Wikipedia talk:No original research: Difference between revisions

Archives

And God...

..came down from the heavens and spoke unto the wikipedians. "Thou shalt not do original research. Thou shalt be a sheep, follow the herd Do not think for thy self. Plagerise work; Do not thy own. Do not believe in ideas, unless someone done so before"

And Jesus said unto the lord

"But father, what if we find something that proves to be absolutley true and will improve the quality of an article, but no one has said so before?"

God replied as thus: "Thy cannot write thus work, unless it has already been done by someone else. It is a vicious cycle, nothing can be written unless it is already wrote. That is thy lords law."

And thus, God acended unto the heavens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.71.180 (talk) 01:13:22, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing primary or secondary sources within the provisions of this policy is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

• Shouldn't primary sources be discouraged as strongly as possible? When using only primary sources, it is very difficult (if not nearly impossible) to build an article without including original research by drawing conclusions from the information. Secondary sources allow the sourcing of conclusions about primary sources without engaging in original research.
• Isn't "[o]riginal research that creates primary sources" nonsense? Original research can only prouce a secondary source. Writing an allegedly inspired religious text would be creating a primary source, but would hardly be original research. Drawing upon such a text for reference material would be a conflict of interest and the result would probably be original research.
• Should we provide an encouragement to use primary sources with secondary sources?
• Legal cases? Seriously? Legal cases should be among the least desirable situations to use primary sources. Legal scholars very often debate for decades what a case is about, in what fashion and what exact conclusions were drawn. If secondary sources find it so easy to debate such "simple" facts extensively, how can those primary sources possibly be a good example for the no original research policy?
• The line between descriptive and analytic/interpretive claims is very thin, highly subjective and easily abused. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supported by reliable secondary sources. While many are prone to respond "that's silly", imagine it were an obscure religious group with whose beliefs you were not at all familiar. Now imagine it is a small obscure group that is often called a cult. The abuse potential is obvious.
• Also, notability and neutral point of view would seem at least to preclude a heavy use of, or dependence on, primary sources. The policies form a coherent unit, mutually supporting each other, not providing contrary encouragement or loopholes.

Just some thoughts. Your thoughts? Vassyana 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing primary or secondary sources within the provisions of this policy this and other content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

There. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support these edits. In particular, I agree that the sentence "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed." is junk - how can someone "create primary sources" by editing Wikipedia? Enchanter 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you witnessed something and added what you saw to Wikipedia, you'd be creating a primary source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the edits in the guideline. And I understand the preference for reliable, secondary sources, since these may be the result of more fact-checking than the primary source could or did. However, when secondary sources are not (freely) available, I have no problem with using a primary source provided the use thereof is clearly indicated in the article. — Xiutwel (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to the supporting comments and lack of objection, I have changed the page to reflect Jossi's proposal. Vassyana 13:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand the rationale for devaluing primary sources and privileging tertiary ones. It results in nightmarish edit wars, where a few people with dictionaries sometimes go around inserting misleading definitions, reclassifying ideologies, and rewriting history to fit. (For example, Pierre Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker identified themselves as socialists; Marx refers to Proudhon as a socialist, etc., but some dictionary definitions of Socialism have excluded them.) Devaluing primary sources means that one editor with a dictionary can trash a political article and no amount of facts can get in the way. Jacob Haller 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A related problem is that the secondary sources may simply contradict the primary ones. Jacob Haller 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally, politics is an exceedingly well-covered area, in terms of references. Beyond that, what you're worried about ("dictionaries") would probably be original research! Presenting an argument about whether or not X person fits the dictionary definition of Y label is certainly original research, unless that claim can be cited to a reliable secondary source. Even then, information should be presented in proportion to its appearance in reliable sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and extreme minority views should probably be excluded. So, it seems that your concern is already covered. :o) Regarding secondary sources contradicting primary sources, stick to the secondary sources generally. In such cases, there is usually a significant discussion regarding the contradiction and why it exists, which usually provides a solid analysis of the material. If it's an unusual or extreme claim, it may require additional references or removal of that claim. Just some thoughts. Cheers! Vassyana 12:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a poly-sci library. I have to make do, and the primary sources are much more easily available than most secondary sources. As far as politics goes, I am mostly involved in working on anarchism, socialism and their related pages. For anarchism, primary sources are readily available, but except for An Anarchist FAQ, decent secondary sources require serious cash. For socialism too, primary sources are readily available, but secondary sources are largely divided into those covering specific movements: some mostly cover Marxism, some mostly cover social-democracy, some also cover anarchism, etc. and many of these are partisan sources, dismissing the "wrong" movements as "ancient or medieval" (for movements which developed in the mid-19th century). In both cases, some scholarly works use special definitions remote from the movements, e.g. political scientists who use "anarchism" to mean "polycentric law" or economists who use "socialism" to mean "central planning."

And there are editors who insist on using dictionaries and rejecting primary sources, or who regard the use of one word to qualify another word as OR/IS unless I can find the same two-word combination. Jacob Haller 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Public and university libraries offer a low to no cost solution. Additionally, there are many sites (such as Questia) that allow online research for relatively inexpensive rates. Anarchy, socialism and other such widely covered subjects hardly require any serious investment in cash to research. The sources are plentiful, available and easily had at no to minimal expense. Out-of-date sources and original research based on primary sources just aren't up to par. Most of us don't have personal libraries, but we "make do" and manage to find modern reliable sources just the same. Vassyana 10:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The public libraries where I like have nothing in these topics. The university libraries are 90 minutes away (mostly waiting between buses) and $2.60 for the round trip, as well as closed for the summer. I can't afford to waste that much time or pay that much money for secondary sources. Jacob Haller 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the public libraries have something, even something reliable, on the topic. You're telling me they don't even have general history books that discuss anarchism or socialism? You're saying they do not have historical or biographical books that discuss Marx or Proudhon? I'm sorry but that's more than a little hard to swallow. Your fare is cheaper than mine and about the same time for the trip, so I've little sympathy on that count. There is a minimum expense and effort involved in doing research. Vassyana 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In the natural sciences, the problem is the other way around. Chains of evidence are created through generation of data and the attempt to re-create said data. When erroneous claims stick, it is very often due to not reading the primary source. See for example Simkin & Roychowdhury, Complex Systrms 14: 269 for a discussion of the scope of the problem. I think the devaluation of primary sources is a bit of a bias. Consider for example Perrin's_Beaked_Whale#_note-1. To argue for or against the older (the specimen description, mistaken for another species) or the younger source (which is the original description of the species) being correct would be OR; as both vertebrates and invertebrates are known food in this genus it simply cannot be told what is correct. I am not sure which one is a misprint; the primary source is rather unavailable. I will try to check whether there has been an erratum but the species description not mentioning such suggests that the primary one indeed read "invertebrate". Any tertiary source relying on the original description would be expected to repeat what is apparently an error. In my experience, especially in the more specialist fields of the natural sciences, the preference of sources should be primary (if available) - secondary - tertiary. Especially pop-sci tertiary sources are usually full of errors; OR if you will on the reviewers' behalf. Wikipedia provides a novel means to prevent this (as no error must be stand uncorrected for more than a few seconds after its discovery), and this opportunity should be duly honored. Dysmorodrepanis 06:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Preference for primary sources for quotations?

I think there is a consensus that when an article quotes or (noncontroversially) paraphrases what somebody said, a primary source is preferable to a secondary source. Am I correct? For example, if you say, "In 1782, Benjamin Franklin said _____", you would want to cite, if possible, to the primary source (i.e., the newspaper, diary, or public record where the quote originally occurs), rather than a 2005 article in the The New Republic that itself cites the primary source. This makes it much easier for the reader to verify that the quotation is accurate, and avoids a level of indirection. COGDEN 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the above generalization. "In 1782, Benjamin Franklin said _____" is from An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery then I would usually agree. But if this quote is from private correspondence it would be better to attribute it to an biography or historical paper were it is published. I think the preference should be for the most relevant source which is not necessarily the primary source. Especially if the WP article follows with commentary on the quote the primary source will not be most relevant.--BirgitteSB 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotes should be generally avoided in Wikipedia. Wikiquote would be the appropriate place for quotations. If a quote is really necessary (which is rare), it would be better to cite it to a secondary source, since such a source would also include claims and commentary about the quotation, which would be far more useful for building a solid article and avoid the temptations of providing commentary or presenting the text in a suggestive way. Vassyana 21:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only talking about verifiable primary sources that have been published or are accessible to the public for verification. This issue is important, because I deal primarily with religious history articles where direct quotes are usually the most non-controversial things in the article, and the secondary sources almost always color the quotes, and really strain hard to find subtle meanings in the text which not all scholars agree with. I've never been able to maintain a stable article in such cases without using the original quote or a close paraphrase, which the reader can verify and is not controversial. Then, the article can safely say what all the secondary sources preach about the quote, which is also not controversial, and everyone's happy.

At the very minimum, I think saying in this policy that secondary sources are preferred is an over-generalization, and does not reflect consensus. There's no such consensus, at least, in my area of the Wikipedia (controversial religious history). COGDEN 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Direct quotes maybe non-controversial, but they are also not encyclopedic content. It is very hard to use direct quotes in an encyclopedic way without straying into original research. This is why the preference is that articles rely on secondary sources. I cannot say anything definitive without a real example in context of an article. However I do not see how you have shown any evidence the current policy as written is either an overgeneralization or without consensus. Note: I mean to say I find that assertion a very strong statement based on what you have shared with us here thus far--BirgitteSB 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me show you an example from Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., a featured article that appeared on the front page on Dec. 2005, which has the following paragraph, which despite being full of serious religious land-mines that are not apparent on the surface, has survived virtually unchanged since then, and everyone seems to be okay with it:

According to another story, in either 1819 (Tucker 1867, p. 19) or 1822 (Howe 1834, p. 240), while the older Smith males were digging a well for Clark Chase, a Palmyra neighbor, at a depth of more than twenty feet they reportedly found an unusual stone (Harris 1859, p. 163). This stone was described as either white and glassy, shaped like a child's foot (Tucker 1867, p. 19), or "chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped" (Roberts 1930, 1:129). Fascinated, Smith reportedly took this stone and later began to see things inside it clairvoyantly (Tucker 1867, p. 20). Some scholars have concluded that these two accounts refer to two distinct stones found in 1819-1820 and 1822, and that these stories have in some cases been conflated (Quinn 1998). Other scholars believe that the two accounts refer to the same event in 1822 (Vogel 1994, p. 202). However, this has little support among his current followers.

In this situation (and there are countless similar examples), you have a number of issues that make primary reliance on secondary sources a problem: (1) the dates and descriptions of the stone(s) are critical facts. (2) Mormon scholars reject Tucker and Howe as unreliable, while secular scholars believe they are reliable. (3) Mormon scholars accept Quinn's conclusions and reject Vogel's. (4) Neither Quinn nor Vogel quote all of the above quotes verbatim. (5) The primary sources are in the public domain and on the internet, and therefore are more accessible than the secondary sources. Believe me, when this article was being written, lots of ways of expressing this and similarly-controversial paragraphs were tried, and they all failed to stick. Everyone who reviewed the article thought this was a good compromise, and the article was featured on the front page. COGDEN 21:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with this method is the original research involved. You have several accounts of one or two incidents of a similar nature with conflicting details. An neutral encyclopedic treatment of this situation should compare the differing accounts and describe the two schools of thought about whether these accounts are about the same or different incidents (The above example has generally given it this treatment). But if you back up this treatment with primary sources you are straying into original research. In the very first sentence you explain that a story which may have happened at one time or another relates this incident and the sentance is backed up with 3 separate primary sources (I presume by the dates and my quick search of Tucker). Going with my presumption, I imagine that Tucker, Howe, and Harris do not ever refer to each others separate accounts. If that is correct, then it is original research to state that the two dates given by Tucker and Howe are simply different date about the same story. If these sources do not refer to each other then this statement attributing these dates to the same thing is not properly referenced. It needs to referenced to a source that speaks of both the accounts given in Tucker and Howe. The only thing connecting those two dates to the same story given these references is a Wikipedia editor's original research. Using other sources, however, I imagine it would be possible to compare and contrast different accounts given by primary sources without violating the policy on original research. If my assumptions about what these sources contain based on a cursory look are wrong please disregard this analysis.

You could use Tucker to describe Tucker's account and you can use Howe to describe Howe's account. However you cannot compare and contrast these account without using a references which already does this. I realize that relying on the research of Wikipedian's rather than having use the contentious work of scholars may make things easier in this topic, but I feel you and your fellow editors are going to have to find another way to handle the situation.--BirgitteSB 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is exactly a case of where it is proper to cite primary sources. As a general principle i would expect to be told where some information originates, not to be given a reference to a secondary source which tells me where the information can be found. That is indeed pointless indirection. This example does not use the primary sources to claim that there is contention, merely to show the things which are disputed. It goes on to discuss the nature of the dispute, and then secondary sources become useful. Ogden was not debating the merits of how well sourced the argument about conflicting accounts might be, but whether the primary sourced quotes were appropriately inluded. They were. If policy says this phrasing is unencyclopedic and ought to be struck out, then policy clearly needs revising. Sandpiper 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But the information that Howe and Tucker give different dates for the same incident does not originate from either Howe or Tucker. Ogden was asking for more information on why this policy says Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. It is because writing a nuetral encyclopedic article with primary sources leads to original research. In the above example that is exactly what happens. The phrasing above is encyclopedic (which I thought I said), but it relies on original research. Anytime you have a single sentence with three different citations in three different locations within the sentence that is a red flag for original research. It likely means that none of the citations actually support the whole statement in it's entirety. And that is a problem--BirgitteSB 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to cite a source for something so obvious as that 1820 and 1822 are different dates. Obvious statements don't need to be cited, nor necessarily do statements that are not controversial (like the fact that Tucker and Howe (and Harris and Roberts) were referring to the same story, which all the secondary sources take for granted as being obvious). There's also no requirement that everything cited in a given sentence or paragraph be discussed in a single source, if combining them is not controversial. COGDEN 01:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought that the above was saying there was disagreement whether the two acounts were about a single event or seperate events. I thought it was contraversial and I agree that if it is not you do not need the level of citation that is causing the problem. I still would not cite the sentenance in three different locations but as uncontraversial material doesn't neccesarily need inline citations, I do not have problem in this case.--BirgitteSB 14:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example from First Vision:

While in the vision, he said he saw one or more "personages," who are described differently in Smith's various accounts. In one account, Smith said he "saw the Lord." In diary entries, he said he saw a "visitation of Angels" or a "vision of angels" that included "a personage," and then "another personage" who testified that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God," as well as "many angels". In later accounts, Smith consistently said that he had seen two personages who appeared one after the other. These personages "exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness." The first personage had "light complexion, blue eyes, a piece of white cloth drawn over his shoulders, his right arm bare." One of the personages called Smith by name "and said, (pointing to the other), 'This is my beloved Son, hear him.'" Most Latter Day Saints believe that these personages were God the Father and Jesus.

