Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 31

message: Further to my second comment to Kenosis above I'm being bold (for a change) and have prepared a revised version of PSTS at User:Smalljim/PSTS rewrite1. I haven't rewritten anything; all I have done is to move each of the paragraphs and bullets into one of two replacement subsections: "PS&T sources - definitions" and "PS&T sources - usage". I'm not submitting this as a finalized rewrite, or even as an alternative to Vassyana's rewrite, but it may help clarify where the disagreements here actually lie - is it the definitions, or the usage? To my mind though, it would be a more logical and tidy way of presenting the information. It also points up how little we presently say about what secondary sources actually are, which should be important because WP:N's "This page in a nutshell" directs readers here. Hope this helps.  —SMALLJIM  14:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look over the explanations for the text in my draft. They may or may not be useful as reference points. Vassyana (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused how many drafts we're considering now.  I like the ""Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources - usage" in this version, but support merging another suggestion from below to secondary sources clause so it would say something like: "Secondary sources. 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. However, the claims can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view. Care should also be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context." Professor marginalia (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't consider this as an alternative draft for consideration to replace the existing PSTS - I'm behind Vassyana's developing rewrite for that, and I certainly don't want to start a "my version is better than yours" war! I've changed the header to remove that impression. It was simply an idea that arose out of an earlier comment about the need to maintain the primary/secondary distinction for WP:N, but (probably) not for OR. I also thought that splitting it like this may help clarify in which parts of the present section the main disagreements here lie (I think it's pretty clear that they're mostly about PS usage, with some on PS definition). I note from later comments below that some see definition and usage as being inextricably bound together, so I assume they wouldn't want to see them split in this fashion anyway.  —SMALLJIM  14:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If we split PSTS into definitions and usage... 

message: Can we delete an uncited info just immidiatly after its addition or should we have a grace period? I mean if someone added an uncited info, should't we give it the benefit of the doubt and wait some time before deleting it?
If you agree on this grace period, then how long is it? Is there any policy for it or just it is up to people?Farmanesh (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more of a verifiability question. There's a decent amount of tension between immediate removal and letting it ride nigh forever. Generally, unless the information included is about a living person or is blatantly wrong, it's considered a bit rude just to remove the information. If the fact or claim is completely noncontroversial (like say, the earth revolves around the sun), no citation is needed. If you think it's appropriate to challenge the claim, adding  at the end of the statement to alert editors to the need for a reference is common practice. It would also be considerate to leave a polite message for the user who added the information requesting a source for the claim. If after a reasonable amount of time (at least a few weeks) a source cannot be found, it would be appropriate to remove the statement. If you can, find a reference for the article claim yourself. If you find a reliable source that does not completely match the article statement, go ahead and cite the source and rewrite the article claim to match the reference. Hope that helps! Vassyana (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the answer. But it seems very arbitary, basically it depends on the mood a person is in. As far as policy goes anyone can go around and immidiatly delete anything without citation. Policy-wise is that a fair say? If so where can we give suggestion to add this to wiki policies a reasonable grace period if it doesn't involve vandalism or live people?Farmanesh (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material. With respect to the grace period, Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources might be the good place to ask. I remember reading somewhere that "a month" was sufficient, but I can't remember where I saw that. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grace period? 

message: I've added the section except the final statement to the live policy. I think it would be good to get a little more feedback about it before adding it to the live page. As a reminder, that closing sentence is:
Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims about primary sources are included in Wikipedia articles, use secondary sources rather than using your own analysis.
What do people think of adding that as a closing statement for the secondary sources paragraph? Vassyana (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what's been done to your text since you made it "live", Vassyana, what I think is that you're obviously wasting your time, talents and insights trying to get anything changed here. I have no doubt you're feeling extremely frustrated again. I wonder if writing an essay would be a more profitable avenue to explore? Some essays are widely read and cited, WP:BEANS for instance. Maybe you could build up a wider consensus via that route. Hope this helps,  —SMALLJIM  11:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I walked away in frustration already. I'm not doing so at this juncture. I'm not going to let basic consensus building and discussion be brushed away with frustration and "bold" editing. Vassyana (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, you might be right. I received a warning exhorting to use the talk page and respect consensus for ... enforcing actively discussed changes. This from a person who claims his views aren't views, but Foundation level policy, who hasn't bothered to join in the discussion of the changes or bothered to propose his own changes. It's sickening and tiresome. Vassyana (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implemented 

message: So far, nobody here has come forth with a single reputable source that defines primary and secondary sources in the scientific literature any different that I did. I'll paste my sources again, below, with some annotation. Many of these are university library's pages. 
 
