Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 23

message: I reverted recent POV-poshing aimed at giving more slack to artcles based solely on primary sources. This encourages a deplored practice to create aricles by "quote farming" from google searches. The reverted significant changes in policy must be thorougly  discussed in the policy talk page. `'Míkka 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: per another editor's request, I protected the page again in the form it was in before it was unprotected.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mikka. I would prefer having the article protected in the last version by Mikkalai, which was the last consensus version before Cogden started edit warring to get his non-consensus version in.  The article should revert back to the last version by Mikkalai instead of reverting back to the non-consensus, contested version by Cogden. If a version is to be picked to protect on, this was the last consensus version before the edit war. Dreadstar † 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is not often that I agree with Mikka, but this is one case which I do. There is no need to dilute the spirit of NOR that would encourage the use of primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi hits it right on the mark, there is no need to change the wording to encourage the use of primary sources, a change which would indeed dilute that important aspect of NOR.  Dreadstar † 16:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this substantially mis-characterizes the essence of the debate. I have not seen any arguments encouraging the use of primary sources. The question is whether dividing sources into primary and secondary categories, then treating them differently in this policy is supported by a broad consensus of the Wikipedia community. Many editors have questioning the wisdom, necessity and/or relevance of the disputed text in the recent comments, and it is important to remember that policy must reflect consensus of what editors actually support, not what some editors think other editors should support. Dhaluza 00:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Strict rules of editing policy pages supersede formalities of protection ("metapolicy supersede policy"), so I regretfully have to restore my reversal  of non-discussed changes to previous consensus version. Policies are highly visible, influential pages and we cannot afford "The Wrong Version" here. `'Míkka 17:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Míkka, I would take a look at the archives. This issue has been very heavily discussed, and it's clear that there is no consensus as to any particular decreed rules distinguishing sources based on whether they are deemed "primary" or "secondary". The strict rules of editing policy are that any policy rules must represent and describe widespread consensus. Given the controversy, the status quo is 'no policy. If we can agree on positive language relating to the merits and disadvantages of particular types of sources, we can put that in, but in the meantime, we risk damage to the Wikipedia institution by maintaining a non-consensus and controversial policy. COGDEN 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to look into archives. It is your job to present your arguments now, when you intend to edit (including exact references to relevant past discussions, rather than simply saysing RTFM. And you have to endure the discussion of your changes, not of what was spoken in the past.  `'Míkka 19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Moreover, people can't agree on what it means. Jacob Haller 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cogden, If you persist in unilateral modification of the policy, then, rather than protecting the page, you will be blocked from editing until you understand the basic rule of editing the policy pages: seek for consensus before significant edit. What is more, you have discuss each change separately, to avoid confusion and conflation of items. `'Míkka 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the rule for Wikipedia content pages. Policy pages have no such inertia. Please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which is an actionable policy that I am enforcing here. If non-consensus and controversial items in policies and guidelines could not be removed without consensus, then non-consensus policies would be permanent in every case, since by definition, there will always be a faction opposing the change. COGDEN 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you are badly mistaken: policy pages have the largest inertia, otherwise there would be a complete chaos. `'Míkka 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Agreed. And by definition, any policy page section that is that controversial is not a true Wikipedia policy. Policy pages are supposed to encode broad areas of agreement and practice among Wikipedia editors. When something is so controversial as this, it's a sign it doesn't belong in the policy page. COGDEN 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: controversial policy pages? This is official policy. Current widespread Wikipedia practice? Is exactly what this policy reflects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. Look around. See how primary and secondary sources are used. Jacob Haller 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text:  Claiming that there is no consensus because you do not agree is at best disingenuous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sword cuts both ways... Dhaluza 18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was so confused when I first came here. I pretty much am still confused, but at least I have a bit of background now to make a slightly more informed judgement call though, aand I still think the disputed section "Sources" should be on it's own page, so these "discussions" can happen there instead of here. I also think that the "Synthesis" section will eventually have the same sort of problem (maybe not though) and should also have it's own page. A policy should be fairly stable and have the overwhelming majority support, not be a place of constant edit wars and disagreement. I still fail to understand why a policy on "No Original Research" has definitions of what a "primary source" or "secondary source" is, or when to use one over the other, etc. It has nothing to do with "No Original Research". It's a completely different animal, though it may be relevant to some examples of how original research can occur (not neccessarily does occur). "I" think that as long as the "Sources" section stays, this policy will be a place for edit wars. The original inclusion was probably well-intentioned at the time, but it looks like all the arguments back and forth semm to center around this one small (on this page) section. If you go to the linked pages on the various sources, not only do you see better (more complete) definitions and examples, but you will also notice some discrepenicies between this policy and those pages. wbfergus 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your assessment. I created the WP:PSTS shortcut to this section back in June, because when I needed to refer to it, I couldn't find it where I expected to find it in WP:RS. Since then, I have wondered why these definitions were here rather than there. It really seems out of place. Dhaluza 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent POV-pushing 

