User:Wjhonson/No Original Research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Discrepant Imports of "Primary" and "Secondary"

I did some editing of the two paragraphs following the description of primary and secondary sources. I do not believe I made any substantive change. My intention was to clarify the policy, largely by rearranging a couple of sentences. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: No, the changes are non-trivial and very disagreeable, but it's probably not your fault. Back in sec. Jon Awbrey 19:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: One of the first things that I noticed in WP was this odd definition of "primary source" that I read on one of its policy pages, with a consequential oddness in the value that it imputed to primary versus secondary sources. I think that it probably has to to with the different strokes that different folks in journalism versus scholarship attach to those two terms. Though it has caused a strange undercurrent in many discussuions of sources, it hasn't come up in a really flagrant way till now, so I let sleeping dogs lie, for once. But Cerberus has waked, as it were, and it looks like it can't be avoided any further. Jon Awbrey 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, a "primary" source is typically used in the sense of "a source which creates new 'facts' never before seen". An eye-witness report of a crime is primary, the documentation of the sale of your house is primary, a transcript of a court trial is primary. Wjhonson 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
However part of your proposed re-wording would state that primary sources must not be used, and that's incorrect. You state "Original research that draws on primary sources is also not allowed." You can simplify this to "Original research is not allowed." But that has nothing to do with *this* page. I think you are confusing research with original research. Wikipedia makes a distinction between "collecting sources together to form a coherent article" and "creating new facts." Wjhonson 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The version of the policy as of 12:54, 21 August 2006 first states "Original research that draws on primary sources is also not allowed.". It then contradicts itself by saying "However, in some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources. . . ." I object to the first statement not only because it makes the policy contradict itself, but because the phrase "draws on primary sources" does not specify to what extent an article may draw on primary sources. It could be interpreted to mean articles should not use primary sources at all.
One could argue the alteration is not as bad as I make it out to be, but it is clearly worse than what was there before, and this degradation was introduced without first being discussed on the talk page. --Gerry Ashton 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: This is a serious problem, so let's all take our time and fix it right. One of the things that WP:NOR means is that WP cannot make up it's own private language for the meanings of words already in common use. The terms primary source and secondary source are terms in common use, even if they are commonly used with many different imports, and so Job 1 for us is finding out and sorting out what those meanings and imports already are. Jon Awbrey 20:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The edit by Slrubenstein was ambiguous, as it could be read as extending the definition of OR rather than drawing on a prior definition, so that will not work. Jon Awbrey 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This editing worries me a bit, as you and I were still discussing basic wiki guidelines as it is. Kim Bruning 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research is the creation of new "facts" not citable to any other source. Citing a primary source is not original research (nor is citing a secondary source). Frequently editors will shout "original research" when what they mean is "the person did *research*". Research is not forbidden, it is the creation of new facts that cannot be cited that is forbidden. Wjhonson 20:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Check. Jon Awbrey 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Chicago and APA style manuals, and thinking of my own experience, I can think of two definitions for primary source:

  1. A source which reports original research
  2. A source which contains quotes or summaries from other sources, but these quotes or summaries have never been used in a tertiary source.

Similarly, I can think of two definitions for secondary source:

  1. A source, such as a review article or book review, which exists mainly to summarize, synthesize, or review other sources
  2. A source which quotes or summarizes a primary source, and which in turn is quoted or summarized by a tertiary source.

These definitions overlap, but there are areas in which they differ. For example, an electronics engineer who reads Donath's article in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, V. CAS-26 No. 4 will see that it predominantly reports original research, but it does briefly summarize the work of Rent. If I quote Donath's summary of Rent, instead of reading and citing Rent's work directly, I am using Donath as a secondary source. I think the NOR policy uses the meanings that I've labeled 1, but I think all the meanings are in general use and scholars routinely have to distinguish the meaning from context. --Gerry Ashton 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally I would point out that while Donath's article on his own research is a primary source for that research, his *same* article on his summary of Rent is a *secondary* source for that portion of the article. Wjhonson 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
While that article may be a *secondary* source for the work of Rent, it is a *primary* source on how Donath would summarize Rent. - O^O 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
For the *general method* he uses perhaps, but that would go on *his* page not on Rent's page. "Donath frequently uses the pi-beta-epsilon method of summarizing..." While on Rent's page you would simply quote it and cite it. Now, in the case where there are conflicting secondary sources, I always go for inclusion versus silence. "Fred Flintstone summarizes Dino's work as annoying, while Wilma summarizes it as playful and cute." We have room for both secondary sources. Wjhonson 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I see some ideas above that make sense to me, or at least sound familiar to me, but I think overall that it's making things too complicated to drag in mention of tertiary sources. Normally, I think of Classical examples, but that gets us into all the vagaries of trans*lations and whether Socrates said what Plato said he said and so on, so let's FF to semi-modern times. What William James wrote is the definitive primary source for William James' philosophy — the buck stops there as far as that goes. What he wrote about the philosophy of C.S. Peirce is a secondary source for that. And what Bertrand Russell wrote about the philosophy of William James is a (not always very sympathetic or understanding) secondary source for that. I think that is plain and simple enough, and gives the gist of the basic idea. This means that primary sources have a slightly different value in that brand of scholarship than they might have in some brands of journalism, say. They are to be valued as the rock-bottom grounds of grounded research when it comes to questions about what a given writer's writings actually said. Jon Awbrey 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein' edit is a good one, and as for the attempts above to redefine the meaning of "primary source", please spare us.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is about 205kB of text above. Could you clarify who is attempting to redefine "primary source"? - O^O 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: No, the intention was good, but it took me 3 readings to guess what it was — we can't afford that kind of ambiguous construction. Jon Awbrey 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines primary sources very clearly: "present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations." This has been a stable definition for a very long time and we should not try to rewrite it. My edit in no way altered or modificed this definition. It is unfair to suggest that my edit in any way changed what we mean by primary source. Moreover, my edit did not say that use of primary sources is never allowed. ll I did was clarify the two paragraphs so as to eliminate any possible inconsistent reading of the policy. The policy allows the use of primary sources under very very spoecific circumstances. My edit in no way changed the circumstances under which primary sources can be used. I did not extend the definition of OR at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That was my reading as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see this proposed sentence deleted or reworded: "Original research that draws on primary sources is also not allowed." I'd prefer to see it struck altogether, as it could imply to some that there is some class of original research that is allowed. - O^O 18:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a change by User:jayjg mostly because there is no consensus for the change. A secondary reason is it claims that "Original research that draws on primary sources is generally discouraged" (my emphasis). Draws on is too vague. A perfectly acceptable article that relies mostly on secondary sources might cite some primary sources to good effect. Valid reasons for using primary sources could be to discredit secondary sources that misquote the primary, or to fill in details that are not mentioned in a secondary source but which are of interest in the Wikipedia article. If the phrase had been "Original research that predominantly draws on primary sources is generally discouraged", and if the phrase had been agreed to on the talk page, I would have gone along with it.--Gerry Ashton

"Valid reasons for using primary sources could be to discredit secondary sources that misquote the primary, or to fill in details that are not mentioned in a secondary source but which are of interest in the Wikipedia article." This use of primary sources serves to forward an argument and thus is in violation of NOR. This is precisely why I made the edit I did - the policy needs to be crystal clear. But I have not changed the policy. Using primary sources to promote an editor´s interpretation or argument is just a violation of polcy. Stop trying to destoy the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If we change the word "discredit" to "properly quote" then the entire quoted phrase is correct. We can quote primary sources, and actually SHOULD do so in cases where secondary sources misquote them. And we can certainly, absolutely, fill-in details from primary sources. That is one of the main reasons to use primary sources in the first place. We can quote what Baha U'llah said about his religion, in the same paragraph where a critic is saying something else. That is perfectly acceptable. Wjhonson 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I used the word "discredit" only to mean correcting narrow factual errors that crept in between the primary and secondary source. Overturning a position put forward by a secondary source would require another secondary source, possibly supported by primary sources.
As for filling in details, I was thinking of a case where a secondary source has already established the importance and general meaning of a primary source, but omitted some detail that is useful for the article. There is no reason it couldn't be included.
Such primary references could be handy when an editor inserts a garbled, unsourced "fact" into an article. One such case occurred in the Metrication article. The article correctly stated that Jefferson proposed a decimal measurement system; an editor changed it to say Jefferson had proposed the metric system. Unfortunately neither version had a citation, so I corrected it and cited Jefferson's report to Congress. My change did not change the general significance of the fact in the article, namely, the United States considered decimal measurement early in its history; I just corrected a fact.
Of course, any such details should not undermine the position(s) put forth by the secondary sources that the article relies on; using details to advance a position different from the positions of the secondary sources is indeed original research. --Gerry Ashton 15:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] literary works

I deleted a paragraph about literary works and interpretations of literary works - not becuase it was a bad idea, just unnecessarily wordy. I added literary works to our list of primary sources. The effect is the same, just mor economical Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this:

The relative value of primary and secondary sources with respect to WP:Verifiability depends on the primary topic of the article. For example, when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote is a primary source that is definitive on that subject, and it is treated as the most reliable source, over and above what any secondary source may say about it. In contrast, when discussing primary source reports of real events, common sense tells us that a comparatively disinterested secondary source, especially one that collates and verifies many different primary accounts, may be able to be more neutral in its reporting.

because it is unnecessary, argumentative, and violates NPOV. It is better that this policy not address the issue at all, it is irrelevant to the policy because it does not change the definition of primary or secondary source and has no bearing on original research. This paragraph is about weighing the value of a particular secondary source, which is a separate matter. Moreover, the paragraph makes a claim about the weight of a particular secondary source and this is simply the creation of a new policy which is utterly unwaranted. We shouldn´t make new policy without discussing it and I think the proposed new policy here is a bad one. In fact, the question as to whether an author´s interpretation of his or her own work is authoritative is something that has been hotly debated and there are scholars on both sides of the argument. How should one consider an essay by Phillip Roth on the work of Phillip Roth, or an interview with Julien Barnes on work by Julien Barnes (or, what to do with Pale Fire)? This should be handled on a case by case basis, and this policy should not argue for a bias one way or the other. Some scholars surely will claim that Roth´s own commentary or interpretation has precedence. NPOV requires presenting their views in the article. But other authors will argue the opposite and their views too must be represented, to comply with NPOV. NPOV is inviolate. The POV in the paragraph I deleted cannot be made into policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: This policy page is intended to state the WP:Policy of WP:NOR, to help editors understand its proper application, and to explain the reasons behind the policy. I always like it better when Bossy People give me a Reason Why I ought to do a particular thing. All I did was state some of the senses of the terms in question that are commonly used in scholarship, amd I see nothing argumentative or controversial about that. I simply explained standards of practice already in use, from which WP derives its authority and justification for its own policies. I did not introduce the additional issues that you raise. The point is that the publication of a work is a historical event in its own right, and definitive in itself. Obviously, no one claims that what an author says about his or her own work is anything more than yet another secondary opinion about it. Jon Awbrey 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Again let me emphasize: The paragraph does not assert anything like "an author´s interpretation of his or her own work is authoritative". That would be just plain silly. Jon Awbrey 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon, you wrote: " ... when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote is a primary source that is definitive on that subject, and it is treated as the most reliable source, over and above what any secondary source may say about it ..."
The implication of this is, for example, that material written by a particular neo-Nazi author (whose article I edit a fair bit) must be treated as authoritative, regardless of any criticism or contradiction of it by the London Times.
Rather than changing the policy, could you say which part of that section you feel is problematic and needs to be changed? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Explanation of Primary & Secondary

JA: Here is the primary source for my last revision of the paragraphs in question, which got mugged by an edit conflict:

  • Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.

  • Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

In discussing the works of an individual writer, for instance, in compiling a bibliography of writings by and about an author, primary sources are works actually written by that author, while secondary sources are works written about that author's life and work by others.
The relative value of primary and secondary sources with respect to verfiability depends on the primary topic of the article. For example, when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote in that work is a primary source that is definitive as to its content, and it is treated as the most reliable source, over and above what any secondary source may say about it. In contrast, when discussing primary source reports of real events, common sense tells us that a comparatively disinterested secondary source, especially one that collates and verifies many different primary accounts, may be capable of more neutrality in its reporting.