# University of Hawaii "How does Biological literature evolve over time?" 
# William Madison Randall Library "Identifying Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources" 
# Cal State Northridge "Types of Resources" 
# University of Minnesota Bio-Medical Library "Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources in the Health Sciences" 
# Diablo Valley College "Identifying Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources" 
# Florida Institute of Technology "Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources" 
# Yale University "Lesson 3: Recognizing Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources" 
# OhioLINK, is a consortium of 86 Ohio college and university libraries, and the State Library of Ohio "Cycle of Scientific Literature" 
# University of California Santa Barbara "Distinguishing Between Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources" 
# eric.ed.gov Education Resources Information Center "Chemical Literature Exercises and Resources" 
# And finally, a book: Writing Guidelines for Postgraduate Science Students By John Hampton.
*I'll ask again: Does anybody have any sources about what constitutes primary and secondary literature in science to refute the sources I give above? All my sources say that in the scientific literature, a report on an experiment by the experimenters is primary, and a review article is secondary. Those of you in the humanitites, please understand that science is different. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my reply to you again. I perfectly acknowledge how science typically defines their sources. Wikipedia policy deals with all fields and therefore does not conform to one particular subject's treatment, but rather deals with the source distinctions in a way appropriate for Wikipedia. We are not publishing scientific literature here, we are creating a general-use encyclopedia. Different purposes require different standards. The footnote at the beginning of the PSTS section deals with this matter (Wikipedia:No original research# note-0) and the text explicitly states that the definitions are drawn for our own purposes here ("For the purposes of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are broadly defined as follows:"). Vassyana (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even sticking to the definition at Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, journal articles (those that are not reviews) count as primar:y since "are very close to the origin of a particular topic." Scientists, like everybody else, put the best possible face on their work, and that's why it is necessary to have a secondary source (a review article) to make sure the topic is as important as they say it is. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and Vassyana you put that note in there. You are arguing in bad faith. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly in bad faith at all. I did not insert the lede paragraph statement into policy. The caveat footnote was simply an observation based on months and months of talk page discussion. Its insertion was discussed and was originally part of the main text. Due to some objections over the bloat of the text, it was moved to a footnote. The other footnote was added to a proposal because other editors expressed a need for footnotes with a broader definition that better encompasses the breadth of topics on Wikipedia. I simply added two reasonable footnotes expressing the broader intent of the policy per the feedback of others. You make it sound as though I put that material into policy of my own accord, when those changes were made based on the feedback of others after building a consensus. Vassyana (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The "close to the origin" language is not particularly precise. Primary sources report data; secondary sources interpret data to make analytic and synthetic arguments. You may be thinking mostly of experimental sciences, where a paper consists mainly of data with a small amount of analysis. Papers like that should indeed be treated as primary sources. On the other hand, in other areas such as computer science and mathematics, most papers have no experimental data, and consist entirely of analytic and synthetic arguments. Such papers, by their nature, are secondary sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks you for your well-reasoned response. This debate is occuring here over a project to make 10,000 stubs for genes, using a lot of scientific papers that consist of little more than reporting of data; "We found a gene, it has sequence ATGGC..., it makes a protein that looks like a protein in another species based on a computer program that looks for these things." I've been suggesting to the folks at User talk:ProteinBoxBot that they might run into trouble with notability without review articles. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds more like an issue resting on N's requirement for multiple reliable sources, with the intent of requiring enough sources to produce an encyclopedic article (in accordance with WP:NOT, from which N originally derives). Does that make sense? Vassyana (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess. The editor who brought this debate here probably should have taken to to the notability talk page, do you agree? AnteaterZot (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a question of notability, I agree. It is complicated by the question of how far our mission to be encyclopedic extends. For example, some claim that all towns should have articles regardless of the existence of reliable sources about them. The catchphrase used for that is "inherent notability", even though it isn't about notability so much as it is about the mission of the project. So it will require some discussion to determine which genes should have articles. WP:N or (preferably) the village pump are good locations for that discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Carl that N's talk page and the policy village pump are the best places to address the matter. Vassyana (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree that those two venues would be the best place. However, as I remember it, the discussion was brought here primarily because this policy is where the 'source type' distinction was referenced from Notability. Since this policy, which should be strictly about No Original Research took it upon itself to create terms and definitions not directly related to No Original Research, another policy was linked here for these definitions/terms, hence this policy's discussions were yet again sidetracked. wbfergus  Talk 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is why appending PSTS as a rider to this policy is a bad idea. It really has nothing to do with original research, because if there is a published primary or secondary source for material, it is not original. Dhaluza (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So far, I am unrefuted