message: I do not kinow why the page was unprotected, but it was protected for a reason and i protected it again in the version it had originally been protected in.  Mikka, do not screw with this.  we have page protection rules for a reason and you have just proven the importance of our policy - bias the protection and you just unleash a new edit war.  Now it is protected, nothing in the page has changed since it was firsdt protected by another editor, let's hash out conflicts here and reach consensus before unprotecting and changing the policy page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the page is protected, does anybody object to keeping the disputedtag template introduced to the section by User:ChazBeckett? This would at least temporarily alert readers that this section is the subject of dispute. COGDEN 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear that there is a dispute, though finding out which particular section is disputed would take some wading through the talk page. COGDEN 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are also rules about who should and who shouldn't protect, and those engaged in the conflict are in the "shouldn't" class, are they not?  --Minasbeede 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is't it up to the individual administrator to carefully determine whether or not that administrator has a stake in material for which there is an edit war? --Minasbeede 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see: "During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." You are or are not a party to the dispute. --Minasbeede 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.  I'm a relative newbie.  What do I see (rhetorical)? --Minasbeede 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an admin myself, I see nothing improper with Slrubenstein's protection. Slrubenstein initially protected the article, before becoming involved in the discussion, and the re-protection just returns things back to that point when it was first protected. There was an obvious need for protection again, and since the first protection was very proper, returning it to that state is still proper, even though Slrubenstein has now taken sides in the discussion. COGDEN 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Just wanted to point out that Butseriouslyfolks was making a joke not a criticism - "the wrong version" is a humor piece.--Kubigula (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection 

message: Are taking two sourced numbers and performing a math calculation original research? See Talk:Jatropha‎. For instance calculating any data on a per capita basis by dividing the value by the published population. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The case in question is definitely OR. In general, taking numbers from a bunch of different sources and combining them in this way leads to the question of whether the basis for the numbers fits. Mangoe 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that natural, obvious arithmetic is not OR, but that would be OR because it's a pretty novel comparison for someone without specialist knowledge (the Kelvin scale is pretty specialist). SamBC(talk) 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think in that case, the fact that it can reasonably be looked up fairly trivially and isn't central to the article, it's not objectionable. Common sense rules. Of course, that section is also written like a textbook, but that's beside the point. SamBC(talk) 17:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I didn't ask my question for guidance, I asked it to illustrate the problem with the current wording - and was rewarded: I got my illustration.  I had considered referencing the article on Pauli matrices, which I suspect is a very good article and also above the head of the guy who doesn't know about Kelvin temperatures - and maybe my head, too.  That some readers may not understand or even know where to begin does not turn simple math into "original research."  Yet with the current policy some lust to identify and remove anything that can remotely be characterized as "original research."  The policy no longer serves Wikipedia, Wikipedia (all of its editors) must serve the policy. Do we have consensus on the notion that policy trumps consensus, once the policy has been written (snarky rhetorical question)? --Minasbeede 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math calculations 

