Wikipedia talk:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia

message: Proposal started as an idea developing from what I wrote in VPP --Francis Schonken 12:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I'd like to see a bit more about (or links to) stuff about how photographs can be used as primary sources, and the difference between using them to illustrate something mentioned in the article and using them to support a statement made in an article. Also, the difference between linking to a website with the image and uploading a fair-use copy. Sometimes a photograph is just a pretty picture. Sometimes it actually demonstrates a disputed point that isn't documented elsewhere. That sort of thing. Also, is there a similar document about secondary sources? Carcharoth 13:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re. using photographs to support a statement made in an article: I find it hard to come up with an example for that. Well, finally, maybe this one: :Image:Jolanda Ceplak fotofinis.jpg used to support the statement "The photo-finish did not go Jolanda's way and Benhassi was given the silver medal and Jolanda bronze." in the Jolanda Čeplak article. Is that what you meant? Do you have a better example? Anyhow, for the example I gave, the interpretation of the image depends largely on information given outside the JPG image itself. For starters, one would have to know who the four running women in the photograph are. And where and when exactly the photograph was taken, etc. I'd still rather tend to see, in Wikipedia context (we're not the referees interpreting that photograph), the photo as an "illustration" to the contention about Ceplak's bronze medal. The secondary sources for that information are news coverage of the Olympics, etc. Without such accessory sources I don't see how the "bronze" vs. "silver" information could be "derived" from such photograph directly. But as said, if you think about a more clearcut example, feel free to tell about it. For "images used as illustration" there's less problem to find examples I suppose! --Francis Schonken 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Re. "is there a similar document about secondary sources?" – yes and no. Not "separately", no. But in essence, core content policies like WP:V and WP:NOR center around secondary sources most of the time, don't you think? --Francis Schonken 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial discussion

message: Is there anything here that can't be said with a line or two at WP:RS?  And is the current text even proper?  Primary sources can certainly be used to illustrate a point, yet they can also be used to verify dry facts.  I see no reason why the biography of Thomas Nelson, Jr. shouldn't be able to reference the Declaration of Independence as proof that he was one of the people who signed it. Durova 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, but do you need to? Cripipper 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, without clear instructions, everyone ends up debating things in circles, and getting confused. That is the problem with not having clear guidelines. If you reduce it to a few sentences that you understand, I can guarantee that someone else will come along and misunderstand it. In some cases more really is more, and less really is less. Carcharoth 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone is confused here, but it isn't me.  The appropriate uses of primary sources have been well established outside of Wikipedia.  Some editors join the project who aren't aware of those uses, and a few editors deliberately ignore or distort them.  Deliberate and persistent misuse is already covered under WP:DE.  WP:V and WP:RS address normal use.  So either this proposal is redundant, in which it should be abandoned, or else it attempts to redefine the acceptable use of primary sources at Wikipedia according to some idiosyncratic scheme.  In the latter case this proposal should be torched and buried.  Any potential benefit is dubious: Wikilawyers and trolls would get a new nexus of guideline to misinterpret while productive editors would get overburdened by the requirement to confirm dry facts through secondary sources and many of Wikipedia's best articles would suddenly contravene a site guideline. Durova 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Instruction creep]] 

message: I asked for examples above, and while I can't come up with them myself, I really think they would help. It makes things so much clearer. Carcharoth 15:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples, examples, examples 

message: The current statement of the policy "in a nutshell" is too complex. It should simply state what the preferred course of action is, but instead, it gets bogged down in explanations. The second sentence, in particular, is entirely inscrutable, especially as it uses a highly emphasized word (illustration) in a different sense than it was used in the first sentence!
Here's an example of what the nutshell could say:
:Primary sources should be given less credence than research that has been based on those sources.
Not that I'm certain of what this policy is about, just yet :-)  --Yath 02:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet this doesn't deal with the 'Look at these new documents!' trump card, on which no historian has had the opportunity to write (which was the real point I was getting at when I raised this originally). Cripipper 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too complex nutshell 

message: The other problem is ancient history, where the primary sources are often what there is, and encouraging editors to go beyuond them results in crackpottery. Consider Ephialtes of Trachis, which is, and must be, largely Herodotus. Some editor has gone to some, unnamed, secondary source, and stuck in the bit about Ephialtes having a grudge against the Spartans; this is a perfectly reasonable speculation, but it is speculation.
The other problem is exemplified by Pericles, which treats Plutarch as a secondary source, on the grounds that he quotes texts which have not otherwise come down to us. Plutarch is not evaluating them as a modern source would, and 
should not receive the same credit. Septentrionalis 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient history

message: There is absolutely no need for such classification: we can easily do without, and all that talk about primary, secondary and tertiary sources only confuses the editors. 
Instead, it suffices to point out what is essential: that claims do not go beyond the sources, as explained in WP:NOR. From that all essential stuff follows. At least, that's what I claim; you are free to challenge it.
For starters, the example that now reads:
:'The transcript (while it is a primary source) can not be used as a basis to present the slant (opinion, perspective, position, observations...) of the witness as "fact". That is, unless a reliable secondary or tertiary source (for instance a judge's verdict, or a generally accepted history book written after conclusion of the court case) does so.'
Will next read:
:'The transcript (while it only presents the claims of the witness) can not be used as a basis to present the slant (opinion, perspective, position, observations...) of the witness as "fact". That is, unless a reliable and generally accepted source (for instance an undisputed judge's verdict, or a generally accepted history book written after conclusion of the court case) does so.'
In this case I had to make a few corrections; and to my own surprise, the need for correction only became transparent by the deletion of classification.
Thus I hereby change my opinion: I conclude that such classification in groups of sources is detrimental for Wikipedia. 
Harald88 19:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete all talk about primary, secondary, tertiary,... sources 

message: With the recent changes, this proposal has just gotten even more complicated, and now seems to spend most of its time defining what is and what isn't a primary source for its own purposes. If the rules are this involved, it's just not going to work. MLilburne 11:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to proposal 

message: I just turned up at this article, and it looks pretty interesting.  However, it's hard to tell if it is still current, or even relevant at all.  It would be nice if it pointed to something which accurately reflects current WP policy and guidelines. cojoco (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do I go now?