message: Vassyana recently made an excellent addition to the secondary source section:
::Secondary sources are usually preferable because they generally provide analysis and a broader context for the subject, and usually offer a more independent view. However, they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher, so caution is required to preserve the neutral point of view. Care should also be taken to avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context.
SlimVirgin removed Vassyana's addition without any rationale.  In response to this removal of important, relevant (and easy to source) material, I added the following:
::Secondary sources on Wikipedia should have a reputation for fair and objective reporting, as they can be biased by the views of their author(s) and/or publisher.Hacker, Diana. (1999). A Writer's Reference. Fourth Ed. p. 70.  Caution should be taken to preserve the neutral point of view , avoid undue weight and ensure the information cited is used in context.''
SlimVirgin responded to my addition/modification of Vassyana's original edit by reverting to her version which removes the warning about secondary source bias.  Her reason in the edit summary stated: "rv that isn't true -- secondary sources do not need a reputation for unbiased reporting; we have to use biased secondary sources all the time per NPOV)"
Read that again, please: we have to use biased secondary sources all the time per NPOV.  This is a very strange assertion.  There is nothing in the NPOV policy that is at odds with using fair and objective secondary sources.  The nutshell states that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias."  This is very clear.  One is not required to use "unfair and subjective" secondary sources to represent a view --  it never needs to be done at any time.  If a particular POV cannot be found in a reliable, secondary source that is considered fair and objective, then it probably does not meet notability guidelines, nor is it a "significant view" per NPOV.  However, there are always exceptions: historical articles, articles about an organization, or important niche topics (such as scientific subdisciplines) may make use of primary sources carefully to represent a POV where there is a dearth of secondary sources, but in such cases, we should always strive to find fair and objective secondary sources whenever possible and question why they are lacking.
Wikipedia needs to maintain the highest ethical standards in sourcing while at the same time paying attention to NPOV.  I fail to see how SlimVirgin's reversion and subsequent rationale is supported, and I find the removal of secondary source bias issues from this policy and the related ethical principles very troubling.  Wikipedians must be ethical researchers, and we must start by acknowledging  the deficiencies of secondary sources.  Editors should be encouraged to evaluate all sources for fairness and objectivity, but on Wikipedia the concern is secondary sources; author, publisher, and editorial bias in primary and tertiary sources on Wikipedia is almost unknown. —Viriditas | Talk 08:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that especially biased sources are problematic, I believe the change as worded will lead to wide swaths of perfectly legitimate sources being excluded. For example, it most cases one can hardly say that a Jesuit scholar writing about Catholic theology is "unbiased" or "objective", but certainly in most cases that would be a perfectly reliable and desirable secondary reference to use in describing Catholic theology. Does that concern make sense? Vassyana (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, there is a vocal group of people who consider all mainstream science 'biased' because they view the scientific establishment negatively. So it's no use to try to exclude biased sources, since then this minority will try to use that language to exclude valid mainstream sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I can clearly see both side arguments in this instance. But, the actions without honest and active discussion by the parties involved speak more volumes. If you are going to add, edit, or revert, please have an active and honest discussion first. Otherwise your actions appear as knee-jerk reversion and smacks of ownership. This is a policy for all of Wikipedia, not just a select few to interpret and implement as they choose. wbfergus  Talk 13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beware, however, of online encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia, that rely on anonymous contributions rather than on carefully edited entries written by established researchers.  Wikipedia has proved to be relatively accurate in the sciences, but overall it is uneven and sometimes wrong.  Never cite it as an authoritative source.
We want to alert our contributors, registered or anonymous, about the hazards of secondary sources, particularly because Wikipedia relies on them more in non-science topics than on primary sources used in science. —Viriditas | Talk 15:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: But I can use a primary source to do just that, and in many cases, that primary source is supported by a fair, objective secondary source saying the same thing.  There really isn't a good reason to use biased secondary sources at any time, although I've been told that "people do it all the time".  That must make it ok, then...for eight million readers of Turabian to be told to stay as far away from Wikipedia as possible.  If people want to keep supporting policies that are driving this site into the ground, that's their choice. —Viriditas | Talk 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can only use sources you can find. Your position is that the existence of a biased point of view must not be mentioned in an article, unless a fair and unbiased source can be found that says the point of view exists, no matter how many biased secondary sources exist that put forward the point of view. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said a biased point of view must not be mentioned.  I said: "Secondary sources on Wikipedia should have a reputation for fair and objective reporting".  Huge difference.  And biased POVs are often covered by reliable secondary sources that are considered fair and objective.  What you're really saying is, what happens when you can't find a source that meets this requirement?  This is already covered by WP:RS and the procedure for evaluating sources.  I'm just putting it into words. —Viriditas | Talk 15:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary sources: bias, fairness, and objectivity 

