Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 20

message: In case anyone's interested, there's a Village pump discussion on the pri/sec/tert sources issue. Dreadstar † 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village pump 

message: The problem I have with census data is that it can be cherry picked in ways that might even appear to be benign.  TableManners 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are referring to. Census data is useful in WP for saying how many people live in an area, and it is the most reliable source for this data. In the U.S. the census bureau is also a geographic resource (TIGER data) which is also useful. So if you are suggesting that census data should be depreciated because of the potential for misuse, I would disagree because any data can be misused. Dhaluza 09:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census data 

message: Yes, yes. So make some examples. If i say 'today it's hot' what sources do i must give to you? The C° meaured by my termometer? But it's OR, right? And maybe someone don 't find 35° 'hot' enough to be called so.
Behind my house there is an old church i don't know how wide it is and then i decide to measure it. Oh, my God, there is still an OR, and perhaps also bad faith, to add insult to injury.
We cannot copy other sources, because it' Copyviol, we cannot even resume them because it's OR (no syntesis, right?). Do you have the clue? Where is the good sense? Tell me how one can be authorized by your policies to do something that is not simply copy texts older than 90 years. Feeling as potential criminals every time that we post something that is not a he said so. That's the meaning of OR, IMHO.
I assert you cannot create an encyclopedia based entirely on quoting other sources, unless very often those other sources are other encyclopedias. Agree.--Stefanomencarelli 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of OR 

message: I just noticed that the article has been protected due to edit warring, so I thought I'd take a look as to why.  I think there's some merit to the "compromised" rewording of the sections in question.
For most articles common sense reasonably dictates that secondary sources are going to be the ideal sources to base an article off of.  That gets thrown out the window, however, when we start talking about works of fiction.  In that case you are usually writing an article about the primary source itself, in which case the bulk of your information will come from the primary source.  A good chunk of it should also come from secondary sources, true, (otherwise it probably fails WP:N) but in that case I would not say that the article relies on secondary sources so much as it uses secondary sources.
Now obviously this situation only applies to a certain subset of articles, far from a majority, but also far from being "rare" as the current revision of the policy states.  (Anybody care to try and count the number of articles on films, just for a warmup?)  The basic idea behind the sentences in question is sound, but it needs to be slightly reworded to reflect the fact that some articles by nature rely on primary sources, not secondary sources. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 12:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Yukichigai, most articles about films rely on reviews, not on primary-source material. Similarly, most articles about novels rely on sources who've written about the novel. It is, indeed, unusual to find a legitimate article that relies entirely on primary sources. If you can find one, please let us know. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Umm, we may have gotten some wires of communication crossed.  I'm not suggesting any articles ONLY need primary sources (it's pretty hard to satisfy WP:N with just primary sources), I'm merely pointing out that the primary basis for information contained within articles about works of fiction is primary sources.  Works of fiction rely on primary sources more than they do secondary sources. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What about an article about a railroad, where there isn't going to be a lot of controversy or incorrect information, and, some might argue, it's inherently notable.  Most of the information from the article, about where the stations are and what kinds of trains they have, would come from the railroad's web site, a primary source.  There might be a few citations to newspapers that ran opinion pieces about the railroad, but this is one kind of article where the primary source has the best information. Squidfryerchef 14:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. We need to clarify whether we're talking about articles with only primary sources versus articles that cite mostly primary sources.  I agree that except in articles where inherent notability implies, we need at minimum one secondary source to establish notability. Squidfryerchef 14:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that I don't disagree with.  Virtally all articles (all that I can think off off the top of my head) need secondary sources at the very least for WP:N purposes.  The point I'm trying to make is that the wording seems to indicate that all articles, no matter what, should be based on secondary sources over primary sources.  For works of fiction this is quite the opposite; information about the work of fiction is far less reliable when based off of secondary sources. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While that's true for basic factual information, it's imperative (as long as there's a policy of "no original research") that no interpretation be put on the text/film/whatever that aren't from a secondary source. Well, I suppose an author or similar making a statement about how things are supposed to be interpreted is technically a primary source, but that would be an exception in this case (provided it's stated as being the author's own interpretation). SamBC(talk) 22:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's sort of tangential though; a separate section addresses that problem completely.  Like you said, information about the interpretation of the work of fiction can come from the primary source still.  It's not really relevant to my point, regardless. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that people shouldn't be writing a Film Studies/Literature/Theatre Studies/whatever essay. They should not say, "character Y is cruel, as shown in chapter umpteen when they fnordle character X's brip" (excuse nonsense words) or similar. Plot summaries are inherently original research unless they're based on other published plot summaries. There's a line to tread between OR and copyvio, but it's not so thin a line. SamBC(talk) 00:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  It's quite easy to write a plot summary which simply lists the events of the film without any sort of interpretation or other type of OR.  It may not be the most inspiring and articulate plot summary, but numerous plot summaries rely on no sources outside of the primary source for the information they contain.  -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 04:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW, I have found myself messing with some cryptozoology articles recently, and here we have a case where it is the secondary sources that most often violate WP:V. As CZ is basically dealing with animals too cryptic, or apocryphal or probably fictional for classical zoology to bother with, secondary sources are prone to outlandish claims and go at great lengths to POV-push their pet interpretation. The only really reliable sources are indeed the original observations, and these are often misrepresented, misquoted etc in the secondary literature. This is the case why most cryptozoology websites are, from the point of a professional zoologist, so abysmal: because they rely on the twisted version of a primary source, twisted even further to serve some particular end (such as that there are surviving pterosaurs). Dysmorodrepanis 08:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are plenty of sources that "debunk" cryptozoology, so this is not as difficult of a situation as you would make it appear. If you have trouble finding such sources, you could for example contact the Center for Inquiry, who would be quite happy to point you towards opposing sources. Be aware that secular humanist debunking material is no less biased. However, that's not really a problem, since we don't try to avoid the bias of the available sources here, but rather represent all notable POVs appropriately. Vassyana 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, at WP:N an attempt to make secondary sources an absolute requirement lead to a similar edit war and edit-protection, which was finally worked out by making it strongly favored, but not absolutely necessary. This dispute has many of the same underpinnings. One notable example of using primary sources was the thousands of articles created for geographic places in the U,S. based on U.S. Census Bureau data. I have also noted below that most articles on aircraft and airports rely heavily on primary source data because it is the most reliable source in these areas. Dhaluza 09:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At WP:N, the consensus was not that secondary sources should be the favored sources. The consensus was that notability is best evidenced by the presence of secondary sources, which is entirely true and in line with current Wikipedia practice and the consensus of the community. If somebody has written about something, it's notable.  However, for purposes of WP:NOR, once the notability criterion is passed, the best Wikipedia articles use a combination of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Current practice is to use all three, and this policy statement must reflect current practice, not lead it. COGDEN 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I should have said that in the current compromise language of WP:N, secondary sources are strongly favored for judging notability. And you are correct that many editors objected to the attempt to modify WP:N to make secondary sourcing a prescriptive requirement there, because it did not reflect community consensus or practice. I suspect the same thing is happening here. Dhaluza 09:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This whole issue over the "articles should rely on secondary sources" does raise a good point though... 

