat the kind of people who find some out of context quotes from, say, Marx, and then quote them out of context and  put their own bizarre interpretations on them and make them into some hugely disproportionate part of the article.  Clearly, our policy needs to make it clear that that kind of nonsense is unacceptable.  john k 14:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may extend the metaphor, it makes sense to do that in a way that isn't using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, even if it's a particularly annoying nut. SamBC(talk) 14:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: I agree we're getting away from NOR policy. However, I think how you classify a citation to a scientific article depends on what you're citing the article for. If you are citing the original research, conclusions, or analysis found in the scientific journal, you are citing it as a primary source: it's the original source of the new idea. If you are citing the journal article solely for its references to previously-published information, you are citing it as a secondary source. If you are citing an author for some novel synthesis of previously-published sources or data, then you are citing to a primary reference for the new synthesis; however, such a reference would obviously be secondary as well, to the extent it is just repeating prior sources. Really, the thing that ought to be classified is the citation, not the source, because any source can cited as either primary or secondary. COGDEN 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to disagree with the statement: "If you are citing the journal article solely for its references to previously-published information, you are citing it as a secondary source." If you are simply using am otherwise secondary (or tertiary) source simply as a witness to a fact, perhaps because you cannot access the original primary source, then you are still citing it as a primary source, but not an original source. A bare statement of fact would remain primary source throughout its chain of custody. If you also included commentary or contextual information from the source, then that use would be citing a secondary source. So, for example, if you were to write simply: "Archimedes calculated the value of π lay between 3 + 1/7 and 3 + 10/71" citing a math textbook or encyclopedia because you don't have access to Archimedes' primary source documents, you would only be using the cited reference as a witness to the fact, and it would still be a primary source, even though it was published more than 2000 years after the fact became known. If you went on to cite the source saying that his method of calculation was a major advancement in mathematics at the time, that would be a secondary source citation. I think the definition we have for primary sources does not make the distinction between primary and original sources clear. Dhaluza 11:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it is only material that is controversial or likely to be challenged that needs to be cited. We don't require citations for common knowledge because that is obviously not OR (to most people, at least). So such a broad statement could be mistakenly used for wholesale deletion of unreferenced content, which would not be supported by current consensus. Dhaluza 10:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To a limited extent, that's already in WP:V#Burden of evidence, and is not limited to controversial material: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. [...] Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people." Jakew 10:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are journal articles primary and secondary sources? 

message: At bottom "No original research" means that Wikipedia should not be written as a primary source. This policy used to state this explicitly as: 
"Research that creates primary sources is not allowed." until this significant rewrite during the time that the controversial depreciation of primary sources was being integrated into the policy. 
I think that we should go back to basics and focus on the problem--editors generating new not-previously-published primary source material in WP articles, rather than trying to limit the re-use of existing published primary source material. The arguments about whether basing an article on primary or secondary source material creates laudable or deplorable articles is not relevant to this policy. We are only concerned here with whether the material is new or novel, not whether it is good or bad. Trying to stretch this policy to cover these types of subjective value judgments has only caused confusion and contention over what should be a very simple concept. Dhaluza 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come to agree over the past few weeks. Although I think there's merit in creating some guideline for when different types of sources are preferable to other types of sources, this is a complicated issue, and we need to build up a consensus from scratch, since nothing we've been discussing has emerged with any sort of consensus yet. We can just not discuss the issue here at all, and leave that for a future guideline such as Wikipedia:Classification of sources. COGDEN 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of sources vs. article quality clearly does not belong here, because it is not directly related to NOR. And since that is what is at the bottom of the edit warring, those who want to passionately pursue these arguments should take them to another forum as you suggest. And cutting this policy down to the basics and building up consensus from there is what we need to do now to repair the collateral damage this sideshow has caused. Dhaluza 02:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:A? That conveys the main issues of WP:NOR and WP:V clearly and concisely, in a way that's much more useful for beginners and Dummies.... dave souza, talk 11:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answering the main question from the section title, this has become so complicated because a simple policy about NOR, over time, was "expanded (wrongly in my opinion) to include things that are not about OR/NOR but instead trying to re-define existing definitions from other subject areas, such as "Sources" or what "Synthesis" is. wbfergus 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems unfair - I doubt anyone was trying to (re)define those for the sake of it. The tone seems to ascribe all sorts of ulterior motives to the additions. SamBC(talk) 13:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, I didn't mean it that way. To me, it seems as if over time, as issues cropped up, people added a bit here, a bit there, and pretty soon this policy was no longer strictly about NOR, but "encroached" into other subject areas that had no real bearing in a policy about NOR. Those issues, while very real and needing explanation, should have been handled on different (and linked) pages. It's just an inadvertent consequence of trying to accomodate people's questions without proper forethought, in my opinion. wbfergus 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that at best, this is a case of WP:CREEP, but more likely this is really a case of WP:COATRACK where people have taken a simple policy and obscured it by hanging extra things on it that were not supported by a broad consensus (whether well intentioned or not). And the only way to address this is to take the coats off by "brutal reduction" as that essay suggests to get back to the essence of NOR. Dhaluza 10:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has this become so complicated? 