message: Somehow an inadvertant edit was made which wound up duplicating most of the content on this page, except for (I think) the last 5 edits by Smalljim and AnteaterZot. So try and fix this, I removed the first (original) set of the discussions, as I think the subsequent edits were added to the end, which would be in the duplicated section. I will notify those two users what I did and why, asking them check if I did this correctly, and to readd their comments if not. Any other problems anybody notices, please feel free to correct. wbfergus  Talk 12:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'd just noticed and was about to delete, but you pipped me to it!  —SMALLJIM  12:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Using my deepest Arnie voice) No problemo. wbfergus  Talk 12:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing comment 

message: A lot of undiscussed changes were implemented into the recent replacement of the secondary sources paragraph, along with some edit-warring back and forth over it. A user has a conduct RfC active, an ArbCom case was filed and this page has been protected for weeks at a time. These symptoms arose exactly because of undiscussed changes and reverts. At this point, it's clearly and plainly disruptive behavior. Please discuss any significant changes before making them. The discussion for that text is at the obviously named WT:NOR#Secondary sources. Reviewing some of the changes:
*  Ignores the reasoning behind the changes clearly linked in the discussion. Ignores the footnote which states that secondary references are "based upon primary sources and the work of other authors" [emphasis added]. 
*  A significant alteration of the text, completely without discussion.
*  Within the spirit of the proposal, though the introductory phrase is a significant clarification/specific point and should be discussed first. Posted for discussion by the editor at WT:NOR#Secondary sources: bias, fairness, and objectivity.
If someone wants to comment on an active discussion, they are perfectly welcome to do so. People waiting until after a change is implemented (based on talk page discussion) to impose their "discussion" through editing is simply intolerable and disruptive. If a change occurs after discussion and you disagree, please voice your opinions on the talk page like everyone else. Vassyana (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally this episode is a point in favour of my suggestion of an "under discussion" tag for policy pages.  —SMALLJIM  12:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside of a single comment (which was addressed), those significantly altering and/or reverting the secondary sources section have not joined the discussion. As such, I am restoring the proposed draft since it lacks significant and/or substantiated opposition. Vassyana (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to secondary sources 

message: I'm afraid that Tim Vickers asked his question in the wrong spot, but as you can see, nobody there has come forth with a single reputable source that defines primary and secondary any different that I did. I'll paste my sources, which completely agree with me, below, with some annotation. Many of these are university library's pages. Do you think it likely that university librarians don't know what they are talking about? Or that science professors would allow the librarians to get it wrong so often, since they have to tell their students what a primary and secondary source is while directing their student's writing? 
# University of Hawaii "How does Biological literature evolve over time?" 
# William Madison Randall Library "Identifying Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources" 
# Cal State Northridge "Types of Resources" 
# University of Minnesota Bio-Medical Library "Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources in the Health Sciences" 
# Diablo Valley College "Identifying Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources" 
# Florida Institute of Technology "Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources" 
# Yale University "Lesson 3: Recognizing Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources" 
# OhioLINK, is a consortium of 86 Ohio college and university libraries, and the State Library of Ohio "Cycle of Scientific Literature" 
# University of California Santa Barbara "Distinguishing Between Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources" 
# eric.ed.gov Education Resources Information Center "Chemical Literature Exercises and Resources" 
# And finally, a book: Writing Guidelines for Postgraduate Science Students By John Hampton. AnteaterZot (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from bot discussion page 

message: In an undiscussed set of edits, Slim Virgin removed the following passage from the policy page:
:All sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable. Where interpretive claims, analysis, or synthetic claims are included in Wikipedia articles, use appropriate sources rather than original analysis by Wikipedia editors.
The removal occurred during an edit that was ostensibly because "someone removed that articles need secondary sources."
I question its removal, 
* because this paragraph is a key statements in NOR policy, 
* in light of SlimVirgin's assumption (?) that its necessary to ramble on about PS/SS. 
* that there was a discussion about this only yesterday, to which she did not contribute.
If nothing else, this is the application of a double-standard, i.e. "bold" editing, ignoring so-called "consensus", and the idea that one keeps thing because they've been in the policy since Noah. 
Comments? -- Fullstop (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I would like to see is the community enforce a 1RR on policy pages and ban tag-teaming reverts altogether. —Viriditas | Talk 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hear, hear. Or at least temporarily. (Although difficulty in defining "tag-teaming" - blech. Ideally editor/admins would just police themselves.) --Lquilter (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've undone the edits, because they were significant and it was not discussed on the talk page. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Vassyana (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I edited conflicted restoring Brimba's harmonization because SlimVirgin restored that portion of the revert (appropriately so). Vassyana (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SlimVirgin's recent edit(s) 