JA: I think that a careful reading will show that I have clearly not said any of those silly things that some people are saying I said. So the only question is how to prevent most any reader from thinking that I said that. Jon Awbrey 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are losing me here Jon, and I am sure you are losing others... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm lost too. Jon, this sentence of yours is clearly saying the primary source is authoritative: " ... when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote in that work is a primary source that is definitive as to its content, and it is treated as the most reliable source, over and above what any secondary source may say about it ..." And that is problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Look, it's really a lot simpler than some folks are making it. Why do we cite published sources? So the reader can go and check what is actually written in that text. That's the basic principle here. The text is the definitive source for answering questions about what's in the text. That's all. Nothing else. The writer can preface the work, and many do, by writing, "This is the greatest work that human civilization has ever produced". The text is the last word for the fact that the author wrote that. It is not the last word on whether that statement is true, and nobody would even think of saying that. Jon Awbrey 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you say what is wrong with the section as it stands? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Trust me, I don't come to any of these Policy pages until somebody drags me here by the whiskers of some tag or template or other. There is a real misunderstanding in the usership about the value of primary sources, and it seems to be this issue about how the value shifts from context to context. I have many times had folks object to the fact that I use a quotation from X to support a statement about the philosophy of X. Nobody in real world scholarship would make that objection, so there must be an extra source of confusion in WP. Some of it seems to be in the current definition of primary source, that makes it seem like all primary sources are suspect almost all of the time. There's even a template somwhere that tags articles for citing too many primary sources, and I have seen that get misapplied, apparently due to this misunderstanding. Jon Awbrey 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A series of edits and reverts just occurred which ended up with the phrase "Original research that draws on primary sources is generally discouraged". This is wrong. The use of primary sources is encouraged. It is only when the article predominantly uses primary sources, or synthesizes them in ways that are not obvious to a reasonable adult, that it becomes original research and thus forbidden. Maybe that's what "draws from" means to whoever wrote this, but to me "draws from" means uses one or more words from a primary source. --Gerry Ashton 19:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I picked up on that also. I think that addition has been reverted away, but it appears to have briefly gotten mixed up with the "original author" topic being discussed above - O^O 19:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Which version exactly did you revert to? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"18:13, 22 August 2006 Slrubenstein" - O^O 20:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I have no opinion on the recent Duncharris change (regarding VAIN). But the Jayjg change would have reinserted the 18:25 Slrubenstein text. Reverting back to Duncharris, which is based on the 18:13 Slruberstain text . - O^O 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
18:25 was a very clear time in the history of this policy; clearer than at any time in the past. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, that phrase is wrong: often secondary sources misquote and distort primary sources. Thus, alhough for synthesis one should use secondary sources where primary sources are lacking of that, for accuracy it's essential to use primary sources as much as possible. This has been discussed before.
PS: I propose to entirely remove mention of "primary" and "secondary" sources, as it's rather artificial and only complicates the description of the NOR policy. It's all rather obvious without such hair splitting. Harald88 22:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Harald, this has indeed been discussed many times, but you're getting it wrong. It is not essential to use primary sources as much as possible. Quite the reverse. Using primary source material correctly requires training for the most part. Wikipedia editors should stick to secondary sources as much as possible, and use primary sources with great care. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing the distinction between primary and secondary sources will create total chaos. Not an acceptable proposition, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. A "primary" characteristic of Original Research is that it is almost always built on novel interpretations of primary sources. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Original research may be a novel interpretation of primary sources, but not always. It may be a first report of the result of an experiment, or a record of an event. It need not include much interpretation; it might consist of rather raw data that is presented in the hopes that someone else can interpret it. --Gerry Ashton 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That is why we discourage its use. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Lacking other forms of quality control, we DO discoursage the use of primary sources. We do not prohibit the use, and one editor called my attention to this and I corrected my edit. We do allow for their use under specific conditions. Under other conditions we discourage their use. Whenever any editor turns to primary sources to "corect" a secondary source, we are almost certainly witnessing a violation of NOR. Apparently there are some editors here who want to weaken the policy. My edits are solely to clairfy the policy as it exists and defend it against those who want to weaken it. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That depends on exactly what you mean. If a secondary source states that a Rush Limbaugh in his blog said "George Bush is fat" and you can cite the actual blog saying "George Bush is flat" then that is definitely *not* a violation of Wikipedia:OR. Rather that is "source-based research". OR involves *you* creating *new* facts, not citing those facts in primary sources. Wjhonson 04:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Slrubenstein writes that "whenever any editor turns to primary sources to 'corect' a secondary source, we are almost certainly witnessing a violation of NOR." There is no original research if the correction consists of correcting an obvious misquote. This may not be a big deal in the humanities, but in math and technical topics, a single character can be critical. I do not take it for granted that the vast majority of corrections to secondary sources are something more subjective than clear factual corrections. Ideally any use of a primary source to correct a secondary source would be used in conjunction with one or more secondary sources that concur with the correction. --Gerry Ashton 04:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with everything Gerry said, except where he states that "Ideally any use of a primary source... would be used in conjuction with...secondary sources...." I would amend that to add "but that is not necessary" to make clear that the primary/secondary see-saw is evenly balanced.Wjhonson 04:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I don't know how to say this strongly enough. Any policy that can be interpreted as discouraging editors from citing X in support of statements about X's beliefs or philosophy is just plain out of touch with the realities of scholarship in the real world, and the definitions of primary source and secondary source as they are commonly understood there. Jon Awbrey 04:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to this "Original research that draws on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources" proposal that has popped up today, and at least three other editors appear to have caught this and are object to it as well. IMHO, this is a significant deprecation of the use of primary sources from the accepted standard here. I don't see this as a "clarification", but as a wholesale attempt to discourage the use of primary sources. - O^O 05:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
We discourage primary sources, this has ben our NOR policy for ages. This does not mean we do not allow them. It means we encourage primary sources. This too has been our NOR policy for ages.Slrubenstein | Talk 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson writes, "OR involves *you* creating *new* facts, not citing those facts in primary sources." This is not te. OR ALSO consists o using primary sources to forward new interpretations, arguments, explanations, analyses, and syntheses. Again, this is long-established policy.Slrubenstein | Talk 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
AS to Jon Awbrey, he wrote about the importance "citing X in support of statements about X's beliefs or philosophy." There is no need for any clarification of the policy here. X´s statements about X´s own beliefs or philosophy may be a primary source. In such cases, as the policy states (both in the earlier verion and in my revision) tht such a primary source can be used if it is not used to promote any argument, analysis, interpretation. X´s statements may also be a secondary source (e.g. Phil Roth writes about Philip Roth) in which case we draw on it like any other secondry source. All of this is IN the policy - it was in the policy last week, and after my edit. But Awbrey also suggsted that such statements count for more than statements by others (e.g. other secondary sources). This is a flot out violation of NPOV.Slrubenstein | Talk 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I interpreted Jon Awbrey's statement to only mean that if there were a question about whether a secondary source had correctly quoted or paraphrased an author, the primary source, that is the author's published work, would be more reliable than the secondary source. I didn't take it to mean that an author's commentary on his own work has a privileged position compared to other critics. --Gerry Ashton 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New synthesis/is this OR?

I have been telling another editor that a contribution they made is probably OR. However, I am questioning whether I am being too strict, so I am here to try to get some clarity on the policy. Here is the scenerio. This one source says that 6 people have died using mifepristone. This other source says that over 460,000 doses have been shipped for Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), and most likely the vast majority of the doses equals one administration of the drug. Now, in the wikipedia article, we give the figure "6 in 460,000" as the mortality rate for the drug. However, I cannot find this figure listed in any source online. Most sources online simply say "less than 1 in 100,000". I have said that wikipedia cannot be the first place to publish the figure "6 in 460,000", but the counter argument is that its simply math. So can we say the mortality rate of a drug is X, if there isn't a single source backing X up, but instead a synthesis of multiple sources? The conflict is being discussed at Talk:Mifepristone. Thanks for your time.--Andrew c 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of encyclopedia is it that questions its right to put two related facts from reputable sources together, and do the relevant math? One that is still finding its way, one is inclined to conclude. --londheart 00:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No wikipedia editor can prove that he or she is an expert on drug distribution. Even if the editor is an expert, there is no mechanism on Wikipedia to establish the editor's identity. So, can a non-expert put the number 6 people together with 460,000 doses shipped? I don't think so. Maybe the number does not include free samples distributed by physicians, or used during clinical trials. Maybe it does include doses that expired sitting on pharmacy shells and had to be thrown away. I would want to see a reliable source that puts the two numbers together. --Gerry Ashton 00:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, it ignores the fact that the drug has been used in Europe for over 15 years and probably used by over 600,000 people.--Andrew c 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a source would need to be found who makes that analysis. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
So long as the parameters for the discussion keep being changed here, we have to. --londheart 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

he has found the numbers online, per the reliable sources i cited. 1) the FDA=6 fatalities. 2) the manufacturer of the drug says 460,000 units. (the New England Journal of Medicine notes that units shipped may not equal procedures, and therefore the number may be lower, but does not quote a number--this would mean a higher fatality rate) the number is listed in the article as "6 fatalaties per 460,000, may be higher/about thirteen times the rate of surgical abortion" in the absence of reliable data about how many it does mean, the number with a source is cited.

his quote of "600,000 in europe" fails to note any fatality statistics, as stats are not available.

the 1 in 100,000 figure he gets predates wider use of the drug/is quite old. the new statistic would be about 1.34. this number is probably actually closer to 2. in the absence of any current, more accurate numbers, 6 in 460,000 is the best data we have.

it may also help you to know that he originally posted (or was happy with/completely uncritical of) the estimate 1 in 100,000 (medical abortion) compared with .5 in 100,000 (surgical abortion). when i corrected the number for surgical abortion to .1 in 100,000/one in a million, and the numbers for medical abortion to 6 in 460,000, he at first questioned 6/460,000 and thought it should be expressed as a measure of something-in-100,000. but he objected to the conversion of 4/4600,000 to 1.34 in 100,000 as "original research." we are both pro-choice (but my edits tend towards pointing out the risks of the drug; his to prochoice vs. prolife arguments.) he would like to revert to 1 in 100,000 even though it is outdated; i want to use the most current numbers available (and have not made an argument for upping the fatality percentage by statistical analysis of the likely lower number of procedures than the drug company claims "units shipped.") Cindery 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push a POV, and I feel you miscaracterized my editing habits in general, and my concern over this issue in specific (but we can try and work that out on user talk if necessary). The main point: Find a source that says 6 in 460,000, or it fails WP:V and WP:OR. The only content I desire to be in the article, is content that meets wikipedia policy. I mentioned that the only sources I could find say "less that 1 in 100,000". Whether you feel this information is accurate or not doesn't matter, if you don't have another source that corrects it. It's not about the numbers. I'd be happy with 1.35 in 100,000 or whatever, if it is backed up with a citation.--Andrew c 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

was attempt at impartial summary re we both have some pov--i don't exactly feel my edits "emphasize the risks" of the drug--i would say they strive for accuracy (and that that is not appreciated by people who feel that it weakens the prochoice argument against the prolifers...) nevertheless, some context seemed helpful. i feel you may not be entirely self aware re your pov (plase read back over the "straw man" sections i pointed out that you particularly resisted any editing adjustments to, the ones where issues were characterized as being only "prolife" and then "refuted" by prochoicers.) in any case, what matters is: are these numbers accurately cited from reliable sources (per wiki def of reliable sources)? does converting them via fractions make them innaccurate? note also, i had/have no objection to leaving them at 6/460,000--i'm still not sure why you think they have to be converted (and therefore magically transmogrified into "original research" to which you think you can reasonably object?) Cindery 02:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Converting the number isn't the OR research part. Please see Gerry Ashton's reply above. Coming up with our own mortality rate that isn't listed in any source is the OR part. I don't care about pro-choice vs. pro-life. This is about policy, please try to stay on topic.--Andrew c 02:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Somedays I am so glad we have this policy in place. Today is one of these days, after reading the discussions above. Provide a source for that 6 in 460,000 stat, or mercilessly delete it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to jump in, I was busy doing some long division that I'm going to submit to the New England Journal of Medicine as original research. But I just checked out the article and that 6 in 460,000 is well sourced. Mumblio 04:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographical talk pages

This policy currently states "Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages."(as of 01:52, 24 August 2005) I believe this particular point in policy should be amended to state that original research shouldn't be in biographical talk pages at all per WP:BLP: "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked."(as of 21:15, 5 June 2006) (Emphasis added) --HResearcher 11:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer if this rule was only applied strictly to biographical articles. On other pages, we can be a lot more eventualist about it, imho. Kim Bruning 12:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Strongly object to "biographical". If this rule is applied it should be strictly limited to [[Category:Living people]]. Wjhonson 16:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that. It should be made clear that this is in regards to living people. --HResearcher 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Safety In Secondary Sources

JA: The idea that secondary sources somehow save you from the wages of original sin is just plain absurd, and we should not be encouraging editors in that delusion. The rule against adding unverifiable claims or interpretations to cited sources applies across the board, to primary, secondary, tertiary, and so on down the line. There is nothing about sane editorical policy that makes secondary sources preferable. Jon Awbrey 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simply that certain things cannot be obtained from primary sources except through a level of analysis that exceeds our OR standard. Primary sources are very valuable for direct facts, and for verification of the accuracy of secondary sources, but there are many things they cannot do. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Please refer to my previous remarks about the different uses of the terms primary source and secondary source. Both uses are perfectly sensible and standard, but they apply in different contexts. One is the "journalistic or judicial" (JoJ) sense, "eyewiteness" vs. "secondary reports". The other is the "bibliographic or scholarly" (BoS) sense, "Works by X" vs. "Works about X", and you can't write a Bib without it. Most folks here are talking about the JoJ sense, and there is makes sense to rely on multiple independent sources. I am worried about the BoS sense, and all those article writers in WP who copy right out of a single secondary source because it's too much trouble to do actual research, and who will actually scream bludey muder about it if you dare to quote the locus classicus. That should not be encouraged. That is poor and substandard scholarship. That is usually very POV. That is many other bad things. Jon Awbrey 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone (sensible, at any rate) disagrees that there are times and places for primary sources. Thus, I'm not sure why the issue. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I for one, and several others for more, have been saying exactly why this is an issue. We have also described in general terms the sorts of concrete cases that actually arise in WP practice where people have read this policy as discouraging the use of quotations from primary sources in the bibliographic sense. We would not have even dreamed this possible if it did not happen and keep on happening. Jon Awbrey 20:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The is the very thing that first brought me WP. My routine web searches on particular topics and writers keep turning up howlers that no reputable scholars or reliable sources in those areas would ever dream of putting in print. I eventually discovered that most of the more flagrant ones came from a few popular works with no credibility on those subjects. But try and correct a pet popularization of the subject by actually quoting the works that were supposedly being summarized, or even try and suggest the reading of that all imporant second book? — well, forget about it! WP discourages that sort of thing! Jon Awbrey 21:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anautocitation (Non (Self Reference)) Is Not Justly Enforceable in Wikipedia