message: Many articles on law, science and other complicated stuff have examples to help the reader understand. The examples are not referenced. Are they original research? (For example, "Concepts" section of mens rea). --Kaypoh 06:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples you mention are not OR, just unsourced statements.  However, giving an example that is not clearly exemplary of the thing in question might well constitute OR.  If I were to say "Musical genius has occurred in a wide variety of cultures over time, for example Bach, Beethoven and Britney Spears" that would be OR, because without a citation to support the rather strange assertion that Britney is a musical genius, I would be advancing a point of view that is not proven. --Slashme 07:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know whether they are unsourced but true, or someone's analysis. It's common for people to include examples in articles based on their own analysis rather than from a citable authority (c.f. the huge lists of examples attached to fourth wall which it took four AFDs to finally delete). In general we want to use examples which out sources cite as examples. Mangoe 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Some people might not consider Bach or Beethoven to be musical geniuses. So it violates NPOV.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 14:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should that read "outside sources"?  --Minasbeede 14:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: For the examples you just posted above, I don't see why those can't be included in the article if they can be found in what is (currently) called a secondary source and properly referenced. If they can be referenced, then they are not original research. If they can't be referenced, then they may be classified as original research since you wouldn't be able to prove that they were not your "ideas", correct or incorrect as they may be. wbfergus 14:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples are original research.  Track the edit history - I would bet that these passages were added to the articles before 2003 when this policy took full effect.  It should not be hard to find sources for the examples, and one way to improve Wikipedia articles is to find stuff just like this, and look for soruces! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If the examples are obvious and straightforward, noncontroversial extensions of clearly-verifiable ideas, then I don't think it should count as original research so long as a person without special expertise would be able to verify that the example merely illustrates the ideas that have already been set forth and attributed. In that case, you are not actually putting forward original research; you are just re-stating what has already been said and attributed in a more user-friendly way, by an example. Other encyclopedias use examples, and it's not often that you find suitable examples in primary or secondary sources. Tertiary sources like textbooks, maybe, and if such examples can be found, all the better. But if nothing "original" is actually put forward by the example, and specialized knowledge isn't required for the reader to verify the correctness of the example, I don't see how it's original research. COGDEN 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering these comments, I would add only this: sometimes what is original research is a judgement call and that judgement is best left to those editors who have been working on an article.  As COGDEN suggests, eidts that are uncontroversial sledom if ever require editors to turn to policies for guidance; the more the controversy, the more salient the policies. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the key is whether the examples are illustrative or interpretive. If they simply explain what has already been set forth, and there is no new thought, then this is no different than paraphrasing a source to avoid copyvio. But if the examples involve interpretation or new ideas, then that would be OR without a RS to attribute them to. Dhaluza 10:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are examples original research? 

message: I have looked at articles that had a couple of funky tables and then looked at the referenced sources as well as others, and wondered if constructing a single table that merged the data from the various sources would constitute OR.
