Template talk:Primarysources
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This template is one of several templates used to provide or request sources for articles. |
 Archives |
| Archive 1 Oct 2005—May 2007 |
Contents |
[edit] Strike Usually?
The sentence "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are usually not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." is included in the template. I can't think of subject that would only have primary sources available where those primary sources would be sufficient for encyclopedic entry. Would anyone mind if I removed usually from the template? the sentence would then read "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article." Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source so while Wikipedia:Ignore all rules might apply on a rare occasion I think the current template seems to conflict with policy. Jeepday (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the problem lies within the contradictory language of Wikipedia:No original research itself. It currently states that "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases)." And while I'm not sure that is even accurate (How could you write about a current event without secondary sources? And shouldn't the analysis of a legal case come from a reliable secondary source?), unfortunately it is current official policy.
- So, the "usually" was likely added to bring this template in line with that language. -- Satori Son 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just for full disclosure, please note that this issue was discussed in great detail above at "If no such sources exist", where the opinion I just expressed above was rejected as "misleading" by another editor. Once again, I am not saying I agree with the statement that proper articles can be written using only primary sources, only that official policy says that they can on "rare occasions". Personally, I would strongly support removing that language from WP:NOR, but that decision is a little above my pay grade.
- I also do not know who re-added the "usually" language to the template. I let the issue go and have not done so. -- Satori Son 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Since it was recently added without discussion, I don't see any problem with simply removing it on the merits. I don't see any reason why primary sources alone would be sufficient for an entire article. WP:NOR probably means that it is not original research to use only primary sources for a description of a legal case, or that it is okay to have articles that currently or temporarily only have primary sources, but the fact remains that the non-primary sources are eventually needed. —Centrx→talk • 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- As you are aware, I respectfully disagree with you on the wording of this template. While I wholeheartedly agree with you on the need for every article to have secondary sources, and I really wish that language was not included in WP:NOR, I feel we are obligated to abide by the current language of that official policy.
- I would be curious to hear the opinions of other editors. And I strongly encourage everyone to go and actually re-read that policy, no matter how familiar you think you are with it. Please do not rely on our interpretations of it. -- Satori Son 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have read it, and it is being imprecise. In certain cases articles relying entirely on primary sources are not original research, but that nevertheless does not make for a good article, and it is not relevant to this tag. It is perfectly fine for someone to put this tag on an article without secondary sources, even if it were one of the "rare occasions" on which articles "may" rely entirely on primary sources. While the article may not be original research, it is nevertheless not a good encyclopedia article, and WP:NOR is irrelevant to whether someone is flagging a page as needing primary sources; and unless we are going to paste in all of WP:NOR to this tag, it is misleading to to have "usually" which is itself some random person's interpretation. The tag does not say "primary sources are not sufficient for an article that does not violate WP:NOR", it says "primary sources are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article", by which is meant an encyclopedic article; there is no article that does not warrant having some secondary sources. —Centrx→talk • 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've restored the non-absolute language but used the term "typically". There are occasions where primary sources are used alone--the thousands of bot created articles on populated places from census data are one example, and it would be pointless to apply this tag to all of them. Whether an article based on primary sources is good or bad is not relevant, whether it is good enough is, and the census example shows that it can be good enough for now. I have also added a note to encourage discussion on the talk page. This provides a way to address the specific issues on a particular page so that the tag does not become a permanent badge of shame, but rather is used as a vehicle to address the actionable issues. Dhaluza (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have read it, and it is being imprecise. In certain cases articles relying entirely on primary sources are not original research, but that nevertheless does not make for a good article, and it is not relevant to this tag. It is perfectly fine for someone to put this tag on an article without secondary sources, even if it were one of the "rare occasions" on which articles "may" rely entirely on primary sources. While the article may not be original research, it is nevertheless not a good encyclopedia article, and WP:NOR is irrelevant to whether someone is flagging a page as needing primary sources; and unless we are going to paste in all of WP:NOR to this tag, it is misleading to to have "usually" which is itself some random person's interpretation. The tag does not say "primary sources are not sufficient for an article that does not violate WP:NOR", it says "primary sources are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article", by which is meant an encyclopedic article; there is no article that does not warrant having some secondary sources. —Centrx→talk • 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is it time to add an icon?
