Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion/Archive 1

message: I have been telling another editor that a contribution they made is probably OR. However, I am questioning whether I am being too strict, so I am here to try to get some clarity on the policy. Here is the scenerio. This one source says that 6 people have died using mifepristone. This other source says that over 460,000 doses have been shipped for Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), and most likely the vast majority of the doses equals one administration of the drug. Now, in the wikipedia article, we give the figure "6 in 460,000" as the mortality rate for the drug. However, I cannot find this figure listed in any source online. Most sources online simply say "less than 1 in 100,000". I have said that wikipedia cannot be the first place to publish the figure "6 in 460,000", but the counter argument is that its simply math. So can we say the mortality rate of a drug is X, if there isn't a single source backing X up, but instead a synthesis of multiple sources? The conflict is being discussed at Talk:Mifepristone. Thanks for your time.--Andrew c 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of encyclopedia is it that questions its right to put two related facts from reputable sources together, and do the relevant math? One that is still finding its way, one is inclined to conclude. --londheart 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No wikipedia editor can prove that he or she is an expert on drug distribution. Even if the editor is an expert, there is no mechanism on Wikipedia to establish the editor's identity. So, can a non-expert put the number 6 people together with 460,000 doses shipped? I don't think so. Maybe the number does not include free samples distributed by physicians, or used during clinical trials. Maybe it does include doses that expired sitting on pharmacy shells and had to be thrown away. I would want to see a reliable source that puts the two numbers together. --Gerry Ashton 00:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, it ignores the fact that the drug has been used in Europe for over 15 years and probably used by over 600,000 people.--Andrew c 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a source would need to be found who makes that analysis. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as the parameters for the discussion keep being changed here, we have to. --londheart 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to push a POV, and I feel you miscaracterized my editing habits in general, and my concern over this issue in specific (but we can try and work that out on user talk if necessary). The main point: Find a source that says 6 in 460,000, or it fails WP:V and WP:OR. The only content I desire to be in the article, is content that meets wikipedia policy. I mentioned that the only sources I could find say "less that 1 in 100,000". Whether you feel this information is accurate or not doesn't matter, if you don't have another source that corrects it. It's not about the numbers. I'd be happy with 1.35 in 100,000 or whatever, if it is backed up with a citation.--Andrew c 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Converting the number isn't the OR research part. Please see Gerry Ashton's reply above. Coming up with our own mortality rate that isn't listed in any source is the OR part. I don't care about pro-choice vs. pro-life. This is about policy, please try to stay on topic.--Andrew c 02:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somedays I am so glad we have this policy in place. Today is one of these days, after reading the discussions above. Provide a source for that 6 in 460,000 stat, or mercilessly delete it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New synthesis/is this OR? 

message: This policy currently states "Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages."(as of 01:52, 24 August 2005)  I believe this particular point in policy should be amended to state that original research shouldn't be in biographical talk pages at all per WP:BLP: "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked."(as of 21:15, 5 June 2006) (Emphasis added) --HResearcher 11:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer if this rule was only applied strictly to biographical articles. On other pages, we can be a lot more eventualist about it, imho. Kim Bruning 12:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly object to "biographical".  If this rule is applied it should be strictly limited to Category:Living people. Wjhonson 16:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. It should be made clear that this is in regards to living people.  --HResearcher 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical talk pages 

message: JA: The idea that secondary sources somehow save you from the wages of original sin is just plain absurd, and we should not be encouraging editors in that delusion.  The rule against adding unverifiable claims or interpretations to cited sources applies across the board, to primary, secondary, tertiary, and so on down the line.  There is nothing about sane editorical policy that makes secondary sources preferable.  Jon Awbrey 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is simply that certain things cannot be obtained from primary sources except through a level of analysis that exceeds our OR standard.  Primary sources are very valuable for direct facts, and for verification of the accuracy of secondary sources, but there are many things they cannot do. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone (sensible, at any rate) disagrees that there are times and places for primary sources.  Thus, I'm not sure why the issue. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Safety In Secondary Sources

message: The proposed change represents a major change in how primary and secondary sources would be treated.  Without going through the text line-by-line, consider just this:
Before:
However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.
After:
Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. 
Use of primary sources has always been strongly encouraged, and in no way have secondary sources been preferred to primary sources except that an article was rarely supposed to rely solely on primary sources.  This new policy makes primary sources distinctly less preferred than secondary sources, is a major policy change, and I do not support it. - O^O 18:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the policies on WP are based on the fact that many of the editors are not trained scholars, and even the scholars have no mechanism to prove their status. So the policies should be worded not only to provide justification for deleting passages in articles, or entire articles; the policy should also be worded to educate editors who are not trained scholars. Some of the proposed changes create a tone that would imply that editors shouldn't bother reading primary sources at all (unless they feel like it for some reason other than contributing to WP). I actually wouldn't have an issue with the precise meaning of "Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged…" but I don't think that phrasing sets the right tone. If someone were creating an article on Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, I really don't think we want to imply that the editor would be better off not reading the play, even though an article that cites nothing but the play would be OR and subject to deletion. --Gerry Ashton 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm sure it would be possible to cite nothing but the play and avoid OR, but then all the article would be would be a synopsis of the play and could not have any analysis, criticism, or much else. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Seconded.  The existence of a revert war right now over this policy's content suggests that we do not have consensus.  How about TALKING ABOUT IT? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The status quo has been that use of primary and secondary sources are on completely equal footing, with the sole exception that a wikipedia article will not be "based entirely" on primary sources except in limited cases.  Other than that narrow exception, the two types of sources are equally welcome to be used.  It has never been policy that secondary sources are "preferred" over primary sources in any manner whatsoever.  The proposal being discussed is a major and dramatic change of existing policy, not a "clarification" of what already is.  - O^O 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OO, secondary sources have indeed always been preferred to primary sources, simply because use of the latter often requires analysis that we don't allow. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: SV, I respect your right to hold that opinion, but it does not appear to match the text of the policy.  Please point out where in the policy it has ever said secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. - O^O 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major policy change re: primary sources 

message: Following discussion here, I'm going to propose that we include the following to the lead of each policy. In the case of the NPOV policy, this also includes removing a previous quote on the matter which has been superceeded.
: In the words of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, "I consider all three of these to be different aspects of the same thing, ultimately. And at the moment, when I think about any examples of apparent tensions between the three, I think the right answer is to follow all three of them or else just leave it out of Wikipedia."
For the sake of clarity, please discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. --Barberio 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to include (and in one case use as a replacement) the 'trinity' quote. 

message: In case anyone thinks I left a misleading edit summary here, saying "tweak" when in fact there are lots of changes, it was because I had made a minor edit to Jayjg's version without realizing he had reverted to another in the meantime. I shouldn't have gotten an edit conflict, but didn't, which I've noticed happening a lot recently. Anyway, I do also think the version I tweaked is the better one. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My edit summary

message: It's obvious that an edit war is occuring and people are not discussing, but simply reverting.  Time to cool off.  
(I consider myself uninvolved since I've not edited the page, although I have made comments on talk.  I'm not sure it's possible to find an admin truly unconnected to a core Wikipedia policy in any case) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected the page