message: Reading over the discussion, the main issues people seem to have with primary sources revolve around 1) raw data, 2) historical/obsolete sources and 3) sources lacking analysis/interpretation and/or lacking editorial review of those claims. I am not necessarily proposing these are distinctions we should use in the policy. But rather, I'm inviting discussion of these points to see what distinctions we might arrive at to find a consensus for the policy.
#Raw data. Using raw data to support a claim outside of reliable third-party publications seems to be an obvious violation. Using raw data to "correct" or contradict a published source also seems to be an obvious violation. There seems to be strong agreement on this particular point.
#Historical. Using historical sources without third-party references to place them in context and provide analysis of the claims contained within such references seems to be a violation of this policy. Without third-party sources to provide such information and context, particularly about the reliability and historical importance of such sources, the use of such sources seems to be a de facto violation of no original research. 
#Inadequate sources. 
##Lacking analysis and/or interpretation. In the absence of analysis and/or interpretation, the source lacks context and information about its importance. In some cases, such context and importance is self-apparent, or plain on its face, such as boilerplate census data. However, this seems to be the exception, rather than the rule.
##Lacking editorial review. Reliable sourcing is predicated on modern models of editorial and/or peer oversight to ensure reliability and accuracy. Sources lacking such oversight are by default non-reliable, unless endorsed by the general body of reliable sources as an accurate and trustworthy source. However, such endorsements are rare and often heavily qualified. For example, Caesar's Gallic Wars is widely regarded as a pinnacle of ancient reporting, but is also acknowledged to contain unfounded hearsay and as a masterpiece of propaganda. Without modern reliable references, we cannot determine which claims are factual, inaccurate, hearsay or propagandized without engaging in original research and potentially introducing gross errors. 
Just some thoughts. What are yours? :) Vassyana 01:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that simply saying NOR in a particular context?  NOR is a policy.  Is there a need to enumerate all the ways (or any ways) that OR can be done, but shouldn't (in Wikipedia) or is it overall far better to just say NOR? --Minasbeede 14:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit confused, since my initial post in this section clearly describes the relevance of the various points to this policy. Are you disagreeing that those points are valid? Are you indicating they are extraneous to the discussion? Are you saying these issues should be addressed elsewhere? Please be more clear. Vassyana 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I think TimVickers (correct me if I'm wrong), is saying that eventually, hopefully pretty soon, "Types of Sources" and their definitions, with examples, should be moved out of the various policy pages for several reasons, one being consistency of definitions. It is fine for this policy to address "original research" principles as they relate to reliable sources vs. questionable sources, and how drawing any conclusions from the source (and then writing that into the article) if it hasn't already been published, is an example of OR. But it is beyond the definition of this policy to begin encroachment into a different subject area, mainly the types of sources, their  definitions and the whole "good" vs. "bad" debate. Keep this policy focused soley on what OR is and why there is a NOR policy. A few examples of how various sources can be used to infiltrate OR into an article may be appropriate however, and can be gleaned from previous discussions here. wbfergus  Talk 13:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for explaining, or at least providing your understanding of his comments. It's helpful to have a better idea of what's being expressed. :) Vassyana 15:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To make wbfergus' point in a simple way: "The sources may be poor, they may even be wrong, but it doesn't make it original research if they are used, just a bad article with poor sources." Spenny 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refocusing on the source discussion 

message: * Agreed - the use of raw data to draw conclusions is counter to WP:NOR (but would be ok for filling tables or referencing raw data like automic number or weight. 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that simply saying NOR in a particular context?  NOR is a policy.  Is there a need to enumerate all the ways (or any ways) that OR can be done, but shouldn't (in Wikipedia) or is it overall far better to just say NOR? --Minasbeede 14:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raw data

message: * Please define historical source usage above - The United States Constitution is a historical primary source for content of the document, there is nothing more accurate then the original.  Are you suggesting that a resource older then a specific age suddenly becomes unreliable?  Jeepday (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical

message: * Agree. Context is everything. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequate sources

message: Talking about various types of sources and their relative merits and demerits is interesting, but this does not address the subject of the policy - that editors should not add their own data and interpretations to articles. What types of sources publish useful and accurate data and interpretations, or what the editor's own ideas are based, on is not really all that relevant to this simple principle.
I think this discussion of various types of sources does not belong in the policy at all. Tim Vickers 03:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit confused, since my initial post in this section clearly describes the relevance of the various points to this policy. Are you disagreeing that those points are valid? Are you indicating they are extraneous to the discussion? Are you saying these issues should be addressed elsewhere? Please be more clear. Vassyana 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I think TimVickers (correct me if I'm wrong), is saying that eventually, hopefully pretty soon, "Types of Sources" and their definitions, with examples, should be moved out of the various policy pages for several reasons, one being consistency of definitions. It is fine for this policy to address "original research" principles as they relate to reliable sources vs. questionable sources, and how drawing any conclusions from the source (and then writing that into the article) if it hasn't already been published, is an example of OR. But it is beyond the definition of this policy to begin encroachment into a different subject area, mainly the types of sources, their  definitions and the whole "good" vs. "bad" debate. Keep this policy focused soley on what OR is and why there is a NOR policy. A few examples of how various sources can be used to infiltrate OR into an article may be appropriate however, and can be gleaned from previous discussions here. wbfergus  Talk 13:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for explaining, or at least providing your understanding of his comments. It's helpful to have a better idea of what's being expressed. :) Vassyana 15:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To make wbfergus' point in a simple way: "The sources may be poor, they may even be wrong, but it doesn't make it original research if they are used, just a bad article with poor sources." Spenny 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasonable points, but what is the relevance?