In the case of oil wells, there is a list of them with data pulled from multiple sources which seems not be OR, while a I have a feeling that creating a similar kind of compilaton for Palestinian census data would be seen as OR.  I've concluded for the time being that I will fill in existing tables with info I find, but I won't create any because I now see it as  minefield - one's structuring of data is a POV.
But perhaps this should be handled with a policy more like that for images and other original artwork?  The objective is to present the diverse facts and analysis in some coherent fashion, right? Mulp 01:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's somebody else's analysis, and is backed up with proper references for the analysis. Regarding the table, on the surface it appears that it would not be OR, if for example, you created one large table from a source of oil wells in Oklahoma and then another source of oil wells in Texas. There wouldn't be any overlap of oil well data in that case, so it would not be up to you to decide how to handle the cases where there was overlap. It might also be contentious if the data from the two sources were in different formats, and you performed some conversion of the data so the table could be uniform, like if one was reported in meters and the other in feet. Suddenly, even though it's a simple conversion, you changed the original data, so some could claim that as OR. Personally I wouldn't, but I think quite a few others would, at least enough to cause a major discussion on that page and here. That's just my opinion though. In that particular case, it may be "better" to contact the source of the information and ask if they could provide it in the same format as the other, that way nobody can claim that you modified the original data. If it's USGS data, I happen to know some of the folks over there, and it probably wouldn't be that big of a deal to accomodate that kind of request. I do it all the time with many of the data requests I get (I'm in a different group). wbfergus 10:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is merging data tables from diverse sources OR? 

message: The arguments for and against the use of specific types of sources in specific situations need to be discussed more fully, and in the context of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:Notability. I think we can work toward a potential guideline for this. In the meantime, however, to get a consensus, original research policy that we can all live with, why don't we get back to basics. We can avoid the controversy for now by paring back to the fundamental ideas we all agree with, which I think are represented in the following text, which I would propose as a near-term replacement for the "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources" section:
===Use of sources===
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways.
When citing a source in support of a proposition in a Wikipedia article, the proposition should (1) be verifiable to the source by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no novel analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims based on the source.
Even if people want there to eventually be more than this in the policy, maybe this is an acceptable step that we can build on. COGDEN 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about offering comments or suggestions, or even making some edits to the two variations I put together in #Notice of draft revision above? It's an attempt to address this specific situation, of taking the "parts" that don't pertain to NOR and getting them into their own article, so this policy can be less contentious. There's also another variation in the works that I've seen as well, but I'll let the other person "announce" it once they're satisfied with it's content. wbfergus 10:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think the alternative proposals are useful as illustrative examples, we should be able to edit this policy here to preserve the edit history. I've taken a shot at diffusing one of the controversial items already. Dhaluza 11:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've done is good.  Preserving the edit history is good.  I think the classification of sources language needs to be moved elsewhere.  I suspect you left them in to avoid an edit war.  I think that was a good idea and action (or lack of action.)  It looks like there is a visible consensus for moving them elsewhere.  Can that be assumed and discussion turn to the issue of where to move them and how to reword that section, if that is needed? --Minasbeede 13:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for removing the coats from the [[WP:Coatrack|coatrack]] 

message: I would like to give an instance that possibly hones the edge of the point
being made by the "example" discussion above.  
I recently edited an article of a person X where I wanted to say that
"X is often referred to on the web as Prof. X".  Later I show
that his official biography says he was not a prof.  This I felt was
important to the article, since many readers may come to the article
with a view that he is a Prof.  An encyclopedia is being written against 
the backdrop of this common perception, after all. 
Now in stating that "X is often referred to on the web as Prof. X", 
I have no "source" that makes this full claim.  However one can cite hundreds
of webpages that say he is a prof.  It is a claim that is immediately
verifiable, and backed up by these sources, which are completely "reliable" 
for this purpose - ie. they are clearly referring to him as Prof. X. 
We are not introducing a new theory / original idea / term/ argument - 
it is just the immediately verifiable statement that
"X is often referred to on the web as Prof. X".  My question is - 
should it constitute original research? 