A conversation has been started at Template talk:Unreferenced#Is it time to add an icon? to consider adding an icon to the {{unreferenced}} family of templates, including this template. Jeepday (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Done; it said "intentionally left blank", but I believe the icon I've added is doing fine. If there are objections, please raise them over here. -- Lea (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy?? Nope. Needs rewording.
Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article.
The word "accuracy" is clearly wrong. In various contexts, especially the technical fields I work in, only primary sources can be authoritative. A specification will either say X, or it won't; and if it doesn't, no third party could possibly change that. Easily verified in many cases, just download the PDF and read. That is, primary sources are sufficient for accuracy in those cases ... and in particular, secondary sources can't ever affect accuracy. The bias at WP:NOR in favor of secondary sources over more accurate primary ones is acknowledged, and seemingly will be removed. In any case, this template can achieve its goals without furthering that bias. (Reading various Talk: pages, it seems like that bug/bias in favor of secondary/error-prone sources is newly introduced, sometime in the last year. Hmm...)
More specifically with respect to this template, I'm thinking that rewording should help. Possibly like this:
This article or section uses only primary sources. Primary sources must be used with care, since they may be unreliable or incomplete. Moreover, primary sources can not establish notability about their topic, and rarely help with context and interpretation. Please add citations from reliable secondary or tertiary sources.
Comments? That maintains the "add secondary sources" intent of this template, giving a better explanation of just why to add them while getting rid of that bogus claim about accuracy. --69.226.208.120 02:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps wikilink primary sources. WP:NOR seems to have the wrong terminology usage here...
- Quite frankly, I think this whole template should go away as it is not in line with WP policy or guidelines. — BQZip01 — talk 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the part about "or section" NEEDS to be removed. Sections only a few sentences long can easily use "sources affiliated with the subject of this article" and easily be accurate. As an example, why couldn't you use the white house website alone to reference the basic dimensions of the oval office? Contrary to this template, they can be sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article.
- Keep in mind the above editor is pushing an agenda that goes against what this tag is used to call out. 216.85.6.131 12:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that you should focus your comments on the edits of users, not the user himself/herself. As for your comment, that is kinda my point: as-is, this template doesn't have a basis in WP policy or guidelines and, therefore, should be removed, IMHO. If an opinion is an "agenda" to you, then so be it. — BQZip01 — talk 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, your comment in the edit summary ("As you have pointed out at WP:V, changes like this should be discussed") misquoted what I said. That was a policy. Specifically, "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." This template does not have the same backing as a policy; these are not the same thing and is comparison between apples and lampshades. — BQZip01 — talk 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep in mind the above editor is pushing an agenda that goes against what this tag is used to call out. 216.85.6.131 12:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the part about "or section" NEEDS to be removed. Sections only a few sentences long can easily use "sources affiliated with the subject of this article" and easily be accurate. As an example, why couldn't you use the white house website alone to reference the basic dimensions of the oval office? Contrary to this template, they can be sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article.