message: The NOR policy should reflect the dynamics of the subject matter at hand. An article about a breeding edge issue such will require different sources than an article about the French Revolution.Arebenti 13:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No original research is a core policy. It doesn't matter what the subject is, wikipedia only includes information and analysis that are directly based on reliable third-party (generally secondary) sources, in order to ensure that there is no original research or invalid synthesis. SamBC(talk) 13:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much content in many articles on TV shows are based on primary source material. Much content in many "wrestling" articles is based on first person claims (as is natural, cause lots is made up fiction). Much song information is from those with a direct financial interest. Many articles on small companies rely on those companies web sites. Should we run wild deleting all this? No. It should be sourced better, but we need to get there in increments. Absolutist terminology is generally not helpful for this. WAS 4.250 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a point, I should have said that it's wikipedia policy to only include information blah blah blah... the point is, we should resist the addition of such material beyond a reasonable start, and we should resist attempts to change policy to say that all that stuff is okay. It's currently tolerated because such policies describe a goal, and that is still the goal AIUI. Some of those articles probably should be deleted, and some kept. If anyone wants to start going through it all and tagging stuff, then that's cool. For me, the effort isn't worth the return. SamBC(talk) 17:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To further the point by WAS 4.250, aircraft articles are based on primary source manufacturer data, which is the most reliable source. Secondary source "tests" are not reliable because of the cost of doing a proper flight test, and the engineering data needed. For airports, we also rely on primary source data from the aviation authorities. Secondary source data for basic airport characteristics usually just copies the primary source data. So primary sourcing is critical to our coverage of aviation as well. Dhaluza 09:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless Jimbo speaks, Wikipedia policies are not prescriptive. They only reflect current consensus practice, or at least a consensus aspiration. For a good explanation of this fact, see Help:Modifying and creating policy, as well as Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. A "policy" that's just a goal by some editors is not a policy, but a proposal. If we can convince the Wikipedia community to make that "goal" a predominant practice or aspiration, then it can become a policy.  COGDEN 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time chain 

message: Hi All, Requesting feedback on this: The National Institutes of Health posts a yearly Excel spreadsheet of medical grant awards.  About 56,000 entries, $20 billion.  Does this fall under WP:NOR: "Figure 2 lists entries from the NIH's 2006 Grant Database containing the words Giardia."  On the one hand, it involves some kind of research activity by the author.  On the other hand anyone can verify the statement by downloading the Excel file and repeating the search.  Thx, Gastro guy 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, any process, with the possible exception of complex mathematical calculations, that can be perfectly reproduced is not original research . The only potential issue is with the interpretation of data ... one must be careful to state only that which is unquestionably supported by the data. For instance, interpreting "country with the highest GDP per capita" as "wealthiest country" is original research. — Black Falcon (Talk) 22:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Gastro guy 06:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your NIH example is not original research. However, cherry picking information might produce NPOV issues, which is a different beast entirely. —Kanodin 07:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is listing a subset from a published government document original research? 