I am referring to the article on P. N. Oak, where I have made this
claim recently. If there is a consensus here that this is OR, I 
will remove the statement. mukerjee (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem comes with the word "often" - it's OR to assess the frequency of such references in any way. You can say that he is referred to as such with a single citation, although more is better. To say that such references occur often without it being OR, some reliable source must have made the assessment. SamBC(talk) 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are immediately verifiable statements OR? 

message: David Irving has repeatedly pushed the number 135,000 as the number killed in the bombing of Dresden in World War II. This number like the man is now throughly discredited.  See 
:* Introduction  Note the dates on many of these estimates particularly given this letter by Irving to the The Times on 7 July 1966.
:** The 'Final Report' of 15 March 1945. (See note 9 and following that discuss the letter to the times linked above).
:**The real TB 47. 
:**Further bending of reliable sources
:**Further misuse of figures: refugees, burials, and excavations.
:*general conclusion  Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. -- Evans
The trouble is that the number still appears in tertiary sources like encarta Dresden. This is not a problem at the moment because of the reliance on secondary sources. But how would one handle this if the new wording for sources is used? See Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Population statistics and use of napalm. 
In a second case take an example from a primary source like Protocol I that says "The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces." Unless one is an expert on international law the nuance of the words "feasible measures" will be lost unless one had read the ICRC commentary on this that makes clear, this is not a complete ban on the use of children in conflict. The ICRC had suggested that the Parties to the conflict should "take all necessary measures", which became in the final text, "take all feasible measures" which is not a total prohibition on their doing so because feasible should be understood as meaning "capable of being done, accomplished or carried out, possible or practicable". See Military use of children#International humanitarian law for sources on this. 
It seems to me at first glance that doing away with primary, secondary and tertiary sources may open up a can of worms and I would like others who are considering these radical changes to comment on how the new proposed policy will deal with these types of issues. --Philip Baird Shearer  20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the first example, it's a case of editorial judegement (etc etc). In the second case, anyone quoting that protocol and saying that this utterly prohibited  child soldiers would still be committing OR, because they would be interpreting it. SamBC(talk) 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)SamBC's response is correct. Additionally, the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction would not affect the 135 000+ claim, as it is widely repeated in secondary sources. A brief survey of available sources seems to indicate that most recent scholarship has revised the number down to the 25 000 to 35 000, largely based on recent German estimates and the death rate for similar bombings. However, even books published in the last five years still repeat the 135 000+ claim. It seems more a case of NPOV and using editorial discretion to judge the most reliable sources, than one of original research or source typing. Vassyana 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "even books published in the last five years  still repeat the 135,000" which book since the Lipstadt libel suit has published 135,000? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)Well, if you want to know about reliability of sources, check WP:RS. That defines what's reliable. This policy is just about what is or isn't OR. SamBC(talk) 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without 1/2/3 the RS is undermined because Encarta is usually considered to be a reliable tertiary source, but under the new rules that will be gone from the supporting policy and so undermining RS. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It would still be clear under the proposed replacement. Since making such an assumption would be providing interpretation and/or analysis not present in the source, it would be original research. Source typing does not affect this one way or the other. Vassyana 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wkipedia is not to be reduced to a series of quotes how does one tell the difference between a summary of a source and interpretation of a source if the distinction between primary and tertiary sources is lost. Currently if one takes a paragraph from a tertiary source and summarises it, it is acceptable. But if one takes a paragraph from a primary source one may only quote it. Under the new rules it seems that one would be able to summarise it, and given the highly specific nature of some primary sources -- like the one I have given above -- who but an expert is to judge if it is a true summary or an interpretation? I think that this change may lead to all sorts of edit wars. But this is the first time I have read this proposal and I am open to persuasion that it is a step forwards. