Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion/Archive 3

message: SL [SLR?, SV?] is right, Wikipedia has historically not viewed primary and secondary sources equally. Over the last year myself and other have repeatedly told others that secondary sources were preferred to primary sources, many, many times. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Time to go for me as well - O^O 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example 1.  <Title Pending>

message: In Western philosophy, traces of the idea that came to be called the tabula rasa appear as early as the writings of Aristotle:
What the mind thinks must be in it in the same sense as letters are on a tablet (grammateion) which bears no (methen) actual writing (grammenon);  this is just what happens in the case of the mind.  (Aristotle, On the Soul, 3.4.430a1).
Aristotle writes of the unscribed tablet in what is probably the first textbook of psychology in the Western canon, his treatise Περι Ψυχης (De Anima or On the Soul).  However, besides some arguments by the Stoics and Peripatetics, the Aristotelian notion of the mind as a blank state went much unnoticed for nearly 1800 years.
But the human intellect, which is the lowest in the order of intellects and the most removed from the perfection of the Divine intellect, is in potency with regard to things intelligible, and is at first "like a clean tablet on which nothing is written", as the Philosopher [Aristotle] says.  (Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.79.2).
JA: Let's start with an easy case, one where nothing bad has happened — yet — and yet I still lose sleep over it, on account of the very real and continuing possibility that it might.  I don't want to get into diffs and all that unless it can't be helped, so let me just say how I remember things from the events of several months ago.
JA: There had been a running discussion about who invented the tabula rasa idea that took place on one or more of the  articles that linked to that concept — maybe it was Scientific Method or Empiricism or both.  I had never really thought about it before.  Most folks associate the idea with John Locke, but I seemed to recall that Latin was not his main medium, so I suspected that it must have been a legacy from Medieval times, at least.  Finally tiring of all the Blue Sky discussions, I get off my duff and rummage through some old books, eventually tracking the idea back through Aquinas to Aristotle, which data I duly type into the article.  Is there something sinfully original about what I did or not?  Sensible folk would probably say not.
JA: But wait, what if somebody objects that I'm using direct quotations of primary sources to "advance a position", all without having their insidious primacy canonized and sanitized to bits by some duly infallible Western Canonizer?  Do I have to dig up some third party source as a notary public?  Or wait around with bated breath for some secondary sourcerer to confirm the literary link to which my own sore eyes bare witness?  I know, you can't imagine how that would happen.  Sadly, I don't have to imagine.  Jon Awbrey 17:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I followed this, the position that you think ought to be in the article is that Aristotle first invented the tabula rasa idea, and you found a quotes from both Aristotle and Aquinas saying just that. You did not synthesize, analyze, or deduce from primary sources that Aristotle invented the tabula rasa idea, the primary sources make that direct statement. The quotes are acceptable. --Gerry Ashton 17:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example 2.  [[Tabula Rasa]]

message: William Ockham (c. 1295–1349) … is remembered as an influential nominalist, but his popular fame as a great logician rests chiefly on the maxim known as Ockham's razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. No doubt this represents correctly the general tendency of his philosophy, but it has not so far been found in any of his writings. His nearest pronouncement seems to be Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate, which occurs in his theological work on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (ed. Lugd., 1495), i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K). In his Summa Totius Logicae, i. 12, Ockham cites the principle of economy, Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.  (Kneale and Kneale, 1962, p. 243).
: The provision of the citation of a secondary source makes me wonder how anyone would think this violates NOR. Slrubenstein|Talk 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your language is obtuse and I have no idea what you are trying to say.  If Kneale and Kneale are appropriate verifiable sources no one can challenge their inclusion.  If someone challenges that they are biased, that is an NPOV issue but still would not warrent deleting the referenxce; the solution would be to identify clearly their perspective and add alternative perspectives from other appropriate secondry sources. Again, I see no problem here, certainly no problem relevant to this discussion on primary and secondary sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It all depends on what the sources cited in this article say.  If Kneale and Kneale said in their The Development of Logic that, after a thorough search of Ockham's writings the closest we found was the principle of economy, then the article should say that (which the present article does not do).  It can then, as embellishment, cite Ockham's primary texts to illustrate the point.  The essence of the argument that Ockham's razor in the form Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem is not found in his writings can only be based on a thorough reading of all of Ockham's published and manuscript writings, which calls on a special brand of expertise.  In that regard, I'm uncertain if even a general history of The Development of Logic is an adequate secondary source.  I'd like to see a citation of something by an expert on Fourteenth-century thought or preferably on Ockham.  --SteveMcCluskey 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example 3.  [[Ockham's Razor]]

message: JA: Later, Jon Awbrey 02:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example 7.  [[Philosophy of Mathematics]]

