Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 19

message: If there is a poster of a sports event (specifically, one like boxing or wrestling), is it OR to state who is on the poster? Someone keeps reverting my edits on one article saying it's OR to state who is on the poster (even thought the poster is right in the infobox). - unsigned
:No.  Nor can I legitimately say your last sentence ended with a period.  That's forbidden OR: someone else must say it outside Wikipedia.  I'm not even sure if I can say you had a "last sentence."  Perhaps its OR to respond to you: I didn't read that you'd posted your question or read your question outside Wikipedia. - Minasbeede 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is original research but we allow original research with regard to images as a special case so long as no one claims different. For example, I can take a picture of a moth and put it on the moth page with the caption "black moth". Then when some one objects that it is in fact the rare dark red fuzzy butterfly, I must remove it from the moth page. Or move and relabel it if I reseach it and find I agree. WAS 4.250 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posters 

message: I feel we should allow OR when something is bloody plain obvious. If an article were to say: in this video, "such and so" is said, wikipedia should be allowed to do so; even if no notable reliable source exists that says that the video says "such and so" provided that anyone can easily verify that the statement is true by simply watching the video.
In other words: things which are self-evident or almost trivial, should not have to pass the RS criterion. It is ludicrous to demand reliable sources for air is something we can breath or daylight originates from the Sun.
Rationale: the purpose of RS and OR is guaranteeing some level of reliablity. Slacking up as described does not compromise that. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...airEveryday Oxford Dictionary (19810) p24 air n. the mixture of gases surrounding the earth and breathed by all land animals and plants is something we can breath and daylight originates from the Sun Everyday Oxford Dictionary (1981) p712 sun n. the star round which the earth travels and from which it receives light and warmth. (Everyday Oxford Dictionary 1981 pp24,712) — This is not a case of OR — Newbyguesses - Talk 04:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also concerned about OR being trotted out in cases like this, usually to poke holes in pop-culture articles.  But  if someone is describing a video, the video is in itself a published source, so it's not OR.  I do however think that,  there should be somethinging in policy about "general knowledge" to take care of facts like "daylight originates from the Sun". Squidfryerchef 11:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When people disagree, citing is our mechanism to resolve. If you say "the sky is blue" and no one contests it then no problem. If someone says is is black  or grey more often than blue and sometims much of it is white then you need to cite a reliable published source. For some people it is general knowledge that there is a God. WAS 4.250 13:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Citations need to be provided as per WP:V - "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" If something is general knowledge, nobody will challenge it and no source is needed. This isn't a question of OR. Tim Vickers 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In the example you give, Xiutwel, the video is a primary source, and using primary sources is allowed so long as you describe and don't interpret. So you could watch the video and report "Sammy kissed Lisa when they were sitting in the ice-cream parlor." But you could not say: "And this was evidence that Sammy isn't gay, which lots of viewers previously supposed he was, because he seemed very close to Greg." If you want to say the latter, you need a secondary source i.e. a published article about the video that says those things. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: more slack for this guideline 

message: Having established that editors required an example based on real life experience, I constructed this example from a real dispute that I was involved in. It has been reverted as unsuitable writing for a policy page. It was at a level of detail required to make a discussion of the problems of NOR work, in my opinion. I may not participate further as I have other commitments but leave this as my catalyst to a proper discussion on how rules can end up with inappropriate results . Spenny 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this is an example of SYNT. Can you say what the real example is? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again synthesis is painted black because of flaws in the A and/or B used in the synthesis.  Minasbeede 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Aside from the merits of the example, I think the word count on this is way too high.  I think the explanation of synthesis is taking up a disproportionate amount of the policy page as it is.  We need to keep the policy page short and to the point, so that people will read and understand it.  Enchanter 19:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:No original research/example 1 userfied at User:IanMSpencer/example ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed example of synthesis 