JA: Some journals allow their authors to self-cite and self-reference, some journals do not. Either way, they can allow or ban this practice with justice, because their editors know the real names of their authors. Obviously, no such policies can be enforced with any pretense of equal application in Wikipedia. Consequently, all policies whose validity depends on knowing the true identities of WP contributors are null and void and must be purged from the policy and guideline pages. I'll do what I can, but life is short and the art is long. Jon Awbrey 16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We can, if we wish, state our desire that people not self-cite, even if this is unenforceable - I don't see why this necessitates not stating it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Because,e.g., many "expert editors" would be put off by such a statement without it having any good effect at all. Unless unnecessarily irritating those "skilled in the art" is your purpose, naturally. There is a principle taught military commanders-- "Don't give an order you know will not be obeyed".Pproctor 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I see general ways to state the policy, acknowledging that most readers and editors have no way to know when a self-citation occurs. One way is to just say that all editors are encouraged to remove material that is not supported by adequate citations, and editors may also delete material that overemphasizes one point of view, period. Leave it to the expert to deduce that if he uses his expert unpublished knowledge, it will be deleted if anyone takes notice of it. Similarly, the expert will deduce that if he edits an article giving an overview of electric generators to include three paragraphs detailing the contributions he made to better generator bearings, the material will probably be deleted if anyone notices.
The alternative is call attention to the expert the likely consequences of adding unsourced or unbalanced material, just in case the expert doesn't deduce the consequences without prompting. If the advise is ignored, the edit summaries should contain words like "deleted unsourced material", not words like "deleted material from expert."
I don't support words like "We wish that expert editors would not draw on their personal and direct knowledge…" becase that strikes me as a weak statement. I'd rather see a statement along the lines of "We remind expert editors that information based only on their personal and direct knowledge will appear to readers and other editors as unsupported information, and will be subject to deletion."
Finally, I don't care for the phrase "third-party publications." Just who exactly are the first, second and third parties? The phrase could be interpreted to mean that works written by the expert shouldn't be used, even if published by a ruputable publisher; that isn't what it means, but it could be interpreted that way. --Gerry Ashton 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be appropriate discussion here, but WP:NOR and WP:VAIN should not be contradictory, as they were before. It is unfortunate that there are trolls and cranks, and such trolls do have their own sources that they like to cite. In some cases, even if they are good peer-reviewed work they may choose to overstate their importance and violate WP:NPOV. I also disliked the original formulation of "expert editor" as this is elitism - surely there is a gradation of expertise rather than overt categorisation into expert v non-expert. — Dunc|☺ 19:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First, "overstating" is a completely subjective matter. Even someone "skilled in the art" (a non-elitist patent-office definition) would have difficulty discerning it in most technical fields. How can someone who is not "skilled in the art" do so? It is not, like Justice Jackson's definition of "Pornography", "I know it when I see it".
Likewise, this is properly a matter of NPOV and not of "vanity", which is even more subjective, like (e.g.) "heresy". The proper way to correct an NPOV cite is to (e.g.) contradict it with another cite, if you can. The best way to do this is to lure someone else "skilled in the art" to give their input. Your proposed rule change is not the way to accomplish this. Pproctor 20:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major policy change re: primary sources

The proposed change represents a major change in how primary and secondary sources would be treated. Without going through the text line-by-line, consider just this:

Before: However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.

After: Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.

Use of primary sources has always been strongly encouraged, and in no way have secondary sources been preferred to primary sources except that an article was rarely supposed to rely solely on primary sources. This new policy makes primary sources distinctly less preferred than secondary sources, is a major policy change, and I do not support it. - O^O 18:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: " — Jon Awbrey 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the policies on WP are based on the fact that many of the editors are not trained scholars, and even the scholars have no mechanism to prove their status. So the policies should be worded not only to provide justification for deleting passages in articles, or entire articles; the policy should also be worded to educate editors who are not trained scholars. Some of the proposed changes create a tone that would imply that editors shouldn't bother reading primary sources at all (unless they feel like it for some reason other than contributing to WP). I actually wouldn't have an issue with the precise meaning of "Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged…" but I don't think that phrasing sets the right tone. If someone were creating an article on Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, I really don't think we want to imply that the editor would be better off not reading the play, even though an article that cites nothing but the play would be OR and subject to deletion. --Gerry Ashton 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm sure it would be possible to cite nothing but the play and avoid OR, but then all the article would be would be a synopsis of the play and could not have any analysis, criticism, or much else. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version, again cannot stand, as it denigrates primary sources too far. I wish you all would stop verting and reverting and reverting all over the wikisphere. Wjhonson 20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The existence of a revert war right now over this policy's content suggests that we do not have consensus. How about TALKING ABOUT IT? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The status quo has been that use of primary and secondary sources are on completely equal footing, with the sole exception that a wikipedia article will not be "based entirely" on primary sources except in limited cases. Other than that narrow exception, the two types of sources are equally welcome to be used. It has never been policy that secondary sources are "preferred" over primary sources in any manner whatsoever. The proposal being discussed is a major and dramatic change of existing policy, not a "clarification" of what already is. - O^O 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
OO, secondary sources have indeed always been preferred to primary sources, simply because use of the latter often requires analysis that we don't allow. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
SV, I respect your right to hold that opinion, but it does not appear to match the text of the policy. Please point out where in the policy it has ever said secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. - O^O 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to include (and in one case use as a replacement) the 'trinity' quote.

Following discussion here, I'm going to propose that we include the following to the lead of each policy. In the case of the NPOV policy, this also includes removing a previous quote on the matter which has been superceeded.

In the words of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, "I consider all three of these to be different aspects of the same thing, ultimately. And at the moment, when I think about any examples of apparent tensions between the three, I think the right answer is to follow all three of them or else just leave it out of Wikipedia."

For the sake of clarity, please discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. --Barberio 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edit summary

In case anyone thinks I left a misleading edit summary here, saying "tweak" when in fact there are lots of changes, it was because I had made a minor edit to Jayjg's version without realizing he had reverted to another in the meantime. I shouldn't have gotten an edit conflict, but didn't, which I've noticed happening a lot recently. Anyway, I do also think the version I tweaked is the better one. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected the page

It's obvious that an edit war is occuring and people are not discussing, but simply reverting. Time to cool off.

(I consider myself uninvolved since I've not edited the page, although I have made comments on talk. I'm not sure it's possible to find an admin truly unconnected to a core Wikipedia policy in any case) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary and Secondary sources

Okay, I firmly disagree with those editors who claim that prior to my edit a couple of days ago, Wikipedia treated primary and secondary sources equaly. My position is that the paragraph that ests two conditions for the use of primary sources marks a significant and major difference in our standards for using primary versus secondary sources. I believe anyone who claims that the longstanding concensus at Wikipedia was to hold the use of primary and secondary sources to the same standards is simply wrong.

My intention in my edit was merely to make the first paragraph (more general) more consistent with the second paragraph (which was more specific). A secondary intention was to reorganize the contents so the two paragraphs disucssed the use of primary sources first, and secondary sources second (since we defined them in that order). I want to be clear about my intentions in the hope that even those editors who disagree with me will accept the edit in good faith, not as an attempt to change the policy.

After reading much talk, I came to understand why some people felt my edit was too harsh. Following Gerry Ashton´s constructive suggestion, I added the word predominantly, so it is now clear that I did not mean to suggest an exclusive ban on primary sources (to repeat: my view has never changed; they are acceptable when they comply with the two conditions in the second paragraph, which has long been part of the policy consensus). Wjhonson independently made an edit or two that I consider improvements.

Just in case someone wants to search for something, search for 'Gerry', not 'Gregory'. --Gerry Ashton 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely believe we can reach an acceptable compromise. I think my reordering the material so as to discuss primary sources and then secondary sources makes sense. I also continue to insist that the the both paragraphs must be consistent, and that our core policy with regards to primary sources is set in the two conditions, exemplified by apple pie and current events. To anyone here who thinks that my wording can still be misread as prohibiting any use of primary sources I want you to know that this is not my intention and I will gladly work towards a compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see that your edit did anything but clarify the wording, so I'm a bit confused about all the reverting that's going on. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
But it didn't clarify it, it confused it. The apple pie example is absolutely *not* the only way in which primary sources can be used. That is an example of the extreme edge where *only* primary sources would need to be used. To use the extreme example to invalidate all other uses is a problem. Wjhonson 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I wish to endorse Wjohnson's change from "Original research that draws…" to "Research that draws…" The paragraph goes on to say "However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources…" Of course, primary source based research that satisfies both conditions isn't original research at all, and it shouldn't be labeled as such. --Gerry Ashton 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that was my edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please give an actual example of a legitimate use of primary-source material that you feel would be excluded by the edit Slrubenstein made? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Slim) Okay, I want to be constructive here. Wjhonson, I suggest - in good fath - that you go through featured and former featured articles (since presumably no one would dispute their compliance with policy) and find one or two more examples of use of primary sources. We can then add the examples to that of apple pie and current events. Also, by picking one or two examples from featured or formerly featured articles, we can ask what principles guided the use of primary sources and perhaps add to the conditions under which primary sources can be used. How do you and others feel about this as a method? Can we agree that if primary sources have been used in featured articles, then the principles guiding their usage in those cases can guide us here? Also, Wjhonson, I am trying to be open to your concern. Do you understand my concern? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest Wjhonson stick to recently featured articles, because older ones were passed with somewhat lower standards when it came to sourcing. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Okay, Slim and I agree. Do you, WJhonston? If so, we may have the basis for a working solution to this conflict, and a way to improve the section. I still hope you understand my concerns or take them in the same good faith I take yours. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a straw-man argument - the "apple pie" and "current events" examples were for the case of articles "based entirely" on primary sources. No one is suggesting that we change the policy for non-trivial articles requiring use of some secondary sources. - O^O 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Even WP:RS, which is intended simply to expand on the fundamental points made in V and NOR, says: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Anything that deprecates primary bibliographic sources is not acceptable in the real world, and should not be acceprable here. WP's very reputation is at stake. Jon Awbrey 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Before this turns into another navel-gazing exercise, could those who feel Slrubenstein's edit signals the end of the world as we know it please provide one actual example, from a real article, of the use of primary-source material that was fine before, but which his edit would have disallowed? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, Slrubenstein, et al - It is always possible for two people to read the same text and come away with different opinions of what it means. It appears that, perhaps, the existing text was being understood in radically different ways by the editors here. But clearly, the edits that Slrubenstein innocently made in his attempt to "clarify" are being seend as a major change by a cadre of editors here - a change that I for one do not endorse.
Slrubenstein above refers to "the paragraph that ests two conditions for the use of primary sources" - to my reading there has never been any such paragraph that establishes general conditions for the use of primary sources. Instead there is a paragraph that lays down requirements for the narrow case where an article is going to be "entirely based" on primary sources.
The policy has long included the text "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged" - (my emphasis on "primary sources .. strongly encouraged".
Put simply; the existing policy put primary and secondary sources on equal footing, strongly encouraging the use of both, with the narrow exception that articles could not generally be based exclusively on primary sources. - O^O 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
For the third time, would anyone who objects please give a concrete example of an edit that would have been allowed before Slrubenstein's edit, but which would not have been allowed after it? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here you go: the last paragraph of this section would not have been an issue before (as the article is not based entirely—or even significantly—on primary sources), but would (in my view) not comply with the stricter standard that any edit "drawing from primary sources" must make only "descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge". (This is based, obviously, on my interpreting that a contemporary historical account qualifies as a primary source here.) Kirill Lokshin 22:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, that's too much to read. Please pick out a couple of sentences, say what the source is, and why it would have been disallowed by Slrubenstein's edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. The most obvious example would be:

Clement VII, who had meanwhile become convinced that the Emperor's growing power was a threat to his own position in Italy, sent envoys to Francis and Henry VIII suggesting an alliance against Charles.

