Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 28

message: I'd like to draw attention to this WP:EA thread, where it was asked if unsigned articles in other encyclopedias may be considered reliable. The user had asked after noticing the current NOR wording for tertiary sources: "For example, articles signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can be regarded as reliable sources." Maybe that should be amended with something along the lines of what I replied there? Input appreciated. |dorftrottel |humor me 12:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so see Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Reliability of unsigned encyclopaedia articles --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my reply there as well. |dorftrottel |humor me 14:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an unsigned article, the responsibility is the editors--just as in a newspaper.  I think in an encyclopedia of established high reliability, its acceptable, though not of the highest degree if there are better sources.  DGG (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  While there are usually better sources available, it's not like a reputable encyclopedia should automatically be considered a bad source, signed article or no.--Father Goose (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with DGG. The best encyclopædias can be an excellent source, but are by no means infallible and should ideally be checked against better sources. ... dave souza, talk 12:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  articles signed by experts 

message: Here's a possibility that might move us toward consensus. Many of the arguments against changing the controversial language in the article take the form of "you can't do that because it would weaken PSTS." On the other hand, those absolutely insisting on consensus language argue that "primary sources shouldn't be treated differently than secondary sources". So, what about this: let's leave the primary source requirements as they are, but add the same cautionary material to secondary and tertiary sources. Maybe it's not the final version, but it could be a step in the direction toward consensus and finally achieving a stable, actionable section on how sources relate to OR. COGDEN 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Primary sources provide facts, including the fact that a primary source close to the subject has made an analysis etc. Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, and are cited for such analysis of the primary source. If you can't understand that, you appear to be the odd one out here. You're welcome to discuss proposals, but repeatedly hacking about a policy page looks very much like disruptive editing. ... dave souza, talk 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that I had been the only person to feel that way regarding Cogden's edits -- it's refreshing to see that I'm not. •Jim62sch• 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a disruptive edit just to make a point. I think that strengthening the S and T elements of the policy would be a definite improvement, and a move toward consensus. If you think that a weaker S and T aspect of PSTS is preferable, then please explain why, rather than conduct ad hominem attacks. COGDEN 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one of your edits was repeating a lot of the same words that had already been said earlier on the page.  That makes it hard for a reader to follow -- or at least it takes up the reader's valuable time.  It's better to use short forms like "the same rules also apply to secondary and tertiary sources."  I think the current version already does that reasonably well, or at least as well as can be expected when people with different strongly held views have to work together to get consensus on it. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible way toward consensus: strengthening the neglected S and T elements of PSTS. 

message: A common concern is explaining that these categories are relative to the subject, so that a primary source in one context can be a secondary source elswhere. To point this out at the outset I've extended the introductory sentence to explain this: "Sources may be divided into three basic categories of how they relate to the subject being written about" This replaces a more extended example which was added earlier, and ties in with an edit which usefully clarifies the use of secondary and tertiary sources which I welcome. .. dave souza, talk 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSTS relative to subject 

message: Debates are still not coalescing to any measurable degree toward consensus.  We're still stuck in the "I don't like it because ..." with very little overlap between the discussants in either the what I don't likes or the becauses.  So let's try tackling one issue at a time:
*Do we dispose of (i.e. get rid of) the PSTS clause in WP:NOR altogether?  Please post a simple yes or no followed by a concise, single sentence argument for holding that position. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your strawpoll is pretty good in asking a true/false question, but unfortunately, you asked it in the negative, which always is more likely to confuse.  You should have asked "Should we keep the PSTS secrion in WP:NOR".  (Ref: from Robert's Rules of Order)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's find [[Where's Waldo|Waldo]] 

message: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that several recent proposals have no basis in current practice. Various PSTS changes seem e.g. to miss the fact that interpretive/evaluative/etc secondary sources are required to assess (un)due weight. Also, what happened to the standard that we shouldn't make large changes to policies without wide discussion or smaller changes to policies without talk page discussion, and can only make non-controversial changes when using only edit summaries? Avb 22:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled that you advocate this, since you have three times inserted the phrase "Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors", because "I saw a consensus for that version". But, "that version" was first entered today, without any discussion on the talk page. What is going on here? COGDEN 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what's happening here is that this page does not, as advertised, "have wide acceptance among editors". Most of the article reflects consensus, but this one section doesn't, and therefore has the status, effectively, of an essay. Thus, it's not a surprise that it is edited and reverted so frequently. COGDEN 18:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on here? 