message: I am not suggesting adding anything to the policy but I want to make sure we all understand the same thing to be synthesis.  So here is my example.
A 1914 encyclopedia article reads (Races of the World) that "[The Caucasian race] leads the other races in literature, commerce and all the arts of civilization."  The encyclopedia is American and it is plainly  designed to comply with the ideas of contemporary educators. (In its preparation we were able to secure the coöperation of specialists and educators whose standing will be recognized upon inspection of our list of editors and contributors. Advantage has been taken of suggestions which have come to us from many teachers during years of experience in the use of the former work, and it is believed that the present work will be found adequate and satisfactory.)  It would be synthesis to put all this information together to say "White racial superiority was a commonly held belief among educators in America at the beginning of the 20th century". 
The two points I want to make is that synthesis has just a good of chance coming up with the right answer as the the wrong answer.  And secondly it can involve a single source.  Synthesis is not disallowed because information found through synthesis is always wrong; it is disallowed because such information has a chance of being wrong.  It much better practice (as well as policy) to find a source that directly addresses the issue rather than trying to make information that partially covers the issue fit by adding it together with other information.  Synthesis goes hand and hand with lazy sourcing.  If you take the time to find the best sources for the subject first, then you will have little to worry about regarding synthesis.--BirgitteSB 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An example to clarify

message: As long as the source is clear to the reader, what is wrong with OR in Wikipedia?  I am ready to start slapping down some straw dogs, so please consider your response.01001 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can never be clear of who the source is, so have no way of assessing the claims. Outside Wikipedia I approve of OR, but I only publish mine in journals, so my peers can assess the evidence. Wikipedia cannot do that, so it doesn't allow OR. Tim Vickers 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a considered response.  The question assumed that the source must be clear to the reader.01001 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The easiest way to explain it is to consider the sort of cases it was invented for: you have a crank who has published all over Usenet and personal websites their crank theories about how the moon is made of green cheese, the clear scientific evidence for it, and the government conspiracies suppressing it. They can source all their statements to this self-published material. Because nobody cares about this crank, nobody has bothered refuting them, and so there's no sourcable material that can be used to even balance out the article - and they'll viciously defend it. Wikipedia editors being composed primarily of university students, we don't have the resources or expertise to review sources and judge their accuracy - nor should we leave it up to the reader to evaluate the source of such clearly factually ridiculous information. By relying on review by other organizations, we avoid this whole mess. Dcoetzee 01:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the problem is that a criteria is needed to determine that which belongs in Wikipedia and that which does not.  For the sake of discussion, let's further assume that all entries into Wikipedia must be reasonable.  Would this not handle the green cheese theory?01001 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Then the policy against OR doesn't work against the crank statements (they're sourced, and bad sources don't instantly appear to be such, in general.)  This issue deserves more attention but I get too wordy and too repetitive so I'll not try. (I read the essay suggested below.  My take was that if there were flawed OR the collaborative community would eliminate it, in time, in theory.  That is, in general, how the collaboration works, isn't it?  Good stuff tends to be polished and augmented, bad stuff tends to be removed or corrected.  I'm aware of the problem implicit in "tends to be" - that's partly why I used the phrase.)  Minasbeede 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 10001: Read the essay Wikipedia:The_role_of_policies_in_collaborative_anarchy, that may help you with your question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong with OR? 

message: I— Xiutwel (talk) am copying from a previous section, since the discussion had become rather lengthy with the excellent tractise on the dangers of synthesis inserted.
:In the example you give, Xiutwel, the video is a primary source, and using primary sources is allowed so long as you describe and don't interpret. So you could watch the video and report "Sammy kissed Lisa when they were sitting in the ice-cream parlor." But you could not say: "And this was evidence that Sammy isn't gay, which lots of viewers previously supposed he was, because he seemed very close to Greg." If you want to say the latter, you need a secondary source i.e. a published article about the video that says those things. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: question I want to check if this is a consensus viewpoint; I've also heard someone say it would be OR to watch a video when describing the video. — Xiutwel (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean for example saying that the world trade center collapsed at free-fall speed? Or drawing the reader's attention to puffs of smoke, or supposed 'molten metal'?  Tom Harrison Talk 13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The OR comes in (for one of your examples) when it is claimed that falling at free-fall speed implies a controlled demolition (and nothing else.)  It is quite often the case that assertions of that type depend on a specific interpretation that excludes all other interpretations.  The conclusion reached is the result of excluding all interpretations other than the one that leads to the conclusion, which is the desired conclusion of the editor.  That process is intensely not NPOV. Minasbeede 14:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even leaving aside interpretation, I would be concerned about picking and choosing which bits to mention. The 'truth movement' is infamous for highlighting supposed anomalies to support their conspiracy theories, while ignoring other data. Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean for example saying ... — No Tom, I do not mean that. I mean: "Bashar, according to Darryl Anka purportedly channeling Bashar, claims he actually represents an entire society of 230 million entities in constant telepathic connection with each other."[video of session] <BR>Or: "The lyre bird can mimic even chainsaw sounds[video of David Attenborough]<BR>I would agree with Minasbeede that drawing your own conclusions from a video does amount to OR, but literally citing a video is allowable, and to do so on wikipedia, no secondary sources are needed as RS  — Xiutwel (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User contributions Tom Harrison Talk 14:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  conclusion / Proposal: more slack for this guideline 