which is sourced from Francesco Guicciardini's History of Italy (which was written at the time, and which would, in my opinion, be termed a primary, rather than secondary, source). Because this (the underlying statement, not its presence in Guicciardini's account) is obviously not something "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult", it would have been disallowed—even though Guicciardini's work is generally considered by historians to be a very accurate one. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Francesco Guicciardini was a historian. Using him as a source is perfectly acceptable so long as you stick to what he actually said. What kind of edit based on his material would have been allowed before Slr's edit that would not have been allowed after it, and why? Here is the diff showing Wjhonson's most recent revert [1] Please tell me which part of that edit would have caused the problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that last change seems quite pedantic; I was assuming you were referring to the change made here, which goes from "based entirely on primary sources" to "drawing on primary sources". Hence, the question of whether citing anything from a primary source—even in cases where this material is not significant to the article as a whole—is permitted in cases where the point being cited isn't "easily verifiable". (I'll point out that I may be misinterpreting what "verifiable" means here: does it mean only that the statement is properly cited from a primary source, or that the fact being cited is itself easily verifiable? If only the first version is applicable, than I have absolutely no issues with the change.) Kirill Lokshin 23:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: It is not just about the strictest sensible interpretation of the policy, as "sensible" or "experienced" scholars and reporters would naturally read it, and hardly even dream of reading it otherwise. It must be an educational, explanatory document, that leaves no room for the most popular misreadings among unexperienced editors, who have an unfortunate tendency to gang up and form their own "concensus" [sic] on pop articles, overriding all "sensible" customs and practices. The recent changes by SLR have opened a host of new loopholes in this respect. Jon Awbrey 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Jon, please give an example. I want to know that we're dealing with a real issue here, and not the usual theorizing that some editors (you included) engage in on this talk page without any real understanding of how theory and practise interact. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: That's funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you. I was about to ask you what part of WP you actually write artcles in, that is so idyllic, so I could go and work there! I will look up some SOB-stories and get back to you later tonight. Jon Awbrey 22:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not constructive, and doesn't improve your stock here. If you're not going to contribute constructively you should spend your time developing a better understanding of the existing policies and how they interrelate before setting off rewriting them. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The change Rubenstein advocated would remove the use of primary sources for all articles *except* those few examples and their ilk. That is not however, the way in which the articles have been historically writen. Rather, most articles are almost entirely unsourced, so let's stick to the ones with good sources. These it turns out, are a mixture of secondary and primary sources. You are, for example, suggesting, that in an article on King Alfred we cannot quite the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which is a primary source. That is simply a ridiculous position. The admonition against primary sources was strictly to deal with cases where people drew exclusively from primary sources. It was not to limit the use of primary sources to solely those cases. If an article on George Bush says "Rush Limbaugh says 'Bush is fat'" and the actual text on Rush's page says "Bush is flat" then we can certainly link to that actual quote on what he did or didn't say. Wjhonson 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is the diff showing your latest revert. [2] Please explain to me how the version you reverted could possibly have "remove[d] the use of primary sources for all articles *except* those few examples and their ilk," in a way that the policy didn't already disallow. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Slrubenstein has clarified above that he did not intend to prohibit the use of primary sources. Unless anyone believes that a prohibition is what is intended here, I suggest we move on.
What I believe the issue here is that primary sources are being deprecated below secondary sources, while that has never been the policy of NOR. If anyone believes that I am mistaken here, I welcome being pointed to established text, in this article that makes it clear that primary sources were less preferred than secondary sources.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the "apple pie" and "current events" examples apply only to the narrow case where an article is going to rely exclusively on primary sources.
In general, I support Slrubenstein's attempt to make the paragraphs flow more cleanly, my objection is to any phrasing that suggests in any way that primary sources are less desirable than secondary sources. - O^O 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The version of the policy from 11:50 23 August 2006 stated "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." This differed from earlier versions which strongly encouraged both primary and secondary sources. The featured article Central processing unit reference section contains 9 references, 4 of which I classify as primary, 4 secondary, and one I can't decide about. So this featured article is allowed, but not strongly encouraged, by the 11:50 23 August 2006 version of the policy. --Gerry Ashton 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
SL 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)
I respectfully disagree. The policy here has never stated that secondary sources were preferred to primary sources. If you believe I am wrong, please show me the revision of this article that made such a distinction. - O^O 23:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, but you ignored me, WP:RS states clearly that: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." You made a significant change to WP:NOR on March 1, 2006, that perhaps others didn't notice. You changed "we report what other reliable secondary sources have published ..." to "we report what other reliable primary and secondary sources have published ..." [3] So you do know that that's what the policy said and will say again when protection is lifted. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, please, "ignore" could imply I saw your comments and choose not to respond. I assure you, I am constrained by my ability to keep up with the discussion, not by selectively reading. The change to WP:RS you refer to was made in April of this year. As you know WP:RS is guideline (not policy). In addition, an opinion in WP:RS as to the meaning of WP:NOR is not controlling over the content of the WP:NOR article itself. My inclination, once things are settled here, is to insure that WP:RS reflects what the consensus here.
Regarding the "significant change" of March 1, I believe you are representing it out of context. That change immediately went through several revisions by several editors (including yourself) and the final language agree to by all parties was similar to the language before I edited [4]. Frankly, the aggressiveness shown by the parties involved dissuaded me from making any contributions here until these latest changes appeared. Further, if you read that paragraph in context with the immediately following paragraph, you will see that it does not give primary sources preference over secondary sources, but instead discusses how the sources are used. - O^O 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, actually my copyediting wasn't done. It appears that the form that is there now, would even exclude any direct quote which provides an analysis. On a page for Abraham Lincoln, we could not quote him saying : "Apple pies are good" since that is an analytic statement. That is ridiculous. Quotes from primary sources by the subject, on the subject, are always allowable. Full stop. There are no exceptions where a quote by the subject, on the subject's own page would be disallowable in my view. Wjhonson 23:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting the impression that the objectors simply don't know how to use sources. How would writing: "Abraham Lincoln believed that apple pies are good," [link to source] amount to an "analytic statement"? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless I have overlooked it, I don't see any new proposals here for how to phrase the paragraphs in question. Here is my attempt to clarify the language in question: - O^O
Original research, as defined above, is not allowed on Wikipedia.
All articles on Wikipedia are to be based on information collected from published primary and/or secondary sources. Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged on Wikipedia.
Without citing published secondary sources, a Wikipedia article cannot make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims. For this reason, articles exclusively citing primary sources can make only uncontentious descriptive claims that can be easily verifiable by any reasonable editor.

I appreicate O^O´s latest comments, and the constructive tone, very much. Maybe we do disagree on one issue: as Felonious Monk says, I believe, sincerely, that for a very long time Wikipedia has favored secondary sources over primary sources, and rightly so. Based on the above remarks, I think after all there may be no conflict between O^O and myself. But, with all due respect, I think O^O´s proposal is just unnecessary. I think the current policy and my edit still work fine. To explain why I will address the other criticisms.

The second area of dispute seems mostly to be with Wjhonson, who characterizes my position as "suggesting, that in an article on King Alfred we cannot quite the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which is a primary source." Wjhonson, I implore you to believe me when I tell you: you are wrong, this is not what I am saying, nor is it in the text I have written. The text I wrote states, primary sources can be used if it "makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims." Surely this would be the case with the Alnglo-Saxon Chronicle, surely my edit allows for one to use the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. What you consider a narrow exception is indeed a wide one that fully accommodates your objection and Kirill Lokshin´s. So it seems to me, we have no dispute.

Gerry Ashton is correct that my main change was to remove the claim that primary sources are equally encouraged as secondary sources. The reason I did so is that that setntence contradicted the following paragraph which contained the actual policy. I feel that the paragraph introducing the policy in general terms has to be consistent with the actual policy. That is why I made my edit. The actual policy to which I refer, "where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events)," has been our consensus policy for a very long time. My edit does nothing to change it. Indeed, it sounds like some want to change it. But let us be clear: I am not changing the policy, I am maintaining it. Should we change the policy? Given that it currently accommodates the examples Kirill and Wjhonson came up with, I believe, yes, we should keep it. It is a good policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No it would not. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is speaking of a particular Abbott states that he "was the spawn of Satan, cruel, manipulative, abusive..." or something like that. Are you going to say that's not an evaluative claim? I think it evaluates the Abbott pretty seriously personally. And yet the above language would forbid it being quoted in an article about that Abbott. Wjhonson 23:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, but I still think you are wrong. YOU are not using the text to make your own evaluative claim (THAT would be original research), you are merely quoting a source that itself makes an evaluative claim. This simply does not violate NOR. NOR does not (now, yesterday, the day before, last week, last year) prohibit us from using primary sources that themselves make interpretive, analytical, synthetic, evaluative, or explanatory claims. It only prohibits us from using primary sources to make OUR OWN interpretive, analytical, synthetic, evaluative, or explanatory claim. If this is unclear, then it was unclear before my edit. And if it is unclear I agree we should clarify it. But my edit did not make things less clear, at worst, it left this unclear point unchanged. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you write "But let us be clear: I am not changing the policy, I am maintaining it.", to which I say again - I disagree. Perhaps (just perhaps) the old language was written in an ambiguous way, such that two logical editors could read it and understand it to mean different things. In that case, your language is restating the policy to clearly read the way you always understood it. But that change is explicitly disallowing the interpretation that other editors have long given it. - O^O 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I went back about a month, to a time when there wasn't a lot of edit warring and here is the way this page read: "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."Wjhonson 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I changed was to say that we encourage using secondary sources more than primary sources. I did not make any change prphibiting the use of primary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is to say "primary and secondary..." "primary and secondary". Absolutely no distinction whatsoever between them. And that's the way it should remain. Articles that are based predominately on primary sources should be discouraged in favor of secondary sources is fine. But to remove "primary" altogether from the above allowable sources is not fine. And discouraged is not the same as disallowed by the way. An article on a minor historical figure may have to rely on primary sources like to identify elements of his biography "born in Alaska (1900 census), clerk in a mill (WW1 Draft Card)..." etc. Those cases should be referred on a case-by-case basis, not excluded in an all-or-nothing manner such as the previous edits would have done.Wjhonson 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, at this point I have to ask, are you responding to anyone who has posted on this talk page? You certainly are not responding to anything I wrote. What constitutes a primary and a secondary source is stated in the policy and the definitions of these terms have been stable for years and are clear policy. Nothink I have done in the past few days has altered that in one bit. PLEASE explain why you write, "But to remove "primary" altogether from the above allowable sources is not fine" given that NO ONE has removed "primary" altogether from the allowable sources. Since you are suggesting someone has done this, when no one has, it seems like you are acting in bad faith. Yet I want to understand you - what exactly are you talking about? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the idea that quotes are evaluative because you the editor are evaluating something is specious. You the editor are not allowed to opine whatsoever, evaluative or otherwise. Any opinion of the editor is OR and already disallowed. So to attempt to restate it in a primary source area is not useful. Wjhonson 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you criticizing yourself now? First, you write that you are not allowed to use the Anglo-Saxon Chronical because it does not fit the criteria allowing use of primary sources (using a primary source to evaluate). Then I said, you ARE allowed to use it because the source presents Abbott´s evaluation, not yours. Now you say that now, it should not be allowed because spomehow you are reinstating a judgement in a primary source? Look, if you do not want to use the Anglo Saxon Chronical, don´t. But our policy allows someone to use it, and I have explained why. Your attempt to exclude using it just seems bizarre to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my concern is somewhat different; the problem is that the criterion in question is that an article using a primary source "makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive or evaluative claims" (emphasis mine). I have no problem with the second part, but the first part is an impossible requirement for historical articles, as you're demanding (as I read it) that not only the citations, but also the claims themselves, must be "easily verifiable" as accurate. Clearly, historical primary sources won't meet this requirement (an editor can easily verify that Guicciardini records the Pope as doing X, but he cannot verify that this record is actually accurate); thus, applying this requirement to any use of primary sources—rather than merely to articles which predominantly use primary sources—is a very substantial change, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Kirill I agree with your point. We cannot insist that the content of the quoted passages is accurate. We can only request that the orthography is correct. That is, the quote is an accurate quote from the source, not that the quote itself represents an accurate state of things. Wjhonson 03:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both Krill and Wjhonson on this. Perhaps this specific clause needs to be rewritten. This is what the policy means: that the source that presents the claim must be verifiable, not that the claim itself is verifiable. If the Anglo Saxon Chronical states that Abbott states that someone was the spawn of satan, our NPOR and Verifiability and NPOV policies all agree that the issue is NOT whether x really was the spawn of satan and that any reader must be able to verify that x was the spawn of Satan, but rather that the Anglo Saxon Chronical states that Abott believed x to be the spawn of satan, and any reader can be able to verify that this is indeed what the Anglo Saxon Chronical states. This is our policy. This is what the clause in question is meant to communicate. If the clause in question is not communicateing this effectively, lets have proposals to edit it to make it clearer. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe change "makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" to "makes only uncontentious descriptive claims which are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge"? Omitting the mention of accuracy would, in my opinion, make clearer that "verifiable" is used here in the same sense that it occurs in WP:V. Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholely endorse this proposed change. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make my point on "evaluative, etc" clear. To state that a primary source must not be evaluative to me says that we cannot quote certain statements. If the intention is that "we" cannot make an evaluative statement, or use it to make an evaluative statement, then that is redudant, since that issue is already covered in *general* not with regard to whether a source is primary or secondary. Even with secondary sources *we* cannot use them to make an evaluative statement — we simply quote them, or summarize them as best we are able, making the exact or essential points they are making. So this entire paragraph should be struck as confusing and/or redundant. Wjhonson 03:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson writes, "state that a primary source must not be evaluative to me says that we cannot quote certain statements." Again, I am baffled as to why he says this, because the policy does not say this and no one on this talk page has said this, and indeed I wrote yesterday explaining to Wjhonson that the policy does not state this. I will repeat what I wrote at 23:45 UTC yesterday:

NOR does not (now, yesterday, the day before, last week, last year) prohibit us from using primary sources that themselves make interpretive, analytical, synthetic, evaluative, or explanatory claims. It only prohibits us from using primary sources to make OUR OWN interpretive, analytical, synthetic, evaluative, or explanatory claim.