message: I am interested in putting up entries in WP on the Cairo metro system. No revolutionary theories, just the names of the stations, their general location in Cairo, prominent landmarks nearby, etc. This kind of content is common for other cities such as London, Paris, Moscow, etc. Most metro station pages I have read cite no sources anyway. Since no sources are cited, what is this referred to, if not original research? 41.196.184.19 10:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, there should be an official map from the operator which you can cite. You can translate what the cartographer depicted into plain English without crossing into OR, as long as you don't interpret it or draw any non-obvious conclusions. So you could capture the names of the stations, and their order on each line. This would probably only be enough info for a summary article, and if you tried to create stubs for each station, some editors would object to using a single primary source and probably nominate for deletion. So start off with the content merged into one article, and split off sub-articles as you find more sources. Dhaluza 11:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For most major cities, there should be abundantly available travel guides that describe major points about the city, including the public transportation system. There are plenty of sources available for articles like this, especially for "world centers" like Cairo and London. Just be cautious using such sources, since Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Vassyana 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about information where sources cannot be found at all? 

message: The article describes a "battle" between Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, two US game-show contestants. They have appeared on various game shows, sometimes head-to-head and sometimes not. The article attempts to compare their achievements and declare a "winner" of each "round". I believe that editors have invented the structure of this "battle" themselves, although each specific fact in the article is referenced to a source. Is this OR? --Cinematical 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could quite easily be synthesis, a form of OR, but I don't have time right now to check the sources. Notability might be an easier thing to challenge, though. SamBC(talk) 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the article [[Jennings Rutter Battle]] original research? 

message: I'm probably violating something here, but I wanted others to readily see this.
Why (or how) did the "Policy" page get unprotected? I though it was being protected until everybody could reach concensus and stop the edit wars on it, and it definately appears that there is no concensus yet. Does someone more vested in this care to revert it back to the protected version? wbfergus 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will, for a week.  If we resolve things before then, anyone can unprotect it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case anyone is confused.  The old protection was set-up to automatically expire after a week.  No one explicitly unprotected it, it just happened automatically.--BirgitteSB 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected? 

message: I suggest that if anyone wants to continue a particular thread from the archive they should be welcome to bring that particular thread back in to activity with their new comment.  We need not activate the entire recent history, nor refuse to discuss anything that is of particular interest to someone here.--BirgitteSB 19:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me point out that this page, as is, is already almost long enough to archive.  We cannot resolve all disputes at once, and an attempt to do so will in my opinion simply leave the policy permanently protected.  If we can reach a consensus on the two issues on the table, we can then archive this page and open discussion on two more.  But no matter what - the purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the policy page.  It is not a soab-box or a blog.  Discussion should be limited to concrete proposals to improve the article, discussion of such proposals, including criticisms and alternatives. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was pleased to see the earlier material archived and a new start attempted.  I think what BirgitteSB suggests is fair, proper, and almost unavoidable but if nobody does what she suggests that would be quite satisfying.  --Minasbeede 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not concerned about the length of the talk page. We can handle having multiple simultaneous topics on the same page. I just don't want anybody's comments to be shuffled to the archive page before others have a chance to respond to them. But Birgitte's suggestion sounds workable, as long as everybody is aware that there are active discussions and un-answered back-and-forth in the archives, and that anybody is welcome to resurrect any of the archived topics if they want to respond to something. COGDEN 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree with BirgitteSB's suggestion, it minimizes the length and simultaneous discussion without stamping on active discussions. SamBC(talk) 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the archiving and with BirgitteSB's suggestion.  There was way too much soap, with the lather removed the page's readability has increased a thousand-fold without compromising the integrity of the discussion.  Dreadstar † 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I go to sleep, and then, the next day, in the afternoon, get back to this discussion and all of the old discussion, and much of the intervening commentary, has been archived. It's going to take some time to figure out what people have said. Jacob Haller 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the policy finished out it's week of protection without any success from the week of discussion.  Sometimes trying any new idea is better than continuing to do what is known not to work.  But please feel free to bring any thread out of the archive that you feel would be helpful to resolving this.--BirgitteSB 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise on archiving 