message: e.g. Ludwig von Mises wrote a work arguing against centralized economic planning. He called centralized economic planning (regardless of whether it involved worker-ownership) socialism and worker-ownership (without central planning) syndicalism (and hastily dismissed the latter). Syndicalism proper, mutualism (economic theory), etc. and most other forms of libertarian socialism get grouped into syndicalism and excluded from socialism.
Historically, all these have been considered socialism. This gets messy when Mises makes categorical statements condemning "socialism." It may not be clear whether these arguments apply to socialism as a whole or to socialism exclusive of syndicalism (etc.). Commentaries may inherit these definitions and face the same problem. Jacob Haller 02:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point. One of the roadblocks on factory farming was the inability to come to consensus on the term as to one party it was quite clear that in different contexts it meant different things, to another party it was interpreted more strictly as just one of those meanings, and then this strict definition was used to interpret other sources.  Good analytical editing is required to avoid an issue here. Spenny 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rant on special definitions 

message: There's a dispute at the article on the term "Anchor baby" concerning whether "common sense" interpretations of quotations that mention the term can be used to define the term. Some sources comment on the term and how it's used, and there's no question that those sources are allowed. It's the sources that use the term without commenting on it that are in question. My belief is that doing so is the equivalent of interpreting a primary source. Some other editors believe that we'll never find a source saying that the term is used in a certain way and that NPOV requires we include that usage, therefore it is aceptable to use our interpretations of the quotations. Do regulars here have any thoughts on this type of issue?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glancing at it as a non regular, the problem seems to be that editors are finding examples of the term being used, then categorising each usage as with or without "pejorative" or "negative characterization", or as purely descriptive. Looks very subjective to me, hence original research unless a reliable source uses such terms to describe the usage. At the least some caution would be needed, saying "what appears to be a pejorative characterization" for example, but that's still interpretation and in my opinion should be avoided. It might be appropriate to find notable uses and give them in sufficient context to allow the reader to make up their own mind, but secondary comment on what the usage means would be much better. What do others think? .. dave souza, talk 22:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, it's an assymetrical situation. We have reliable sources that say, "Anchor baby is a pejorative term", and no one is proposing interpreting quotations to buttress that definition. What we don't have are any sources that say "Anchor baby is not alwys a pejorative term". Editors would like to add the latter assertion based on their interpretation of quotations as using the term neutrally.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking at sources [4] and [6], they're presented as "without characterization" but both refer to the babies as a burdensome expense to the taxpayer, so that's questionable. The most you might say would be that negative implications of the term are not always clearly evident, probably it would be better to say that it's commonly used as a pejorative term without claiming that it's used in a neutral way or that it's always pejorative. Very much a matter of interpretation, so it seems to me that a source explicitly saying that it's not pejorative is needed. Just my opinion ... dave souza, talk 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  If there are no sources that refer to the term in non-pejorative way, we cannot say in the article "these sources did not use the term pejoratively" simply because we do not know that, and as such it would be OR if we say that. What we can say, though, is that these sources used the term to describe children born to immigrants. That's it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, my suggestion is it's better to say that the term is used to describe children born to immigrants [link to sources] and that x and y describe the term as pejorative. If z is found saying it's a positive term, that can be added later. .. dave souza, talk 00:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with much or all of the above.  You can't say "the term is sometimes used neutrally".  That would violate OR.  What you can do is (try to) use NPOV wording such as "x and y describe the term as 'pejorative'".  You do not have a duty to state "The term is pejorative".  That is disputed, unverifiable and (arguably) apparently likely false.  What is verifiable is that someone said it was pejorative, not that it (actually, always and everywhere) is pejorative.  --Coppertwig 17:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unware of this discussion. I am one of the principle parties involved in the dispute, along with two other editors above, at "Anchor Baby" and the one that agrees with the above assessments. I've tried to argue this case but to no avail. Some editors are completely insistant on declaring the term is absolutely pejorative even when presented with sources that might indicate otherwise. My main concern was and is NPOV for the article. Your input along with Spenny's would be helpful in clarifying the issue and I invite you into our discussion if you wish to join - if only to clarify the situation with WP:NOR as you see it. --Northmeister 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining terms by interpreting quotations 