message: We do allow things in wikipedia that are not "assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments" therefore the sentence had to be changed to accurately reflect what was meant but was not actually said. WAS 4.250 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments 

message: I have a problem with this clause, since it is being used by persons to claim that an unsigned, collaboratively created Britannica-sourced article which reflects the consensus of experts is less "reliable" than the a signed article by a single self-styled expert out on the fringe of expert opinion.  It directly conflicts with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Undue_weight#Undue_weight which says "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts".  Clearly, the Undue Weight policy says that a "commonly accepted reference text" can be used as a trump in a case of battling sources.  But the policy on this page says that not only can they not be used as a trump against "secondary sources", they can actually be classed as "less reliable" than "secondary sources"! Just because some quack is willing to sign their name to some absurd claim, that does not mean that it thereby more "reliable" by virtue of that signature alone.  Finally, you are just opening the door to further "original research" when you imply that an unsigned Britannica article can be improved upon by "secondary sources".  A Britannica article normally represents the consensus of expert opinion, so should be deferred to be those otherwise inclined to go hunt down all the unrepresentative, fringy "secondary sources" that they can find.  I'd call that "original research" in that they are trying to being a new, hitherto unappreciated "truth" to humanity.Bdell555 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've never liked that sentence, and in fact I think it's wrong. In Britannica in particular, the signed articles tend to be more POV and idiosyncratic. I'd be quite happy for us to get rid of that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unsigned articles may be less reliable" 

message: Over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, User:Mosquera posits that WP:NOR forbids the use of many free images because they have never been published anywhere. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 46#Fair Use Rationale: The Extended Mix. Thank you. howcheng  {chat} 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOR and free images 

message: Using search results (the number of results produced) to back claims of popularity, original research or not?  There's an edit war stalemate regarding WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR at Stephanie (LazyTown)#Internet Phenomenon.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kind of OR-ish, because it's hard to judge popularity from the number of Google hits. But it's the kind of thing that's often allowed so long as it's not causing any harm. The best thing would be to find a published source that says she's popular, and stick to what the source says. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: An interesting discussion has come up at Talk:Rylands Library Papyrus P52#So what does it say?. This article is about the earliest NT manuscript, which is a credit card size piece of papyrus that contains roughly 25 words on both sides, with many of the words cut off. I looked at the Greek text found on a website, and I used Bible translation software to come up with a rough approximation of a translation of the fragment. But I used some artistic licensing on the lacuna. Another user took a known English translation of the whole verses in question, arranged the words to correspond to the Greek word order, and again, comparing it to the Greek, made a rough approximation of what words are included, and what words are partially cut off by bolding certain corresponding English words. 
The issue is, we have been unable to find a source that gives a direct translation of just what is just on the fragment (we have sources that have reconstructed translations of the fragment and surrounding missing text, but not of just the fragmented text). One user suggested moving his work from the talk page to a website and citing that website, and that's obviously original research. 
But now I think we've been thinking about this too hard, because isn't this just a simple matter of translation? Is it really original research if we translate text? Or even use a known English translation and note approximate word cut off points based on the original Greek? -Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want a translation of just the surviving words?  I think there is a clear reason for the existing sources to have chosen to reconstruct the surrounding text and you should follow their lead.  This fragment was not designed to only show 25 or so words and determining what was handwritten in an ancient version of a foreign language you do not read is something that is best gotten from reliable sources.  A simple translation is when you translate something you clearly understand to a second language that you also understand.  This is far from being a simple translation.--BirgitteSB 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we do have a source that says what is there in Greek. We aren't trying to determine what was handwritten. The issue with saying "the fragment says..." and copying a "reconstruction" is that 80% of the "reconstructed" text isn't on the fragment itself. But I understand what you are saying regarding a simple translation. Thanks for your input._Andrew c [talk] 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess one of my issues is regarding what you intend on doing with the information.  If you want to make a mock-up of the fragment in English as an illustration, then I don't have a huge problem.  However it can be near impossible to translate many words accurately out of context.  (i.e. "fly" how would you translate this word without know if it is a noun or a verb from surrounding text)  This difficulty is why I imagine all sources in translation reconstruct the whole document.  It is just as much of a guess about the meaning of 20% without the context of the rest as it to guess what the 80% is.  In fact the only way to translate that 20% with any hope of accuracy is to first reconstruct the whole document from other versions. When you just transcribe the Greek you do not have to decide on the meaning of any ambiguous words, when you translate you do.  But as I said I don't have huge problem if this is for an illustration. On the other hand if want to use this translation and discuss it in the prose of the article.  I do have a problem.  Any discussion of this translation you have come up with will be original research with 100% certainty.--BirgitteSB 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this OR? Translation of ancient manuscript 