message: My impression of the current policy (not based on any factual checking of the edits) is that it grew over time to include the terms and definitions that now appear contentious. Those same issues really don't belong on the policy page though, as they "really" have nothing to do with the NOR policy, their presence seems to have been added for clarity, but have now become a point of much discussion. So, if the policy was "rewritten" so that it only pertained to NOR, and then had very brief explanations of the other "terms" with links to those pages/guidelines, the policy would be easier to understand for other newbies like myself, and any problems people had with "Sources" or anything else, could be discussed and handled there, where they should be, instead of here. NOR has has nothing to do with defining sources or synthesis, though those are areas where OR usually appears. Keep them separate.
What I created in my Sandbox is an attempt (probably poorly done) to show how some minor changes could help improve the policy and minimize future disruptions of the policy, without actually changing the policy. In previous discussions (now archived) it was asked several times "...then how would you propose to reword ...", and people rarely did. I think Vassyana was the only one who took any effort, but that was solely towards the "Sources" problem. My attempt was to create something to minimize future disruptions of the policy, that others can see and edit without an edit war on the policy page (which looks really, really bad). Others who have problems with the current policy are invited to make their proposed changes there as well. Additionally, if anybody else agrees that removing the "contentious" sections from the policy and having those discussed and maintained separately would benefit the overall policy, I would invite those people to help with rewriting those and appropriately linking them. I don't think this can all be done (and agreed upon) very fast, but I see it as a better use of people's time than just constant "discussing" here. After all, more than a week has gone by with the policy locked, and no progress has been made.
I have two variations. One (using primary, secondary and tertiary source info) is at Sample NOR Policy.wbfergus 10:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  What you are doing is a good step in the right direction. --Minasbeede 17:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of draft revision 

message: I've been looking, and the discussion about primary/secondary has been going on for over a year in this talk page.  One can look at a long effort like this and see either of two things:
(1) a diligent effort to reach consensus on something
(2) a diligent effort to escape consensus on something  
Those who see (1) probably feel that to remove the something now as destructive of a long period of good, hard work.  Those who see (2) probably feel that to remove the something now ends a discussion that should have ended far earlier.
At one point in the history I see complaints about a secondary discussion page having been created.  I'm not one who asserted "stealth" but the discussion at that time sure resembles an objection to stealth.  Sadly, I didn't keep track of when that was, but it was less than a year ago (as I have only looked a little more than one year back in the history.)  When I see the date 1 September 2006 on primary/secondary discussion (that doesn't look all that different) I can only shake my head in wonder. --Minasbeede 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over a year 

message: I think we should just advise that editors examine existing claims, and note claims which the sources given do not support and vice-versa. Ideally we should have ways to mark citations as fv, the source supports some but not all of the indicated claims; better sources required, the source can be interpreted to support the claim; better sources required, the source was not immediately available; I plan to check it later, and the source was not available; can other editors please check it?. We could even say that some kinds of sources require greater scrutiny than other kinds. Jacob Haller 21:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already tags for that purpose. :) Vassyana 06:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are pretty cool. I've been on here roughly a year and half and didn't know those existed. Stuff like that needs to be in a "Guideline" on sources, so all that pertinent information is in one place and easily found. That would go a long way towards solving some edit wars I've seen. Thanks for the link Vassyana! wbfergus 11:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I'd forgotten the verification needed tag. I agree with wbfergus that these should be linked and/or shown on the page. Jacob Haller 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Without specific I cannot say for sure, but it sounds like they are saying the online source is not a reliable source. Vassyana 23:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That is what we have a dispute resolution process in WP, Stefano. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not just recommend source-checking? 