Here, as before, all of the primary sources are online and in the public domain, and the precise nature of the vision is stongly debated as a matter of religion. This particular article is right now in the heat of a major debate, but none of the editors have a problem with this particular paragraph, which is entirely factual and contains nothing new, except that the issues have probably never been summarized so succinctly and neutrally before. COGDEN 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This example is less problamatic as regards this policy. However you are lacking a reference altogether for the first sentance which is the only one with a comparison of the accounts. I don't think parts involving quotes are original research this time. But the paragraph as a whole is much less encyclopedic than the the first example. This is the other problem with direct quotes, they tend to fill space without giving much context about the importance of what is said. Why do we need to know the color of the eyes or the dress of this personage(s)? What is the point of recounting all this exact terminology (angel, personage, Lord} used by Smith seperately from the analysis of what his word choices mean in the larger picture? This is not an explanation of Smith's First Vision but simply a list of his accounts of it. Not origianl research, but not particulary encyclopedic either.--BirgitteSB 22:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it's obvious and not-controversial that the vision is described differently. No need for a citation there. It's just a background introductory sentence. As to the significance of these elements of the vision, that's discussed later in the article. But for reasons of style, clarity, and readability, we needed a succinct account of the vision all in one place, rather than breaking up the vision account with commentary. COGDEN 01:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I assumed it was contraversial, mainly because of your earlier comments here that you are using this method in areas of contraversy. I am not telling you your style is to seperate illustrative material from encyclopedic material is wrong, but showing you how primary sources can be problamatic if this was the main focus of the article. They are not a problem for illustrative material. Which is why they are not disallowed, however the large majority of the article should consist of nuetral encyclopedic material instead. Using primary sources to write nuetral encyclopedic material will tend to cross the line into original research. This is why the policy states, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. You are fine using primary sources for illustrative quotes, but lots of illustrative quotes makes a poor WP article. Beware of using primarry sources for analysis or explanations in articles, and be certain the articles main focus is on explaining the topic and the contraversy rather simply listing what primary sources say about the topic. Does this all make sense to you?--BirgitteSB 15:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't confuse OR with NPOV. Actually, "neutral encyclopedic material" is not often found in religious-history-related secondary sources, which are typically controversial and opinionated. When all the secondary source does is interpret the primary sources, adding an opinionated viewpoint, you're getting farther away from neutrality. Moreover, unless there is a consensus, it's just as easy to create original research from secondary sources as from primary sources.

This policy page is supposed to reflect consensus, and I see no consensus to favor secondary sources as a general rule, especially a bolded general rule. I propose just deleting the bolded line, or perhaps replacing it with the following statement:

1. "Direct quotations or non-controversial paraphrases should be cited to accessible and reliable primary sources, if possible, so long as the context of the quotation is apparent from the source itself or from a secondary source. All other statements in an article should be cited to reliable, published secondary sources. Care should be taken to ensure that all statements are cited neutrally."

COGDEN 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Any comments on this? COGDEN 02:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not support this in any policy and it certainly doesn't belong in this one. My overall objection is because I find "primary source" and "secondary source" ambiguous enough to make this paragraph meaningless. I consider the use of terms in this policy a "crutch" to explain the issue with original reasearch in simplified manner, but it is not completely accurate. Expanding on this inaccuracy outside of the issue of original research would be a bad idea. The above proposal has absolutely nothing to do with original research however and definitely shouldn't be in this policy. You might get more suggestions in a new sections, this is a little buried.--BirgitteSB 13:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is getting outside the scope of "original research", but so is any stated general policy preference for secondary sources over primary sources. So I'll withdraw the suggestion, but we need to remove the stated general policy preference for secondary sources (i.e., any suggestion that primary sources, as a rule, are disfavored), because clearly there is no consensus now to that effect. In at least one situation, several editors have agreed that primary sources are favored. If there's no consensus, it shouldn't be in the policy (at least yet). Therefore, I'm going to just make the edit in a way I think is non-controversial and start a new topic to discuss. COGDEN 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI considerations apply where the claims are related to religious dogma. WAS 4.250 00:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think WP:COI is implicated just because of an editor's beliefs. That problem would arise, for example, if an editor were a church's spokesperson or a church official. There's no conflict problem with editing in areas where you have strong beliefs, as long as you follow WP:NPOV. COGDEN 01:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong beliefs warp judgement. WAS 4.250 02:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but it's not a conflict of interest. If religious people were discouraged from writing about the Eucharist, Upanayanam, or Thetans, who would have sufficient interest and knowledge in these religious subjects to write the articles? COGDEN 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A person's beliefs have nothing to do with COI, otherwise we'd have a situation where Wikipedians who are Roman Catholic couldn't edit Pope, or people who opposed the war in Iraq weren't allowed to edit 2003 invasion of Iraq. The definition of a COI is: "Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest." Nothing to do with internal mental states. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. But sometimes COI is mistakenly use to refer to "pushing a POV". I know that I have sometimes said the one when I meant the other. The difference lies in proof that "pushing a POV" is caused by a COI; and when dealing with people who don't reveal their real identity "pushing a POV" is as close to COI as it gets. I had this thought lately; that a page where "pushing a POV" can be aired out might be useful. I would like a page where I can say that I think that slim and friends edits of Jew/Muslim/etc pages promote NPOV. I would like a page where everyone can say their opinion concerning the edits of Slim and friends edits of animal rights and agriculture issues. (I am in favor of her animal rights article edits and against her agriculture article edits.) WAS 4.250 02:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Revised primary, secondary, and tertiary section

I've revised the section on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to remove the stated "rule" that primary sources should not be used except in rare situations. There is no consensus for this proposition, and this policy article can only include rules for which there is a consensus. If someone wants to establish a consensus for this, then we can re-insert it, but for now, it should not be there.

Primary sources are widely used across Wikipedia, and several editors on this talk page have agreed that primary sources are even preferable to secondary sources (not just acceptable) in at least some situations. Moreover, most of the reasons people have proposed for favoring either primary or secondary sources in particular situations have nothing to do with original research. I've revised this section to reflect this, and to focus the section back on the subject of original research. As revised, the section makes no judgment about what type of source is preferable, so long as it is not used to support original research. Indeed, there are original research pitfalls in citing any source, primary or otherwise. Other than removing the non-consensus preference for secondary sources, I don't think the revision makes any significant changes, other than in terms of clarity and style. COGDEN 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am personally fence-sitting about this change and am interested in what other people think. I really don't think the old wording was so strongly against primary sources as you do, but if I think the old wording was less extreme than you did that only means I find this change even less significant than you do. Basically as long as OR is prohibited a lot of the usage of first-hand accounts is prohibited by default, so I do not see any real change in practice coming from this edit. This edit is basically re-focusing the issue on whether original research occurs rather than advice against the danger of original research when using primary sources. The only thing that I find is lost in this change, is that I think it is impossible to write an appropriate (i.e. following NPOV, NOR, NOT, and RS) Wikipedia article using only first-hand accounts. That old wording that articles should rely on secondary sources precluded that. However that point might fit in better on some guideline page on sourcing as it is really a common sense interpretation of the main policies rather than a main principle.

But if consensus supports this change, I wonder why have the section at all. Why take the space to define these terms (and to do so inaccurately by oversimplication), just to say they can all be used so long as there is no original research? What does this section add 'about original research not covered in the rest of the policy? --BirgitteSB 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is probably little practical change here, but I think it's important to keep the idea of a hierarchy of sources. In other words, to move beyond a primary source, you need a secondary source, to move beyond a secondary source in some non-obvious way (such as paraphrasing) you need a tertiary source, otherwise in each case you're doing original research.

I think it might theoretically be possible to write an article using only primary sources, but only when the secondary sources merely point out the obvious. (According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, you don't necessarily need to provide citations to propositions that are not likely to be challenged.) I can't really think of a good example, though. Any Wikipedia article, of course, has to be citable to at least one secondary source, otherwise the subject matter would be non-notable. COGDEN 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I've reverted the edit. The preference for secondary sources is long established in Wikipedia policy. Trying to alter this principle affects other policies and guidelines on a significant level. (And I would even argue it would be a fundamental shift in the focus and standards of Wikipedia.) For example. WP:V#Sources reads in the opening sentence: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (emphasis added) The preference for non-primary source is clearly stated. To address one specific aspect reverted: Reliable sources are "are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." (emphasis added) This means that primary sources cannot be called "reliable sources" without contradicting the very guideline linked. In essence, the preference for secondary sources is simply a repetition of what is contained in the relevant policies and guidelines. Trying to make your sort of change will require a discussion about making significant changes to multiple policies and rules, or at the very least will have to be addressed at WT:V and WT:RS, as those are the principles that best cover this particular content rule. Vassyana 22:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The WP:V#Sources quote regarding "reliable, third-party published sources" has nothing to do with whether the source is "primary" or "secondary". I don't think your understanding primary source is quite the same as other editors. A primary source can indeed be a reliable source. For example, (1) the Constitution of the United States, (2) the published Diary of Anne Frank, and (3) Darwin's Origin of Species are all very good primary sources that are extremely reliable sources of information about (1) U.S. constitutional law, (2) events in the life of Anne Frank, and (3) Darwin's theories. Journal articles, as well, contain primary information that are certainly reliable, and in some cases can be cited without original research (so long as no specialized expertise is required to interpret them).

Also, your reversion is improper because the secondary-source preference was added in late 2006, with essentially no discussion, after three years of having a neutral policy toward sources. No consensus was established for the addition in late 2006, and if you look at actual Wikipedia practice and comments on this talk page, I think it's clear that no consensus exists today. I'm re-reverting to protect the status quo as of late 2006. If we come to a consensus as to specific instances in which secondary sources or primary sources (or even tertiary sources) are preferable, then we can move forward. COGDEN 23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The examples you cite are not generally reliable sources for what you claim. Unless it is simply a quote or a very plain recounting of what the source says, it is probably original research in these cases. You cannot use the U.S. Constitution to argue constitutional law under policy. Since people who are professionally trained engage in vigorous debates about the meaning of various constitutional phrases, one can hardly cite the Constitution to back a claim. In that case, we should be citing reliable secondary sources which report on that discussion. The Constitution should only be quoted or mentioned as used in those sources, except potentially in rare exception, to avoid original research. Anne Frank's diary is widely read and discussed, but not a reliable source in and of itself. First person accounts are notoriously unreliable and there is a whole field of literature just addressing how accurate such accounts may be. In the case of famous accounts like Anne Frank, the available material is vast. If the first person account is accurate, we should rely on reliable secondary sources to report that it is indeed accurate and why. Origin of the Species is a much discussed and analyzed work. Much like the Constitution, there is incredible debate about the implications and intended meaning of various parts of Darwin's work, making it very difficult to present without original research. In all of these cases, reliable secondary sources are almost absolutely required, due to the interpretive issues involved. Beyond all that, it's just plain common sense that primary sources have the most potential for original research abuse, since they lack the analysis, commentary and so forth included in secondary sources. Vassyana 01:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Often the recent sources, e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia, introduce strong POV where the ancient sources have more varied, if not milder, POV. In this case, NPOV requires us to use the ancient sources (strictly speaking, many of these are themselves secondary sources). Moreover, an improper synthesis based on secondary sources is at least as bad as an improper synthesis based on primary sources. In this case, I think it would be better to describe appropriate and inappropriate types of inference, than to forbid otherwise-appropriate sources because some editors might misuse them. Jacob Haller 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to use some sense in evaluating sources. It's blatantly obvious that some sources are written with a very particular bias. However, there should be enough reliable secondary sources to both build an article and fulfill NPOV. If not, there's serious doubt as to whether that topic is even notable. In the case of Christian history, as implied here, there are a plethora of modern reliable sources that not only take into account the available texts, but also modern archaeological and anthropological knowledge. There are also numerous issues regarding the reliability of those ancient sources, including questions of authorship and accuracy of accounts. Those issues should not be addressed without employing secondary (or tertiary) sources. Even accepting those ancient texts at face value is a form of original research, since modern scholarship sharply investigates the authorship and accuracy of them. Vassyana 06:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting back to the most recent established consensus. For example, there was a discussion of recent changes in which only a single user objected. Changes like yours should be discussed, as those changes were above and as they were previously (see here for one of many examples). Looking over the history, it looks like a slow change towards disallowing primary sources. The changes was a result of a gradual process and much discussion. There was a point of change when some people noticed and/or objected. Much debate ensued, a consensus was reached and has been fairly stable since. The burden is on you to demonstrate that consensus has changed. Vassyana 01:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I for one find the current text encourages wiki-lawyering to (1) remove material referenced to multiple primary sources and (2) insert material referenced to dubious tertiary sources. People regularly cite these pages when supporting opposite sides, and reaching opposite conclusions, in such edit wars. Therefore, this requires (1) enough clean-up that people can agree on what this means and (2) enough consideration of different perspectives, different concerns, etc. so that the rewrite doesn't run roughshod over appropriate practices. I suggest that primary, secondary, and sometimes tertiary sources are all suitable for general reference, given other indicators of reliability.

• For quotations, primary sources are best.
• Where one source presents interpretive problems:

• Other works by the same author may resolve the problems
• Other works by his/her supporters and opponents will not resolve the problems
• Nonpartisan secondary sources may resolve the problems

• Where multiple sources present interpretive problems, including contradictions

• Nonpartisan secondary sources may resolve the problems
• If these are not available, it is better to present multiple sides than to rely on partisan sources or to create new syntheses.