message: Perhaps a way towards some sort of compromise would be by leaving the 'Sources' section, but relegating the actual definition of the terms in the appropriate articles after those three articles Primary sources, etc. were expanded to have discipline specific definitions (maybe a lot of work?), each of them upgraded to at least 'guideline' status, and then appropriately linked from this policy (and any others), similar to "definition of these terms is beyond the scope of this policy, see the appropriate guideline for a more complete, discipline specific set of definitions". Most of the current wording would still remain in the policy, but the actual definitions are just moved elsewhere for more complete coverage. This policy could then merely state what it needs to about primary, secondary, etc. without getting bogged down in conflicts over what is a primary source, etc. in which context or in regards to which discipline. 
In the interests of trying something new for clarity, can anybody responding please respond only in the correct designated 'area', either 'For' or 'Oppose' with a brief statement of why you think so? If you disagree with somebody elses statement, please do not respond directly underneath it, it makes following discussions for either 'side' more difficult. Use the separate 'Comments' section instead. 
===For===
# wbfergus  Talk 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this be acceptable, re: PSTS 

message: # wbfergus  Talk 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''For'''

message: # -Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Oppose'''

message: # wbfergus  Talk 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Comments'''

message: I'm wondering when a secondary source becomes a primary source based on what it contains (disregarding the identity or affiliation of the author).
*Certainly secondary
**Contains anything that would be proper in a Wikipedia article
**Contains interviews or summaries of interviews with identified persons
**Contains correspondence with identified persons
**Author made decisions about what to include or exclude
**Author decided which of several conflicting sources was correct
**Contains excerpts or summaries of documents not available to the public
**Contains calculations that could be reproduced by a person with specialized knowledge, starting from the same sources used by the author
**For reviews, expresses the authors like or dislike of the work under review.
*Possibly primary
**Author proposes theory or explaination that (purportedly) harmonizes various sources, but is not contained in any of the sources
**Contains statements about what is or is not the mainstream view, presumably based on extensive reading, but without giving a specific list of citations. 
**Expresses authors opinion about documents or objects, based on reading other sources (e.g. "there isn't a chance in hell this new standard will be widely adopted.")
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just not how the terms are used in the sciences; the peer-reviewed articles in Nature, Science, etc., are "the primary literature". --Lquilter (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about Nature and Science, but some science and technology journals publish some tutorial or review articles, which would be secondary sources by anybody's definition. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but those aren't "the primary literature", nor are they the bulk of scientific publishing. Peer-reviewed articles publishing research are the "primary literature"; so-called "review articles" are the "secondary literature". Which is exactly why the PSTS is weird, to say the least, for application in science articles on wikipedia. ... Science is just one example of how the current definition is over-simplified and not adequately interdisciplinary. Another example is legal scholarship. Setting aside the question of legal documents (which typically include a significant amount of analysis themselves), legal scholarship has its own rules. The PSTS isn't inapplicable, per se, but other features peculiar to legal scholarship are arguably as or more significant.  Peer-reviewed journals in law are few and far between; the vast majority of legal scholarship is published in student-edited publications -- and there are hierarchies within these, e.g., law review versus non law review journals. The critical distinction, for instance, between student "notes" and faculty publications in a law review is indicated within law simply by an italicized Note after the student name, and that significantly affects the reliability of the source. Etc. ... The current policy would suggest that citing a peer-reviewed paper in Science is less favorable for a proposition than citing to a review article published in, say, Tiny Journal of Miniscule Detail. So for DNA we wouldn't cite to Watson/Crick we would cite to Random Nobody.  That's weird for a lot of reasons (not least because the review article is likely not peer-reviewed itself, and so its re-statements of the proposition have received less scrutiny than the original statements.) --Lquilter (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is discrepancy between what I wrote and what would be considered secondary in science. If someone wrote an article that contained only the elements I listed as "certainly secondary" and submitted it to a science journal as a research paper, it would surely be rejected for lack of originality, wouldn't it? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you mean "certainly secondary"? Anyway, my point is not that your placement of the material into the system is wrong, but that scientists would not recognize the way we use the terminology -- they would call a paper "primary" that according to your scheme would be called "secondary". (Although if I am not mistaken SlimVirgin has described that kind of peer-reviewed paper as "primary", but meaning something different than we mean; meaning that it should be disfavored since it is a description by the scientist of the scientist's own research, hence "close to the source".) Since the usage is inconsistent editors coming from science disciplines will be confused. --Lquilter (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The meaning of primariness and secondariness is set forth very well in the primary source and secondary source articles. Primary and secondary are relative terms, and like any relative terms (e.g., up/down, right/left, earlier/later), they depend on context. You can't say a source is always primary or always secondary, because it depends on how it is cited. There are certain types of works that are almost always cited in a primary way, such as journal articles, interviews, diaries, and raw data, but these can just as easily be secondary too, like if you cite a scientific journal for its comments on another scientific journal. COGDEN 21:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is true.  Usage depends on context and on the field/discipline using the sources.  It is also true that secondary sources can be biased, and that great care must be taken when using them, perhaps more so than primary sources.  Sources must also  be evaluated for fairness and objectivity.  The current policy ignores the most important issues, which I find strange. —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary vs. secondary based on content 