message: Given that a number of objections to the changes seem to have been prompted by the issue of primary sources in historical contexts, could we perhaps simply get away with noting that primary sources whose accuracy has been commented on by secondary sources can be used in correspondence to that evaluation?  In other words, that a primary source can be used directly if it's a known quantity in historiographical terms?  This might eliminate the concerns about using sources like Guicciardini and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for example. Kirill Lokshin 23:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me that perhaps what is bothering you and others is not my edit at all (which I think is less strict than what you propose here) but rather another element of the policy which was NOT an issue in my edit: that all sources must be verifiable.  Perhaps you think that this means that the source must be in any public library, therefore excluding all rare manuscripts?  This is something that perhaps we should discuss, but for what it is worth my reading of the policy is that it does not exclude such manuscripts.  My belief is that while we should strive to use sources that are widely accessible, in some cases this just may not be possible with some primary sources.  But I do not see this as meaning the primary source should not be cited.  I DO however see it as a reason to encourage secondary sources.  In other words, my ideal would be in an article to cite the primary source even if there are only 7 folios in the world, and then cite secondary sources that reproduce or refer to these primary sources but that are indeed available in most libraries.  The Yeshu article is a perfect example of this, check it out. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a primary source is reproduced exactly and published, isn't that still a primary source? john k 23:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant a secondary source that reproduces in part e.g. through extensive quotations.  But John, do you think that this alters the policy, or requires us to change it?Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  At what point does something become not published?  For instance, I am currently doing research at the French Foreign Ministry archives in Paris, looking at microfilms of the political correspondence with Austria (mostly).  These documents have been put on microfilm, and are available to anyone who wants to go into the archives and look at them.  How different is this from a manuscript that is available in only a couple of libraries in the world?  It seems to me that the stuff I look at is definitely not published.  I don't feel as though I could include quotations from it in wikipedia (assuming I wanted to, which I don't, particularly), even if they're making wholly uncontroversial, narrative points.  Am I being too conservative?  Where do we draw the line, exactly? john k 13:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you raise an important set of questions that merit thoughtful and deliberate discussion.  For the moment, my feeling is this: microfilm that is at only one library or archive should not be used as a primary source here because of its relative inaccessibility.  If libraries around the world can easily get copies of the microfilm, then it should be allowed.  Also, if someone (like you) has published a book or article making use of the microfilm and re-presenting the information contained in the information (in what is in efect a secondary source) then it can be used.  These are my provisional thoughts and I would like to hear what others think. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well-studied primary sources 

message: JA: Did someone forget to complete the archive op?  Jon Awbrey 03:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the archive op? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Operation.  I think JA is referring to someone deleting from this page, but not posting to an archive. Wjhonson 05:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awbrey´s right, sort of.  It is not that I forgot to complete the op, but rathe that I did not double-check.  I am working from an internet connection that is excruciatingly slow.  I saved the archived material but what happened is that it didn´t save (sometimes, when I click save, I get a preview instead and the material is not saved).  Anyway, I think I have now effectively fixed the problem.  Thanks for catching it, Jon, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive ?