• Where multiple interpretations, conflicts, and contradictions are present

• (not really sure)

This doesn't cover everything. One more thing: when various sources define movements, religions, etc., we shouldn't take these definitions too seriously, and should never take these definitions more seriously than how people consistently describe themselves. I'm bloody sick of the argument that Ben Tucker's ideas don't meet "the" "definition" of socialism. Jacob Haller 00:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As WAS below mentions, it's how a source is used that makes it primary, secondary, or tertiary. From what I understand, and using your example, if you cite text from Ben Tucker to say in an article "Tucker describes himself as a socialist," then that's using Tucker as a primary source. That's OK. But if you cite Tucker to say "Tucker is a socialist," then you are using Tucker as a secondary source about himself. That's not OK if there are other sources that disagree with his self-description. You can use Tucker as a primary source but not as a secondary source. That is, you can use Tucker as a source about what he says but you can't use Tucker as a source to state in an article that what he says is true. That's my understanding of the way things are supposed to work around here. WAS 4.250 please correct me if I'm wrong. Southern Snake 05:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No source is itself (qua source) primary, secondary, or tertiary. It is the use of a source that makes it primary, secondary, or tertiary with regard to that use. Without even basic understanding of the terminology we are using; WP:IAR is the only hope. WAS 4.250 03:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia is this explained? Southern Snake 04:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? WP:NOR Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. There's also this degraded article: Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia. – Dreadstar † 05:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No because that doesn't explain how usage makes something a primary or secondary source. And it doesn't explain what I just explained above. Southern Snake 05:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I wasn't sure what part of this you were asking about. I missed your top post above. I'm also curious how use of a source makes it primary, secondary or tertiary. I thought that it was implicit within the source itself, according to how it was created. A transcript of testimony in a trial is considered a primary source, and it's a primary source no matter how it's used. I believe the same goes for secondary source's, and tertiary sources. The are what they are no matter how they're used. – Dreadstar † 05:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I could be all wrong here so bear with me. It's my understanding that a person can't be used as a source for what he says as being true. He can only be used as a source as evidence for what he says. Is this explained in Wikipedia? For example, Tucker may say "I was the first socialist," but we can't use Tucker as a source to state in an article "Tucker was the first socialist." We can only use his writings as as source to show what he said. Is this sourcing issue discussed anywhere? Southern Snake 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm claiming is that it's improper to use a primary source as if it's a secondary source. I haven't seen this explained on Wikipedia. Southern Snake 05:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In WP:SELFPUB, it says "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as...<list>". In the situation you describe, I would recommend attributing the statement to its source (Tucker) and cite where the statement was made, per WP:CITE Say where you got it. (e.g.) "In a BBC News interview, Tucker said his last name was Tucker".[1] Use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources is pretty well defined, so it would be improper to use a primary as though it were a secondary..it's inherently a primary and should be treated as such. – Dreadstar † 05:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This probably should be explained then in one of these policy articles. It looks like this is what the user Jacob Haller is having a problem with. Among other things, I think he wants to be able to say in an article "Tucker is a socialist," based on the fact that Tucker said "I am a socialist" when other sources say he's not a socialist. But, if he does that, he would be using a primary source as a secondary source. Someone needs to write up something in policy to explain this. I can see this issue coming up a lot in various forms, where a primary source is used a source for the truth of the source itself. Southern Snake 05:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. I see you reverted the proposed change again today. I agree that there's not a consensus. I feel that any change in policy that upgrades the status of primary sources is going to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. Here's the sort of thing that worries me: suppose I have personal information about some matter, information that hasn't been published, but that I would like to cite in Wikipedia. If any primary source is valid, then why couldn't I simply write an affidavit, file it at a courthouse, upload it to a commons, and then cite it in the article? In my mind, the current policy helps guard against this sort of thing. TimidGuy 15:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to use published primary sources. What protects us from your scenerio is "undue weight". So what that your affidavit says so and so. It is a reliable source that you claim so and so; but where is the reliable published source that says your saying so and so is relevant or encyclopedic? WAS 4.250 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources

"A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources Anyone who wants to know the meaning of "Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources" should click that link and read. It is easiest to view sources as themselves primary or secondary but in fact at wikipedia it is important to realize that if we say "This source [so and so] said 'whatever'.[ref]" then we are using that source as a primary source for what it is saying. If a newspaper says the policeman said "Bob told me he killed Jay"; then we can use that report as a primary, secondary, or tertiary source depending on how we word it. If we say "Bob killed Jay"[ref] then we are using that newspaper report as a tertiary source. If we say "Newspaper [such and such] says the policeman said "Bob told me he killed Jay." then we are using that newspaper as a primary source. Which is better? Using it as a primary source. But some people here don't get that and insist that using primary sources is not as good as using secondary sources, when the key for wikipedia is not the source but how we use the source. WAS 4.250 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I really disagree with your presentation of PSTS. The very quote you use seems to contradict the comments the follow. An article is a secondary source "if it analyses and comments on those events". In other words, it's based on the content, not the usage of the reference. The letters of Origen are all primary sources in religious studies, whereas a textbook covering his letters would be a secondary or tertiary source. In almost all instances, with some consideration for field, a work can be clearly called a primary or secondary/tertiary source. Vassyana 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think WAS 4.250 is basically correct in that if you quote the source, you are using it as a primary source for what it said, but if you state what it says as fact, then you are using it as a secondary source. If the fact is not really disputable, then using it as a secondary source is appropriate. But if the fact is in dispute, then the secondary source use may not be valid, and making an attributed quote is the better course. Dhaluza 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here in Italy

Here in Italy we have a proverb: 'Made the law, decouvered the trick'. Is it so terrible, as overall rule, that the stuff published will be eventually challenghed with proper facts by millions other wikicontributors, to generate a concrete evolution and improvement of the articles? All the rules of the worlds will never assure the reliability and the truth over wikipedia datas. You cannot cite any source and do so a perfectly true claim. I can witness a politician contested by the crow (with even photos), and the day after a 'secondary source' as a newspaper will be 'available' to distort totally the facts happened, claiming the hot welcome he had. I can found a family dead under ruins, bombed by some fighter, and the day later see the claims on mass-media that they were 'all taliban warriors'. So go figure, the sources worths nothing if one support one or the other POV, there are all around even too examples to be made. If this screening of Wiki informations is impossible, then no reliable information could be guaranteed by wikipedia. Sorry.

More: a Personal Point ov View is not necessarly bad itself, seen that a judge, after all, express a sentence both 'personal' and 'neutral'. OTOH, there are the advocates or speakers of politicians that claiming things that they don't think but are directly the POV of they bosses. So a speaker, not sayng proper POV statements, 'should be' acceptable, and a judge not.

Perhaps i miss somethings, but let me repeat, the real needings for Wiki are: Be bold, Use goodsense, Ignore the rules and Search consensus plus the best: Search the truth. These should worths in Wiki, much more than 11112x10Small Textpolicies, often in contradiction one against the other, and good mainly to waste time and create a mass of burocrats. Let darwinsm do the work on the pages, and leave the 'creationism' party, that pretends to solve all with the 'table of law'. It dont' works as the free discussion (and as free discussion i mean talk with someone that don't treath handlyng the policies as hammers).--Stefanomencarelli 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Kinds of claims first, kinds of sources second?

Perhaps we should define different kinds of claims, and then what kinds of sources can support each claim. As extreme cases: Jacob Haller 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Albert believes this: Albert's own writings are the best way to support or debunk this claim. Even his own writings which may not meet WP:RS for other purposes are more reliable than others' writings which do meet WP:RS.
2. Albert is an brilliant physicist: Albert's own writings are useless here. Others' writings which assess his work are better here.
3. Movement A believes this: Different members of the movement may present different definitions. I think there are good reasons to favor internal definitions over external ones.
4. Movement A believes this; person B is a member of movement A; therefore person B believes this: Such reasoning involves improper synthesis and should be avoided. Direct citation of person B's own views is important.
5. Movement A believes this; person B does not believe this; therefore person B is not a member of movement A: Such reasoning invites improper synthesis and should be avoided. Direct citation of person B's non-membership in the movement is preferred, but general statements of person B's membership in group C and group C's non-membership in group A may be necessary if sources are scarce and disputed sources claim person B's membership in group A.
   1. Or such reasoning cannot support positive statements, without direct citation for the conclusion, but it can challenge positive statements.

Just some thoughts in response and general agreement:

1. Generally agreed. This is already covered in WP:RS and well-established. The exception to the general rule is when third party reliable sources make other claims. As a more common example, people often profess a particular faith due to social and legal situations, but often held a "hidden" faith due to circumstances. So, there might be a historical English figure that professed to be Anglican, even in many personal letters, but held to Catholic beliefs secretly to preserve his social standing and/or privileges.
2. Agreed.
3. Generally agreed. A number of groups have "sacred" and "secret" practices that are detailed by third party reliable sources. Also, analysis of those beliefs is best left to published reliable sources. For example, the Catholic Catechism is a very authoritative and reliable document regarding the particulars of the Roman Catholic dogma. However, it would be best left to outside reliable references to address how that dogma is put into pragmatic practice (or rather, how it is "really" used).
4. Agreed. For example, there are many practicing Catholics who are pro-choice, support the use of contraception and have other individual beliefs potentially at odds with church dogma.
5. Agreed, see above.
   1. I'm not sure entirely what you mean, but that sounds like it could potentially cross the line into original research. It would probably be acceptable to say something like: "Person X described themselves as a confirmed Roman Catholic. Reference Y disputes this stating that Person X did not attend Mass for most of their adult life." Just some thoughts. Be well! Vassyana 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure, but thought it might help to make positive assertions slightly harder and challenges/counterclaims slightly easier. Jacob Haller 02:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are primary sources best?

Expand and/or criticize:

1. Determining what an individual believed or wrote.
   1. Other works by the same author may clarify the work.
   2. But works by their supporters and opponents often add new ideas or drop old ones.

Where are secondary sources best?

Expand and/or criticize:

1. Determining the importance of the person/event from the secondary source's POV.
2. Untangling the dates and order of events.
   1. Annals, diaries, and similar works can also untangle the dates and order of events, if they are trustworthy.
   2. (I have used unclear primary sources, in desperation).
3. Assessing the reliability of supposed primary sources.
4. Summarizing the development and/or use of a scientific theory.
5. Summarizing the assumptions and/or implications of scientific or mathematical/logical claims, but not political, theological, etc. ones.

Burden of showing consensus

I've tried to make an edit removing a controversial statement in this policy pending further discussion and the arrival at a consensus. However, Vassyana has reverted this, reinserting the controversial policy statement. The statement at issue, which was inserted into the policy in late 2006 without much comment or notice, has to do with a general preference toward secondary sources and a strong discouragement of the use of primary sources.

In Vassyana's comments in his/her second attempt to reinsert this controversial policy, he/she said that "changing policy requires showing a change of consensus". Something for which there was no consensus to begin with cannot remain in the policy simply because there is no consensus to remove it. If such a practice were followed, any editor who could sneak a controversial statement into a policy could be assured it would forever remain official Wikipedia policy so long as there is some minority faction that agrees with her. Wikipedia policies reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia community. They cannot contain statements favored by only a faction of Wikipedia editors. Though Wikipedia is not a democracy, most often, if numerous editors disagree with a controversial statement in the policy, it should be removed. Therefore, I am removing it once again. COGDEN 04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the current version has been in place for almost a year, it should remain until consensus is reached on any changes to this version. Please stop the edit warring, and find a consensus. – Dreadstar † 04:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar, you have it backwards here. We don't need to find consensus to remove a non-consensus statement from the policy. The fact that consensus doesn't exist means that it shouldn't be in the article. Moreover, I wouldn't say the policy has been "in place", because there has never been a consensus, and the policy is not practiced. If there is any doubt that there is no consensus, consider these facts:

1. Since I first noticed the stealth policy change a few weeks ago and brought up the issue, several editors have expressed the opinion that primary sources should not be generally discouraged. That shows there is no consensus.
2. If you take a look at the Wikipedia, and particularly the featured articles, there is a widespread practice of using primary sources. Take a look, for example, at today's featured article Backmasking. I stopped counting the usage of primary sources. Just as a random example, the article quotes a primary source in its very last sentence, an article in a psychology journal, which states the results of primary research. And it's entirely appropriate, too. It's a commendable article. But in flagrant violation of this controversial policy. If this were a true policy, our best articles would be following it.

There already is a consensus for the policy without the offending policy statement regarding primary sources. If we want to find other consensus that treats sources non-neutrally, that takes time. In the meantime, we need to maintain the status quo. COGDEN 04:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do I? My apologies if that's the case - but I thought content that had been in place for over eight months would require a consensus, considering the very late dispute over its inclusion. Are we sure there wasn't a consensus at the time the controversial edit was made? Was it truly a 'stealth edit'?

The continued edit-warring must stop, so thanks for not reverting my reversion...;) <before I finished this post, I was disappointed to see an Administrator engaging in edit warring to keep his version in place.> I was hunting for the diff that actually adds the disputed statement to the policy, and potentially the discussion of that edit.

I found this addition: 09:46, 23 October 2006, but the wording was slightly different than now, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." The discussion at the time mentions a consensus on that version. I was planning on looking for the diff that changed it to the disputed former version. But I guess that's a waste of time. Perhaps we should conduct a straw poll to see where editors stand on this controversy now. This would be preferable to the continued edit-warring and eventual protection of the policy page. – Dreadstar † 04:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to assert a lack of consensus for a policy statement that stood for almost a year. "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus. That means since it stood for a year after the initial controversy, consent has been clearly established. Consensus can change, as it did over time leading to the current position on primary sources. It can also change in the other direction, but it has to shown that consensus has changed again. That also means that you cannot revert to a year old version and claim that is current consensus. There was not "stealth change" recently or last year. The changes last year were extensively discussed. Recent fine-tuning was also discussed with only one objection after the fact. These changes weren't done by "stealth" as you'd claim. They were discussed and debated on a very highly watched page, not in some dark corner. You may not like the changes and you're welcome to say so, and even to solicit general opinion from places like the policy village pump, but you just can't walk in and turn back the clock because you disagree. Vassyana 05:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Vassyana for proving that I wasn't crazy...;) The evidence you've provided proves this was no 'stealth edit' and consensus had been reached on the current version. I agree with that consensus and oppose reverting back to the version from more than a year ago. This version is preferable to me. Just to be clear, I agree that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.". – Dreadstar † 05:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." If necessary, I will explain why. TableManners 05:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I too think that the primacy of "secondary sources" is a critical component of this policy. And if discussion is reopened I would like to revive my proposal to add "religious scriptures" to the list of examples of primary sources. Abecedare 06:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the primacy of "secondary sources" is a critical issue, and think that more strong emphasis should be put on the importance of using secondary sources published by recognized academics when such sources are available. I strongly second the proposal to add "religious scriptures" to the list of examples of primary sources and strong language should be added along the lines of "religious scriptures may be quoted to establish what they say, but cannot be used to establish facts. Buddhipriya 06:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have examples of where this is done (using religious scriptures to establish facts)? Also, what is the rationale behind this? The implications that religious scriptures are primary sources is interesting. 06:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rationale: Religious scriptures are often (always?) written in esoteric language whose interpretation is the subject of innumerable PhD theses and unending scholarly/lay debate. As such their analysis by anonymous wikipedians is inappropriate (of course quoting documents to show what they say is fine, as long as accompanied by critical commentary by secondary sources)

Examples My God, ar you kidding! :-) There are perhaps dozens of such attempts everyday on the few Hinduism related pages on my watchlist. Example: 1 Abecedare 06:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have it. I thought such edits were being allowed to stand, and you wanted a policy change. It sounds like you are just looking for a quick wikilink to avoid unnecessary debates. Let me know if I got this wrong. Also, I am actually working through an issue that I feel needs clarification. See below, and comment if you think you have a valid analysis. TableManners 06:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is right; IMO adding "religious scriptures" would be just a useful (Godsent ?) clarification of existing policy and will not involve a policy change/expansion.