- Regarding the original comment, the purpose of the phrase is that primary sources are needed in order for an article to be both encyclopedic and accurate. A Wikipedia article can be accurate with only primary sources, but it would not be a proper encyclopedia article. Conversely, a Wikipedia article that is encyclopedic but uses only primary sources is not accurate (or verifiably accurate). Perhaps "accurate encyclopedia article" should be changed to "accurate, encyclopedic article"? —Centrx→talk • 19:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- If everything in an article is from primary sources, then it certainly needs more, however, some people take this to mean that if a primary source is used, then it isn't accurate. This view is wrong. While a secondary source is more appropriate and certainly gives more insight, certain things do not need a backup unless they are contentious (i.e. census figures). — BQZip01 — talk 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The template does not say that data from primary sources is necessarily inaccurate or unverifiable, so I don't see the problem or why the template should be eliminated altogether. However, note in general: even data obtained from primary sources should be verified in secondary sources. There may very well be errors in the primary source data or there may be factors that need to be considered alongside the data in order for it to be interpreted correctly (e.g. changes in the way certain census metrics are tabulated; or trends of false responses as with Jedi census phenomenon). Such errors would be detected and such considerations would be explained by an historian, statistician, etc. who publishes a secondary source. So it is true that primary source data alone is less verifiable and more likely to be inaccurate, even aside from the fact that it is not sufficient for an encyclopedic article. The reason the word "accurate" is used in the template is so that the template is easily understandable by people who do not need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Centrx→talk • 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Equally, secondary (and tertiary) sources can be unreliable and primary sources sometimes need to be cited to make this clear. Quoting primary sources is different from interpreting it. Ideally, you would quote another secondary source that points out the error in the original secondary source, but that is not always possible. I agree that "accurate" is not the best wording here. The way the template is worded at the moment, it implies that primary sources are inherently unreliable. What is really needed is (depending on the article) the best possible mix of primary, secondary and tertiary sources that establish notability, and provide reliable, verifiable references for the information in the article in question. Generic tags will always be lacking if they try to over-generalise. Carcharoth 13:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- The template does not say that data from primary sources is necessarily inaccurate or unverifiable, so I don't see the problem or why the template should be eliminated altogether. However, note in general: even data obtained from primary sources should be verified in secondary sources. There may very well be errors in the primary source data or there may be factors that need to be considered alongside the data in order for it to be interpreted correctly (e.g. changes in the way certain census metrics are tabulated; or trends of false responses as with Jedi census phenomenon). Such errors would be detected and such considerations would be explained by an historian, statistician, etc. who publishes a secondary source. So it is true that primary source data alone is less verifiable and more likely to be inaccurate, even aside from the fact that it is not sufficient for an encyclopedic article. The reason the word "accurate" is used in the template is so that the template is easily understandable by people who do not need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Centrx→talk • 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- If everything in an article is from primary sources, then it certainly needs more, however, some people take this to mean that if a primary source is used, then it isn't accurate. This view is wrong. While a secondary source is more appropriate and certainly gives more insight, certain things do not need a backup unless they are contentious (i.e. census figures). — BQZip01 — talk 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This template is misleading
I think that this template is misleading and should not be used. It quotes a sentence out of context of a much more complicated rule. But the rule also says: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
An author may write an article and use a primary source "with care" according to the rule, and then somebody else comes and thoughtlessly just adds a template telling the readers that the article needs sources from reliable publications (understand: this article is not reliable).
I am against similar templates in general. Every article and every situation is different and thus should be discussed individually, no matter that spilling the templates all over the encyclopedia is much easier. The above mentioned rule also says: The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. Nothing about scattering templates warning all readers (without giving any specific arguments) at the top of articles. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Agree: As per Jan.Kamenicek above. --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Television Shows
Ok - I think it gets a bit ridiculous to post this template over article about individual episodes of television shows such as The Simpsons or CSI: Miami. For individual shows of this nature, about the only "Secondary sources" available would be original research of fans, POV articles by critics, and only a very, very few research articles of the kind accepted as Secondary sources for certain niche communities (ie. Buffy studies). I propose that this template be flagged in such a way as to greatly discourage its use for individual episodes of TV shows (and as soon as I can figure out how to do it, I'll make my proposal through more public channels.
I would think that other episodes within the series, when they are linked to within an article via a navbox or the equivalent, would often (though not always) be more than enough to function as "secondary sources" for most simple "within the series" interpretations and changes - and if "No Original Research" is brought up here for very simple and straightforward interpretations across episodes: Why? --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Icon change request
{{editprotected}} Can you please replace the current image with Image:Question_book-new.svg. Thanks! TIM KLOSKE|TALK 04:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done PeterSymonds (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