message: I created the article Blackburn, Aberdeenshire. It's a sizable commuter village for Aberdeen but if you read the article you'll see that I said that it has an industrial estate. I could not find a citation referring to this specific fact, but it is completely true. There are online sites for the companies in the industrial estate, but nothing actually mentions that Blackburn industrial estate exists. I may have violated NOR here, what do you think?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By strict interpretation of policy, yes, this is original research. Whether a strict interpretation is appropriate in this case, I'm not sure. SamBC(talk) 13:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a good situation to apply WP:IAR... no harm arises from stating this fact, even if it is technically OR to do so. Blueboar 14:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't this really a verifiability issue? Seeing that there is an industrial estate is not the same thing as concluding there is an industrial estate.  There's the "to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail" phenomenon but that this page is about the "hammer" NOR doesn't make everything an NOR question. He saw it, he didn't cite a published source that says what he saw.  It has flawed verifiability (again, by strict interpretation of the policy.)  Probably somewhere there is a government document that indicates that the area in question is an industrial estate. I'd suggest that HisSpaceResearch put finding that on his list of priorities, of things to do.  Very low on his list. --Minasbeede 14:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just did a Google search for +aberdeen +"industrial estate" and got 353,000 hits. It shouldn't be to difficult to find a source that says it's there. wbfergus  Talk 14:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also is fairly apparent on Google Maps.  As is a big piece of lint. --Minasbeede 14:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this original research? 