Aside: I am certain that their are scores of Hinduism related pages alone that cite scriptures to establish facts; such additions are often let to stand because of editorial neglect/laziness (mea culpa) or in consideration of religious sensibilities; but that is not something that can be handled by promulgating policies. Abecedare 06:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding my vote for the retaining the current version's emphasis on the primacy of secondary sources. TimidGuy 11:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality vs type

Unindent - I see part of the problem is that the emphasis should first be on quality of source, then the viewpoint. As it stands, it feels more like my secondary source, warts and all, can trump your primary source. Secondary sources may not contradict the primary source, but they may be a superficial interpretation, which in turn can be misread. It is then difficult to use the primary source to correct the misinterpretations in the face of this policy (especially as this may require some obvious synthesis to align the original wording to the secondary interpretation). So I want wording that puts the primacy of quality sources first. Spenny 14:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I view those as two separate issues. Quality of a source is different than the type of source (primary, secondary or tertiary). I don't think you can put one in front of the other, they need to be looked at in parallel, and not in isolation from one another. – Dreadstar † 19:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Where would you put a BBC solid news item vs. the report it was based upon? For example, say we have a Government White Paper (a primary source) which is summarised and commented on by the BBC news item (secondary source). Having read both, we find that there is an element of over-simplification which distorts what is actually said. Clearly the primary source is of the highest quality, it is what is being discussed, and the facts of its statement must outrank the summarisation of the reporter, even if this is done by the simple expedient of the direct quote for the reader to interpret by themselves. Obvious as this may be, it appears that is not accepted as reasonable by some, and is undermined by this statement of policy. You may see this as a discussion on real research vs. articles in New Scientist where I would be far more accepting of your position, but often this debate is about a much lower test of qualities. I agree with that the concepts need to be considered in parallel, but that is not what policy appears to say, it appears to say it is right to disregard primary sources, regardless of quality. Spenny 22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In the example you provide, you should not use a primary source in that fashion, even in the version "lenient" in relation to primary sources. It is fundamentally a violation of this policy, since you would be employing an "unpublished analysis ... of published material that appears to advance a position". We cannot put forth our own interpretation or analysis of primary sources without violating the most basic principle this policy is based upon. Particularly in regards to government matters, what you find to be an oversimplification, another may find to be a perfectly fine overview. Secondary sources are advantageous because they generally include analysis and commentary, avoiding the pitfalls of trying to employ primary sources without giving an analysis (explicit or implied) and advancing a position, which is a very difficult task to be generous. The policy reflects those issues. Vassyana 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That misrepresents my point. My point was that I could quote a primary source without an analysis to show that a secondary source was flawed, if needs be leaving it to the reader to make that analysis. The problem with the primacy of secondary sources approach is that it leaves the door open to quoting news items, which may be giving a controversial aspect undue prominence. In the context of verifiability vs. truth, if I can verify that a secondary source is misleading, or unreliable, then I can have both. We are not talking about hard stuff here, we are talking about statements of fact. Yes, on a Government paper, we can see that what is said is not always what is meant, but we should not assume that a third party interpretation outside the notable journals is necessarily any more accurate than the original words.

I have a particular example in mind (not that it is in Wikipedia as far as I am aware). During the floods in the UK last month, someone leaked an about to be published white paper on changes to planning policy. One short paragraph discussed the fact that it was inappropriate to stop building on flood plains as in fact a lot of areas that have been built on for centuries fell into this definition, including the centre of London, where it is considered that the Thames Barrier is a suitable solution to the problem. Someone tried to make a story that the Government was reckless as they were making policy to ignore the flooding risk (which also ignored the fact that the flooding affected areas that were not even considered flood plains). Some of the news media ran with that slant, making the story by selective quoting and taking the comments out of context. We could write an article based on the newspaper reporting, and find a number of articles taking that line, thus asserting the correctness of publishing the distortion as verifiable. We can correct this by simply quoting the original short paragraph in context which requires no analysis. Spenny 11:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it misrepresents the point at all. If the obvious point of the edit is to put forth the claim that the newspaper was wrong, at the very least that is highly questionable. There's far more harm potential in that kind of example (particularly of cherrypicking quotes and POV pushing, two very common inappropriate uses for primary sources), than for gain. notability and NPOV require multiple third party sources. In general, if there are enough third party reliable sources to establish notability, present a balanced view and write a complete encyclopedic article, primary sources should not be necessary except in rare cases, as reflected by the current policy formulation. Vassyana 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I understand this viewpoint as a statement of principles, it is a great way to give credibility to urban myths. Someone who is knowledgeable in their subject area will understand the misrepresentation of the media and can readily correct it without unreasonable synthesis. I still think you misrepresent what I am saying to justify your position: "quoting the original short paragraph in context" is quite different from "particularly of cherrypicking quotes and POV pushing" and whilst I understand what you are afraid of, it should not be used to justify the inclusion of the misrepresentations of the media. You seem to have been lucky and not had that sort of editing used against you. Unfortunately, the media has a tendency to use press releases, the same news agencies, pundit of the day and so on, so giving the impression of wide consensus, whereas it may well be just the blind reproduction of one particular press officer's summary. Secondary source does not mean disengage critical faculties.

The other effect I have been subjected to is the one line summary in a general news article used to assert a viewpoint, the headline quote used where we cannot see behind this source to understand the context to validate this secondary source itself. Often, that one line quote will be out of context. Much as you fear primary sources cherry picking and POV pushing, this happens just as much in secondary sources of the media, where so often these are a collection of cherry-picked items of interest. It is leaving Wikipedia open to just the same sort of spin-doctoring that the press rails against in the UK, when they were party to the culture that begot it. If you have ever been party to an incident where the media is involved, you will know that even the most innocuous of happenings can get incredibly distorted, even to the point where they will contradict the pictures being shown.

Policy that fits well with scientific credibility does not transfer well onto topics of general interest where even the so-called reliable sources need to be tested for veracity. Spenny 22:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement "I could quote a primary source without an analysis to show that a secondary source was flawed" is the very definition of Original Research. Dreadstar † 23:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean? In any case, checking the secondary sources against the primary sources improves the articles. At times secondary sources misquote primary sources, contradict the primary sources, etc. If the secondary source says "the author said A" and the author says "not A," and does not say "A," then the secondary source is ... wrong. Jacob Haller 00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I explained it in more detail in this posting. Dreadstar † 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, what is research? In Wikipedia, there appears to be a distinction between research: as in inventing things, histories etc. and publishing that work; and research: looking things up. Looking things up is not banned - a news article mentions a statement, it appears fishy, we go to the primary text and see it is wrong. We do not research, we simply observe that the article in question is of questionable validity. If the citation is not of sufficient quality, then the statement it supports needs to be challenged. There is nothing inappropriate in that. Spenny 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my position above (1) quality is important (2) most claims can use either primary or secondary sources (3) some types of claims require certain types of sources (we could describe these in more detail). Jacob Haller 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Let's say you have Anna Frank diary or De Bellum Gallicum. So we should trow them in WC because are 'primary sources'? Then let's say that we have Mein Kampf or a diary written by a mad reclused in a neuropsichiatric hospital that thinks to be Napoleon. Are these latter sources, still primary, as the same level of 'reliability' of the firts two? What about 'The second world war' written by Churchill, that awarded even, if i remember well, with a Nobel?? And what about the immense lies that we can read in 'secondary sources' in wich, expecially if politic-ecomic interests are involved, Wiki should pose exclusive faith?

The problem is clear; but it don't lies on 'primary or secondary sources' but in the manners of guys like Vassyana, that are acting with only one fixes idea: i am right, you not. This is problematic for me; the reverting to the changes made, (not without reasons) to this (quite absurd itself) policy. That's a problem.--Stefanomencarelli 14:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Gallic War is a masterpiece of propaganda, so probably a poor choice even if it is the main historical reference for the events. It is up to scholars to determine what is propaganda, what is likely true and what is likely false. Thus, we should be citing reliable secondary sources regarding the reliability of such sources, at the very least. The Diary of Anne Frank is a first person/eyewitness account, which as a whole are notoriously unreliable. For both of those examples there are a plethora of reliable secondary and tertiary sources that are easily available, including in-depth analysis of the sources themselves, so more likely we should avoid the primary sources all together except as referenced in reliable third party sources. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. There's no reason this conversation cannot be polite. Vassyana 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of these appear to be straw man arguments, the policy does not prohibit the use of Primary sources, it clearly establishes that great care must be taken when using them becuase they can be easily misused: "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". A good example of misuse is the above statement about using a primary source to show that a secondary source is wrong - that's an unpublished analysis. If a primary source is misrepresented by a secondary source, then - if it's important - another secondary source should have reported the discrepancy. It's not our job to provide such an analysis. Dreadstar † 23:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC Example

There is a current example of the problem which came up on the Administrator Incidents page discussed [here]. Someone spotted that a BBC employee apparently seemed to be editing the pages related to criticism. There appears to be a sensible response [here (there are a couple more corrections after)]. However, note that the argument is that they have checked the (primary) source which justifies the edit taking out the press bias of presumably deliberately misquoting the report. There are a few things here (does the remaining text in the article which notes that that the report was misrepresented in the press constitute OR - yes it appears to). It is also interesting as it brings in the question of reliable sources. We know that the Evening Standard does have vocal political campaigning, therefore for most purposes it is not a reliable source. On the other hand, we get into a problem as the article is discussing criticisms of the BBC and it is clear that these criticisms are being made. Wikipedia is being used to publish a political agenda, and potentially some interpretations of policy will encourage that, rather than resist it.

Discuss! 10:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secondary source on many articles; change the policy, delete the articles, or ignore?

I see a contradiction and I need to seek objective clarification. Specifically, many articles exist on wikipedia that are based on reliable primary sources. Many of these are at first blush benign, such as New Hampshire communities by household income. In this case, the only source is a reliable primary source: an official New Hampshire state government website that allows the extraction of data from a database.

Apparently this database is based on U.S. census data.

Effectively, the New Hampshire database is a restatement of U.S. census data. It contains a variety of fields.

The problem with the article New Hampshire communities by household income is that the original contributor decided which fields to extract, and what article to create. Using the same database, another contributor might create:

• New Hampshire communities ranked by number of households with children under the age of 5 or
• New York communities that have volunteer fire departments or
• New Hampshire communities supplied by Granite State Electric?

While ranking New Hampshire communities by household income seems logical and benign, such an article turns wikipedia into a secondary source, and not the tertiary wikipedia is supposed to be.

In deciding which of such articles to write, the original contributor is making an evaluation of the various fields, and selecting one.

Additionally, such lists are not encyclopedic, and are often substitutes for categories. E.g., why have an article titled "" when there is a category Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge?

Ramifications: Of course, many such articles exist. Deleting such articles will likely leave a sour taste in many wikipedians’ mouths.

To address this, I see two options:

1. Change the policy to explicitly allow, subject to consensus on an article by article basis, the ability to create such articles?
2. Start deleting the myriad of articles that turn Wikipedia into a secondary source.
3. Ignore the problem (which doesn't address it).

Looking forward to other's thoughts. (If changing this policy is out of the question, could you kindly direct where I should take this issue?) TableManners 06:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See also section for above.

• New Hampshire Database
• New Hampshire Database sources

Closing and signing. TableManners 06:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are seeing a problem where none exists. Editorial judgement is a necessary part of creating this encyclopedia. We are always choosing to use this source and not that one; choosing to include this claim and not that one; choosing to juxtapose these claims but not those. WAS 4.250 19:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, agree, agree.See posts above of Minesbeene, just as example.--Stefanomencarelli 14:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not strictly a tertiary source. We're a mixed secondary/tertiary source based on both primary and secondary sources. There is always a certain bias in how articles are presented, including the choice of topics, and you have the right to question whether an article such as this one should exist via the talk page and/or appropriate deletion channels. Dcoetzee 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Stevertigo's recent addition is a bit too abstract (sorry!) for me to follow. Are there some examples of articles that were abstracted upward as he describes? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Evolution (disambiguation) and/or Evolution (term)? WAS 4.250 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That addition was unnecessary and I am glad it was removed. This is a policy page, not a dissertation. Language has to be kept simple and to the point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with jossi on this. WAS 4.250 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jelly bean, interpretation of SYNT, and request for opinions.

Hi. I've made some edits to the Jelly bean article, about the candy. In this article we have a table of colors flavors, which is meant for the basic store-brand jellybeans which usually have only 8 or 9 flavors. I wanted to clean up one column where we list "black" as "anise/licorice".

The background is that almost all candies popularly spoken of as "licorice" are actually flavored with either anise oil or a synthetic equivalent. At least in the U.S., only certain gourmet brands are actually made with licorice root or extracts thereof, and they generally advertise this on their packaging. So black jellybeans, which are popularly referred to as "licorice" flavored, are often actually "anise" flavored.

My change was instead of having the unwieldly "anise/licorice" in the table, was to put "licorice" with a footnote that says "Many "licorice" candies are actually flavored with anise oil", with a quote, citation, and a link to a journal article explaining the subject. I felt that better explains the issue to the reader, and clears up a popular misconception.

Anyway, another editor keeps reverting it claiming "OR". I tried to meet him halfway by discussing what he meant by OR ( and also hoping to convince him that the fact itself was true before trotting out the rulebook ), but that didn't work out, and he moved the discussion off his talk page mid-conversation.

This is only a guess, but the point of contention seems to center around an implied inference. For example, if I made an inference to join "Licorice candies are really anise" with "Jellybeans are a candy" to get "Licorice jellybeans are really anise", that would be an example of SYNT.

However, that's not what I did, and I'd like to counter with the following points:

• I only said "Many "licorice" candies are actually flavored with anise oil", backed up by a very reliable source.
• This footnote was in a section ( a table cell ) of the article about "licorice" flavoring. It's not a statement about jellybeans requiring a source on jellybeans, it's a statement about licorice flavoring.
• There is no "OR by juxtaposition" rule, despite what some editors seem to feel.
• "Jellybean" is a generic description and not a trademark. That means there are many different manufacturers and many different recipes, and it is OK to speak of them and how they are flavored, in generalities.
• Even if an inference were being made, it would not be a material inference because there is nothing about the size or shape of jellybeans that they would be flavored differently than any other candy.
• It's unreasonable to expect that there would be an article explaining how a particular _shape_ of candy is flavored. Squidfryerchef 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I feel pretty silly about this, but here's what I see in this Jelly Bean situation:

Policy: WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which states:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

Source A: Liquorice candies are flavored with Anise. (Source does not mention Jelly Beans)

Source B: Black Jelly Beans are liquorice flavored. (Source does not mention Anise)

Synthesis: Black Jelly Beans are flavored with Anise. (Original research/analysis/synthesis)

This is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the fact that because "liquorice flavored candies" are flavored with anise, then 'liquorice flavored Jelly Beans" (which are candies) are flavored with anise.

The excuse that it's "just a link in the article, which doesn't draw a conclusion" is flawed and incorrect, because its mere presence in the article draws a conclusion, even if not explicitly stated.