In other words, if the AS Chronical itself makes an interpretive or analytical claim, well, we can then argue whether it is a primary or secondary source but EITHER WAY it is permitted and indeed editors are encouraged to add it. Get it, WJhonson? Please reread what I just wrote again. I am saying it is permitted. It is permitted. Do you get it? Stop suggesting it is prohibited. Here is what is prohibited: Let us say I have a host of primary sources that say Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and that he won the Civil War. I can add these primary sources to the article (according to our policy last week and according to my edit). However, after citing these sources, an editor cannot then go on to add in his or her own words "Thus, Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents of the United States." THIS is the violation of NOR. THIS is using primary sources to make the editor´s own evaluation. Now, what if a verifiable source claims that Lincoln was the greatest president who ever lived? THIS source too can be added as long as it is verifiable meaning a reader of the article can find the source. Adding this statement, properly cited to a verifiable source DOES NOT VIOLATE NOR. Not now, not yesterday, not after my edit, not before my edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rubenstein's Axe

To refresh your memory let me point out these three edits YOU made:

Entirely removed primary sources as a possible source, except in a few narrow cases.
This edit says that ORIGINAl research drawing on primary sources is not allowed - which was, is and remains true. Some pointed out that this sentence was poorly phrased, and I rewrote it. This is because some people here act in good faith by assuming I act in good faith. When someone points out an error in what I wrote, or suggests an improvement, I act on it or support it. I even did this in regard to some your edits.
Wrong. Check your edit history *I* rewrote it. I am the one who removed "Original" in the above phrase. Wjhonson 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In any event, you continue to misrepresent what I did. I didn´t "completely" remove primary sources as possible when the two exceptins remains - look of the word "completely." Now, you define the two exceptions as "narrow" but you are wrong. They are not at all narrow and they allow for many uses of primary sources. Slim Virgin asked you to come up with examples that would not be allowed according to the rule. You provided the example of the Anglo Saxon Chronicals and I have explained to you in detail that the so-called "narrow" exceptions you are obsessed with definitely permit the use of that source. So what is the point of this example from the edit history? It does not support your case at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The exceptions are to the use of primary sources ONLY. Get it? Not to the use of primary sources. But rather to the use of primary sources ONLY. I've said that now at least four times. And the way the wording was after your edits, my example could NOT be used, as it provides an evaluative statement, which you disallow from a primary source. Evaluative statements from EDITORS are completely disallowed in general so to try to say that is what you meant is disengenous as that area is already covered, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a source is primary or secondary or any other ary. Wjhonson 02:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Edit 2 erroneous restatement that "drawing on primary sources is generally discouraged". Reworded following paragraph to completely remove "primary" from "research that consists of collecting and...."
There is no need to include the word "primary" in this sentence when the next sentence (or paragraph) explains very precisely when primary sources are permitted. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Edit 3 "Again denigrated primary in favor of secondary with "in favor of" Again re-emphacized that contributors "drawing" on primary sources "must be exceptionally careful". Both erroneous statements seeking to deny the use of primary sources except in a few narrow cases. Again removed "primary" from "collecting and organizing.
Wjhonson 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As others have said, it is a fact that Wikipedia encourages the use of secondary sources over primary ones. But anyone - like you - who then complains that this amounts to a prohibition of primary sources is just trolling. I have said it over and over again: primary sources are allowed under certain conditions, and these conditions are essential to maintaining the NOR standard, and these conditions are sufficient to allow or justify loads and loads of uses of primary source. They are not narrow, just precise. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not a fact, it's your opinion. I have shown in the three edits where you removed the word "primary" even after you complained that you didn't change the wording you just clarified it. Several editors have pointed out to you, that what you did is not clarification at all. You are the one trolling, and you are the one seeking to change long-established policy. Hopefully by now that should be clear. Whether or not you agree, it should be at least clear that your changes are not consensus. Wjhonson 19:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, I never said I didn´t change the wording. I said I didn´t change the policy. Of course I changed the wording, that is one of the ways I clarified things. And if you look at the first paragraph of the preceeding section, I stated up-front that I believe that our policy distinguishes between the appropriate use of primary and secondary sources and encourages the latter over the former. I have never hid this. I have been very up-front about this. So the edit changes you provide accomplish nothing but illustrate what I have been saying all along. What is at issue here is not what I did, as I have never contested that. The question is why, and I have provided lengthy explanations. If you still think that the policy as I reworded it prohibits the use of the AngloSaxon Chronicle, as you seem to think, then you need to learn to read more carefully as I have explained repeatedly that this is not the case. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And you are obstinate in the face of several editors disagreeing with your very changes, for the very reasons I pointed out. Instead of being obstinate which will get you exactly nowhere, why not try to figure out exactly what our issue is, and respond to *it* instead of some issue that we are not bringing up? The issue being that the wording as it *was* is very clear that Apple Pie is a narrow case where *solely* primary sources may be used. The policy said nothing about favoring primary *over* secondary, nor vice versa, but stated both in clear and simple language side-by-side. The ideal articles use *both* primary and secondary sources, on an equal footing. That has been long-standing policy which you continue to try to change by calling it "clarification", against consensus. Wjhonson 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing using primary sources is one of the most typical ways people insert original research into articles. It's fine to quote a primary source when one is being completely non-analytical, but as soon as one starts evaluating the source material one must avoid using primary sources to back up that evaluation. Slrubenstein's edit made that clearer. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map Of Misreading

JA: Making a new section for collecting concrete examples of worst-case sinarios later. Remember, You Asked For It … Jon Awbrey 22:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Well thanks, FM, for saving me a trip to the archives.

[edit] Example 1. <Title Pending>

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)

JA: Will discuss later, time for dinner now. Jon Awbrey 23:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Time to go for me as well - O^O 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Having been the victim of some rather vicious Stalker Puppet Attacks in the past — thanks, I'm much better now — I am rather timorous about mentioning any articles that I still care about, but wot the hecque …

JA: Here's a list of articles where it was necessary to cite primary sources, more reliable secondary sources, or multiple sources of both kinds, by way of correcting common hearsay, easily recognizable misrepresentations, misquotations, and popular misconceptions, many of which were not sourced at all and many of which evidently devolved from popular writings and tertiary sources. Now, it could be argued — and I'm sure if it could argued anywhere it will be argued here — that I was seeking to "advance a position", say, the position that accuracy is preferable to baloney, so I think that we will eventually have to sew up that loophole, but like I said, one can'o'worms at a time.

[edit] Example 2. Tabula Rasa

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)

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)

JA: Thanks, I will slate you as a "sensible person". Still, I have run into cases where people would delete similar sorts of citations on charges that I personally felt were rather trumped up. But I said that it was an easy case, and I am just trying to establish a baseline for future discussion. Jon Awbrey 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example 3. Ockham's Razor

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)

JA: The context is this. Ockham has lately acquired something of a cult following in certain quarters, and folks who have evidently read even less of him than yours truly have taken to attributing magical powers to that humble razor that he drew on a day from a stone and struck on yet another rock to draw forth the mainstreams of modern science in one swell foop. So my yeoman labor of dredging up this more refined secondary source, which so compactly epitomizes the facts behind the epic genesis — well, you'd think it was some kind of iconoclastic blasphemy the way they rent their garments, and shredded not a few of my e-pistles over it. I mean, who are Kneale & Kneale to whittle down the razor whitticisms broadcast every hour by the Ockham Gospel Podcast? Jon Awbrey 04:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

JA: Thank you for confirming my judgment. Unfortunately, you were not there to assist when this inclusion was challenged, and you may not be available the next time a similar case arises, so I need to have a clearly written policy which says that it's okay to add credible information to an article, even if it discomfits somebody who cannot produce credible sources for their additions. What you are not appreciating is the fact that people can and did "challenge the inclusion", quite strenuously. I eventually won out, but y'know Nothing Is Binding here, and it was only because I had WP policy statements that were just barely clear and firm enough to back me up at the time. The frozen version of WP:NOR and the parallel changes in the others that were added in recent cycles are just not that clear or firm anymore. Jon Awbrey 06:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example 4. What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate

[edit] Example 5. Truth

[edit] Example 6. Charles Peirce

[edit] Example 7. Philosophy of Mathematics

JA: Later, Jon Awbrey 02:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Cases

"Verifiable" does not mean that someone has verfied the source or provided a citation, only that one could. My sense is that in most cases here there are apparent violations of NOR, but the remedy would not be to delete the primary sources but rather to find the secondary sources that make the interpretive or explanatory or evaluative claim. Doing so would improve the article by verfying the claims and by adding sources that are resources for readers. This is and should be the general response to most claims of violating NOR - to look for the appropriate secondary source. I just do not see this as a problem. I see Wikipedia as a constant work in progress, and I see this as a part of that endless process of improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I understand the difference between "verified" and "verifiable", but I can't follow the rest of what you say. I guess my Virgil here — if you catch my drift — is to ask the question: "What would we expect WikiParadiso editors to do?" Wouldn't we expect them to consult primary sources and to collate multiple secondary sources into a critical compendium of the \sum of human knowledge, like encyclopedia writers have proverbially claimed to do for as long anybody can remember? Would you shell out good money, or time, or energy for it if it didn't do that? Maybe, but not for long. Jon Awbrey 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I challenge your basic premise; people shell out money for encyclopedias produced by acknowledged experts. Wikipedia is free and anyone can edit. It is for this reason, that we have a very heterogeneous group of editors and no editorial board supervising them, that we have these policies. So: I would start by accepting that there are many different kinds of editors.
  1. Some editors come here with a POV agenda they wish to push. One way that they do that is by stringing along quotes or raw statistics and then providing their own analysis of it. This really does happen, and it is wrong. One purpose of this policy is to provide other editors with established principles to help police against such abuses.
  2. Then there are other editors who know a lot, from both primary and secondary sources. Another purpose of this policy is to assist such editors in turning their knowledge into a good encyclopedia article. It encourages them to be very careful about primary sources, which often do not speak for themselves and thus invite intepretation. It reminds such editors that the editors themselves shouldn´t provide the interpretation nor present the primary sources in such a way as to privilege the editors´interpretations - which is not at all the same thing from prohibiting them from using primary sources. It also encourages these editors to find secondary sources to represent the interpretations, explanations, and so on that are so important. I think this is a good idea and I would be surprised if you did not think it is a good idea too.
  3. Finally (well, maybe someone else can come up with other kinds of editors), there are editors who have heard things but who do not have the sources, but want to add to the article. This leads to an article that might violate NOR or Verifiability. In this case, two things can happen.
  1. First, someone who knows our policies really well but who does not know the topic really well will leave the article as is and add tags asking for sources, or will try to edit the article so as not to change the content but make it more NPOV.
  2. Second, someone who DOES know the topic really well comes by. When s/he does, one of two things happen.
  1. On the one hand, s/he might say:this is BS, I know this stuff and it is just wrong. If there are no citations, s/he has every right to delete what s/he considers false information and if someone comes back and reverts the deletion and restores the possibly false information, the knowledgable editor can say "I think you are violating NOR but can you provide me with sources, if you have appropriate sources I will back down."
  2. On the other hand s/he might say "Yes, this is right this is good - but where are the sources?" and then being a knowledgable editor s/he will start putting in the sources.
Well, this is what my Virgil tells me. The result ought to be an encyclopedia filled with articles that draw on primary and secondary sources - even though many of our editors are untrained in research and have widely varying kinds of knowledges. It is our policies, plus a large heterogeneous group of editors, plus time, that will lead to a FREE encyclopedia that will be as good or better than expensive ones people shell out lots of money for (money which pays for, among other things, PhDs and graduate students and an editorial board policing their research) Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Gosh, it may take me till dawn to read all that, but a qwik-scan makes me think that you might have misread my premiss. I am just saying, wouldn't we all expect a self-respecting article writer to check primary sources? — isn't that just the sort of thing that we'd consider the normal and normative conduct of experts and competent amateurs alike? I just think so. Back later, Jon Awbrey 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I really appreciate your willingness to dialogue on this and start clearing up issues. I think I understood your point - at least trust me, I took it on good faith. Take the time to read over what I wrote carefully. I do not think you and I clash on values. I do think that I am trying very carefully to be realistic about the process of Wikipedia - how things really work here. You have an ideal about what to expect from a self-respecting article writer. My response is that our policies are not written for the ideal article writer. They are written for a community of heterogeneous contributors who are generally unregulated. Many may well be self-respecting, but might have very different ideas of how and why one would have self-respect; many self-respecting authors may find it hard to believe that other editors are self-respecting. Maybe some editors have no self respect. I do not know. I just know that there are lots and lots of wikipedia editors with different views and interests and backgrounds and there is no ideal self-respecting editor who can or should serve as a basis for our policies. I DO NOT ask the question how an ideal editor would act. I ask the question how have REAL editors acted in the past, and the answer is, in many many many different ways over a whole range of good and bad. I also ask, what is the collective process by which articles are edited, because no article is written or edited by one or even a small group of editors at one time. It is a long long process. I think our policies make most sense when viewed in terms of this process.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Jon Awbrey wrote "wouldn't we all expect a self-respecting article writer to check primary sources?" My answer: it depends on the field. I can't imagine writing an article about a novel without first reading the novel. On the other hand, I've never met an engineer or physicist who actually read the original Maxwell's equations. I tried once, and it took me about 10 seconds why the original form is never presented in any modern textbooks. --Gerry Ashton 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well-studied primary sources

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)

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)
If a primary source is reproduced exactly and published, isn't that still a primary source? john k 23:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Expert Editors