message: I'd like to see some sources for this division of sources.
When I was a first-years in university, when studying "use of libraries and sources", I learned:
* Primary source: Article in peer reviewed journal (Is that what's called a secondary source here?)
* Secondary source: "Review article" in peer reviewed journal, doesn't provide new information, merely summarizes a number of primary sources. (is that a secondary or tertiary source here?)
* Tertiary source: A textbook or other large document, putting together information from many Articles and Review Articles. (what'd this be called on wikipedia, a *quaternary* source?)
I'm somewhat puzzled that scientific sources aren't even *mentioned* in the above discussion of sources.
Maybe I'm just a Science-biased crazy-type person, but like, can someone explain to me? 
And how can we pretend to be a reliable encyclopedia on scientific subjects if we don't know how to deal with scientific sources?
Or am I just stupid, and has this been handled someplace way back in the archives? (can someone point me to the relevant archive?)
--Kim Bruning 01:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, Yup, you are a nerdy Science-based crazy-type person... :>)  I have a feeling that the policy section was mostly written by humanities majors... the definitions fit fine with what we real scholars learned in university.  :>)... seriously, in the humanities, both peer reviewed articles and "review articles" would be considered secondary - primary is reserved to the original documents and data used in writing the secondary stuff.  In any case, I think we are trying to get rid of the word "sources" to avoid exactly this kind of confusion. Does primary "material" etc. work better for you? Blueboar 02:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another vote for "nerdy science-based crazy-type person". As a mathematician, I get to just make stuff up and publish it in peer-reviewed journals, so it counts as a primary source. I don't think that historians, for example, have that luxury. --Ramsey2006 09:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not good historians at least. Blueboar 13:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An article in a peer reviewed journal is a primary source if it's publishing original data (as opposed to ideas) - as in most "hard" sciences.  This is a primary source in Wikipedia, too, because these kinds of articles are essentially "written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations".  An article in a peer reviewed journal of one of the "soft" sciences like history is generally a secondary source.  I agree the wording Wikipedia is using isn't entirely clear, but I believe it does follow the conventions in both "hard" and "soft"-type science disciplines. LyrlTalk     C   15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of a scientific article is quite often that the data presented lend support to a particular idea that is being presented for the first time in that article: the researcher isn't engaged merely in a quest to find new raw data, he wants the data to enable a better understanding of some facet of nature.  The article is also a primary source for the idea, not simply for the data.  If in time that idea becomes established and if it is important then that article will be cited as the original place of publication of the idea.  Some scientific articles do simply report previously unknown results: X-ray crystallographic articles often being a good example of that kind of article.  What is reported is simply the locations of the atoms in a crystal.  (Of course a crystallographer can collect a lot of bond length data from such articles and formulate a general theory about chemical bonding, particularly if that crystallographer's name is Linus Pauling.) --Minasbeede 15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there is some confusion in the use of the word "Article".... to make sure we are all on the same page... in the NOR policy, this word refers to Wikipedia articles... not articles that appear in Scientific, or other academic journals.  Presenting original ideas in journal articles is common... in fact it is almost mandatory.  What this policy is saying is that Wikipedia articles should not contain the original ideas of Wikipedia editors.  Talking about, and citing, the original ideas of those writing in academic journals is fine... the idea did not originate with Wikipedia. Blueboar 17:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that primary sources do and can contain analysis and conclusions.  It's deceptive to claim that there's a neat line between "primary" and "secondary" by which "primary" means only data and "secondary" means/includes all analysis and conclusions.  That's not so, not in science. The motive behind scientific publication is to get original ideas accepted.  The primary sources (material) include analysis and conclusions.  Those are the authors analysis and conclusions and not the Wikipedia editor's analysis and conclusions.  That means that both primary sources and secondary sources do contain analysis and conclusions.  You can't diminish scientific publication (journal articles) to being merely the publication of data and observations.  The interpretation is a vital part of the publication.  In short, it's just plain false to claim "primary" excludes "analysis."  Any conclusion based on that claim is based on a false premise. --Minasbeede 20:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well... in the humanities, primary sources rarely include interpretive statements... but you certainly have a point in reguards to other study areas.  And from the comments, I don't think anyone has disagreed with you.  Again, the problem is with the word "source" and less with the words "primary" and "secondary". Blueboar 20:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lyrl said "An article in a peer reviewed journal is a primary source if it's publishing original data (as opposed to ideas) - as in most "hard" sciences."  A number of other people have also asserted on this talk page that scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals are primary sources.  However, peer-reviewed scientific articles practically always (in my experience) include discussion, interpretation and conclusions, and usually a summary of previous studies in the same topic, as well as data.  More importantly, peer-reviewed scientific articles are an important and often-used source for Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the policy needs to either explicitly make clear that when it says "primary source" it does not include the typical peer-reviewed scientific article, or else avoid mandating that primary sources are to be used in a manner which is "rare" or which does not involve "relying" on them, etc. --Coppertwig 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the second suggestion is the only way we can go here, because defining "primary source" in a non-standard, Wikipedia-only way that excludes peer-reviewed journals would only lead to confusion. We should use the terms the way they are used in academia, or not use them at all. COGDEN 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you've got the definintions exactly right, and the definition is the same in the humanities, as well, except in addition to peer-reviewed journal articles, primary sources include other sources where original ideas and data are found, such as biographies, diaries, interviews, newspaper editorials, etc. COGDEN 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the study of history, historical sources = primary sources and original ideas published in journals =/= primary sources. I'm sure those who have studied humanities in university have a slight bit more of a clue than you do on that count. Vassyana 19:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think there is any question that scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals are - according to the current definition in the policy - secondary sources.  It is also true that they may present data i.e. segments of primary source material.  This is not unusual: a history article may quote from a journal or archive and in that sense contain primary source material.  A sociological or anthropological article may contain within it transcription of an interview, which can serve as primary source material.  The distinction between primary and secondry (or data an analysis) however remains important for both Wikipedians and academics.  It is important for academics because it is always possible for scholar B to publish an article drawing on the data in another article by scholar A, but to make an orignal analysis.  This is acceptable in academic publishing and indeed a good scholar enables it by providing segments of raw data in his or her book or article.  We on the other hand have to discourage drawing on that material to make original arguments.  But whether one is encouraging or discouraging a new analysis, the distinction between the data and the analysis remains.  The problem here is that some people seem to think that these are mutually exclusive categories of texts.  They are not.  They need not be.  indeed, it may not be possible to come up with definitions that are both meaningful and mutually exclusive.  The distinctions lie in how the texts are used, not what the texts "are." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The famous(?) "OMG WTF, this isn't what I learned" argument 