Isn't there a single reliable source that actually says that some Jelly Beans are flavored with Anise? It seems simple - but I looked and it isn't at all simple to find a source that says so. I wonder why? Anyway, here are two moderately acceptable sources: [1] [2]. I think those might be usable, but not the one that's unrelated to the subject of the article...which is Jelly Beans, not "candies". Dreadstar † 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's actually my point. I don't think "source being related to the subject of the article" is to be taken so literally. I think the source only needs to be related to what is being footnoted. The other issue is that a jellybean is only a particular shape of hard candy, and wouldnt be flavored any differently than any other hard candy. If it were a certain _brand_ of jellybean than I would feel very differently and insist on a statement that that brand has a particular flavoring. ( CC from my talk page ) Squidfryerchef 23:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, researching this really makes me wonder if Jelly Beans are flavored with anise at all...some of the sales sites say it, but why are there no reliable sources for such a thing? Mebbe it's not even true anymore..and they're all synthetically flavored. Maybe someone can find better sources for it. Dreadstar † 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well my take is that jellybeans are just a differently-shaped sweet, and would use the same flavorings as lollipops, etc, even sodas. If someone did the same thing about a brand-name confection, or even something like a liqueur that might not be a brand name, but had a generally accepted way of making it, then I'd be making the same edits and OR claims. Anyway it's more complicated than that, you'll probably find "licorice" candies made from anise, star anise, artificial flavorings, and true licorice. But the point is that in the U.S. "licorice" is so often used to refer to things flavored with anise that there is a lot of confusion, and the article ought to say something about that. P.S. that Canada.com article might not be usable for the "anise" issue but it does resolve a lot of the unsourced data in the article. Squidfryerchef 00:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand your point, I just happen to disagree. It's entirely possible that all "candy-related" articles can have a source unrelated to that specific candy that just generalizes what all candies are flavored with. But I just don't think that's right. You cannot prove that Jelly Beans are flavored with anise, and these sales sites are not reliable sources. I dunno. It's just candy, but what applies to one Wikipeda article should apply to all. Dreadstar † 01:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There actually is a page on the Wikipedia called Liquorice candy, which would be a fine place to put my citation to that chemistry journal, and I could change the list of flavors to link there instead of to the Licorice plant. But as far as policy goes I still say that there is no implied inference with the kind of explanatory note I was trying to add to Jelly bean. That doesn't mean all such footnotes are automatically pure gold; but having them does not create an inference by proximity. Squidfryerchef 03:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Liquorice candy looks like the perfect place for your citation! Dreadstar † 06:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll: Should No original research take a stand against primary sources and tertiary sources?

Let's see where we are here with a straw poll. The issue, summarized as neutrally as possible, is as follows:

From 2003 to late 2006, Wikipedia:No original research indicated that editors could use primary sources, secondary sources, and tertiary sources, so long as there was no original research. Around November [late summer] 2006, a statement was added to the policy indicating in bold that Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources, and that use of primary sources should be "rare". [There was some opposition to the change at the time, but for whatever reason, the change remained]. No explicit statement was added against tertiary sources, but their disfavoring is implied by the above bolded statement.

Please indicate your opinions regarding the following questions:

Should Wikipedia:No original research oppose the general use of primary sources?

• Disagree. Primary source citations are the bread and butter of Wikipedia, and a prominent aspect of almost all featured articles. Any time there is a non-hearsay quotation, the citation is a primary source. Almost any citation to journal articles is a primary source citation. Citations from works of fiction, TV shows, movies, song lyrics, poetry, are all primary sources. If we discouraged citation of primary sources, very few Wikipedia articles about current events could be written. Moreover, the reasons given against citation of primary sources almost always have nothing to do with original research, and everything to do with NPOV. The rules for citing primary sources without original research should be the same as for secondary and tertiary sources. COGDEN 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources<adding>primary sources should not be used for OR, synthesis via juxtaposition, etc.</adding> TableManners 01:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree. Forbidding primary sources would make fact-checking impossible. I have been working on improving the coverage of 4th-century Christian history. Forbidding the use of older ecclesiastical histories (which reflect different sides of the controversies) would lock in the POV of later works like the Catholic Encyclopedia (which represent Nicaean trinitarianism) or that of modern revisionist works. Jacob Haller 02:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. We just need to be more clear when and why primary sources should be used. The use of primary sources alone almost guarantee WP:OR (and, not coincidentally, WP:NPOV) problems. However, primary sources are often a necessity as COGDEN and Jacob Haller point out above. Primary sources do not suffice, and may not be necessary, but there is certainly no reason to exclude them. --Ronz 02:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. Where in the policy does it state that primary sources are "forbidden" or "excluded" ? as per my reading WP:OR only says that such sources should be used "only with care". Abecedare 02:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Disagree You need some secondary sources to establish notability, but ideally you have a mix of primary and secondary sources. Squidfryerchef 03:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• No, as long as the editors don't analyze the primary sources. Rocket Socket 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Primary sources are invaluable for verification purposes. Secondary and tertiary help establish notability. MrMurph101 17:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree If I want to use an occasional direct quotation, or excerpt from an interview with a luminary to illustrate a point, why not? This is getting ridiculous.--Filll 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree Secondary sources used for analysis, but primary sources are preferred for data, and tertiary sources are also useful. It is not the type of source that leads to problems, it's the usage. WP should not assume that editors or readers are too stupid to use references properly, and make stupid rules based on this assumption. Dhaluza 01:30, 15 August 2007

(UTC)

• Strongly Disagree For current events the policy of relying on the secondary source material of entertainment networks masquarading as scholarly news outlets is asinine. Censoring available primary source material is endorsing a NPOV, Non-Informed-Point-Of-View that is. Primary source information of wikipedians for current event articles, as long as they log in and sign the post, should definitely be allowed. For instance I attended the Iowa Straw Poll last weekend and I can't post 95% of the information I have because it wasn't given out by some talking head in the spin room. I would propose that within 1 year of a current event wikipedians be allowed to add a primary source section to the bottom of the article, provided they sign their post and it maintains neutrality.GrEp 04:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:No original research oppose the general use of tertiary sources?

• Disagree. Citations from tertiary sources such as treatises and textbooks are usually even less likely to be original research than secondary sources, particularly when it is a widely-used textbook or treatise cited by everyone in the field. COGDEN 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources <adding>Tertiary are not as good as secondary sources. Primary sources are best for research, secondary are best for an encyclopedia, tertiary sources for a junior high school paper. Exceptions exist. </adding>TableManners 01:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Somewhat Agree. Tertiary sources, particularly dictionaries and sometimes also encyclopediae, reduce complex ideas and histories to simple definitions and summaries. People often draw syllogisms from these definitions, which is IS, and they are often wrong. Favorites involve "the definition of socialism," "the definition of capitalism," and "the definition of libertarianism" ... Jacob Haller 02:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A tertiary source can't be "wrong." There is no wrong or right on Wikipedia. There is only what is sourced and what is not sourced. If you think a source is wrong, you just have to keep that opinion to yourself. Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to make judgement calls like that. Rocket Socket 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. I think the exclusion of tertiary sources is just a misinterpretation of the emphasis on secondary sources. We need secondary sources (or better, meaning tertiary). It's not a coincidence that this overlaps with WP:NPOV in the need for "the best and most reputable authoritative sources available." --Ronz 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Somewhat Disagree. There are many places, especially at the beginning of articles where there's a few general statements about the subject, or the definition or etymology of the subject title, and these opening statements can be backed up by citing to tertiary sources. Squidfryerchef 03:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• No. As long as the tertiary source is from a reputable publisher there's no problem. Rocket Socket 03:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree Tertiary and quaternary sources etc. should be fine. How do you even draw the line between secondary and tertiary sources, in any case? This is all pretty vague, and more nonsense from bureaucrats and others who want a weapon to use against editors who are trying to write good articles.--Filll 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Primary sources are fine as long as they're only used to provide direct quotes or paraphrase sentences but not much more than that. Therefore articles should rely most on secondary and tertiary sources. The problem is when Wikipedia editors do their own analysis of primary sources. That's original research and not allowed. Rocket Socket 01:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Primary sources such as technical research papers, religious scriptures, raw data etc require a high level of understanding of the field and context to be interpreted appropriately, and this is not something should be done by lay, anonymous wikipedia editors. So articles should rely on secondary (and perhaps tertiary) sources, with primary sources treated with care. Aside: I consider review articles in academic publications that provide an overview of a topic and current consensus (rather than report the author's own research findings) to be secondary sources - do others agree with this interpretation ? Abecedare 01:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The definitions used here for these terms are at odds with the way they are defined in the scientific community. An published article offering analysis of the authors own research would be considered a secondary source along with "review" articles. A primary source would be an interview with a scientist simply describing his work.--BirgitteSB 12:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think we need to discuss appropriate uses and potential misuses of each type of source, or, as I'd suggested above, appropriate sources for each type of claim. Jacob Haller 02:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In my experience, secondary and tertiary sources often present worse POV problems than the primary sources. Jacob Haller 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a problem if a source presents a POV. The problem is when an editor states his POV without a source for it. The policy against POV is for editors not sources. All sources are going to have a POV. Rocket Socket 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be neutral, only reliable. It is up to Wikipedia editors to produce a neutral article by balancing the information from sources from each viewpoint. We must use POV sources to do so. POV sources are a requirement.--BirgitteSB 12:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus is not a vote. I agree with the first two commenting editors above. Vassyana 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments. Review articles, as mentioned by Abecedare, are secondary sources. I would support including more encouraging language towards tertiary sources, but would still encourage caution due to potential oversimplification by the source. We can always provide clarification regarding those sources. I'm unconcerned with current events being lacking in Wikipedia. Wikinews is over that way if someone is interested in covering current events. Wikiversity, Wikiquote and Wikibooks are in those directions, if someone wants to work extensively with primary sources.
  • On the subject of early Christian history, there are a plethora of secondary & tertiary sources, and it's not our place to analyze and determine if modern sources are "revisionist". We should represent the views of modern scholarship and publications according to their prominence, not our own opinions. If someone wants to dispute the findings of modern scholarship, they are welcome to find a reputable publisher. Vassyana 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment about poll. This poll is inaccurate, to say the least, in its summary of the policy shift. There was an extensive discussion about the changes, which were implemented at the end of summer last year, not in mid-to-late fall as presented. (You can review the discussion here.) The problems with abuse of primary sources were recurring issues, and sporadically discussed on the policy talkpage over time. Primary sources are very difficult to use without engaging in original research, implicitly or explicitly, except when presenting them as used by reliable third party publishers. Vassyana 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Vassyana. Also, the phrasing of the questions are biased. BTW, I do not disagree with the use of 1 and 3 sources, but 2 sources are emphasized and more important. TableManners 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have to agree. The questions are bit contrived and misleading. The policy does not forbid or exclude primary and tertiary sources. It doesn't even provide any injunction against using tertiary sources. On primary sources, it just says they should be used rarely and with great care to avoid original research. And of course, if people come across one of those rare situations (or just an exception to the rule), they're free to apply a little common sense. For example, it's common to plainly report census numbers for statistics on U.S. cities. It's just a plain reporting of facts and is purely "raw data", not presenting one interpretation, POV or another. Common sense tells us that's a fairly good primary source because it's use is very neutral and published by a source with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. (At least as far as the census number go, *chuckle*). Some primary sources are far more subjective, like personal memoirs and ancient historical accounts, and therefore need to be vetted and interpreted by modern third party reliable references. Vassyana 05:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  If I may split hairs here, US Census Reports are not primary sources: they are syntheses of the Census returns -- those forms US citizens fill out every 10 years -- which makes it a secondary source. -- llywrch 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are primary sources. It's a reporting of raw data, collected and collated but still a primary source. Reporting the raw results of lab data, with little more than collection and collation is similarly a primary source. It may be original research, but it's not a secondary source. A report analyzing that data and drawing conclusions could very well be a secondary source however. Vassyana 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I agree with Vassyana and TableManners, the poll is biased and does not accurately describe the items under dispute. If a Wikipedia:straw poll is to be taken, then it needs to be worded in a way that accurately and neutrally describes the dispute. The current wording of the poll fails to do this. From what I understand, the basic dispute is whether or not to change or remove the wording of certain elements in the current policy, specifically:
  • "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources."
  • "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources."

It is my view that these two elements need to remain in the policy, and no changes be made to the current policy regarding the use of primary/seconday/tertiary sources. I vote to keep the current wording. Dreadstar † 05:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment,I too feel the poll isn't well stated. "Should Wikipedia:No original research oppose the general use of primary sources?" There's no sense in which primary sources are opposed. It's simply that secondary sources are preferred, because experts have have corroborated and interpreted primary sources. I've seen serious instances of abuse of primary sources. One problem is that the nature of primary sources and their utility varies widely from field to field. I believe the general principle should be to prefer secondary sources, and thereby avoid original research by nonexperts, while relying on common sense in those instances when use of a primary source is appropriate. TimidGuy 10:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The key word here is general. The current version of the policy "allows" them in rare cases, but prohibits their general use. Keep in mind that this is a Wikipedia policy, not just a guideline. COGDEN 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The comments made by other clearly indicate the poll is giving exactly the impression TimidGuy stated. Vassyana 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I also find this badly worded. I have not been able to keep up with all the discussion lately, but I do not think the statement being polled describes any version of this policy I have ever read. I find a poll on such a statement irrelevant. It is also inaccurate to pretend these terms are so solid. A "secondary source" can almost always be used a primary source some way or another. Also a single "source", however you define it, may have different uses as all three sort of sources. A modern introduction by a scholar, that could be used as a tertiary source. The main text as a secondary source for it's analysis, or primary source for the claims of the author. Appendices may also have copies of letters or other material that could be used as a primary source. These terms are all very ambiguous and a single book, or journal, or sometimes even a single article cannot be purely labeled with one of these terms. It all depends on how you use the source. It depends on what you are referencing, whether you are using a primary, secondary, or tertiary source. To all who are concerned about wikilawyers, if someone tells your source is no good because it is "primary". Then ask them "How exactly am I using original research in the article?" If they cannot tell you, then explain that the point of WP:NOR is to prevent original research not prevent primary sources.--BirgitteSB 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with primary sources is the mile long plot summaries that users provide about movies/tv episodes, and especially soap opera characters' pages. Corpx 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• That is not a problem with primary sources in general. That is a style issue with articles about subjects with plots. How long of plot summaries or whether they should exist at all in articles like Romeo and Juliet, The Apartment, or Frank Cooper Jr. is not relevant to a discussion on the usage of primary sources throughout all of Wikipedia. Please avoid strawman arguments.--BirgitteSB 17:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd tend to agree with you. The reason primary sources were discouraged is because of their widespread abuse. It is very difficult to use primary sources without engaging in original research. You're quite right that asking people exactly how they are being used incorrectly is the correct response. I do however somewhat disagree that the definitions are so flexible. Perhaps they are in a strict semantic sense, but really that's a semantics game. Most fields have fairly clear delineations between primary and secondary/tertiary sources. It's usually the distinction between secondary and tertiary that is unclear. Vassyana 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many fields have solid definitions for these these terms. Unfortunately these definitions are contradictory with one another and Wikipedia encompasses all these fields.--BirgitteSB 13:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I believe Birgitte has the right idea: the problem is not with the material, but with how it is used. The only cases where primary sources should be excluded is if they are of a type that is not verifiable -- for example, unpublished family letters or personal interviews. If I use a source which no one else has reasonable access to -- for example records from a government or corporate archive, which often can only be used after a formal grant of access -- then no one else can verify that I quoted it correctly, let alone provided the material in harmony with NPOV. -- llywrch 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• These questions are always subjective and the application of rules has to be flexible enough to not squelch good writing and discourage contributions of editors to WP. The idea that any one kind of source should be used to the exclusion of others is ludicrous. If I have an article about nursery rhymes, I cannot quote the public domain words of the nursery rhymes obtained from some public domain primary source? The music? I cannot quote from another encyclopedia that is summarizing the work of 5 scholars on nursery rhymes? Please people try to use your heads! This ridiculous nitpicking and rule-making will end up doing more harm than good to Wikipedia.--Filll 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not at all what the policy says. This poll is extremely misleading and biased. Vassyana 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC) .