message: I don't want to mess up the section below (leave it clean for better responses) but this is a response to it.  I've done a recent personal review myself and have recognized that my reason to be paying attention to WP:NOR had nothing to do with source typing: I'm troubled by the synthesis section (which I'll not discuss now: there are issues enough.)  So I came into the source typing discussion more because I saw it and recognized I had thoughts and an opinion than because I had really strong feelings about it.  (Or if I have strong feelings I don't have any agenda behind those feelings.)  It looks to me a lot like source typing is inherently too cumbersome to save.  The bottom line in source typing is "primary bad" or "primary suspicious" or "bogeymen lurk in primary sources" or something of the sort.  The problem is that yeah, sometimes the problem is there - but sometimes it isn't.  A policy applies to all.  There are cases where I wouldn't hesitate to use 17th century sources.  That's "use," not "misuse."  No matter how the source typing section is written I'll pay very scant attention to it.  There are overriding principles that existed before any source typing was done and those seem to me to be fully adequate.  While there are 17th century sources I'd willingly use there are sources from this month I'd never even consider.  I recognize that the issue is framed primarily as one of source type but there's the undercurrent of "that-primary-stuff-wasn't-checked-out" and "that-primary-stuff-is-from-long-ago-and-may-not-correspond-to-what-modern-scholars-say."  The problem is that these are being made a universal (BEWARE ALL PRIMARY SOURCES) and that's not needed.  On top of that is the poor choice of words and on top of that is the confusion that still exists over the Tim Vickers sample article, as an example.  There's at least three aspects of the article that have been identified: the experimental data, the historical review (if that's what Tim Vickers called it) and the conclusions.  If the article persists and is cited it will mostly be the conclusions that are the reason for the citation.  Those conclusions are of the bugaboo "primary" source variety.  I think the conclusions are not outrageous and almost certainly will survive every test of time (not having read the article I'm not basing this on what it says but on a feeling.)  It's primary, it will (probably) remain always citeable.  I think it is plain wrong to put all such articles under any sort of cloud.  I don't think the cloud is justified.  Yeah, yeah, the article was refereed but if it were a chapter in a book it wouldn't be: books, which on the one hand Wikipedia anoints as "good" sources, often are also primary sources and would fall under the source-typing cloud.  Or there'd be a clause explaining why books, though primary sources, aren't really supposed to be watched (or, for all I know, the policy might end up saying "books in particular have to be treated with caution.") 
Besides which an editor could be quite aware of many sources that agree with each other and select the primary source because it's the best selection for what the editor is doing. Or he could know that the source he chose is the only source available.  He's supposed to use verifiable sources.  As yet he's not required to exhaustively explain why he chose any particular primary source - but that could be coming, for all I know. Just like primary soures, the editor who chooses to use one is under a cloud.
Besides which it's rather absurd to make any general statement about source types ahead of their use.  If 99.9% of some type of source is bad (whatever "bad" means) then probably that source type will be used infrequently.  I can't see how anyone can feel that it's correct to a priori cast aspersions on an editors choice of source, including that 0.1% of the time when it's "good."
I can't help tighten the wording: my heart isn't in it.  I'd rather chuck the whole thing. I can live with its being a guideline.  --Minasbeede 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahead, not after 

message: I propose the creation of a template for new editors that explains to them why their additions were reverted if they are original research. Unless there is one that already exists that I am not aware of? SefringleTalk 18:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is  for unsourced contributions and  for unreferenced contentious edits about living persons. There is no specific tag for original research. At least, there are none listed on the Big Page o' User Talk Templates. Vassyana 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: I suggest that an example is agreed on to test in actual practice what we are talking about. Perhaps the article Gillian McKeith would serve. The use of Ben Goldacre's words from his blog versus the use of his words from a newspaper is one issue. The use of sources that refute the "poo lady"'s claims that do not use her name is another issue. As BLP's represent our strictest use standards, and the data and issues are small in number, and there is no ongoing major conflict at that article, perhaps it is a good choice. WAS 4.250 01:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of an example to test 

message: This is an alternative to Blueboar's proposal.  I would have no objection to changing the word "sources" to "materials."  it also may be possible to incorporate elements of Blurboar's proposal and mine. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will again object to the distinction between secondary and tertiary sources. Even experts admit the distinction is often a big grey line and difficult to determine. Review literature and textbooks are among the most reliable sources, and as such should not be divorced from reliable secondary sources in general. The main need for any such distinction is the desire to not be derivative of other encyclopedias, but they are a very limited subset of tertiary sources. The concern about being derivative of other encyclopedias is a valid one, but I don't think it has a whit to do with original research. For our purposes here, distinguishing between primary and secondary material is quite sufficient. Vassyana 20:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see the caveat at the end, but I think it's a bit insufficient considering the block of text preceding it prejudices against tertiary sources. As I said, I also think it's completely superfluous to a discussion of original research. To be clear, beyond that, I think this is an excellent draft proposal. A single sentence at the end of secondary sources mentioning the problem with being derivative of other encyclopedias would suffice without delving into the secondary/tertiary divide. (I am aware Blueboar's draft makes the same distinction and I have similarly objected.) Vassyana 21:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Being clear, my objection is based on the observation that encyclopedias (the real "problem") are a very limited and small subset, while the majority of such sources are particularly reliable (such as review literature and textbooks). Vassyana 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vassyana, I have no problem with what you are saying... why not take the relevant sections from the the two drafts and work up a phrasing that incoporates your ideas.  In other words let's see some proposed language :>)  Blueboar 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to avoid adding another draft, in whole or part, so as not to dilute the discussion further. However, I will work on an example of how secondary and tertiary can be combined, if you feel such a draft would be helpful instead of distracting. Vassyana 00:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made two drafts. One combines the secondary/tertiary sections (User:Vassyana/PSTS draft 1). The other alters the focus/thrust of the tertiary sections (User:Vassyana/PSTS draft 2).  Cheers! Vassyana 16:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either of these would work for me.  If I had to pick one, I would go for draft 2... but that is not a set in stone choice. Blueboar 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternative proposal 