message: Apologies if this conflicts with something already going on in the last 5 sections. I've been distracted framing what follows. Here goes.
--------------------------------
;Background/Introduction:
:In this comment SlimVirgin asserted that "notability is central to OR."
:Now, I've seen this "Notability is central to OR" mantra repeated ad-infinitum, with no one - until Dave souza - having explained how this might be so. (Thanks Dave!)
:In this comment, Dave notes that "notability" is not in fact confined to WP:Notability, but is rather "in the general sense of meaning 'significance in relation to the subject'." With this, Dave has proffered a glimpse of what the heck that mantra is supposed to mean. It however leaves some other issues I'd like to address. 
:A word of caution in advance though: none of these is new. Although my conclusion will come back to this note, please do not gloss to the end.
--
;'Significance' and NOR:
* Even in the most general sense of the idea of 'significance' of a source, there is no relationship to OR. Even the most significant of sources can be subjected to OR. Inversely, even the least significant of sources can be subjected to OR. I know of at least one article that consists entirely of misrepresented secondary sources. The ostensible subject/topic of the article has been academically referred to, the sources are themselves 'significant', but almost every sentence in the article is still a complete fraud, down to the faked interwikis.
* But how on earth can significance be central to OR anyway? The ability to corrupt a source is not influenced by the significance of that source. Its utopian to assume that editors are going to be thinking "out of respect for the source's significance I shall not misrepresent it" or even "let me find a less significant source to upchuck onto wikipedia." 
* The significance of a source is not something that can be influenced by NOR policy either. Not only do we have WP:RS policy to govern the suitability/significance of a source, the 'process' that leads to misrepresentation of a source takes place after the source has already been selected.
:The 'significant' source, once chosen (ideally in accord with WP:RS), is secondarily going to have statements taken from it. Whether those statements are going to be accurately represented on WP, or whether they are going to be warped to say something that they do not, is a process independent of how 'significant' that source is.
:In fact, editors who are out to push a stance will intentionally look for a source that (vaguely) "reflects" what they want to push, the more 'significant' the source turns out to be, the better. I have seen this happen myself. Not 'just' with secondary and tertiary sources, but even with the finest authoritative sources.
:Under those circumstances, it is meaningless to invoke NOR. PSTS in NOR effectively cripples any invocation of NOR. One can't say "Hey, thats OR!" The editor will simply turn around and say "No, thats not. This is the finest source there is." Yes, of course it is gaming the system, but when was the last time that an admin took the trouble to explain things to a recalcitrant editor? Its much too much trouble to go to Arb/Mediation over content, even if an editor could be sure of the outcome. Given that pure content disputes are almost impossible to resolve by an (essentially uninterested) third-party, an editor would have to force a war to find something actionable first. So the smart editor shrugs his shoulders and goes away. The crud stays.
--
;Conclusion:
:Whatever meaning 'notability' is supposed to have, the notion that it is "central" to 'no original research' policy, or even that there is any correlation at all, is far out of touch with how sources can be and are misused. Its based on the utopian premise that editors are not going to be using everything in their power to misuse WP. If this were so, and sadly its not, we wouldn't need policies.
:Now, as I noted in the introduction, none of these points is new. The typical response to any of them has thus far been "oh, the policy is fine. The editor is at fault." That is not good enough! Non-administrators have no leverage.
:Editors have no active protection in a content dispute. And we desperately need it. If not by admins directly, then at least in being able to invoke policy. To know that what we are doing is good and has blessing is the least we should be able to expect.
Sorry if this has turned into an essay in its own right. I hope its not too boring to read. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the sandbox Wikipedia:Source typing there is a section about Notability, in which you expand on your points above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree strongly with this - WP:N is already one of our most problematic concepts, and is the source of a terrifying share of our bad press. No small portion of the problem is that WP:N is based on excessively programmatic and rigid perspectives on sourcing that lead towards arbitrary conclusions. I strongly oppose using WP:N as any foundational part of this policy simply because this is a policy, and WP:N is an ugly hodge-podge that continues to need a heavy cleaning up. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree that some of the things this part of the policy is trying to articulate might better be expressed as statements about notability and its sourcing. Statements about notability might be better off in WP:N then WP:OR. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Notability
Significance is central to OR? 