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In short, some sources that seem at first glance like they ought to be reliable disagree. That problem will always be with us. Editors will just have to form a consensus that certain superficially reliable sources are actually not so. I doubt that following a general rule that articles published in peer-reviewed journals are always better than encyclopedias will preserve us from this problem; while encyclopedias are less up-to-date and often written by non-experts, peer-reviewed journals publish articles that by definition have not been presented to all the scholars in a field until after journal publication, so are not thoroughly reliable until sufficient time has passed for rebuttal articles, or at least letters to the editor, to be published. (Perhaps the problem with journals is somewhat reduced through electronic preprints.) --Gerry Ashton 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Philip... not allowing the 130,000 number simply because the current policy contains a caution(not a ban) against using primary sources is a gross misuse of the clear intent of the policy (even in its current form)...  An editor adding the number and citing to encarta (or even to Irving) is NOT adding their original thinking to the article in any way shape or form.  They are appropriately repeating information they assume is from a reliable source. If the source is incorrect, that is an issue for V or RS ... but it certainly should not be an NOR issue. Blueboar 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhapse it should be moved to WP:V (It was issues like this why I was not against WP:ATT in principle, just the current implementation). I have yet to be persuaded that this section should not be in one of the core content policies. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: RS is a mess, so I'm not sure anything useful belongs there; but this is a reliability issue. PBS is making the case that Irving and those who use his figure are unreliable sources on Dresden. This is a perfectly reasonable argument to make, and source criticism is a part of editorial judgment. I would note, however, that, unless some WPian is using the actual surviving records from Dresden directly, primary/secondary won't help: Irving is secondary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. Irving is an unreliable source so we can strike him. But Encarta is under the current definition a tertiary so it is not given the same weight as a secondary source "Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one." AFAICT we are loosing that level of granularity and so who is to say that a well researched well cited secondary source carries more weight than encarta if these changes take place? I have chosen two contentious examples because AFAICT in the real world of every day editing of controversial articles the current wording gives a lot more guidance to people who may not be familiar with working with sources than the proposed new wording. I am worried that such a change is being viewed through the restraints that the current wording gives and without such guidance (and constraints) it we will be opening up Pandora's box.--Philip Baird Shearer 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Philip Baird Shearer, First, there is no consensus for what the wikipedia meaning of the phrase "primary source" is. Second, there is no consensus that any given secondary source is a more reliable source than any given tertiary source (and for good reason, I might add). Finally, this is a reliable sources issue and not an issue that is related to someone making a claim that is not supported by the cite if one is given, or making a claim that is believed to be not supported by any reliable published source if no cite is provided, which is the definition of OR and the proper subject of this policy. WAS 4.250 23:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that there was a consensus, and it is expressed in the policies of Wikipedia specifically the definitions given in the section "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources". If not then what do the sentence "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." in  WP:CON mean? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Further (to address you second point) within that consensus it state "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one." which would appear to me to endorse the idea that unsigned articles in a otherwise reliable tertiary source may be less reliable than a reliable secondary source. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take some time to review the archives for the past month. They clearly illustrate the lack of consensus for PSTS within this policy. Beyond that, your concerns about reliable sources may or may not be valid, but regardless this is not the place to address such concerns. WP:RS handles reliable sourcing and WP:NPOV handles appropriate weight. This policy addresses original research, which is a separate issue from the one you are raising. Vassyana 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. I think this this needs to be in a policy document. It is quite easy to argue that it is part of NOR because using primary sources and interpreting them is original research. If this section is removed from the policy documents there will be people who argue that they are not interpreting international treaties because they are merely summarising their content, this is prohibited currently and this change will have a very big impact on the way primary, secondary and  sources tertiary sources are used in articles. This will have a direct effect on the way that the data sources used to extract information for Wikipedia articles are researched. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

