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

message: Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.
My personal preference is for the older (i.e. current) format (semicolons).  That said, i have no objection to Gerry Ashton´s proposal.  Let´s see if one or two more people won´t weigh in.  If someone else objects to the bullet-point format, Gerry, is it acceptable to you to stick to the current format?  If others support Gerry´s approach, as I said, I won´t object.  Let´s just get a little more feedback from others, and then one of you can make the change. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we going to stress that any primary sources we use must have been published by a reliable source? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm enjoying some of your posts with the dodgy keyboard. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For me that's the main issue, not whether something is a primary or secondary source. The main thing is that all our source material must have been published by a reliable source. After making that clear, we can define primary and secondary source, and say that preference is normally given to secondary sources, simply because primary sources can be hard to use properly, but that both are acceptable. I won't argue the point because there's been enough back and forth, but I just wanted to throw it in for consideration. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: WAS's third point affects Sirubenstein's proposed definition of a primary source, in that the definition does not differentiate between television programs and motion pictures for which a transcript or recording is (or has ever been) available, and those for which a trancript or recording has never been available. --Gerry Ashton 17:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary sources

message: As for what exactly we are proposing to add/delete, let's be concrete: something like the following (old text italics, deleted text strikethrough, and inserted text bold).
:Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. New sentence about preference of secondary over primary sources here.
:::I find this proposal acceptable. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevenj, Wjhonson above proposed an alternative that I prefer.  Can you and he discuss his version and yours and see what you come up with?Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You state, "primary sources often require specialists to interpret them correctly and place them in the proper context."  I don't really disagree with your claim, but I do think it is a bad foundation for the policy.  The consequence of this fact logically could be that expert editors be allowed to use primary sources and non-expert editors can't.  Your phrasing invites this interpretation.  But really, NOR should not distinguish between expert and non-expert editors and there should be one policy for everyone.  The justification for restricting the use of primary sources must apply to expert editors who are capable of interpreting them properly, and not just to non-expert editors.  The only justification I can think of (aside from being circular, i.e. saying usiing primary sources violates NOR because it constitutes OR, a tautology) is that even if a specialist is capable of interpreting primary sources properly in so doing s/he would be introducing his or her own interpretation (i.e. POV) into the article, thus violating NPOV. (It is not a violation of NPOV to introduce secondary sources that represent points of view, even extreme ounes: NPOV only requires that these points of view come from verifiable sources (usually secondary, as it works out) and be properly identified.  Inter alia I see nothing wrong in principle with justifying an element of one policy through an element of another policy - our policies ought to be linked. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I will not respond to Steven Johnson's question about what others prever, because I am still not certain what the exact text will be when either version is finished. As for Slrubenstein's concerns about expert interpretation introducing the expert's POV, I think the article Person having ordinary skill in the art may be relevant. There is a degree of skill usage that is ordinary, mechanical, does not introduce novel ideas or a POV, and is not original research, even though not all literate people have this degree of skill. There is a higher degree of skill usage that does introduce POV or novel ideas; it is this skill usage that constitutes original research. --Gerry Ashton 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer this version: Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This method of research is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. The use of secondary sources is generally encouraged over primary sources. It is simple. I don't think a rationale is needed for the new sentence. The other proposal is good, but it is too complicated and seems a defense of policy. I see it restrictive in the "review articles" usage. Having an expertise about a subject can be problematic in writing a simple, balanced, and informative article useful for an encyclopedia.  GetAgrippa 03:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Short,sweet, and to the point. Sounds reasonable to me. Many either don't read or gloss over the section, so keeping it concise and to the point will hopefully reach the reader. GetAgrippa 12:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wjhonson's short statement is fine with me.  I think we'll eventually have to give a rationale somewhere, but we can get by without one for now.  —Steven G. Johnson 20:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A modified proposal, clarified

message: While responding to a fact template on an article I watch, Anno Domini, I noticed that a useful secondary source (Blackburn and Holford-Strevens' The Oxford Companion to the Year) alluded to the Gospel of Matthew, but did not quote sufficient material for the reader to undersand the argument. I suspect that if we looked, we could find many other examples where the author of a secondary source will expect the reader to have a certain primary source at hand in order to understand the secondary source. If a Wikipedia editor is using the secondary source, and thinks our readers may not have the primary source at hand, it would be very appropriate for the editor to quote or paraphrase the relevant parts of the primary source, so the reader can follow the arguement.
I think this is one specific use of primary sources which our guideline could not only tolerate, but encourage. --Gerry Ashton 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An important use of primary sources

message: Just what the heading says.  Any objections?  Anyone have any ideas as to the most appropriate way to do this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we archive this page?