message: Please see:
Wikipedia:Requests for verification
A proposal designed as a process similar to  to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.
It reads:
This page has been listed in :Category:Requests for verification.It has been suggested that this article might not meet Wikipedia's core content policies Verifiability and/or No original research.  If references are not cited within a month, the disputed information will be removed.
If you can address this concern by sourcing please [ edit this page] and do so. You may remove this message if you reference the article. 
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 30 days.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, improve the article so that it is acceptable according to Verifiability and/or No original research.
Please help [ improve this article] by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole  
and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.
I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal  WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources
Signed Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could just use PROD and cut 25 days off the waiting period. -Amarkov moo! 18:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Smile :) or you could use RFV and give editors 25 more days to fix it. Jeepday (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Requests for verification 

message: The discussion refers to Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Treatment_of_POWs
And is currently and has been in the past conducted in 
Previously: Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Historical_context.2F.22US_and_Australian.22
Currently:Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Prisoner_Execution_Sources
The paragraph itself has been the issue of quite a lot of recent discussions, some of which can be found in the talk archive page, but the discussion that we need a second opinion on now is at the end of: 
Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Prisoner_Execution_Sources
If you have the patience and time, please read through the talk page and perhaps provide your comments because right now it feels as if we are talking past each other and walking in circles, we need some external imput.
Thanks, --Stor stark7 Talk 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look shortly. Sorry to have missed this before. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone with a good grasp of NOR, and a good deal of patience and time on their hand please provide a second opinion 

message: Let's say you conducted an interview with the creator of a TV show or whatever, and then decided to personally put the information you gathered into a Wikipedia article prior to the interview being printed or whatever. Let's also say that the interview was not faked, and that it actually took place. This, in effect, could be consitered original reasearch and, as such, would prevent (possibly) valueable information from being added to an article. How would you get around something like that? --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can audio/video proof of the interview to back up the stuff mentioned from the interview, then I don't see a problem.   Corpx 17:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically what Corpx said. The interview must be somehow published before it can be used; that is, the video or its transcript must be posted online or shown on television. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical question 

message: Could do with some input over at Talk:Family First Party on the issue of presenting statistics/identifying patterns that are derived from sourced data but not explicitly stated at the cited source. --Calair 06:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data-crunching OR? 