As a practical matter, the proposed rule change (which has been frozen in its changed form) recommends that every expert citing his own published work should check with the "People's Vanity Commissar" before doing so. This change is very much against the long-term wikipedia tradition and will seriously discourage experts from contributing. I favor the old guideline, which reads:

No, it does not. I defiy you to find the passage in the policy which insists that an expert citing his (or her) own published work "check with the "People's Vanity Commissar" before doing so." The current wording is simply a caution and a suggestion, there is NO prohibition, moreover the vanity guidelines are pretty vague and general too. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the obvious hyperbolie. The issue is not the guidelines, it is the potential abuse of the guidelines. I was the victim of an admin asserting the vanity guidelines against me because I had cited my own publications. This was in order to justify his deleting or reverting all my postings elsewhere on Wiki, apparently for crossing him. Difficult to beleive and totally against the rules, but it happened. He stopped when I cited the present rule allowing me to do this. His next step was to come over here and propose the rule be changed. Pproctor 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I think we need to tread carefully here, that is all. There really should be no obstacle to experts adding citations to their own research when appropriate. I agree fully on this. However, there really have been abuses of the wiki nature of the project and vanity projects is an issue. I think we need to say something about it, and I think it needs to be short and clear. Perhaps the wording can be improved. I think the key is to keep it short and sweet: all appropriate sources should be cited, even if written by a wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors however should not however abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works. Isn´t this fair? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The traditional guideline listed below makes this essentially impossible. First, any citations of ones own work must be completely at arms length and subject to all the usual restrictions. So any "vanity" effects would be minor, at best. A legal maxim goes "The law does not concern itself with trivialities", except on Wikipedia, naturally.
Further, in the real world, the anonymity of Wikipedia makes this rule doubly impossible to enforce, except if some expert is dumb enough (as I was) to reveal his true identity. It is also against a fundamental policy to demand a person on Wikipedia to ID themthelves. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is nobody here that this rule would have the slightest effect on, except myself. I welcome further examples. Furtherance of personal feuds in not a very good reason for changing a basic Wikipedia guideline in a way that will only further discourage participation of those "skilled in the art". Pproctor 13:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • == Expert editors ==

- "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.

What does eveyone else think? Pproctor 23:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I think we should probably tackle one can'o'worms at a time. Jon Awbrey 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For comparison, the proposed change is to add the sentence: "However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes." I don't agree with Pproctor's characterization of the change, but nevertheless I think the suggestion that experts take the matter to the talk page is too strong. I suggest something like rewording it to "… it may be better in some cases to suggest …", or "Editors should refrain from adding references to their own publications if this is disputed, and argue their case on the talk page instead." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that something would be helpful along those lines, primarily to ensure that what's being added really is relevant, as well as carefully written and cited. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The problems with changing the existing WS:NPOV policy are manifold. First, technical experts are not going to follow the changed guideline, should it go thru. Nor, with anonymous postings, etc. do they need too. That is, this change in the guidelines makes Wikipedia even more uninviting to the very people it needs (on technical issues anyway), without having much practical effect.
"Elitist"? There is an occasional need for technical expertise--I sure want a neurosurgeon to do my brain surgery. Second, even if experts were willing to vet their research publications with the vanity police, how is anyone to judge? Not even another person with the same expertise could make this kind of judgement about ideological purity. This is opening a can of worms. Remember, the guidelines are just that, guidelines.
Further, this change allows a lowest-common-denominator veto on a very subjective issue. Larry Sanger warned about this and how it damages the credibility of Wikipedia.
Technical experts put up with a lot here as it is. Having one's judgement questioned by anonymous strangers can be an interesting exercise, having one's motives questioned is quite another matter. One reason for the extreme variation in the quality of Wikipedia entries is that experts go where they are welcome and sheer away where they are not. Pproctor 17:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One's motives are usually identifiable from one's behaviour. If one writes articles about all of one's coworkers, citing papers jointly written with them, but fails to contribute anything else, then that is suspect. If one further goes on to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and insists that one deserves a Nobel Prize, WP:AGF is stretched to say the least. When one adds WP:SPAM to advertise one's baldness treatments...

Herein lies the problem; policy should be worded so that it is (1) not contradictory and so that (2) trolls cannot WP:LAWYER them. — Dunc|☺ 14:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I have posted biographies of a couple of my mentors and coauthors on some decades-old papers, mostly done when I was a grad student or post-doc. E.g., one John McGinness is credited in a recent definitive history of the field (which I directly quote) with inventing the first organic electronic device, among other things. More recent examples include the color display in your phone. If that is not "notable", then nothing is. Yet Dunc in his malace and/or zeal put a delete petition on it.
I am currently a physician in private practice. I do not understand how posting a biography of the person who essentially invented the "plastic transistor" benefits me in any way, just because I am coauthor on some old papers with him from when I was a grad student. The original developer of the PC is now also a private physician-- would it also be "vanity" for him to post a biography of his computor geek buddies from the 1970's? That was then, this is now.
Similarly, it was attempting to post to the bio page of a more casual aquaintance from the '70's Raymond Damadian that got me into this tussle with Dunc. What I saw and heard from Dr. Damadian did not exactly correspond to Dunc's ideas. BTW, I before I get a WP:NOR cite, there is a limited license to use personal communications from the subject of a bio, which this was. I suppose Dunc will also now try to get this guideline changed. Pproctor 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If I may continue Dunc's statement, … and so that (3) the policy does not have a chilling effect on worthwhile contributions. --Gerry Ashton 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Pproctor, I know quite a number of expert (in the Wikipedia sense) editors in maths and physics, some of whom go by their real name, including myself. In my experience, they all understand that citing their own work will be viewed with suspicion. In my opinion, the extra sentence merely conveys that practice. Most experts are naturally reluctant to cite their own work and vanity guidelines are not necessary for them, but (again from my own experience) the extra scrutiny is unfortunately needed in some cases (this is not meant as a comment on your conflict with Dunc, which I haven't looked into). I don't know what prompted your comments of "elitism" or a "lowest-common-denominator veto".
The old issue. Who shall guard the guardians? You all are lucky you did not cross someone like Dunc. I edited on Wiki for years, without problems. I revealed my name, as do many. I also made the horrible mistake of tussling on a controversial issue with Dunc, who continually expresses his strong "antielitist" prejudices and who shows no particular tendency to adhere to the posted guidelines, even after an admonition. Such have have and will misuse this rule to pursue their own adjendas. Wikipedia is not antielitist, it is neutral, as the rules should be.
To summararize the situation again, after I abandoned the field and fled, Dunc vindicatively continued a dispute on one page Raymond Damadian by systematically deleting my postings on other pages. This was under the excuse that citing my own work, published in major journals, was a violation of the vanity guidelines. I had done this in good faith under the present rule, which Dunc now attempts to change. BTW, even had my posting not been "legal", the way he did this (no discussion on talk pages, etc.) is totally against the guidelines. The problem is, when you micromanage this way, you open the door to more stuff like this. This is because the issue, "vanity", is so totally subjective. And with out any possible gain, since the Wikipedia rules guarantee anonymity. Pproctor 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Dunc, as I said before, I'm not happy with the sentence you added:
"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes."
What do you think about
"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better in some cases for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes."
or
"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind. Editors should refrain from adding references to their own publications if this is disputed, and argue their case on the talk page instead."
Same question for you, Slrubenstein. Of course, anybody is most welcome to propose other formulations.
PS added after I got an edit conflict with Gerry: Of course, and I consider some parts of the vanity guidelines as rather bad in this respect. But they do exist, they are obviously related to this section of WP:NOR, which makes it naturally to refer to them. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Like Jitse Niesen I am a self-identified academic so this issue relates to me too. I have no problem at all with the current wording, except that, well, it is a little wordy. What I wrote above still represents my best attempt to state the issue concisely: "all appropriate sources should be cited, even if written by a wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors however should not abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works." I think either iof Jitse´s two alternative suggestions would follow nicely from the preceeding. Anyway, in general I support what Jitse wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
How about:
Expert editors may find it difficult to judge whether citing their own work would lead to overemphais of one subtopic within the article, and should seek advise on the talk page if in doubt.
--Gerry Ashton 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I somehow missed that the text that Slrubenstein repeats just above here was meant as a proposed text for the policy page. I actually prefer that text above my proposal. I also agree that the current text is rather wordy. For instance, it says three times that contributions of experts should be verifiable. So, perhaps we should use the occasion to cut down on words. Therefore

Current text
(The conflict is about the last sentence which was recently added)		 Proposed text
"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.

If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes.

 "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions are verifiable. All sources which are appropriate in view of Wikipedia's policies (like Reliable sources and Neutral point of view) should be cited, even if written by a Wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors however should not abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works.

I've no problems with Gerry's text, and I'm quite happy to have it instead of the last line in my proposed text, but what I like about Slrubenstein's text is that it gives a fair warning about the "vanity police". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive ?

JA: Did someone forget to complete the archive op? Jon Awbrey 03:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the archive op? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Primary sources — my thoughts

(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:
    1. 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"
    2. 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.
    3. With respect to statements by people, that they hold an opinion
  • Primary sources may not be used for referencing:
    1. 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
    2. 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)
    3. 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)
    4. 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)

JA: You are misgrokking something very basic here — that all three, er, principles are basically one — they are the Not Making Stuff Up Principle. Jon Awbrey 22:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

JA: I only had time to give it a quick once over, but there seemed to be several places where you were trying to order the policies by some kind of logical dependency, precedence, or priority, for instance here:

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).

JA: Given the intricate entanglements of the three main policies I think that any attempt at a hierarchical ordering is ultimately futile. Of course you can chase the tail of mutual recussedness around, but it just keeps going round and round. Jon Awbrey 03:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

JA: DGMW, I'm not discouraging analysis of the logical and pragmatic relationship among the Big 3, indeed, I continue to pursue it. It's just that the excursion so far does not lead me to believe that we'll be qwite so qwikili getting to the \bot of the ⊥-less lake.

[edit] Toward a consensus

The way the page reads now:

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources. However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events). These are relatively rare exceptions and contributors drawing predominately or solely from primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.
"Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

Note the use of the word "predominatly" in the second sentence. The following sentence then addresses when a person can use solely primary sources (no secondary sources needed) in the case of apple pie or current events. And then states those are rare.

Finally it follows up in the next paragraph by reminding over-zealous editors that "source-based research" is not "original research".