message: OK, here is the Spenny re-write, which paraphrases the thinking, but adds in a couple of points. I've bolded the key phrase which is the root of what all this source jiggery-pokery is about. It is this key concept that we are battling with, but it is not explicitly stated. Spenny 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Different Approach 

message: It's easy.  Whenever there's a dispute between a more restrictive and a more flexible version of the policy, just find an example of something that would be allowed under one version but not the other, and claim that anyone who supports allowing that is against the policy and should therefore be excluded from the discussion.  It's not necessary to actually succeed in excluding anyone;  it's enough to put a chill on the making of certain types of assertions. --Coppertwig 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying this is being done here?  If so, I don't think it is intentional. Blueboar 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that everyone involved here is trying in good faith to improve the policy. My message was not intended to imply otherwise. --Coppertwig 21:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am worried about instruction creep here for another reason, because the new proposals use a whole lot of words to say very little, while introducing a lot of nuances and logical inconsistencies that will provide fodder for the next generation of edit wars. In User:Slrubenstein's proposal, for example, when all is said and done, "The conditions that apply to the use of primary materials also applies to the use of primary source material included in secondary sources". Why, then, do we need to make a distinction? COGDEN 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to promote instruction creep 

message: Taking what Ian wrote and tweeking.... mostly adding 1) that facts need to be cited to reliable sources as well as opinions... and 2) stressing that analysis etc should be the same as in the source.  I could live with this approach.  Blueboar 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good approach that will help lay to rest a lot of the disagreement. I could support this as well. Vassyana 01:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Good points, and I agree with them. With regard to the last, I was trying to get away from the tertiary source whilst respecting the spirit. Some of the reason is the issue of copyright. I'd be tempted to simply delete it as it is not useful policy - the policy is in the section above. I've got to save the planet today, so let's give this a little time to brew (a bit busy saving the planet today). I hope what I have demonstrated is that in principle, even through my garbled editing, we can get the spirit of what is required without getting into technical terms. Note to others: feel free to hack away, I don't want to own this, even in talk. Spenny 07:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spenny's draft as modified by Abecedare's concerns is moving entirely in the right direction. WAS 4.250 09:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blueboar's re-draft of Speny's approach 