message: A. Is the typing of sources that is advocated 
(1) intended to be for the education of editors before they edit
or
(2) intended to be used by other editors to challenge material inserted by other editors alert other editors to a problem and correct material that is OR?
B. Why must this be part of a policy rather than part of a guideline?
--Minasbeede 02:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking solely from my own personal experience, I first ran across Wikipedia several years ago when a Google Alert showed there was an article here on my old Army unit. I read the article and saw that it needed some mojor work, and started editing it. I becam involved in correcting it and several other articles as well, and then finding additional sources to back up what I'd written. Fast forwarding about two years, one of the things I'd written was criticized by another editor as OR. Not knowing what that meant, I came here. So, regarding "A", in my case it was definately "(2)". Regarding "B", I fail to see why anything more than a brief explanation of how sources (actually their misuse) pertain to this policy should be included. wbfergus  Talk 11:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for A: Both... ideally (1) but too often (2) (because too many editors don't read our policies before they start writing)... I would quibble with your language... instead of "challenge" I would say "alert other editors to a problem and correct material that is OR". As to B:  Because using such material incorrectly is a far too common form of OR - it makes perfect sense to discuss the problems of using such material in the NOR policy.  As I have stated before, many editors don't realise that using primary materials incorrectly is a form of OR... we have to spell it out for them in the Policy.  We don't have to be as long winded as we are in doing so... but it should be part of policy. Blueboar 13:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, how about these questions? 

message: I see it's been recently discussed by others (#Math calculations) which math calculations are allowed and which are not.  It would be nice if a section on this topic was added to the article.
Some of the numbers I work with in birth control articles may need to be altered to fit the context of the article - a 2% failure rate is the same as a 98% effectiveness rate, for example.  I don't think anyone would consider this type of calculation as OR; personally, I think it's more like paraphrasing.
Some of the contraception articles source the prevalence of the method in the United States to numbers from the National Survey of Family Growth.  Table 60 (on p.111) shows that 27% of women age 15-44 using contraception are using female sterilization, 18% condoms, etc.  The less popular methods were grouped into "other" in Table 60.  Their prevalence rates can be calculated by taking the number from the total population from Table 58, and dividing by the number of the population using contraception (from Table 59, this is 61.9%).  Is this original research?  I would tend toward saying no, since it's just using the same calculation the paper authors used for table 60, and is using the same source data the paper authors used (another table in the same publication on the same survey).  
But this use was challenged, and there doesn't seem to be an entirely relevant section on this policy page.  The person who challenged cited the synthesis section, but the source is in relation to the topic at hand and the calculation is not being used to advance a position.  The topic of mathematical calculations is obviously relevant to this policy, but I'm not sure the current sections provide sufficient guidance as to which calculations are allowed and which are not.
I feel a little silly not being able to interpret the policy page and having to ask on the talk page to see if edits I'd like to make follow policy (or not).  In addition to answering my question above, I would appreciate opinions on adding a new policy section along the lines of this:
::Trivial and obvious mathematical calculations are not original research, and may be used if they improve the encyclopedic value of an article.  However, calculations that use data from multiple sources, that require specialist knowledge to understand, or that are used to support original ideas or particular positions must be directly sourced and not calculated by a Wikipedia editor.
LyrlTalk     C   16:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say that and it's not all bad but for actual mathematics articles there may be steps in proofs that are the editor's own.  I don't know, am probably unskilled enough that I'll never know.  I'd not dream of flagging such an article as possibly containing unsourced statements, or steps, or whatever.  Specialist knowledge is definitely required no matter what the source for the steps of a proof, etc. but I think such articles shine brightly in Wikipedia and are a justifiable source of pride in Wikipidia.  There is a line between reasonable and justifiable computation or mathematical manipulation and improper computation or manipulation but I think it's very hard to draw that line precisely.  What you say is very reasonable and might be good enough for the policy.  Along with IAR (ignore all rules) there may be an implied "don't slavishly follow rules."  "Be bold" (which is part of the Wikipedia system.)  The focus should be on the product and on whether it is or isn't appropriate and not on the rules.  The rules exist to help make the product be appropriate and to ease the process of making it be so. What you suggest looks like it could work, provide it's not taken as an iron law. --Minasbeede 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that re-stating numbers through relatively simple calculation is fine... 2% water is the same as 98% not water... however, to draw a conclusion from that calculation (saying 98% not water means 98% some other specific element) without a reliable source to back it up does equate to OR. Blueboar 17:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also like to thank you for posting your specific example here. If you, as another relative "newbie", are confused by, or don't understand the policy, then it does help show that the policy needs better wording and/or clarification. Many of us have been debating this for around three weeks or so now without reaching any definitive concensus, though we are making some progress. wbfergus  Talk 17:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math - where is the line between paraphrasing and synthesizing/interpreting? 