message: (NB:This gets quite long, but for the clarity of future readers, please make any comments at the end)Ok, I have a habit of finding a heated debate and wading in. After skimming the above disuccusions, I doubt that any consensus has been reached. I appologise if it has, and this ends up stiring up an old dead debate.
Firstly, it is stated that WP:NOR exists to support WP:VERIFY, rather than the other way around ("Another effect of this policy is that as original research will not be supported by reputable sources, it cannot be included." - from WP:VERIFY). In formal writing, it is good practice to cite your sources, because it allows your reasoning to be checked and further information to be found, hence WP:VERIFY. WP:NOT is a logical extension of WP:VERIFY, that if a a fact cannot be referenced, it should not be present. Failure to verify is far more easily established than original research, and indeed a conclusion of original research is an extension of failure to verify. Stating something as being original research implies that not only is not not sourced, but it is a conclusion reached by the editor. It cannot be reached without the verdict of failure to verify (as a properly verified statement is by definition not original research).
Thus it follows on that, in my opinion, in the case of sourced statements, WP:RS is, despite being a guideline, more important than WP:NOT. Without determining is a source is reliable or not, it cannot be shown to original research. WP:RS is a guideline not because it is not important, but because of the inherant difficulties in defining a good, reliable source. Consider the statements within WP:RS about the validity of primary and secondary sources to be the lead, not the follow.
The key facts within WP:NOR in my opinion are (using => as 'implies'):
* You cannot introduce entirely new information within an article that is without any sources. Most people thankfully understand that.
* You cannot do any form of analysis on a reference - however this should be noted as being a more specialised example of the next point.
* That "if A=>B", and "if B=>C" cannot be used to conclude that "A=>C". Whilst this is an obvious and logical step, it is one we must leave to either the references or the reader. This step is by far one of the hardest ones to convince people of, and hence it should be detailed as fully as possible.
There is often some confusion over what the primary source for a subject is. For example, when referencing a song, I have seen people attempting to use YouTube as a reference. However this is not the correct reference - the recording of the song itself that is depicted in the sample is the reference. If a politician makes a speach, it is the speach that is the reference, not the politician (although the speach is a work by the politician). The original painting is the reference for the painting, not a photograph of it. However the photograph of the painting is a reference for the photographic work of the photographer.
This confusion continues into the realm of secondary sources. here, however, it gets more difficult as we have to consider the purpose that a reference is being used for. For example, let us return to that photograph of a painting. it certainly does class as a secondary source for the existance of the painting - for the photographer has documented it. However it may not be used as a secondary source for the evaluation of the painting, as the photograph makes no attempt to do this. It is interesting to note that when an expert evaluates something, they become a secondary source on something, but also a primary source for their evaluation.
Finally, come come onto the crux of the matter. In my opinion, based on WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOT (the intent of, rather):
* Primary sources may be used for referencing:
*# That a statement was made or something does exist within the reference. For example, that...
*#* ...a book contains a character
*#* ...a recipe contains an ingredient
*#* ...within a speech, a politican said the quote "Education, Education, Education"
*# That something exists within a work that can be determined by observation not analysis and is entirely non-contentious. This must be something that can be determined through casual observation. For example, that...
*#* ...A painting contains the colour blue (this is not definate existance, as colour is to an exent subjective)
*#* ...A note was hit within a song (this requires identification of the note, but in clear cases there is no debate over this)
*#* ...A person within a photograph has red hair
*#* ...Within a song, the chorus is sung significantly louder than the verses
*#* ...A politican said "Education" many times within a speech
*#* ...A politican said "Education" more than "Healthcare", when it is casually observable that only a single refernce to "healthcare" was made in a speach about school reforms.
*# With respect to statements by people, that they hold an opinion
* Primary sources may not be used for referencing:
*# That something exists within a work that can be determined by observation not analysis, but there is any reasonable doubt over the observation. For example, that...
*#* ...A note was hit within a song, but it is unclear which of two notes it is
*#* ...A person in a photograph has black hair, but they could just as easily have dark brown or purple hair
*#* ...A shape within an abstract painting represents a house (by definition in this case, the shape is abstract)
*#* ...A person within a video is running slowly rather than jogging
*# That a non-trival count of something exists within a reference. By non-trivial, I refer to both the ease of counting and the number to count. For example...
*#* ...A politican said "Education" exactly 12 times within a speech. Given that a speach normally features more than just a single word, it is hard to casually count the use of a specific word (due to the separation between instances), making this non-trivial.
*#* ...Noting that a painting has 11 hot-air ballons depicted is reasonable, however if the number was significantly higher it would not be (as counting would then become non-trivial)
*# That any element within a work is, on a non-trivial level, bigger, quieter, higher, than any other element within the work. Such a non-trvial statement implies a prolonged analysis quite different from allowable casual observation. For example, that...
*#* ...The highest note reached within a recording of a song was E6. This implies a comparison between all the notes within a song, which is clearly a major undertaking
*#* ...Within a painting, the hot-air ballon 5cm from the left hand edge and 37cm down from the top is the smallest. If a short description cannot be used to locate something, there is a strong possibility that it was a non-trivial venture to find it and it is not casually observable
*#* ...A speaker said "Education" more than "Healthcare" witin a speech about education and healthcare reforms (hence featuring both words regularly)
*# That a narative is predominantly of a certain type. For example, that...
*#* ...A character in a book is 'surly' or 'brash', but no third-person description of the character exists describing them as this.
...I could go on, but not right now, I'm out of steam. I'm going to post some of the above over on WP:RS, as it may be of some use to them. The key thing here is trivial uses are allowed. This is important, as it is often the case that commentators behind secondary sources will choose not to mention trivial points, as they often believe them to be obvious. Without allowing for trivial observations, common sense facts become hard to cite at all. LinaMishima 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How, perchance, is the above missgroking? Because I'd certainly agree with that. I know from experience, however, that without a clear definition, people find things both hard to follow, and hard to enforce. What I've written only differs from that statement in terms of progression of principles, and this is more because of the nature of the above discussions and my belief that WP:V is the best starting point (as it is the easiest to achieve and hardest to argue with). LinaMishima 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As I believe I said, much of the ordering was inspired by the arguments by others about the ordering, featured above, and attempts to use their orderings as arguments with respect to content changes. In this respect a definative ordering and opinions thereof are useful. I do get your point, however, and recommend further commenting on the primary sources discussion which follows, which has also been a matter of contenion here - and, if I recall correctly, the cause for the ordering debates. LinaMishima 03:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sources — my thoughts