That articles should be ideally a mix of both primary and secondary sources, has been the policy for quite a long time. The above wording is satisfactory to me. Wjhonson 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin you asked me "where I'm coming from". Read the above wording, and then my comment that "the above wording is satisfactory to me". This is where I'm coming from. This wording has been policy for a rather long time now. I challenge you in fact to find how far back this wording of "primary and secondary" extends. And I have yet to see any proposal from you, only apparent confusion about what the argument is actually about. Wjhonson 06:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This sounds good to me, with the possible exception of highly technical topics that may require specialist knowledge at the same level expected of the typical reader. Deco 03:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking about how much I agreed with Deco, and an unintended consequence occured to me. If I were to write "Eric Barbour wrote in the August 1998 issue of Spectrum that in a test of four solid state amplifiers and two vacuum tube amplifiers, a triode amplifier had the best second-harmonic distortion" that would probably be acceptable, because Spectrum in general and this article in particular would probably qualify as a secondary source. But if I'm wrong, and the article is actually a primary source, then I can't include the information because Barbour didn't actually write that the triode was best, he wrote that the triode had -52 dB of distortion, and the next lowest number in his table was -48 dB. I used my specialist knowledge, that smaller numbers are better when measuring distortion, to interpret his table.
As I understand the current policy, any reasonable adult must be able to compare a statement in WP to the primary source from which it came, and see that they are equivalent, without specialist knowledge. For secondary sources, the general spirit of the WP:NOR and WP:V policy also require that statements be verifiable, but the exact knowledge requirement to do the verification is not specified. One could argue that the standard should be that anyone with enough knowledge to understand most of the article should be able to verify the statement. --Gerry Ashton 04:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I'm having trouble distinguishing what's being asserted as proto-quasi-consensus from what is merely its embedding excess of excipient explanatory expletives in this section. Could folks please consider blockquoting their proposed proposals? Gratia in futuro, Jon Awbrey 15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with Gerry. For one thing, secondary sources are usually more freely available than primary sources. As far as this article is concerned, the real issue in NOR is "in what way are sources verifiable" but rather how to use any source properly so that one is doing appropriate source-based research rather than original research. "In what way are sources verifiable" which seems to be Gerry´s main concern is a reasonable question - but it should be asked and discussed not here but on Wikipedia:Verifiability talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about what OR is. Quoting a primary source is never OR. Not... ever. So how are these two issues related? OR is creating your *own* new facts *yourself*. Such as your *own* laboratory experiment. Quoting the results of someone else's experiment, previously published, is not OR. So can you explain this more clearly? Wjhonson 17:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It's perfectly possible to be doing OR and to have everything sourced. Do you understand that? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't speak for Wjhonson, but I certainly understand that. - O^O 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Suppose, for a moment, we define OR as anything prohibited by the NOR policy. Under that policy, in an article entirely based on primary sources, a paraphrase that is not easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge is OR. So quoting a primary or secondary source is never OR, but paraphrasing it is unless the paraphrase is very easy to understand. If instead the article is predominantly based on secondary sources, then the "no specialist knowledge" clause does not apply. Somewhat more sophisticated paraphrases might be allowed in the article based predominantly on secondary sources. As for Slrubenstain's contention that this should be discussed in Verifiability, the words that create the issue, "no specialist knowledge" are in this policy so this is the right page to discuss it. --Gerry Ashton 18:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gerry, I implore you to stop mixing up NOR with Verifiability. They are two separate policies. You keep bringing up verifiability. If an edit is unverifiable, it is bad because it violates the verifiability policy, not because it violates the NOR policy. If you want to debate the verifiability policy, do so on its own page. As to NOR, which is distinct from verifiability, Wjhonson is confused and simply does not understand out policy. I implore him to actually read it and learn it and comply with it. Wjhonson writes that "Quoting a primary source is never OR." This is flat out false. Sometimes it is OR, and some times it is not OR. He writes, "OR is creating your *own* new facts *yourself*." This is only one example of OR. OR also applies to using facts including those taken from primary sources to express a new (i.e. the editor´s own) interpretation, explanation, anlysis, synthesis, or argument. The issue is HOW one uses primary sources, and if one uses primary sources in this way, one is violating the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein wrote Sometimes it (quoting a primary source) is OR, and some times it is not OR. - I'm having trouble thinking of an example where quoting a primary source could be OR. I am clear, of course, on how sumarizing a primary source, or using a primary source to further some analysis could be OR, but not making the quote itself. Slrubenstein, could you provide an example of how quoting a primary source could be OR? - O^O 18:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The meaning of a text depends on its context. The question "do you know what time it is?" may seem very straightforward, but in fact it means one thing if a stranger approaches you in the street and asks you, and another thing if your mom asks you if you are a teen-ager coming home at 2:00 am. My point is that the context in which primary sources are being used is important to assess whether the use violates NOR or not. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, but I would point out that the OR doesn't come from making the citation (Jack said "do you know what time it is"), but in doing further analysis from there (Jack said "do you know what time it is" so he must have been mad at his teenage son. In other words, it is what is DONE with the citation that could lead to OR, not the citation itself.- O^O 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Suppose I had put a paraphrase into an article that Barbour found that of the amplifiers he tested, a triode had the lowest 2nd order distortion. Along comes editor Q and removes it because the article is mostly based on primary sources, and Q thought my paraphrase of Barbour involved so much analysis that it was original research. Q is a reasonable adult, so, according to NOR he's right, and the paraphrase is out. Later, the article has been rewritten to rely mostly on secondary sources. I put the Barbour paraphrase back in, and Q objects on the talk page. I reply the paraphrase stays, because the "reasonable adult" clause does not apply, so only people who can understand Barbour's article are qualified to judge whether my version is a paraphrase or OR. Ten editors with specialist knowledge come along and all agree it's just a paraphrase, so it stays in the article. --Gerry Ashton 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What Slrubenstain wants is a policy that allows him to remove certain facts he does not like, like this chart that he currently opposes being added to the capitalism article. Ultramarine 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Both Smith and Marx observed and discussed a revolution in the economic system and emphazied the importance of studying economic development. This graph illustrated this revolution. World GDP/capita changed very little for most of human history before the industrial revolution and the introudction of capitalism. (Note the empty areas mean no data, not very low levels. There are data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003.)
Enlarge
Both Smith and Marx observed and discussed a revolution in the economic system and emphazied the importance of studying economic development. This graph illustrated this revolution. World GDP/capita changed very little for most of human history before the industrial revolution and the introudction of capitalism. (Note the empty areas mean no data, not very low levels. There are data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003.)
That is BS and a you are a liar. I explicitly stated that this chart must be in Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You have opposed adding the chart to the Capitalism article. Ultramarine 02:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Slimvirgin, do not edit my talk page comments.Ultramarine 02:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Ultramarine for bringing to our attention the specific issue that brought Slrubenstein here. I believe we can at least all (except rubenstein) agree that grinding axe's is not what this page is for. The policy as I quoted it, is long-standing, and should not be changed simply because one editor wants to then use it to beat another editor. Now that we understand that, to rubenstein, this is about one specific issue, I think we can all approach the topic with that perspective. And I think rubenstein's extreme reaction to the charge is enough evidence.Wjhonson 02:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
SLRubenstein helped to write this policy and has been involved in editing it since 2004, whereas your first edit to this talk page was just a month ago. It's perfectly standard for an editor who is very familiar with a policy to want to clarify it if he sees that editors are misunderstanding a particular point. That isn't "grinding axes": it's the way the language on policy pages is improved. It seems to me that this situation has been caused, not by SLR's edit, but by your failure to understand the policy. I'm sorry to speak like that, but you seem to be writing long screeds of posts to cover one very, very simple point. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The point may appear simple, but we have failed to reach consensus. - O^O 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make clear that SlimVirgin removed comments from this page that another user had posted. That may not be apparent to those who do not view the history. Wjhonson 05:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether Rubenstein "helped write this policy" as you assert with no proof, is irrelevant. The policy has certainly evolved since 2004 and the fact that Rubenstein did not show up until now to contest what has been there for quite some time, is what is relevant. The language change was not an "improvement" and the more you two or three harp on that, the further you get from any consensus. Is this the way to create consensus? To repeat yourself ad infinitum? I don't understand that logic. Wjhonson 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to prove it to you. I'm informing you that he helped to write the policy and has helped it to evolve too. He didn't "show up to contest" anything, but simply clarified the writing.
I asked you a question above but you appear not to have answered, so I'll repeat it. Material can be OR even if it's entirely sourced. Do you understand that about the policy? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
What I understand is that quoting a primary source is never OR. Until that point is clear its not going to be productive to go any further. Wjhonson 06:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a simple matter to answer that one question, and it would help me to see where you're coming from. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
SV, from what I've seen here, no reasonable argument is going to convince those who object, they're simply immune to reason that supports any view but their own. The appeals to "finding consensus" fall flat... there's simply no consensus that the original policy's formulation is even flawed, much less that any one particular change is required or right. Nor is there likely to be as long as the basic, long-accepted fundamentals of what constitutes original research are wilfully ignored. All the yammering here is not going to change such a fundamental policy so significantly; many long-term contributors would not stand for it. Any consensus arrived at through a faulty understanding of basic foundation issues will be null. FeloniousMonk 06:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After a day

I had no time to join the discussion yesterday, but I've tried to read and understand everything that was posted since my last edit. Doing my best to interpret all that was written, here is my summary of what I think the disputes at hand are. I post this in hope that I'm correct in identifying where we disagree, and that by clarifying this, we are closer to resolution.

First obsevation: There are two very distinct sets of edits that got caught up in the series of reverts and article protection. The first disagreement is over "expert editors", when they can cite themselves, and whether they cab make "vanity" postings. The second disagreement is over the use in general of primary and secondary sources. If there is another disagreement caught up in the protection that I didn't note, please describe it immediately below this paragraph.

I am not a party to the first disagreement over "expert editors". I hope that disagreement can be reconciled so the article can be unprotected swiftly, but I don't have any key insights there.

With regards to the second disagreement over primary and secondary sources, I believe that there is quite a bit of people misinterpreting what each other has to say. I see three separate issues being discussed.

1: Prohibition of primary sources: There is a lot of argument above about whether primary sources should be (or would be) prohibited under any of the proposed edits. Oddly though, I don't see anybody claiming that they want primary sources prohibited. Can all parties simply agree that prohibition of primary sources is not on the table? Once we agree to that, I think we can save a lot of typing. Of course, if anybody is championing the idea of prohibiting primary sources, they should clearly speak up.

2: Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources: I think on this issue there is genuine disagreement. Several editors have said straight-out that they prefer secondary sources over primary sources, and that the NOR policy has historically backed this preference. Several other editors (including myself) have said that primary and secondary sources are equally welcome in articles, and they NOR policy has never given preference to secondary sources over primary sources. This is, I think, the stickiest issue here. Until we agree on this issue, I fear there is little hope of agreeing on language.

3: Restriction on exclusive use of primary sources: There is obviously debate around the wordsmithing of the "makes only uncontentious" and "make no analytic" paragraphs. This is the language that I think Slrubenstein set out to clarify, but without agreement on issue #2 above, I think we are all talking past each other in our attempt to find consensus.

So, without me actually making any proposal here as to how the policy should be worded, could the parties to this debate point out if they think I have identified the issues at hand? - O^O 18:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is constructive, thank you. I agree completely with your first observation, and believe we should treat the two issues seperately. I would add that some editors here are also raising issues about verifiability. I believe those questions belong on the verifiability talk page. As to your three questions, I think we can all dismiss (1) as I do not believe anyone here has ever called for a flat out prohibition of primary sources. You are right about (2) and I have stated my own position and my reason for it very clearly. As to (3) I tried to clarify my position in my response to Wjhonson above (18:49, 25 August 2006), and Jon Awbery below (19:02, 25 August 2006). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I would most respectfully ask some of the editors on this page to bear in mind that you may simply not have understood the policy, and yet rather than read it carefully and gain editing experience, you're asking volunteers to spend a lot of time trying to address your individual queries. There comes a point where that is no longer fair or reasonable.
The policy did not and does not prohibit the use of primary sources. It discourages their use in favor of reliable secondary sources. The reason it discourages them is that the use of primary sources often involves original research. There is nothing inherent about (published) primary sources that should lead to OR. But in practise it does, for the simple reason that many, if not most, of our editors are not good editors. They have no or little academic training. They do not know how to use primary sources properly; or perhaps they know but don't care. They therefore use primary sources to make analytic or synthetic claims that violate the OR policy.
The straightforward use of primary-source material is not prohibited by this policy. If a journalist witnesses a car accident, and writes a story giving his eyewitness account, the story is a primary source. That does not mean that, if he writes: "I saw five people die," we are not allowed to write: "Journalist X saw five people die." Taking up large amounts of time arguing that the policy prohibits this is frustrating and completely wrong-headed.
Secondary sources are preferred because most people don't know how to use primary sources, as WP:RS makes clear. That's it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: With all due respect, SV, I understood the policy quite well, as it was written at the time when I first read it. My understanding of that policy is precisely what causes me so strenuously to object to the most recent attempts to subvert it. Jon Awbrey 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you have not understood it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, respectfully, I feel this is inappropriate. You cannot definitively say what the policy was, you can only say what you interpreted the policy to be. Your understanding is not automatically superior to everyone elses. - O^O 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Why do suppose that experienced editors who helped to write this policy might not understand it better than editors who just flit in from time to time to cause a problem on the talk page? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are referring to me in your "flit in from time to time to cause a problem" comment then I am insulted by your comment and request you apologize. I think it would be best if you took a few days away from editing this page, what people have been writing here may be easier to understand with some time for you to cool off. - O^O


[edit] Home On The Range

JA: Here are what I think are some generally held common sense notions:

  1. There must be no discouragement of research that draws on primary bibliographic sources.
  2. There is nothing inherently "neutral", "objective", or "unbiased" about being a secondary source, in other words, that accrues to a source simply by dint of its being secondary. Neutrality is a distinct matter that has to be decided on its own merits.
  3. There is nothing inherently "reliable" or "reputable" about being a secondary source. Reliability and reputation are separate matters that have to be decided on their own merits.
  4. If you think that editors of anything anywhere can avoid the sweat of making "evaluations" of neutrality, reliability, and reputation, then you have omitted to read the fine print in the job description carefully enough.

JA: Jon Awbrey 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: My own last, best hope for WP-kind got lost in an edit conflict, so I'll have to go dig it up, but here is the penultimate version:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. Original research that draws predominantly on primary sources or single secondary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on independent and multiple sources.

JA: I think that this states what is just plain common sense in the Real World of journalism and scholarship. Jon Awbrey 18:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Here is the more complete and correct version, which was discused briefly above — but I'm hopeful that all our heads are much clearer today.

  • Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
  • Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.

In discussing the works of an individual writer, for instance, in compiling a bibliography of writings by and about an author, primary sources are works actually written by that author, while secondary sources are works written about that author's life and work by others.

The relative value of primary and secondary sources with respect to verfiability depends on the primary topic of the article. For example, when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote in that work is a primary source that is definitive as to its content, and it is treated as the most reliable source, over and above what any secondary source may say about it. In contrast, when discussing primary source reports of real events, common sense tells us that a comparatively disinterested secondary source, especially one that collates and verifies many different primary accounts, may be capable of more neutrality in its reporting.

JA: Jon Awbrey 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Let us bracket common sense (or rather, Jon´s beliefs about common sense) and stick to the issue at hand. Here is what I think is Wikipedia policy.
  1. Wikipedia must discourage, indeed prohibit, research that draws on primary bibliographic sources when a contributor does so in order to express or forward the contributor´s own interpretation, explanation, analysis, or synthesis of a topic.
  2. Secondary sources by their very nature represent a particular point of view, and we should encourage research based on secondary sources because it is easy to be very clear about the point of view (e.g. bias, subjectivity) of the source and thus comply with our NPOV policy.
  3. Reliability is not an issue in this particular policy (NOR), indeed, it is not an issue at Wikipedia. What is an issue is Verifiability, and we have a whole separate policy concerning verifiability - discussion of that policy belongs on that policy´s talk page.
Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: With regard to Point 1, to wit:

Wikipedia must discourage, indeed prohibit, research that draws on primary bibliographic sources when a contributor does so in order to express or forward the contributor´s own interpretation, explanation, analysis, or synthesis of a topic.