I agree, that is why I said the poll questions are irrelevant. The policy doesn't oppose any of these types of sources.--BirgitteSB 13:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. We have to be careful that rules designed to limit cranks (Look, the Bible says Jesus rode a motorcycle right here!), should not infringe on the contributions of rational people. The fact is, there are many topics that by their nature require heavy use of primary sources—either because the text is the topic or just because the topic is obscure. Of course primary sources should be used with care, so that we don't originate new theories, but they do have an important place here.--Pharos 22:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just nothing that this position is well-within the current reading of the policy. It even acknowledges that there are cases where sections, and even articles, may need to be based on primary sources. It just encourages us to keep it to a minimum and do so with care. Vassyana 22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If the subject is so obscure that an article has to rely on primary sources then why is the article important enough to be in Wikipedia? If a subject is notable then it would naturally have enough secondary and tertiary sources that you wouldn't have to rely on primary sources. Rocket Socket 22:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a very OR statement. See how useful OR actually is, see how it is nearly unavoidable? --Minasbeede 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If we eliminate primary sources, we would not be able to quantify things--we would not be able to say how high a building is, or how long a bridge is, or how many people live in a city, unless someone else repeated it. And even if they did, we should always use the original primary source for data, because it is more reliable. Secondary sources are necessary for analysis, but raw data can also be presented, and left for the reader to analyze (often this is the best way to deal with competing POV issues). The problem is when a WP editor puts his/her analysis in an article--arbitrarily excluding sources won't help that. Stupid rules don't stop stupid people.

Also, a proposal along these lines would be unworkable. There is no clear distinction between what is a primary, secondary, and tertiary source. Scientists and historians use the terms differently, and there are other different perspectives as well. Even if an unambiguous definition were possible, references would not always fit neatly into these cubbyholes. For example, a scientific paper could include new experimental data, data analysis, and previous work in the field. So this one reference would be a primary, secondary and tertiary source all rolled into one. An encyclopedia may generally be regarded as a tertiary source, but it may have signed articles that are really secondary sources, and undigested raw data, which is still primary source.

There was an effort at WP:N recently to require only secondary sources for Notability that lead to an edit war with a lengthy edit protection, and a subsequent straw poll that showed no consensus for this version. The compromise wording that resulted strongly favors secondary sources, but without making them absolutely necessary. There was also an extended discussion of using primary source census data for creating articles on geographic locations a while back. The resulting consensus resulted in producing tens of thousands of articles on U.S. towns and cities based solely on the U.S. Census Bureau primary source data. This created a framework for expansion that was far better than having editors working at random. Dhaluza 01:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This view and the consensus described at WP:N seems consistent with the current reading of this policy, which "strongly favors secondary sources". The current version also permits the use of primary sources on those occasions when they are necessary, provided they are used with care (particularly in avoiding original research). Vassyana 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about sources

This is not a vote, but rather an invitation to discussion. I have endeavored to word the questions neutrally and generically, to invite broad comments about this aspect of policy. I believe these question cut to the core of what is being discussed and debated above, without leading a reader to draw conclusions about how the policy currently reads. Vassyana 23:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• What distinctions, beyond the requirements of reliable sourcing, should be made between types of sources (primary vs. secondary, modern vs. historical, et al), if any?

Since we all can't agree on this issue, probably the best way forward is just to make no distinction between different types of sources. Ultimately, they all follow the same standard anyway, which is (1) that the accuracy of the citation can be verified by a person without specialized skill, and (2) that there are no novel synthetic or interpretive claims, either express or implied. This applies for primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.COGDEN 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• If there is a consensus about distinctions between sources, which sorts should be encouraged or discouraged, if any?

All source citations should be encouraged. A good article uses both primary and secondary sources (and tertiary sources, if we are lucky enough to have good ones). The best policy is often to use primary sources to provide the unvarnished facts, i.e.:

• "The Second Amendment refers to a "right to bear arms" {see Second Amendment},

then back it up with secondary sources that add the spin, i.e.:

• "Some commentators believe this right provides an unrestricted personal right to own weapons {See We-heart-NRA (2005), manifesto.}"

and tertiary sources, i.e.:

• "According to the widely-cited Westmaster Law Treatise, 'the right to bear arms has traditionally extended only to the right of states to organized well-regulated militias' {see Westmaster 6:42}"

COGDEN 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• What kinds of sources are more prone to original research abuse, if any?

Primary sources, but secondary and tertiary sources are more prone to NPOV abuse. The safest method, and least likely to lead to original research, is to use a combination of primary and secondary sources: primary souces for the what, and secondary sources for the how and why. COGDEN 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• If there is consensus that certain types of materials are more prone to abuse, what kind of cautions should be given (or restrictions suggested), if any?

The standards of original research should be the same for any type of source. But we should caution readers that to "go beyond" what is said in a primary source, they need a secondary or tertiary source, and to "go beyond" a secondary source they need either another secondary source or a tertiary source. Allowance should be made, of course, for stating the obvious and the non-controversial in relation to the source material.COGDEN 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Prioritizing secondary sources

Cogden, I reverted your removal of the sentence prioritizing secondary sources. This is a practice that has strong support. Can you say what your objection to it is? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than removing it again, could you say here what you feel the problem is? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On sources, and the classification thereof

From all these discussions, I can't help feeling that there's some confusion, or a lack of clarity, as to what type of source (primary/secondary/tertiary) a given source is. As I understand the definitions, a primary source is a photograph, video, eyewitness statement (in the context of, say history), or a TV show itself, a script, a novel, etc. A secondary source is anything that isn't primary. A tertiary source is a special case of secondary sources which do not use any primary sources themselves.

Thus, if someone edited wikipedia with information they had gained first-hand, that would be unsourced, and the article would itself be a primary source. If they directly quote an eyewitness or a text, then that's sourced from a primary source, and the article is a secondary source. If the only directly used sources are secondary (including tertiary sources), then the article is a tertiary source (often seen as the ideal for wikipedia).

The principle here is original research - the composition of a primary source, or the synthesis of primary sources into a secondary (non-tertiary) source are research. If this is done for the article, then that is original research. Thus, if a person watches a TV show, reads a book, watches a film, or any similar activity and then writes a plot summary, that's original research. If they find one or more plot summaries elsewhere and reference them, then it's not original research, it's synthesis or composition of secondary sources.

Journal articles aren't a primary source, generally speaking - raw experimental data is a primary source. Primary sources are typically (but not always) devoid of interpretation. Interpretation is added through research in the synthesis of the secondary source. WP:NOR is saying that we don't do interpretation, we do synthesis compilation.

Does that make sense to people? SamBC(talk) 23:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be on to something here. These terms are used in several different ways, and though I don't think your definitions are actually the most common scholarly ones, they may be the most useful ones for our purposes. We have to remember that the primary source-secondary source-tertiary source system was developed for the field of historiography, which is related to but distinct from the science of encyclopedia-writing. So, we might want to go with a definition more like this and less like this. I think we need to give these terms application-specific definitions for how they are employed in defining Wikipedia's sourcing policy.--Pharos 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty sensible to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Sounds about right to me. Vassyana 01:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup! except for the very last sentence in the first comment, we don't synthesize sources to come up with original research. Other than that, it looks very reasonable. Dreadstar † 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The ambiguous interpretations of synthesis are also an issue, of course - synthesis can validly be used just to mean compilation with 'binding' text, while we prohibit synthesis used to generate new conclusions. If it helps, you can think of the problematic use of "synthesis" in my original comment as being replaced by "compilation". Here, I've done it now... SamBC(talk) 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now it's perfect..;) That's pretty much what I thought you meant, but I just wanted to clarify the use of the word 'synthesis'. Thanks! Dreadstar † 02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the phrasing about being "created at or near the time under study" causes confusion. Just because Tacitus lived in ancient rome, that doesn't make his works primary sources. They're only primary sources if he was writing about things he directly experienced or documenting literally the reports of others. I've known history students at pretty much every level get confused by definitions using phrases like that. I agree that wikipedia should have its own (tighter) definitions of the terms, so as to define them unambiguously for use within policy, guidelines and discussions. Uses in articles should, of course, be based on the (looser) general definitions already in the encyclopedia. I think my explanations just now are also useful because there's no effective explanation I can see in WP:NOR that explains why we don't use primary sources, and why using them is original research. SamBC(talk) 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tacitus is most certainly a primary source in historical studies. That phrasing is correct. He is only secondary sources in a strict sense of the definition, outside the context of pragmatic application or the context of the source itself. In practice, such historical writings are treated as primary sources. Vassyana 02:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Either we're at cross-purposes, or my historian friends disagree. It probably depends on the focus of the study in question, on the context. For example, studying the society and era of Tacitus in general, he'd be a primary source. For more specific matters that were already historical at the time (I'm given to understand that he wrote histories), then he'd be secondary. Of course, I might be getting Tacitus confused with other classical or ancient historians, in which case consider my point without the specific example. SamBC(talk) 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tacitus wrote about events before his time and during his time (though pragmatically stopping in the reign of the previous emperor). Ammianus Marcellinus did the same (mixing older material with eyewitness material). There are pragmatic reasons to group the ancient sources together and modern interpretations together. Howeber, the same ancient/modern split doesn't work with archaeological data, where the original context is the only pure primary source, and even the isolated artifacts, their catalogue records, published or unpublished descriptions, etc. are selections and interpretations thereof. Jacob Haller 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's contrary to common practice, as well as basic university teaching in the subject. For example in this syllabus, the historical texts (including Tacitus writing about what was history at his time) are primary sources.[3] Students of history are commonly required to divide their bibliography in primary and secondary source sections. Tacitus would be firmly in the former. Here's a few more examples.[4] [5] [6] [7] Vassyana 04:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This misunderstanding is why I have a problem with us defining these terms in the most useful way for Wikipedia. Because the more common uses of these terms use them otherwise. It leads to confusion when Tactitus's works are widely known as "primary sources" but are not to be considered such by our definition. The issue is that if Tacitus writing about what was history at his time is to be a "primary source" than no "secondary source" can exist about September 11, 2001 attacks or Global warming. I have always thought we should get to the bottom of what make "primary sources" problematic and describe that in the policy. Get rid of the terminology which lead to misunderstanding and simply explain what the real problem is with using diarys and raw data as sources. I know that is not a popular opinion, but there is no way to make "primary source" not mean all the definitions that it commonly means so we can single out a few types of sources that are pitfalls in original research.--BirgitteSB 14:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In particular I like the definition of primary sources in the UNR, that includes this often forgotten attribute: created or otherwise produced during the time under study. For example, a newspaper article for the Attack on Pearl Harbor, is certainly a primary source. In WP, some editors believe that newspaper articles about a current or recent event are secondary sources, when actually they are not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some are, most aren't. You do get news reports that are reviews and synthesis of other reports. It depends what you're taking it as a source of. For example, a report written by someone who wasn't there, that clearly bases all of its information and conclusions on sources who were there (and identifies the information as such) are secondary. For example, a lot of news coverage of the current foot and mouth disease "crisis" in the UK take the form of reviews and analysis of what has happened "so far". However, a news report saying "and nows there's another case, argh!" is primary. SamBC(talk) 02:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a fine distinction that many people do not get. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to put together domain-specific definitions for wikipedia, then that clarification (written a bit better) should probably be part of it. It's looking like ending up as a "wikipedian's easy guide to classification of sources". Or maybe idiot's guide ;) SamBC(talk) 02:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added another use of compilation to my original point, as an "or" with one instance of synthesis. Just for clarity. It's bolded so it can be seen easily even if you've already read it. SamBC(talk) 02:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Further to all this, I've just started a new "proposal" at Wikipedia:Classification of sources. I don't know for sure that it'll be useful, it's certainly not in the right tone yet, and if it is useful I don't know if it should stay a separate page. However, that's useful for working on it. If you think we should have a clear internal definition or illustration, please join me and help to build it up and put it in the right tone. It's mostly copy-paste from my initial comment above. SamBC(talk) 02:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this not risk creating undue weight for the concept? I think we fell down that whole discussing synthesis - getting so involved in the concept that you forget that all it is saying is "No OR" in a particularly obscure section. Spenny 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On the appropriate uses of primary sources

It occurs to me that there's a pretty good, relatively objective criterion that we could use to cover when primary sources are appropriate, and it ought to cover pretty much every case:

Primary source are acceptable when they require and receive no interpretation in the article, but are merely a source of an objective fact.

Thoughts? SamBC(talk) 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm, no... Primary sources are easily abused, by selective quoting, quoting out of context and other fallacies. That is why their use is deprecated, and secondary sources always preferred. Also, if a primary source has not been used in any secondary source, then its use in a WP article will violate WP:NOR. And if the primary source is cited in a secondary source, then use the secondary source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So we can't use, say, census data to describe populations of countries/cities, or similar primary sources for heights of buildings, or official match stats to provide sports information (if you think that records of individual sporting events should be in wikipedia, anyway)? SamBC(talk) 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Census data, in particular its reliability and accuracy, is definitely an exception, not the rule. Additionally, it's general reliability and useful as a plain source of data is well-accepted and well-covered in reliable sources. We're quite permitted to apply common sense to determine if something is a notable exception to the rule. Heights of buildings and sports statistics are also both easily acquired from secondary and tertiary sources, when notable. Vassyana 02:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Any source is readily abused by selective quoting, quoting out of context and other fallacies. Any source is no better than the interpretation given by the editor. A secondary source has the joy of this potentially being applied twice, once by the original author, and again by the WikiEditor - this is certainly true of journalistic sources. Spenny 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Secondary (and tertiary) sources provide context, analysis and interpretation. Primary source abuse potential is much more significant. See below for an example. Vassyana 02:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst secondary sources can provide those things, to be able to validate them, it potentially requires some form of analysis: does this context show a bias of the contributor, is it a complete representation, is it accurate? We are dependent on the editor accurately representing information - distortions are inevitable in the required paraphrasing to wikify the information. This is true regardless of the source. I don't disagree with arguments such as the biblical distortion example below. I do disagree that assuming secondary sources are somehow more immune from the same issues and we have the extra issue of finding out whether the source is working to the same agenda as the editor. Spenny 09:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I have to agree with Jossi. Such a plain statement is bursting with abuse potential. After all, it's not disputable that (according to the Bible Matthew 5:28–5:30) Jesus said:

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

While most contributors to the English Wikipedia are familiar enough with Christianity to spot abuse, realize there are similar examples from religions and so-called "cults" you are probably not familiar with. Even without making explicit OR statements, material such as this can be juxtaposed and used to present a very negative (and inaccurate) POV. Selective quoting, especially quoting from religious texts and leaders, is a serious concern. Even worse, it could be cited for the plain claim: "Jesus said it was better to gouge out an eye or cut off a hand, than to sin." That's a "plain reporting" of what that primary source says. It's not explicit OR, but certainly in many cases it would be effectively the same. It's fairly self-apparent how such paraphrases could be badly abused. This kind of problem is part of why primary sources are discouraged in favour of secondary sources. Vassyana 02:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But that "plain reporting" is plainly not "objective fact", at least to any sensible editor. Plus, the bible is a bit of a straw man in such discussions - it can be used to counter most things in terms of quoting and sourcing, and probably to support quite a few of them as well. It's something of a boundary case. However, my suggestion could be amended by a guiding example, such as "such as official figures". It's probably worth also saying that the source must be clear in the statement. SamBC(talk) 02:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's only obvious to "any sensible editor" because they are familiar with the religion and text, as I mentioned immediately in my comment above. Vassyana 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Accepted, the first part of my answer was hasty. What about the suggestions of qualifying the statement with guiding examples and requiring clarity of source? SamBC(talk) 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been chewing on that. I'm a fan of {{sofixit}}. This is my suggested revision:

"Primary sources may be used in articles in the context they are employed in secondary and tertiary reliable sources. Primary sources that are considered accurate by reliable sources may be used for citation of "pure fact", including such raw data as U.S. census statistics."