message: Vassyana, you made significant changes with no consensus, yet when other people undo some of them to restore old language, you revert saying they need to discuss first on talk. But it has been discussed. There is no consensus for those changes, so please don't keep introducing them. Some of what you changed did stay, but some parts were very problematic e.g. removing that articles should be based on secondary sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the changes I've made were based on discussion and well-advertised on the village pump and RfC. You do not get to mystically assert "consensus" or "no consensus" or push your opinion through edits any more than anyone else. You are doing exactly the sort of editing that you criticize COGDEN for. If you disagree with changes to the policy you are free to contribute to the discussions like anyone else. Vassyana (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I should also add that asserting your edits have been proposed or discussed is a bald-faced lie simply not true. Vassyana (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gals, guys, please take a deep breath... This discussion is becoming a bit over the top. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's becoming beyond ridiculous. I more than a little tired of being told by <expletives> that haven't bothered to discuss their changes to go to this talk page to discuss the changes that we've already discussed and agreed upon!!! So, pardon me if my comments are mildly over-the-top, because that kind of asinine behavior deserves far less kind language. Vassyana (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Vassyana, you're going way too far. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly, unless you care to point out where I'm crossing the line. I don't see calling a spade for a spade going anywhere near too far. The simple facts are that the changes I made were well-discussed and revised according to feedback, while your edits have not been proposed and discussed (quite contrary to your assertion). You're perfectly welcome to join the discussion, if you would care to. Vassyana (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vassana, your behavior here is completely unacceptable. To call your fellow editor "a bald faced liar" is a personal attack. If you persist with this type of behavior, you will be blocked per WP:NPA. If you want to effect changes, you must reach consensus with everyone, not just a sub-group, and you cannot attack those who disagree with you as 'liars'. Crum375 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Take your own advice about reaching consensus. Why not propose your edits like everyone is required to? If some people will not express their opposition in a reasonable fashion, there is no obligation to accept their dissent. It's not a matter of attacking someone who disagrees with me and if you believe so, I guess you've your opinion. Vassyana (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see Vassyana's comments as crossing the line or going to far. I see it as venting frustration with dealing with what appears to many people (judging by the comments here and other places) of a double-standard. That's all. On one hand the original (now stricken) statement could possibly be interpreted as a personal attack (similar statements in the Old West did generally lead to a gunfight), it was more or less a statement about one specific incident, not a gross-overstatement regarding all of Vassyana's opinions about anything and everything dealing with SlimVirgin. wbfergus  Talk 14:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Me too. --Lquilter (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And me three.  The talk page is an unwieldy 500K in length, with 300 edits just since this weekend.  Plus another 40ish to the mainspace.  At this point, anybody rushing to edit that main space, I don't care if it's supposedly a consensus edit, a "there is no consensus" revert, or to simply to make a spelling correction!, is just adding to the madness.  I say we archive the whole page and take some kind of a break.  With a fresh start, we agree to follow something at least roughly resembling a systematic approach to finish this, by setting a timeframe target for one thing, so editors can actually follow along and contribute to the beginning, middle, and end to this mess and get on with actually editing articles around here. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Prof M.  After all these years er, months of struggle, are we rushing to get changes into place before Christmas holiday? ;-) Dreadstar † 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I want for Christmas is a NOR policy that every single Wikipedian can heartily endorse as clear, accurate, concise and perfectly understandable to every person with a high school education. Is that asking to much?     :^)      wbfergus  Talk 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're more likely to get that ipod. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Are there syntheses, previously unpublished, which do not advance a position and which Wikipedia would therefore publish?  In other words, is "to advance a position" a superfluous phrase that could be deleted?  Or, is it helpful because any article written is, to some extent, a previously unpublished synthesis, albeit only in the sense that it is a new tertiary source; obviously it must not advance positions or novel ideas. ? --Lquilter (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not superfluous but crucial. All Wikipedia articles are previously unpublished syntheses. What's not allowed is for a position to be advanced via synthesis. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine. I just wasn't sure if that was the intended use or not -- if so, then as you say it's essential to ensure that people don't start demanding we only reprint previously published articles. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems with Lquilter’s main changes, although I would retain the phrase “The only way”. I too think we should retain “to advance a position”. Brimba (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't work the "you must" construction; do you want to get rid of that as well? (Can you post what you're thinking of that combines my comments that are okay with you?) --Lquilter (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm..scratch that. Looks fine now that I see the entire thing. Brimba (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. Go for it. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually to avoid the revert wars I would suggest holding off on "going for it" just for a little while longer (a day or two) to seek more consensus. --Lquilter (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks fine.  Dreadstar † 07:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: query on "to advance a position"