text: This discussion about changing the emphasis on secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary sources is somewhat misplaced and misguided, IMO. Primary sources that report different empirical or historical calculations than widely reported, as was mentioned in the example at the beginning of this thread (whether 135,000 is = or ≠ to the number killed in Dresden), fall under WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:RS, which work in tension with one another. Primary soucces are already stated in WP:NOR to be validly used to report plain facts without interpretation or synthesizing of ideas that may arguably follow from the plain facts. Moreover, WP:NOR, in its emphasis on secondary and tertiary sources for interpretive and synthetic issues, works in tension and in tandem with WP:VER and WP:RS, along with WP:NPOV or course. These tensions are natural and intentional, and the founding Wikimedia Board would appear to have clearly understood this when the three basic editorial policies were first put forward. WP:Consensus, of course, is the method by which these tensions are balanced or resolved in the process of writing the articles. The push to alter this balance by substantially rewriting one or more of the three most basic editorial policies neglects that the solutions to the dilemma already exist within present WP policy. The dog should move the tail here, not the other way around. ... Kenosis 13:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But which dog? This is an attempt to bring some cohesion to the policies, that if it's there, is very difficult to properly decipher, especially to newcomers. wbfergus  Talk 14:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be at least halfway real about this, please. This recent push here is an attempt to make major changes over minor editorial problems and exceptions to the general trend on the wiki (the tail trying to wag the dog), and/or for one group to try to get their way of doing things at a few articles implemented wikiwide (also the tail trying to wag the dog). An equally informative tome on one project page is equally difficult to decipher as are three separate pages expressing three interactive principles. This was tried recently in the WP:A fiasco, raised to the status of policy and fairly promptly demoted after a wiki-wide "wtf?". The cohesion already exists in interaction of the three basic editorial policies, with consensus as a procedure for mediating among them. Those three basic policies operate both cooperatively and in tension with one another, and they do it extremely well -- so well, in fact, that the very existence of WP is not only a function of modern processing power and the wiki method, but also of the balance and tension between the three basic policies of WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. ... Kenosis 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no general trend on the wiki to disallow primary sources in general - it's been pointed out during this process that a large number of featured articles make heavy use of primary sources. If you look back to the earlier stages of this process, you will also see that this isn't a homogeneous group who turned up to get things changed to something they (as a whole) thought it should be. Opinions varied massively at the start of the process. Your "halfway real" description seems to mischaracterise both wikipedia practice (the use of primary sources) and the nature and makeup of the group of people who've taken part in this process. SamBC(talk) 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one use of the word "disallow" on this page prior to my quoting Sambc's usage right here (so now there are two, but I didn't say this or anything close to it). Please do not put words in my mouth or on my "pen", so to speak. The present version of the relevant passage in WP:NOR states: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." This reasonably expresses the concept. ... Kenosis 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As to my "let's be at least halfway real..." comment, this refers to what appears to be the present notion that this is just a minor proposal that can be implemented without further scrutiny because several WP users have worked on it and believe it is nearing consensus.My review of the situation indicates that this is in fact intertwined with an effort to significantly change the policy, up to and including rewriting the rules on "original synthesis" and other major changes. As to the "process" being referred to by Sambc, that process has been a discussion among several WP users, indeed properly regarded as a preliminary discussion, advocating one or more significant changes in WP policy w.r.t. WP:NOR. The "tail attempting to wag the dog" here is my reference to the exceptional cases driving attempts to change the basic, fundamental balances of WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:NOR. The use of anecdotal examples of users having problems in interpreting and resolving issues in individual articles, such as, e.g. the Dresden bombing example in this section, are properly regarded as a  issue at the individual articles, not valid reasons to change the policy across the wiki. ... Kenosis 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  135,000 

message: In an effort to minimize confusion regarding how this current discussion of replacing the "Sources" subsection on PSTS came about, please refer to the Archive for the last month or two. It's an awful lot of reading I know, but it aslo way to much to even begin to try to re-link back into here. This is not a "let's get this done today" proposal. We have been discussing this for a while and will continue to discuss even longer.
Take your time to read the Archives and get caught up on what you think the pertinent issues are before posting comments, especially derogatory or accusatory comments. Probably the very earliest this "proposed change" would or could (or even should) take effect would around the end of October. We need plenty of time to assimilate everybody's constructive feedback, comments, and suggestions. Thanks you. wbfergus  Talk 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having spent quite a bit of time trying to get up to speed on these arguments by reading the archives, please be assured that a coherent case needs to be put together and "read the archives" doesn't present your arguments properly. .. dave souza, talk 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention newcomers to this article