message: Here is an interesting issue.  I am currently working up some material on the origins of the fraternal group know as the Freemasons (doing so off wiki at the moment - I'm still in the source gathering stage - so I don't have an article to link to for you.)  The issue is this... there are a bunch of competing theories about where the Freemasons came from... some scholars say the fraterinty grew out of the Medieval stone mason's guilds, others that it developed from the medieval Knights Templar, some even place it's origins as far back as ancient Egypt or the Celtic Druids. In my article, I am attempting to discuss all of these theories seriously, making note of who says what, the popularity and reputation each theory, and what the pros and cons of each theory are.  For each one, I have reliable sources that demonstrate its flaws and problems.  But now comes the potentially OR part... I would like to finish up my article by saying something along the lines of "All of these theories have gaps, and none have been definitively proven to be true.  For the moment the origins of Freemasonry remain "unknown"."  I would be happier if I had a source that actually said this... but most of the reliable sources focus on either "proving" one theory or another, or "disproving" one theory or another... I don't think anyone has ever actually said that none of them are definitive.  It is a logical conclusion when you examine all of the scholarship, but one that I would say is OR for me to make.  However... the policy currently is silent on stating a non-conclusion (unless you call it a conclusion of "No Conclusion").  Would you agree that adding a conclusion of "no conclusion" is a form of OR, or do you feel that such logical comments are ok? (and should we add something more definitive about this to the policy, or is it already covered?) Blueboar 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit late for the brain to work, but would it not be better to conclude that "none of the theories has gained widespread or general acceptance, leaving the question still open" or something on those lines? ... dave souza, talk 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "No conclusion can be made" is incorrect as many people do in fact draw a conclusion. "Opinions differ" and the like is not OR as the article properly sources just that. See Existence of God for a good example. WAS 4.250 00:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually wish to make a statement about the state of consensus and agreement on an issue, and you can support that, go for it.  If it's just throat clearing or wishy-washiness, no, that's not encyclopedic.  The point in saying that opinions differ on the existence of God is to highlight the nature of differing beliefs, not to assert as an encyclopedia that God may or may not exist.  Wikidemo 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this matches what I thought... but it is good to have that opinion affirmed.  I will either have to find a source that says it, or not say it at all. Blueboar 11:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with saying something like what dave souza suggested.  You just can't say that it isn't proven, since no doubt in some peoples' opinions it is proven. --Coppertwig 16:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  statements concluding: "No conclusion can be made" 

message: :Where is the link to this Request for Comment? One should be provided here. Please feel free to remove my comment here after providing the wikilink. Thanks. ... Kenosis 19:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above in the tag, it will be automatically added to the list. The heavy lifting is done by RFC bot. Vassyana 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kenosis, this is the RfC. The bot will add a link here to the RfCs page, to rovide wider notification that broader consultation has been requested. The discussion still happens here. SamBC(talk) 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh yes, thanks. I hadn't known that policy RfCs had been set up to be conducted this way; unlike the way RfC's are generally set up on a separate page. ... Kenosis 03:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all content-based (including content of policy) RfCs are done like this. User conduct and usernames are exceptions. I've been involved in this sort of RfC on normal articles as well. And if I don't fall asleep soon, I'm probably going to start seeing things... SamBC(talk) 03:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Sleep well -- argue later on, tomorrow, whenever ;-) ... Kenosis 04:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:PSTS