message: Would editors consider useful to explore the creation of a PSTS page in a sandbox?
The idea could be:
# Create a PSTS page in which the subject of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is explored in general
# The PSTS page will have specific sections about the application of source typing to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and any other pertinent policy
# Create summaries of these sections that can be featured in the main policy pages as per WP:SUMMARY
I think that pursuing this will be more productive that being stuck in this debate here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Started the sandbox at Wikipedia:Source typing. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a general 'placement' question. Any particular reason the page was created there instead of in the 'Sandbox' for this policy, per the link near the top of the page at (I beleive) Slrubenstein's suggestion several months ago? Any difficulties in moving it? Thanks. wbfergus  Talk 14:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move forward 

message: First, some premises on which the proposal is based:
# The current primary/secondary/tertiary approach has the problem of saying too much (overspecifying), and as a result sometimes leads to counterintuitive results.
# However, saying nothing at all would be worse than the present approach, because not all sources are equally usable for all types of claims, and we need to say something that addresses this.
# The proposed compromise is to say less, covering only what's required to make the policy make sense and no more. 
# To do this, I propose simply stating the necessary requirements in policyspeak, using terms like notability, significance, connection, independence, and expertise. Doing so lets us specify only what is needed for core policy/guideline purposes, without classifying sources for any other purpose so there is no need to impose a general classification system on sources that might lead to problems.
# This first attempt to do this is very likely wrong, but hopefully can be improved into something more workable.
Here is what I understand to be the key principles that the PSTS system is intended to protect 
* Principle: Notability and significance require independent sources
** Sources who are directly connected with a topic (e.g. invented/discovered, advocate, work for, etc.) should not be used to assess the notability of that topic. Notability should be assessed by independent sources.
** Sources who are directly connected with a point of view should not be used to assess the significance of that point of view. Significance should also be assessed by independent sources.
*Principle: Involved sources can be used once notability/significance has been independently established
** Once notability has been established by independent sources, involved sources can be used for general facts and opinions about the topic. 
** Once significance has been established by independent sources, the topic's advocates can be sourced to articulate it. 
*Principle: independence/expertise tradeoff
** In fields requiring scholarly expertise, works by experts in the field are preferred to non-expert sources such as general media. 
**However, if an independent expert is not available, notability and significance can be determined by independent general media sources.
It seems to me that the purpose of bringing in the primary/secondary/tertiary concepts into the policy pages is a belief that these phrases articulate concepts like notability, significance, independence, involvement, expertise, etc. I believe these concepts would be better expressed directly. I also believe WP:SYNTH might best address analytic and synthetic claims. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shirahadasha, Could you tie all of that to the concept of "No Original Research".  At the moment your proposal does not seem to say anything about how it relates to the policy in question. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal view is much of the detail on types of sourcing for different purposes doesn't belong in WP:OR -- I think it belongs in WP:N etc. I believe rephrasing in policyspeak tends to make this clearer. Example, when a "primary" source is used for a POV, I agree the source is reliable for the viewpoint itself, but not its significance. By rephrasing the problem in policyspeak, I see it as a WP:SIGNIF problem, not a WP:OR problem.) However, others appear to disagree with me, and I may not understand their viewpoint adequately. It's quite possible this synopsis omits requirements which perhaps more clearly do belong in WP:OR. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Among the many problems with WP:N, I don't believe that source typing has been one of them.  The relevance has been questioned, but no one has tied themselves in knots about the set of possible sources that may be either primary or secondary.  In a theoretical sense, source typing seems confusing, but on a case by case basis it is straightforward.  Lets just leave the definitions, nuances and alleged contradictions to the mainspace articles where debate is limited to verifiable reliable sources.  The theory of source typing doesn't belong in WP:NOR, and it doesn't belong anywhere else in project space either.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Shirahadasha says "* Sources who are directly connected with a topic (e.g. invented/discovered, advocate, work for, etc.) should not be used to assess the notability of that topic. Notability should be assessed by independent sources." I think this language is a bit confusing -- for instance, one might read it and say "a peer reviewed article is assessed by independent sources".  We can rephrase this to avoid the confusion and get at what I believe we all understand to be the core -- that whatever the concept or idea is that is the subject of the article, independent recognition must be made of it. Possible wording might be "Any topic should be notable. Multiple independent published sources that directly describe the subject as notable directly establish notability. Multiple independent published sources on the topic of the subject provide indirect evidence of its notability, whether they describe it as 'notable' or not." --Lquilter (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards a compromise: A modest proposal