message: In the article The Microsoft Sound I tried to include the fact that the name and location of the start-up file on Windows 95 is C:\Windows\Media\The Microsoft Sound.wav. Another editor keeps deleting this because it is uncited. Here are the relevant extracts from the Talk page: 
:Somebody is now complaining because the fact that under Windows 95 the file is C:\Windows\Media\The Microsoft Sound.wav is uncited. Well, I run Windows 95, and that is where it is. I have looked for an appropriate cite template. I found  and , but couldn't find . The problem, here, I would suggest is too much reading of guidelines and not enough thinking about their purpose. HairyWombat 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "" goes against Wikipedia:No original research.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use this to cite your claim Corpx 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Software is published. One can look at the published software. But software is self altering, so you have to look at it in the published form and not the installed form. It could install itself differently on different computers. WAS 4.250 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It does seem a bit POINTy to ask for a citation for something like that, though I see Corpx found one for you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Citing reliable published sources is used not only to establish credibility but also to establish relevance and notability. Perhaps the issue is not if it is true but whether or not is should be in the article even if true. WAS 4.250 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the flip side, a lot of highly notable information cannot easily be backed by credible sources. Most sources which are considered "credible" are oriented toward academic material, rather than popular culture and the like. --xDanielxTalk 06:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed. It's a big problem for people working in these areas. I'd be in favor of adding a pop-culture exception to this policy, but the last two times I tried, it got no consensus. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ever feel up for a third attempt, please let me know so I can offer my support. Just this morning I started an article for DaFont and within hours it had been tagged as a deletion candidate (explanation). --xDanielxTalk 09:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, I'd support it.  I'm not sure if it would apply here, but there is a recent Arbcom decision regarding pop-culture in paranormal articles: ArbCom Paranormal Pop.  – Dreadstar † 10:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When you try to pull off anything, sign me up. --Kizor 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Pop culture is an exception" did not get consensus. Perhaps something along the lines of "Claims with these characteristics (blah blah blah) are an exception" might get consensus. Can anyone here say exactly what those characteristics would be and exactly what requirement is therefore waived and why? Considerations: effect on fake wrestling bios; effect on self promotion in pop culture (this comic is known to be noteable; I've said so a thousand times in the blogs!); effect on history of pop culture. WAS 4.250 11:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems fine to me. I voted to keep. Xdanielx, if you have a specific idea of what kind of exception is needed for pop culture, feel free to draft something and we can take a look at it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with ya, SV..I voted keep too.  – Dreadstar † 01:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{cite I looked at the bloody file}}</nowiki> 

message: Here in Italy we have a proverb: 'Made the law, decouvered the trick'. Is it so terrible, as overall rule, that the stuff published will be eventually challenghed with proper facts by millions other wikicontributors, to generate a concrete evolution and improvement of the articles? All the rules of the worlds will never assure the reliability and the truth over wikipedia datas. You cannot cite any source and do so a perfectly true claim. I can witness a politician contested by the crow (with even photos), and the day after a 'secondary source' as a newspaper will be 'available' to distort totally the facts happened, claiming the hot welcome he had. I can found a family dead under ruins, bombed by some fighter, and the day later see the claims on mass-media that they were 'all taliban warriors'. So go figure, the sources worths nothing if one support one or the other POV, there are all around even too examples to be made. If this screening of Wiki informations is impossible, then no reliable information could be guaranteed by wikipedia. Sorry.
More: a Personal Point ov View is not necessarly bad itself, seen that a judge, after all, express a sentence both 'personal' and 'neutral'. OTOH, there are the advocates or speakers of politicians that claiming things that they don't think but are directly the POV of they bosses. So a speaker, not sayng proper POV statements, 'should be' acceptable, and a judge not. 
Perhaps i miss somethings, but let me repeat, the real needings for Wiki are: Be bold, Use goodsense, Ignore the rules and Search consensus plus the best: Search the truth. These should worths in Wiki, much more than 11112x10Small Textpolicies, often in contradiction one against the other, and good mainly to waste time and create a mass of burocrats. Let darwinsm do the work on the pages, and leave the 'creationism' party, that pretends to solve all with the 'table of law'. It dont' works as the free discussion (and as free discussion i mean talk with someone that don't treath handlyng the policies as hammers).--Stefanomencarelli 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here in Italy 