message: I have been following this debate only intermittently, so some of the issues I mention below may have already been discussed. If so please simply point me to the correct section. (for easy labelling I'll continue to use PS, SS and TS terminology in my comments below)
* "Typically, statements of fact will tend to be found in materials such as ..." : This should be the other way around. PS typically contain statements of facts; it is not true that statements of facts are  only or typically, found in PS. Statement of facts are also found in secondary sources, and it is in fact preferable to use SS for sourcing facts too. Editors will perhaps interpret the above version of the policy to mean that they should look for PS, such as historical documents, diaries etc to state raw facts (such as when a war began; when Hamlet was written etc.)
* Signed article in EB are good sources for material on Wikipedia; and Annual Reviews (or other review articles in general) are in fact ideal sources for writing wikipedia articles on subjects they cover (since they are "works which are a comprehensive analysis of the topic" and much better than individual research papers that only present a narrow and novel POV). As currently worded, it is not clear if using Annual review articles as source is being deprecated, or if these are being listed as exceptions to the general rule about using TS.
*"Wikipedia strives to be a superb encyclopedia in its own right.  Since Wikipedia does not want to be derivative ..." I don't see what this has to be with quality of sources, as opposed to copyright issues. If copyright didn't prevent it, wouldn't we have liked to download the complete (at least signed) content of Britannica and other standard encyclopedias onto wikipedia as the starting point for further revisions and improvements ?
Abecedare 02:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, and I agree with them. With regard to the last, I was trying to get away from the tertiary source whilst respecting the spirit. Some of the reason is the issue of copyright. I'd be tempted to simply delete it as it is not useful policy - the policy is in the section above. I've got to save the planet today, so let's give this a little time to brew (a bit busy saving the planet today). I hope what I have demonstrated is that in principle, even through my garbled editing, we can get the spirit of what is required without getting into technical terms. Note to others: feel free to hack away, I don't want to own this, even in talk. Spenny 07:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spenny's draft as modified by Abecedare's concerns is moving entirely in the right direction. WAS 4.250 09:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The more I think about all of this, the more I think that we were approaching this back-asswards.  The point of this policy is that we have to answer the question: "Oh yeah? Sez who?" with... "This reliable source over here sez so."  If the answer is "I say so" or "the facts say so", or some thing like that, you are venturing into OR.  The type of source being cited does not realy matter, the type of statement that it is being cited for does.  For a statement of fact, we need to cite a reliable source that states that it is a fact.  For a statement of opinion, we need to cite a reliable source that states that opinion.  And for a statement of analysis, interpretation, synthesis, conclusion, etc., we need to cite a reliable source that contains the same analysis, interpretation, synthesis, conclusion, etc.  
Ian's approach is good...  it does essentially approach the issue based on what the source is being used for, instead of what the source is.  But it is a relatively long winded way of saying it.  Can we be more concise? Blueboar 13:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely what myself and several others were arguing for several weeks ago. This policy does not need to define or really care what the types of sources/material are. That's all material for a different page, whether policy, guideline, whatever. All this policy needs to say is here are further definitions of these 'materials', but if you edit an article, be prepared to cite your edits with reliable 'materials', in the proper context as the 'material' you cite. wbfergus  Talk 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I know... I just had to come around to what you have been saying in my own unique way and in my own time.  I thank you for being patient with me while I underwent this process. I guess it is what they call "consensus building". Blueboar 15:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I work with a bunch of scientists, and it's extremely aggravating to me on how long they can argue over a point for months or years only to finally come to a conclusion that what a non-scientist said was the easiest way to address the problem. So, I'm used to it by now. wbfergus  Talk 15:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you're right. That's probably a pretty good way to say it, too. That could be a good basis for a draft. COGDEN 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about." When the document is an analysis (in the case above an unreliable one) it's a primary source for the situation being written about. In history, The Origin of Species is a primary source for Darwin's ideas and his analysis of the sources he sets out in that book. As I understand it... ... dave souza, talk 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Origin of Species" is perhaps a bad example, as it's complicated by a number of considerations; that might also make it a good example if we look at it closely. If you are studying Darwin, or the hitory of the theory of evolution, then it's a primary source. If you're studying evolution itself it's a secondary source that is also the first publication of much of its own primary data (all the sketches and so on). Its usefulnesss as a source in that case is, however, somewhat compromised by the fact that it's utterly out of date. In any case, the interpretation of basic facts, analsysis and commentary thereof, does not constitute a primary source. It's secondary material (or a secondary source, or whatever) because that's what a secondary source is. A document that largely reports and compares, dispassionately, the content of various secondary sources is, I believe, described as a tertiary source. SamBC(talk) 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam and Dave... this is exactly why I came to the conclusion that we need to completely stop addressing this issue from the point of view of what kind of source/material is being used, and shift to what kind of statement you are using the source for.  If you start with classifying the statement (statement of fact, statement of opinion, statement of conclusion/analysis/interpretation) it no longer matters what classification of source you are using.  Primary, secondary and tertiary becomes irrelevant.  The policy simply states that a statement has to be backed by a reliable source containing the same sort of statement.Blueboar 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or indeed, to avoid lawyering abuse, that contains the actual same statement, albeit in other words, or written longer, or so on and so forth. The main point about sourcing such analysis and conclusion is that we can cut the verbiage and reasoning, and just report the overall view, unless the reasoning itself is of interest. I was trying to make the points I made, however, more to try and correct some misunderstandings people seem to have. They aren't entirely relevant anymore, or shouldn't be, so I apologise. SamBC(talk) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Blue Boar: No, the differences don't diappear. The difference is larger in historical articles, for which the terminology was invented; but even in Darwin, there is a difference between the same statement in the Origin of Species and in a modern biology textbook. Darwin was making an argument (now largely accepted); the textbook is reporting consensus among biologists. This is why secondary sources are valuable: Darwin got several things wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, the differences don't disappear... my point was that it no longer matters as far as editing this policy is concerned.  If we don't talk about the different types of sources in the policy anymore, we don't have to argue over our definitions of the terms (at least not on this page). Blueboar 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's significant in that sources very close to the subject don't give the analysis or opinion that make "secondary sources" valuable, since we must avoid doing that ourselves. As you say, we can avoid this classification problem by defining it by use – WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves effectively applies to even the most reputable sources when they're the subject of the article, and in that case the aim is to find reliable sources summarising or commenting on the source. This is what I was trying to point out about Icons of Evolution, which happens to be very unreliable and so although it's a "secondary source" in that it analyses other "primary sources", to us it's only useful as a source of facts about the philosophy it presents, and for analysis of that philosophy we need to turn to reputable expert opinion on the book. ... dave souza, talk 13:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting to the chase 

message: Removed for clarity Spenny 17:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft as of 9/20/07 (15:48) 

message: Ok... I think this is the most recent version of the proposal, incorporating those comments that seem to have consensus.    
I would ask that people not make major edits to it until they have been fully discussed and have reached some degree of consensus.  If you think something should be added/changed/deleted from this... post it as a new suggested draft with a new date/time heading.  The idea is to keep the different versions clear so people can compare them and comment on them. Blueboar 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on 9/20 (15:48) draft of proposal 