JA: Here you are confounding two separate matters. Wikipedia must discourage, indeed prohibit, all research that a contributor uses in order to express or forward the contributor´s own interpretation, explanation, analysis, or synthesis of a topic. Whether a contributor is doing that or not is a question that is wholly independent in principle from what order of research they are using. Jon Awbrey 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon, you wrote again: " ... when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote in that work is a primary source that is definitive as to its content, and it is treated as the most reliable source ..."
This is sometimes false, as a number of people have pointed out. We can't keep on pointing it out. We are volunteers, and therefore the time we can spend on any one person's concerns is limited. Suffice to say, that cannot be added to the policy page. If I don't comment on it again, it's not because I agree with you. Please assume that I disagree and will revert if you try to add it to the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: It is not false in the ordinary sense of the words that I actually used. The work as published is definitive of its contents. That is why we cite sources in the first place. There were a number of misquotations and bizarre interpretations placed on what I wrote, but I am simply not responsible for those. Jon Awbrey 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I suggest you take a break from this page for a couple of days. You're writing more than anyone will read, and you haven't fully understood the policy. When the page is unprotected, SLR can tweak what he wrote to clarify things if necessary. More than that is not required, and we shouldn't be wasting time with this kind of wikilawyering. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Judging from the way people are responding to Jon's statement that "... when discussing an author's work, what the author actually wrote in that work is a primary source that is definitive as to its content, and it is treated as the most reliable source ..." I think others must be interpreting it more broadly than I do. Looking in John Toland's book Infamy (page 3) I read "On Saturday morning, December 6, 1941, one of the translators...." If I came across a secondary source that quoted Toland, but the date were December 4 instead of 6, by default I would believe the primary source over the secondary source. I think that is all Jon is saying. -Gerry Ashton 19:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Exactamundo. There are a few consequences of that. It's why we have things called "authorized editions" and "critical editions", and "variora", but I would not dream of suggesting that we should get the first pass reader of WikiPolicy O Lost in a' that. Jon Awbrey 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would we need a policy that stated such a basic, obvious point? How many thousands upon thousands of other basic, obvious points does Jon want to add to this policy, so that at every stage in the editing process editors are told do this, no, do that, according to Jon's understanding of what an algorithm for common sense and editorial judgment might look like? Jon, please stop posting to this talk page for a few days. You're trying to wikilawyer us to death. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The Precipitating Parents of the US almost made the mistake of thinking that the principles in the Bill of Rights were too basic and obvious to bother writing down.

JA: I used to think that the things I wrote were basic and obvious. But when I came to WP I found out that they were neither obvious nor taken for granted, especially out there in Trenchtown. When I first read the Big 3 WP policies, that was not news to me. Except for 1 or 2 peculiar things that are causing most of the current fiasco, WP did not invent the lion's share of those norms. They simply acronymized what some of us got grooved into our brains from about the 6th grade on.

JA: The NOR policy as I knew it was working just fine. It constituted one of the last bulwarks against people who are too lazy to read that 2nd book, and who use every excuse in that 1st book not to do the work of writing quality articles. I am not the one who starting messing with it. Jon Awbrey 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parallel pitfalls

I was invited to opine about the recent minor language change to this guideline. After reading the above detailed discussion thread, and looking at the various versions, my general thought is that the prior version had some unclarity that is generally improved by Slrubenstein's edits. I'm not sure the latest version is perfect, but it moves in the right direction.

Drawing from some recent editing experience I have, I see certain dangers in both "primary" and secondary sources. In one recent edit conflict, an editor took what we can stipulate (for these purposes) to be a reliable source of raw measurement data, and selectively extracted parts of it to create a chart of this data slice. To my mind, this effort is a clear example of original research. The problem is that there is substantial synthetic effort involved in the choices of data extraction: we all know the slogan that Twain attributes to Disraeli about lies, damn lies, and their adjunct. In a general way, it is an easy pitfall to "make too much" of an original source that one believes to support a certain claim (but which other readers of the same source will not take that way).

Let's elaborate this example with a hypothetical. I take the US Census Bureau to be a nice solid, reliable source. They publish both raw data (well, semi-raw: I don't think they'll tell me individual households, but neither do they only release the very highest-level aggregations). If I were to personally look at several census years, and create a chart that projected "By 2040, the US population will be majority non-white", that would be original research. I bring in various assumptions about the past data trends might relate to future ones—they might be reasonable, but they definitely require some synthetic judgement on my part. In this case, a citation to the primary source raw data is very bad in an OR-ish way. On the other hand, if sociologist Jones publishes an article making the same claim, in which she herself bases the conclusion on census data, that's great to cite. Or, for that matter, the Census Bureau's own summaries might contain this same synthetic claim, probably at the end of a different URL than where you find the raw data. Here we get a clear example of secondary sources being much preferred to primary ones.

On the other hand, I have also experienced recently a case where an editor wished to quote a contentious secondary source that alleged a living biography subject to have written a certain thing. In this case, the primary source—the work of the biography subject—was readily available (and failed to support the secondary source's characterization of it). This is especially a big concern where partisan secondary sources themselves wish to advance certain beliefs about primary source topics (most often negative characterizations of the primary source itself). In this sort of example, the primary source is to be greatly preferred... almost precisely because the secondary source is too synthetic. LotLE×talk 18:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you are discussing the chart of GDP/capta above, can you explain exactly how it is original research and synthetic? Maddison's estimates have been cited in hundreds or thousands of other studies. The chart shows the whole period covered in his data. If we exclude this chart, how can we then include any other chart in Wikipedia? Ultramarine 19:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Take it to the article talk page, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll

I want to clear up exactly what people believed about NOR. Please sign your name under one these statements, if you think it accurately respresents your opinion:

[edit] Version 1

  • What OO says below — Except the stuff about "Non Predominantly Primary" was not there when I got here:

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 strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

  1. Jon Awbrey 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC) WICI (Where I Came In).

[edit] Version 2

  • I believe that the NOR policy (prior to the disputed edits) [5] equally favored the use of primary and secondary sources, other than having a narrow restriction on basing articles exclusively on primary sources.
  1. O^O 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vesrion 3

  • I believe that the NOR policy (prior to the disputed edits) [6] gave a general preference to the use of secondary sources over primary sources.

[edit] Version 4

  • I believe that the NOR policy never was nor should ever be so unsubtle as to give an unconditional preference/no-preference to secondary sources.
  1. LotLE×talk 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Remark. If there is anything that WP policies need to quit being, it is subtle. I think they need to be clear. They need to be clear, too, about the things that they have jurisdiction over and the things they just don't give a hoot about. Jon Awbrey 05:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version 5

  • The original, long-standing formulation of the policy is fine and recent attempts to alter are misguided and are premised upon misbegotten notions.
  1. FeloniousMonk 03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Almost everybody here agrees that the long-standing policy is quite fine. I would personally be quite happy with reverting the recent changes. - O^O 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll reminder: "A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the 'outcome'." ... "If you try to force an issue with a poll, expect severe opposition, people adding a "polls are evil and stupid" option and your poll not being regarded as binding." WP:STRAW FeloniousMonk 03:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Monk, I put the poll here, and I assure you it was not intended as a binding vote. My impression is that many of the parties here were misunderstanding each other, and I hoped that this "poll" would help establish what exactly the different parties believed. Unfortunately, the poll seems to have been taken as a joke, and we are making no progress. - O^O 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: FM, could you please give us a link to which original, long-standing formulation you have in mind. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the problem Jon. I'm not sure they even know who is on which side here. I am in favor of reverting the recent changes. In fact I've stated it already a number of times. The language about using "primary and secondary sources" has been policy for a long time. Wjhonson 06:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When You Came In — or — While You Were Sleeping

JA: Moved from my talk page:

The revision you linked to includes this text:
In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.
Could you clarify your vote? - O^O 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I'm not pretending I read that page on my personal Day 1, but I believe I did pretty soon after. On 1st pass, I just searched the page for "predom" and got zip. I have since gone back and read it 3 or 4 times, and discovered many curiosities. Will report back later in the day. Jon Awbrey 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: O^O, On 2nd read, I'm not sure what your question was here. Jon Awbrey 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed"

Original research is defined in the beginning of the article. We then define Primary sources and Secondary sources. Then follows the sentence "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed". I find this sentence awkward.

Why does this sentence specify that creating primary sources is not allowed? Are we implying that original research that creates secondary sources is allowed? Or would it be clearer to simply state "Original research is not allowed". - O^O 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I called attn to this ambig in SLR's phrasing at the start. After 3 or 4 reads I realized that his 1st edit wasn't nec saying what some were reading. The prob is with the "that" clause, that can be either what they used to call "explicative" (defining) or "ampliative" (adding info) in English. Later, Jon Awbrey 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: In the sentence, "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed", one is saying, somewhat in passing, in effect, "Original research is that which creates primary sources and it is not allowed". See? Jon Awbrey 23:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: So far so good. That is the way it always was, though it's for sure after all this that it needs to be written w/o all the castling. But now consider what I think is SLR's 1st edit on this issue:

JA: He adds the following line, using the same pattern:

Original research that draws on primary sources is also not allowed.

JA: But here the "that" clause cannot be explicative. He is not, or should not, be allowing the reader to infer: "Original research is that which draws on primary sources, and it is also not allowed". Jon Awbrey 23:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This phrasing is for people who use a method of OR that produces what appears on first glance to be a suitable primary source. For example, a very common method used on Wikipedia by people pushing their view is the 'Google for the word Foobar, and you will find that the websites brought up say this...', or 'If you check the newspaper archives, Mister X is commonly refered to as Dr X'. Both of these appear to be relying on a primary source. But in actuality they are creating a new primary source based on statistical research. Now, if someone makes original research, and then publishes it, and then someone creates a verifiable secondary source on this, it's no longer just a simple case of Original Research since it's become external to Wikipedia and been independantly reviewed. --Barberio 23:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The problem that you mention is a problem about deliberate bias or so-called "POV pushing". But the technique of distorted or selective reporting you mention works just as well with secondary and tertiary sources as it does with primary sources. Thus there is no protection against it in discouraging the use of primary sources. The problem of bias is real, even among people of good will, but it has to be tackled on its own field of play. There is no easy victory to be had by deprecating primary sources in the bibliographic sense. Jon Awbrey 05:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On new arrivals attempting to rewrite long-standing policy

This policy is one of Wikipedia's cornerstone policies. It has stood in largely the same form for years and enjoyed broad and wide support. The fact that some relative new arrivals to the project now object to its' long-standing, traditional form as flawed or unclear does not mean it is so and they should not expect the long-term contributors to the project will necessarily agree with them.

So far, after watching this debate for nearly a week I've seen nothing presented here by those seeking to alter the policy that convinces me (or the other long-term contributors it seems) that there's anything that needs fixing in the policy's original formulation, or that those attempting to change even have a firm grasp of it and its nuances.

There's a reason this debate has broken into two camps whose distinguishing characteristics are the time members of each have spent on the project. I suggest that those seeking to alter this policy go edit more articles and get some more experience under their belts before trying to alter Wikipedia's core policies or expecting those who have been down this path many times already to agree. This debate was utterly fruitless and wasted the time of a lot good contributors. FeloniousMonk 03:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That characterization seems almost wholly false. Among those who think that Slrubenstein's wording clarification is valuable are Slrubenstein himself, SlimVirgin, and myself, having respectively 11241, 32587 and 11042 edits... none of usexactly sounding like "newbies" (my compulusion seems so inadequate now... though at a mere 9585, you better get cracking, FeloniousMonk). The main opposition to the clarification is newcomer Wjhonson with 2726 editsLotLE×talk 03:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
FM wasn't referring to Slrubenstein, LotLE. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct, I was not referring to Slrubenstein, or SlimVirgin. FeloniousMonk 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Monk, if you have been watching this debate (without being involved) then perhaps you could summarize for all parties what you think the key points of dissent are - the discussion itself appears to be going in circles. - O^O 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Why should I bother? I can read, and I've read the archives before they were archives, and what I see here now is one side bent on altering a long-standing policy based on a faulty understanding of what constitutes original research in relation to the use of primary sources and that flies in the face of long-established Wikipedia convention and policy and immune to all reason and evidence that they just may be wrong. Until concessions are made to reality, as documented in the archives and the original policy, on that issue by some here, there's no point in continuing this discussion. That's why I called it was fruitless and a waste of time. So I'll simply reiterate my point: If you want to make substantive changes to a foundational policy like NOR, you'll be doing yourself and the community a service by first contributing to the project in more suitable and constructive ways and establishing that you have a sound understanding of not just the policies but the foundation issues. Disrupting this policy with incessant objections and flawed suggestions is not the way forward and is disruptive and damaging to the project. FeloniousMonk 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Editing of my talk page comments

Slimvirgin, do not edit my talk page comments. This is the graph that Lulu and Slrubenstein want to exclude using the revised policy. As such it is relevant:

Both Smith and Marx observed and discussed a revolution in the economic system and emphazied the importance of studying economic development. This graph illustrated this revolution. World GDP/capita changed very little for most of human history before the industrial revolution and the introudction of capitalism. (Note the empty areas mean no data, not very low levels. There are data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003.)
Enlarge
Both Smith and Marx observed and discussed a revolution in the economic system and emphazied the importance of studying economic development. This graph illustrated this revolution. World GDP/capita changed very little for most of human history before the industrial revolution and the introudction of capitalism. (Note the empty areas mean no data, not very low levels. There are data for the years 1, 1000, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1820, 1900, and 2003.)

Ultramarine 06:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/j/h/User%7EWjhonson_No_Original_Research_08d7.html"