message: Perhaps we should define different kinds of claims, and then what kinds of sources can support each claim. As extreme cases: Jacob Haller 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just some thoughts in response and general agreement:
# Generally agreed. This is already covered in WP:RS and well-established. The exception to the general rule is when third party reliable sources make other claims. As a more common example, people often profess a particular faith due to social and legal situations, but often held a "hidden" faith due to circumstances. So, there might be a historical English figure that professed to be Anglican, even in many personal letters, but held to Catholic beliefs secretly to preserve his social standing and/or privileges.  
# Agreed.
# Generally agreed. A number of groups have "sacred" and "secret" practices that are detailed by third party reliable sources. Also, analysis of those beliefs is best left to published reliable sources. For example, the Catholic Catechism is a very authoritative and reliable document regarding the particulars of the Roman Catholic dogma. However, it would be best left to outside reliable references to address how that dogma is put into pragmatic practice (or rather, how it is "really" used). 
# Agreed. For example, there are many practicing Catholics who are pro-choice, support the use of contraception and have other individual beliefs potentially at odds with church dogma.  
# Agreed, see above.
## I'm not sure entirely what you mean, but that sounds like it could potentially cross the line into original research. It would probably be acceptable to say something like: "Person X described themselves as a confirmed Roman Catholic. Reference Y disputes this stating that Person X did not attend Mass for most of their adult life." Just some thoughts. Be well! Vassyana 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not at all sure, but thought it might help to make positive assertions slightly harder and challenges/counterclaims slightly easier. Jacob Haller 02:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinds of claims first, kinds of sources second? 

message: Stevertigo's recent addition is a bit too abstract (sorry!) for me to follow. Are there some examples of articles that were abstracted upward as he describes? Tom Harrison Talk 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Evolution (disambiguation) and/or Evolution (term)? WAS 4.250 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree 100% with jossi on this. WAS 4.250 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position 

message: "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources Anyone who wants to know the meaning of "Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources" should click that link and read. It is easiest to view sources as themselves primary or secondary but in fact at wikipedia it is important to realize that if we say "This source [so and so] said 'whatever'.[ref]" then we are using that source as a primary source for what it is saying. If a newspaper says the policeman said "Bob told me he killed Jay"; then we can use that report as a primary, secondary, or tertiary source depending on how we word it. If we say "Bob killed Jay"[ref] then we are using that newspaper report as a tertiary source. If we say "Newspaper [such and such] says the policeman said "Bob told me he killed Jay." then we are using that newspaper as a primary source. Which is better? Using it as a primary source. But some people here don't get that and insist that using primary sources is not as good as using secondary sources, when the key for wikipedia is not the source but how we use the source.  WAS 4.250 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really disagree with your presentation of PSTS. The very quote you use seems to contradict the comments the follow. An article is a secondary source "if it analyses and comments on those events". In other words, it's based on the content, not the usage of the reference. The letters of Origen are all primary sources in religious studies, whereas a textbook covering his letters would be a secondary or tertiary source. In almost all instances, with some consideration for field, a work can be clearly called a primary or secondary/tertiary source. Vassyana 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WAS 4.250 is basically correct in that if you quote the source, you are using it as a primary source for what it said, but if you state what it says as fact, then you are using it as a secondary source. If the fact is not really disputable, then using it as a secondary source is appropriate. But if the fact is in dispute, then the secondary source use may not be valid, and making an attributed quote is the better course. Dhaluza 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources 

message: There is a current example of the problem which came up on the Administrator Incidents page discussed [here]. Someone spotted that a BBC employee apparently seemed to be editing the pages related to criticism. There appears to be a sensible response [here (there are a couple more corrections after)]. However, note that the argument is that they have checked the (primary) source which justifies the edit taking out the press bias of presumably deliberately misquoting the report. There are a few things here (does the remaining text in the article which notes that that the report was misrepresented in the press constitute OR - yes it appears to). It is also interesting as it brings in the question of reliable sources. We know that the Evening Standard does have vocal political campaigning, therefore for most purposes it is not a reliable source. On the other hand, we get into a problem as the article is discussing criticisms of the BBC and it is clear that these criticisms are being made. Wikipedia is being used to publish a political agenda, and potentially some interpretations of policy will encourage that, rather than resist it.
Discuss! 10:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Example 

message: Cogden, I reverted your removal of the sentence prioritizing secondary sources. This is a practice that has strong support. Can you say what your objection to it is? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than removing it again, could you say here what you feel the problem is? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prioritizing secondary sources