message: *Approve in principle.  I've sat out this one but noticed that it's getting near a consensus.  The change is useful and it looks good, whichever exact version and wording people settle on.  Once it's implemented we can review WP:RS to make sure it agrees.  Question - is this what became of the earlier primary/secondary/tertiary sources discussion and is it supposed to replace or complement that part of the policy page?  If we're getting rid of those definitions we ought to put them somewhere else.  Wikidemo 02:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about using the proposal I made, above, concerning sources, followed by this clarification? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of my reworking of your suggestion was to show that it was possible to address these issues without tying ourselves in knots over classification. I do share your concern that we have drifted too far from understanding that there are different qualities to the sources that editors should be conscious of (but not governed by). Pragmatically, summaries and reviews are most likely to produce the sorts of information that we can readily use to write a summary style article without being prone to our own interpretations. We can discuss this without classification of sources. I think that by removing that red herring we are seeing discussion here which is about clarity of NOR which is healthy. Spenny 11:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: support from the peanut gallery

message: As discussed above, it seems to me that the draft would work well with a subsection concisely explaining the usefulness of primary/secondary/tertiary sources. I've based this proposal (as shown at #Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources above) on the existing policy with some changes to bring it into line with the draft, and the examples etc. commented out. Slrubenstein's proposal may form a better basis for this subsection, but it seemed to me to be useful to put a proposal up for discussion about the principle. ... dave souza, talk 12:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, I get what you are saying, and I see how such a subsection would be useful ...  but I am not sure it can be done.  In the new approach we are trying to avoid using the terms "primary/secondary/tertiary source"... because they cause so much confusion.  Different accademic disciplines have different criteria for what these terms mean.  Wouldn't such a subsection simply re-add the same problems the current proposals now solve?  I would have to see some suggested language to get a good sense of what you are proposing... but I am sceptical. Blueboar 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum... I now see that you did give a draft... by ammending Spenny's draft above.  Unfortunately, all that you did was to paste in the same material that we have been trying to move away from.  The whole point of our new approach is to NOT include a definition of what the different types of sources are, since that seems to be the crux of the confusion and objections. Blueboar 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a middle ground here and I'd ask Dave to take a look at the section Blueboar's re-draft. The point of that was to see if we could get the sense of policy without the contentious terminology. My feeling was that there was something to work with, and that by taking such an approach it brought out other issues (hence the emboldening). Spenny 13:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent idea. I was thinking somewhat obliquely along the same lines. It would help anybody coming here from the Village pump to easily see what is being discussed, without having to read through mountains of other 'stuff'. wbfergus  Talk 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think posts that allude to some undefined fear uncertainty and doubt are very constructive, perhaps you could be more explicit on your concerns. The position that some accept here is that the source typing is not relevant to policy, is contentious and is not required to support a robust policy of NOR. The discussion has been persuasive enough that some have changed their position so I think it is reasonable that you should be explicit in your reasoning as to why you do not accept this as we cannot debate FUD. Spenny 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Monk... Are you objecting to change simply because it is change... or do you see a flaw in our approach? How does the new version "open the door to a long and slippery slope"?... what "exceptions" do you see us making?  To most of us it simply restates what the policy has always said in a clearer less confusing form.  Can you give us a better idea of what you are worried will happen if we adopt the proposal? Blueboar 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Monk, the problem is that the present formulation does not have a consensus. The question is not about whether we should change it. I think everybody has moved past that. The issue is what should we change it to, so that it will reflect longstanding Wikipedia practice, and everybody will be happy with it. This has been a good opportunity to review what the underlying principles of this policy are, and how to best express them. I think most people here, if presented with a questionable article, would agree on whether or not it is original research in most cases. We are just trying to find the best way to express that consensus, but the devil is in the details. COGDEN 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the WP:PSTS section in this policy is confusing, contentious, unnecessary, misplaced, and not supported by consensus, so it must go. The real issue boils down to making sure facts are backed by factual sources, preferably original or close sources, and that all analysis, interpretation, etc. use reliable sources to do the analysis interpretation, etc. See, I said it without using primary, secondary, tertiary, or even quaternary. Dhaluza 01:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dhaluza, I am going to quibble with your comment... sometimes an original or close source is appropiate... sometimes it is not.  By focusing on the source you confuse the issue.  This policy isn't about sources (or it shouldn't be)... it should be about statements made in wikipedia articles.  When there is an NOR problem in an article, it is the statements that are OR, not the sources. Blueboar 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are basically saying the same thing in a different way. I agree that focusing on the source has been a distraction, and recognizing that is a breakthrough. I think I was focusing on the use of the source to back the statement, but distinguishing between factual and non-factual statements. The statements are only OR if they are not backed by reliable sources. Also, when is an original or close source not preferable for factual statements (other than when they are corrected by newer sources)? Dhaluza 11:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it is incomplete, tendentious, inaccurate, or out of context, which (in historical articles, where this distinction is most commonly made) it usually is. The chief problem with primary sources is that they are not intended to be history; quoting them directly and uncritically, as most editors would do even if WP:SYNTH didn't exist, produces very bad history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition to the draft