message: With views expressed so far leaning strongly towards keeping some form of a PSTS clause in the WP:NOR policy, it might be helpful to try to gauge where we are about defining primary, secondary and teriary sources in terms of their application to this WP policy.  The polls are just meant to be tiny baby steps to sort out how strong the consensus is for going one way, vs another way, vs standing in place.  
Should this clause adopt 
:A) an academically sourced definition of primary, secondary and teritiary sources?  
:B) a definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources which was previously accepted at wikipedia by consensus?  
:C) somewhat different terminology to replace primary, secondary, tertiary to avoid confusion with other definitions used elsewhere
:D) none of the above (please specify)
Please identify a choice by its letter and share a concise, single sentence argument for holding that position. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a reason not to use the terms at all, not to re-make them in our own original-research Bizarro World version of the terms. COGDEN 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll to narrow dispute more 

message: Would it make more sense to keep the NOR relevant portions of PSTS in summary style in this policy, and split off the definitions of primary secondary and tertiary sources to a separate linked guideline with expanded definitions?
*Yes. This would allow the different usages in different fields to be explained separately, and would avoid the need to adopt an arbitrary one-size fits none definition as in A and B above. It would also allow the various case studies of application to contentious cases to be covered. This additional detail would be out of context in this policy, and would unnecessarily further obfuscate the basic premise of NOR. Dhaluza (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative proposal

message: One thing that has been revealed in the discussion lately, and a review of the policy history, is that the scope of this policy has experienced significant WP:CREEP. Originally intended to stop physics cranks from publishing their pet theories, it has morphed into a complex mix of different ideas. For example, the simple statement in an earlier version that OR makes WP into a primary source has been replaced with a complex taxonomy of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and detailed requirements on how they are used. This has caused significant overlap with other policies and guidelines, especially WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. 
I think the various policies need to be complimentary, not contradictory. One of the oft repeated arguments for keeping the added content in this policy is that it is needed to weed out dubious claims (where  claims could be either facts or interpretation). When dealing with dubious claims, each policy should have a clear, distinct and stand-alone role as follows:
#Is the claim directly attributable to at least one published source (or is it an obvious conclusion from the published sources)?
#*If not, then reject it per WP:NOR as original research; stop.
#*If so, then it is not original to the editor, and NOR is not applicable; proceed to the next step.
#Can at least one source be used as a reliable source for the claim?
#*If not, then reject as unverifiable per WP:V and/or WP:RS; stop.
#*If so, then it is verifiable; proceed to the next step.
#Is the claim excluded by other inclusion criteria, such as WP:NOT?
#*If the objective criteria show that it should be excluded, then reject it; stop.
#*If it is not excluded, proceed to the next step.
#Is the inclusion of the claim consistent with a neutral point of view?
#*If not, then edit the article as appropriate to restore NPOV.
#*If NPOV is achieved, then stop.
I think this simple and straightforward application of policy will actually make it easier to weed out dubious claims, as opposed to the current complex, overlapping, and IMHO overreaching policy expression here. In this construct, NOR is only concerned with determining if the material added by editors is original to that editor. Once it is established that the material was previously published, NOR should become moot, because it is not original, which is obviously required for it to be "original research".
Does anyone see a problem with this approach? Dhaluza (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, shouldn't the policy page say that?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't say that, because it would be false. Primary sources have never been any more problematic than secondary sources. I have yet to see any proof of User:Jossi's claim. Maybe that's why he has to keep repeating it. COGDEN 05:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the "Original" in "No original research" mean anything anymore? 

message: Many editors are citing primary sources (such as peer-reviewed journals).  It appears to be common practice on Wikipedia as well as in encyclopedias in general.
The policy holds that primary sources are unacceptable.
Should they be unacceptable?
Why?
The Transhumanist     00:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment just above. Primary literature in the natural-sciences sense (such as peer-reviewed journals) is no problem at all. Primary sources in the historian's sense (such as historical documents) are the problem. Two unrelated concepts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy doesn't hold that primary (close to the subject being written about) sources are unacceptable, it holds that they should be treated with particular care to avoid going beyond the source and introducing synthesis or unsupported value judgements. Note that primary sources also includes self published sources which meet WP:RS in the context of an article about themselves, but which are generally unreliable. ... dave souza, talk 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Moreover, for the purposes of this policy, many peer-reviewed journals are considered secondary sources. I agree that this sort of nitpicking should not be necessary, but it's necessary for people who want to pick nits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Apply WP:RS common sense. PSTS is if/then/unless hell. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The definition of "primary sources" is also problematic. There is no universal definition, and the one we have now is inconsistent with the examples. For example, why is a photograph a primary source? It is the work of the photographer, not the subject. Photographs should not be interpreted by editors, but not because they are close to the subject being written about. Dhaluza (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is the current practice harmful? Or is it?