I think it would cover the most appropriate uses of primary sources, provide some reasonable level of protection against abuse and include your sentiments, unless I've misunderstood them. Vassyana 04:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems a little awkward to say "in the context they are employed in..." as that requires them to have been used in those sources. Apart from that it's great, but I'm not sure how to overcome that aspect. SamBC(talk) 04:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I came come up with many of examples not related to the Bible, Sam. As Vassyana said above, height of buildings of such other examples, are the exception and not the rule. For example, To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Guess who said that. And guess what is missing... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) A couple words and an order swap might do the trick!

"Primary sources that are considered accurate by reliable sources may be used for citation of "pure fact", including such raw data as census statistics. Primary sources may also be used in articles in context as they appear in secondary and tertiary reliable sources."

Thoughts? Vassyana 05:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quotes: I read this as "if a secondary source used the same quote" which seems too restrictive to me. I would rather include a general warning about selective quotation, require solid citation, and encourage fv tags and/or outright removal of manipulative quotations.
• Pure facts: I agree but think there may be some exceptional cases (look at J20 or J27).
• Author's views: I would add another category; people can cite primary sources as sources for their authors' views.

Regardless of the type of source, context is as important as content. Jacob Haller 06:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposed wording says nothing about quotes and really it should not be a primary concern. Quotes should be used sparingly and only when they add something to the article without effectively creating original research by leading the reader. Preferably, quotes should be employed as they are used in reliable sources. We're allowed to use common sense to determine exceptional cases. Your concern about "sourcing" an author's views are covered by statement permitting primary sources to be used in the same context as they appear in secondary and tertiary reliable sources. So, if an author cites a primary source, or a reliable source indicates it was a source for their views, we can include that appropriately. If such information is not contained in reliable sources, advancing the unpublished, or unreliably published, claim that X primary source was the source of Y views by Z author would be original research. Vassyana 13:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another approach would be to say that the primary source should not be used (to advance a position) but can be used as justification to remove citations of dubious nature (and therefore potentially unverified statements). In other words, we cannot base articles on them as that leads inevitably to analysis, however, we should be able to use them in discussion with considerable weight to back up assertions of NPOV etc. I feel there is a WikiLawyering approach that is used where if you present a primary source even in discussion, that does not count. You must have had the "this is an inviolable secondary source" "but it contradicts the primary sources it is based on" "Tough - your source is a primary source so it does not count. Verifiability over truth." "???" discussion? Yes, that countering is subject to the same distortions but let's AGF. Spenny 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting that primary sources be restricted to talk pages, and such a restriction is not likely to gain anything close to consensus. Your assertion that using primary sources "leads inevitably to analysis" is way off base. If it leads to analysis by the reader, that's a good thing. The problem is if it leads the editor to put their analysis in the article text. But this is not inevitable, it's just one of many ways editors may go astray. We can't make simplistic prescriptive guidelines to address every one of them, because if we did the net effect would destroy Wikipedia. Dhaluza 09:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to square a circle, and paraphrasing arguments put to me, and I quite agree, the issue is not the source, but the use of the source. Primary sources are deprecated, I am told they cannot safely be used and that using a primary source to disprove a quote or other analysis is de facto OR. Yet that leads to a policy that supports nonsense, which does not seem sensible nor in the spirit of policy which is to keep out nonsense and factional views (I think). Policy works against editorial judgement - verifiability not truth - yet I can verify fact by reference to a primary source of the highest repute. I don't think my brain is yet mangled enough for WikiPolicy. Spenny 12:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You've been told about right, except that primary sources are not completely excluded. We are simply encouraged to use them with care and rarely. You heard right that using a primary source to try and disprove a secondary source is indeed original research, in the most basic sense. If you believe a fact is significantly wrong and the topic is notable, there should be enough third party sources to verify or disprove the claim. It's certainly good scholarship to perform original research, and I will not disagree with that. However, it is not good encyclopedia building. Wikipedia exists to summarize extant scholarship. The basic policies of Wikipedia are built on that assumption. Those interested in original research and disproving extant sources, should find a reputable publisher for their views and/or check out Wikiversity and Wikibooks. Vassyana 13:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced by the "You should be able to find a source" view. The reason is that if you go down the source based research route, you can end up putting together snippets. This seems even to be encouraged by citation, as writing well thought out sections is prone to being challenged as synthesis by the cite-happy. These individual snippets can be well-sourced in their snippetness, but are not necessarily the whole picture. We clearly discuss citing at sentence level. Good sourcing and writing is about the whole source and the whole context. Controversial statements are best sourced on the basis of complete discussions not quoting convenient Googled sentences. We can see that the whole is wrong, we can find sources that discuss the entirety from different aspects, but we cannot necessarily unpick a statement from a misleading source. When someone is seeking to "advance a position" the snippet approach is one technique used: the whole is advancing the position, yet is unassailably composed of cited elements and is not OR. (I think this also depends on subject areas and the likely nature of sources: history and science, things are more straightforward than popular culture or current affairs). Spenny 14:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If there aren't enough sources available to make a complete encyclopedic article, the article should like head over this way and its notability is questionable. If there are no reliable sources for a claim, it cannot be verified and likely violates WP:NPOV, which demands that the articles reflect the current state of existing scholarship. On top of all that, if there's no source for a claim/POV/theory (particularly if the material in the article is arranged to build towards it, or support it), there's an assumption of potential original research. You're quite right about the snippets and Google-searching, but that's not a condemnation of source-based research. It's a condemnation of poor research. There's little replacement for getting to the library, paying for Factiva (or another service), or otherwise acquiring access to a wide range of published materials. You're also quite right that context is important, and it should be reflected in the article, which is why using reliable sources from third party publishers with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking is so important. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 04:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with your comments. The reality of Wikipedia is that there is a difference between the aim of producing the ultimate reliable encyclopedia with a robust view on notability, and the de facto public view of it as the place for a comment on everything (within reason). I'm actually comfortable with the second place, but then we have to accept that the rules for the idealised end product don't quite fit, and there we are more reliant on good editing practice of a large number of editors. I subscribe to the view that it would be sensible to distinguish Wikipedia article quality, and therefore rules, though that would just end up being a bureaucratic nightmare to police, so I don't push it. Spenny 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, why US Census data? Can't we assume that any census is pretty reliable (unless there's direct evidence to the contrary); I'd've thought most census around the world were pretty reliable. SamBC(talk) 13:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it was just an example from the top of my head. I've altered it to be more appropriately non-centric. Vassyana 13:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have given this issue a lot of thought for some time and I will direct to something I wrote previously about it. Pulling out my thoughts on question of when these sources are appropriate: sources which should only be be used with extreme care, making sure they are only cited to document that such a source makes such a claim (direct quotes of the source, careful paraphrase of what the author of the source claims, facts and figures in infoboxes).--BirgitteSB 14:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good comment, and I was impressed by it the first time around. There are a lot of parallels with the problematic synthesis section too, which seems to be "over-ruling" on the basic don't make it up principle. Policy is trying to find a set of rules which essentially are about not adding your own twopenneth. I'm not sure the rule exists in any more satisfactory form than that. Spenny 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BirgitteSB, I pretty strongly agree with the linked post. I'm particularly impressed by the solution of "first" and "second" class sources, avoiding the field-varied meaning of "primary" and "secondary" sources. I think it well-includes the principles expressed and implied in WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I do wonder if editors will generally take some exception towards having notable historical texts lumped in with "unreliable" sources. However, I agree there is little effective distinction in appropriateness as reliable references. Certainly, historical texts are "useful", but their reliability is questionable and best left judged by historians and other experts. You've given me some serious food for thought. Thanks! Vassyana 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Census data

The problem I have with census data is that it can be cherry picked in ways that might even appear to be benign. TableManners 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Census data is useful in WP for saying how many people live in an area, and it is the most reliable source for this data. In the U.S. the census bureau is also a geographic resource (TIGER data) which is also useful. So if you are suggesting that census data should be depreciated because of the potential for misuse, I would disagree because any data can be misused. Dhaluza 09:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith in original research

This line referring to OR contains an unnecessary assumption of bad faith:

"...'original research' has no reliable source, and is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it."

I changed "therefore believed to be" to "could be" because we don't have to assume it's OR, the simple fact that it could be OR is enough. But the change was reverted. WP:AGF should be followed, not excepted in this case. Dhaluza 09:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend getting consensus prior to making this change, as was noted earlier. Dreadstar † 09:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And that is what I am doing here-seeking consensus for changing the bad faith assumption you challenged in your revert. The text clean-up that is not intended to change the meaning was restored. Dhaluza 09:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As SlimVirgin noted, your edit inadvertently changed the meaning. Dreadstar † 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that NOR is such a fundamental feature of wikipedia that we have to be very cautious about it, and that means assuming that something is OR unless there's evidence against it, which is part of the point of V and RS. An unfortunte corrolary of your argument would be that any challenge of uncited material questioning it as OR would be seen as a breach of AGF. SamBC(talk) 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. We don't have to assume it is OR, we can say things that could be OR violate the policy without the unnecessary assumption of bad faith. I don't think the corollary necessarily follows from this, but I would not object to specifically addressing it, i.e. by saying that challenging potential OR is not in bad faith. Dhaluza 11:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not sure that the original wording assumed bad faith, just failed to assume good faith. It describes assumptions made about things that appear to be original research. The response made by editors should then assume good faith where possible, by saying that something "appears to be" original research. SamBC(talk) 11:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming something is OR has nothing to do with assuming good/bad faith. Assuming good faith means you must assume other editors are doing what they believe will improve Wikipedia. It does not mean you must assume they are correct or that they are following policy.

Assuming good faith: You find a statement that appears to be OR. You contact the editor after removing or tagging it and explain this policy to him assuming that when he added the statement he did not properly understand this policy and mistakenly crossed the line. Or if you know the editor and that he understands the policy, you assume he can locate proper source to back it up and the statement is only in violation of this policy because he has not yet added the reference. In that case, you request a source from him stating that as the referencing currently stands the statement appears to be OR. Assuming bad faith: You find a statement that appears to be OR. You remove or tag the statement assuming the editor is using original research to push his POV. In discussion with the editor your comments make it clear you think the editor not only knew he was violating original research, but also that he was purposely working against the neutrality of the article.

Assumptions of faith have only to do with motivations, not whether actions are correct or not. It completely appropriate to confront someone while assuming they are wrong or have violated policy, as long as you attribute their motivations to misunderstanding rather than malice. I don't think we should make any changes to policy based on WP:AGF--BirgitteSB 14:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be the underlying assumption that having a POV is identical to editing in bad faith. That amounts to saying that a person who seeks truth may have (probably does have) a flawed POV (the person should be more open and tolerant WRT untruths.) That's nonsense, and the difficulties with formulating a NOR policy appear to be as faltering as they are because it is nonsense. It is abundantly clear that those with an (untrue, incorrect, self-serving, whatever) POV can misuse anything to further that flawed POV. That such editors do such things and misuse concepts, methods, etc. does not expose as corrupt those concepts, methods, etc., it only establishes that those things can be used corruptly - just as simple citation or quotation can be similarly misused. If that happens in Wikipedia the apparent proper thing to be done is to undo what is incorrect. Forbidding entire classes of material because the material might be an abuse is a bad approach. The discussion seems to well-illustrate that it's a bad approach to forbid what is called OR, with OR being construed very widely. I assert you cannot create an encyclopedia based entirely on quoting other sources, unless very often those other sources are other encyclopedias. So-called OR can be a powerful tool used to expose untruth. If the so-called OR is on shaky logical grounds or is too much of a reach then removing it from Wikipedia would seem to be exactly the correct action. That's not the same as removing all OR, which is the current policy. --Minasbeede 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely, you are reading my example backwards. The underlying assumption was that editing in bad faith is when you assume the another editor is purposefully working against the neutrality of an article. That is when you are approaching that editor with bad faith. The two examples I gave are about good/bad faith, refer to faith in challenging the OR statement. The second person character is assuming good faith in the first example and bad faith in the second. I was not referring to the motivations of third person character, which are generally impossible to determine (which is why we must assume good faith).--BirgitteSB 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't what I say consistent with that, with "you assume" meaning "you assume that the other editor, who has (and shows) a POV, is editing in bad faith"? I do see that in your interpretation of your words it is the person described by "you assume" who is editing in bad faith. I agree with what you say - any part of what I said that seems contradictory can be lined out: what you say is good. (Thank you for your comments.) --Minasbeede 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You said: The problem seems to be the underlying assumption that having a POV is identical to editing in bad faith. I would disagree with that and instead say: The problem seems to be the underlying assumption that working against the Wikipedia's goal of neutrality is identical to editing in bad faith. Having a POV, which I take to mean a bias or a pre-existing opinion on an issue, is natural and unavoidable. But we need to assume our fellow editors are working towards the same goals of creating a neutral encyclopedia. It is when we begin to believe that our fellows editors are trying to undermine the creation of neutral encyclopedia, we are assuming bad faith.--BirgitteSB 15:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that. I don't think it violates NPOV to assert that 2 + 2 = 4 when some other editor claims that 2 + 2 = 5. If that other editor removes my edit that says 2 + 2 = 4 it's hard to assume that editor is acting in good faith, no matter how sincere his belief in that incorrect sum. But, good faith or not, I think 2 + 2 = 4 should remain. This example is quite simple. What happens in practice is that someone makes a truthful and valid conclusion that is not in any way a reach beyond logic or the facts but because it is a conclusion and not a quote someone else who asserts an untruth removes the edit, preserving the untruth. The real problem, though, is the irrational prohibition on synthesis and "original research." I know the reaction used to make hydrogen on the trailers in Iraq releases a lot of heat because I've ended up with boiling lye when performing the same reaction. I can certainly find a source that gives the ΔH for the reaction but the fact that enough heat is released to boil the solution communicates better than a dry number that would have to be explained. There's no fraud of any sort involved in citing my own results and directly reporting personally observed phenomena communicates well. But that's forbidden. The trailers were used to make hydrogen, the reaction used to generate hydrogen releases heat, always has, always will. It's absolutely neutral to assert that the cooling unit on the trailers is an essential component of a hydrogen generation system even though that contradicts the completely unfounded original story (in the CIA/DIA white paper) that the cooling unit was added to the design after it was discovered that the heat of summer interfered with biological WMD culture. (That latter claim would never pass muster in Wikipedia: it's blatantly unreferenced, always will be.) NPOV can disprove non-neutral POV, and such disproof would seem to be a necessary feature of Wikipedia. Instead it's shunned. That shunning favors the propagation of untruth. --Minasbeede 18:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza, it has nothing to do with bad faith. We assume something is original research when it appears that no source exists for it, not simply when no source is supplied; that is, when the material isn't attributable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin; I don't read the current version as an assumption of bad faith, rather an observation on OR. Dreadstar † 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is already understood, but just to try and clarify a bit; the phrase "The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that advances the same claims or makes the same argument as you.", is referring to the content that 'you' (the editor) added without a proper citation or reference. The content added is an argument in the sense that it is "an abstract or summary" or "the subject matter" being presented in relation to the subject of the article. "Argument" doesn't mean that you are trying to present a POV, but presenting an unsourced 'argument' as defined above, into the article. Dreadstar † 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything not attributable (not only arguments) is deemed original research. That is, material need not actually be attributed to a source, but it must be attributable, meaning there must be a source out there somewhere for it. If none can be found, we assume it's a Wikipedian's own opinion. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I guess 'claims' covers any non-argument content; and 'claims' doesn't mean your claims, but the claim being made by the content added. Did I get it all covered? Dreadstar † 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So, with that in mind, the phrase that started this section "material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. " is clearly not an assumption of bad faith; it is a statement that the material in question is believed to be OR because it is unsourced content - and not a bad faith attempt to add biased, pov or otherwise false information to Wikipedia. It's a reflection on the content rather than the Wikipedian who added it, OR or not. Dreadstar † 05:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. Someone could put in an "obvious" conclusion in good faith, and perhaps not even consciously or intentionally. Vassyana 05:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think the discussion has missed the point. Going back to the original quote:

"...'original research' has no reliable source, and is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it."

"believed to be" is an unnecessary assumption. We don't have to assume something is bad, just because we can't prove it's good. We can simply say we don't accept anything unless we know it's good. That is the unnecessary assumption of bad faith I was referring to. We should not assume something that is not attributed is OR, because simply adding a citation would prove the assumption wrong. We simply need to say we don't accept the material that might be challenged without the citation. Dhaluza 09:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a false equality made between "know it's good" and "from some source." Requiring everything to be sourced in no way makes everything good, it just makes it attributable to someone else. Making it attributable to someone else doesn't remove the need to examine it for reasonableness or correctness, but the apparent underlying assumption made while discussing the NOR policy is that does. It may be that material from other sources is, on the whole, more reliable than material that arises from the use of simple logic or synthesis but both kinds of material can be correct and appropriate for Wikipedia and both kinds can be incorrect and inappropriate. (Material that arises from simple logic or synthesis should be as good as the sources used for the logic or synthesis so it's not at all certain that sourced material is of better quality. Simple logic is valid.) Part of the irksome nature of this discussion is the blithe assumption, for as long as it is needed, that sourced material is always good. Making this assumption allows the automatic discrediting of everything that is lumped under "OR" but in a discussion the automatic should be avoided since relying on "the automatic" is begging the question (which is irksome.) --Minasbeede 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the assumption is that sourced material is source, or that it's not OR. One of the core principles of wikipedia is that it does not include original research. It could be seen as axiomatic. SamBC(talk) 03:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Know it's good" is a quote from Dhaluza's comment to which I was responding. You say the policy could be seen as "axiomatic." A possibly more correct term is "dogmatic." That it is a core principle doesn't make it sensible, well-reasoned, useful, correct, or possessing of any other virtue. Those qualities have to arise from the nature of the policy itself, and in the case of NOR the virtues aren't there. Being "core" does not anoint with virtue. NOR is anti-thought, anti-logic. It is true false material can be dressed to appear to be logical or thoughtful. That is not valid justification for throwing out thought and logic, is it? The goal and desire, it would seem, would to be to keep the valid and truthful and to remove the invalid and untruthful. Cited material can also be false material and need to be removed. It's invalid to make the special assumption (when the flaws in NOR are being discussed) that if something can be cited it's true and has merit above that of all "OR." Isn't that begging the question (perhaps "begging the question" approaches being synonymous with "axiomatic," at least in this discussion)? --Minasbeede 09:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Scope of OR

Yes, yes. So make some examples. If i say 'today it's hot' what sources do i must give to you? The C° meaured by my termometer? But it's OR, right? And maybe someone don 't find 35° 'hot' enough to be called so.

Behind my house there is an old church i don't know how wide it is and then i decide to measure it. Oh, my God, there is still an OR, and perhaps also bad faith, to add insult to injury.

We cannot copy other sources, because it' Copyviol, we cannot even resume them because it's OR (no syntesis, right?). Do you have the clue? Where is the good sense? Tell me how one can be authorized by your policies to do something that is not simply copy texts older than 90 years. Feeling as potential criminals every time that we post something that is not a he said so. That's the meaning of OR, IMHO.

I assert you cannot create an encyclopedia based entirely on quoting other sources, unless very often those other sources are other encyclopedias. Agree.--Stefanomencarelli 15:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Village pump

In case anyone's interested, there's a Village pump discussion on the pri/sec/tert sources issue. Dreadstar † 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection of wrong version

{{editprotected}} The edit war was successful at removing a long standing sentence:

“ Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. ”

Can we put this back in and then reprotect? TableManners 03:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Declined. It's still there. Check again. --- RockMFR 03:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still in there: Wikipedia:No original research/Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, second paragraph, last bolded sentence. Dreadstar † 03:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have searched the wrong version. TableManners 03:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your definition of "long standing" is, so I went back to this version in effect exactly one year ago. Diffs show the issue was in contention then, but at much different point. For example at that time it 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." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 10:06, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

The issue is not whether the edit is longstanding. The issue is whether the disputed language documents current Wikipedia practices and reflects the current consensus of the broader Wikipedia community. See Help:Modifying and creating policy. Here, it does not. Many times, a policy seems to have consensus within a small group of editors, but when exposed to the broader community, the policy lacks consensus. In this particular case, there is clearly no consensus, given (1) that several editors have expressed contrary opinion, and (2) that in practice, good Wikipedia articles, including almost all FAs, use a variety of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. COGDEN 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the issue would be easier to reach consensus on if there was some way of clearly describing when it's possible to collate material from primary sources without it becoming synthesis. SamBC(talk) 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is everyone agrees with current practice while at the same time believe thier preferred version best describes it. No one seems to think that articles should be written differently than current practice. The opinion opposing your own is not (2) that in practice, good Wikipedia articles, including almost all FAs, should not use a variety of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, but rather (2) that in practice, good Wikipedia articles, including almost all FAs, rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Personally I think that you must believe "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" means something differently than I do.--BirgitteSB 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That, in conjunction with the statement, "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources." Although the first statement only implies that primary sources are disfavored as a rule, the second one makes it explicit. The fact is, in current Wikipedia practice, primary sources are not rare. COGDEN 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we just use the same standard for all sources. Citations to secondary and tertiary sources, too, must (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." COGDEN 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about that this policy advocates rare usage of primary sources. I think it is saying it is rare for an article to rely on primary sources, not to use a primary source at all. I think we do use the same standard for all sources. The standard of no original research. The reason primary sources are mentioned is alert editors to the increased danger with original research in using them.--BirgitteSB 19:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's confusing or ambiguous, there is no sense discussing what we think it says, we should be talking about how to make it clearer and unambiguous. Frankly, I think the language from one year ago quoted above was much clearer, and I agree with COGDEN that the same standard should apply to all sources. Dhaluza 09:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Houston, we have a trouble

No original research can be added to a wiki. So the only choices is to grab a researched document and copy inside the wiki but it's illegal (copyright) or you just can publish material that was created by someelse and changed it bypassing the copyright protection (cheating) or using published material that the original author allow to publish in the web.

Even more, there are a lot of "not so important material", that never was researched by a authority or a compentent entity, this kind of material cannot be showed in Wikipedia or even worst can be used by wikipedia only by a biased point of view, for example if we talk about Microsoft, there are little room for any outside to Microsoft to talk about it but Microsoft have almost all the rights and authority to talk about himself.

Anyways empiric talking, the "no original research" rule in wikipedia is not widely applied, common sense overule any no practical law. No original research is used currently to bash someelse, asking for any tiny details about a specific text, it's not anymore (and never was) a way to keep clean wikipedia. --Magallanes 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

There is a very big middle ground between purely original research ( as in doing your own experiments ) and copying other people's works into the Wikipedia ( which is usually copyright infringement ). What we do allow are brief quotes and paraphrases, which are used in citations and links back to the original sources.

However, yes I do think some interpretations of NOR make it difficult to write about popular culture, highly technical topics, subcultures, underground topics, and topics of local interest. There are certain issues that tend to get ignored by the academic world and by the mainstream media, and I support giving editors some leeway in the use of "primary sources" as long as they don't introduce any new facts of their own. Squidfryerchef 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I happen across the problem very often. In the things I do (bird phylogenetics mainly) we have a frequent problem that geoscience data (geography, paleontology) is often ignored by molecular studies, because due to the little personal and research overlap between the fields and because of the fundamental incompatibility of GIS and phylogenetics software. Molecular phylogeneticists and paleontological phylogeneticists are more often than not blissfully unawares of each others' research. Molecular clock models are often being used uncalibrated or weakly calibrated, leading to secondary sources that shine on the outside but are rotten at the core. This leads to results in which molecular phylogenies are published which are flat-out contradicted by the material evidence (the fossil record), but that this discrepancy is often not discussed in follow-up publications.

For example, we have recently had 2 publications about parrots, a molecular phylogeny that proposed they evolved in the Turonian (I think) and a review of the fossil evidence that argues that with almost 100% certainty (the absence-of-evidence problem, hence not full certainty) they did not. Neither papers' authors were aware of each others' research (which was conducted at the same time) and therefore do not discuss it; even their references have but little overlap.

A Wikipedia article would have to address this discrepancy, but this cannot be done in a way that would not be considered OR by at least some interpretations - there is at present no secondary source that explicity states that the "molecular" hypothesis is probably wrong. What we are left with are 2 highly valuable sources that utterly contradict each other in a specific point, and one sticks to "good practice" and the other (in this respect, its other findings seem to be good) doesn't. It is obvious which scenario is more likely to be correct, but it is hard to put this on WP in a way that may not be considered OR by at least some interpretations.

As interdisciplinary research cooperation is more of a desire than a reality, these things happen not too rarely. The careful WP editor, bent on sourcing properly, will often find discrepancies between secondary sources that have never before been addressed, because the sheer scope that is technically possible on WP is barely reached by even the most comprehensive reviews. The question how to deal with contradicting secondary sources in the absence of a citeable discussion of this discrepancy (in which case the discrepancy is usually resolved anyway) - especially when one of the conflicting claims is much more likely to be correct than the other - needs to be addressed, as the scope of the problem will grow along with WP. For the time being, WP's own definition of Original research as "...not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications..." [emphasis added] might serve as a stopgap. Dysmorodrepanis 07:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It really is as simple as presenting both of the contradicting views without trying to reconcile them. It may be best to mention that in A field they say X and in B field they say Y, in the example you mention. Or you could say fnordtologists* such as (author cited) posit X and gimbletologists* such as (author cited) state Y. It's not very hard at all to avoid OR in this instance. Wikipedia rules do address that some care might need to be taken to avoid undue weight. If one of those sources does not stick to good practice, then peer review or an article countering the "poor" practice should exist. I realize this is not universally true, but determining who uses "good practice" or "reliable science" is a subjective judgment and best left to the professionals. If a wiki editor is a professional, then they should seek a reputable publisher to submit their contrary findings or critique. Vassyana 08:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) * Nonce.

Well said Vassyana, and I couldn't agree more. Where we don't have widely accepted truth, we simply present the facts, and let the reader decide. I agree that this is not OR, but many editors take an extreme view and argue that since we don't have an authoritative secondary source to resolve the issue, putting primary sources in juxtaposition is OR, and so we must delete the article, which is of course nonsense, but there's plenty of that to go around here on WP. Dhaluza 10:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

---

While you continue to discuss without problems about the santity of NOR and its stricth interepretations, in Wiki there are stuff like this: Domination of the skies, superior seamanship, and prudent, timely maneuvers helped to nullify the overwhelming odds. In the highest tradition of naval service, the finest qualities of the American sailor became commonplace during the heroic fight. Devotion to duty, daring courage, uncommon bravery, and an indomitable spirit were part and parcel of this victory.

So don't cause me LOL in so indecent manner. This piece is what could be called shameless agiography and pubblicity for US Navy, and there are thousands of this stuff. While i try to reduce every optimistic overclaiming made by italian aviators with the cross controls with several sources (it's unuseful to post that x has downed 12 enemy aircraft when are available sources that considering both sides, dismissed all this claimings without any problem), there are thousands of pages like this, written directly by J. Wayne. Obviousely you are not worried about, your goal is forbid brain activity. I am, instead. Babbling about NOR when gratuitus agiographies are so well spread is a thing that shows how these discussions and policies don't guarantee nothing. Sorry,but it so.--Stefanomencarelli 13:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole issue over the "articles should rely on secondary sources" does raise a good point though...

I just noticed that the article has been protected due to edit warring, so I thought I'd take a look as to why. I think there's some merit to the "compromised" rewording of the sections in question.

For most articles common sense reasonably dictates that secondary sources are going to be the ideal sources to base an article off of. That gets thrown out the window, however, when we start talking about works of fiction. In that case you are usually writing an article about the primary source itself, in which case the bulk of your information will come from the primary source. A good chunk of it should also come from secondary sources, true, (otherwise it probably fails WP:N) but in that case I would not say that the article relies on secondary sources so much as it uses secondary sources.

Now obviously this situation only applies to a certain subset of articles, far from a majority, but also far from being "rare" as the current revision of the policy states. (Anybody care to try and count the number of articles on films, just for a warmup?) The basic idea behind the sentences in question is sound, but it needs to be slightly reworded to reflect the fact that some articles by nature rely on primary sources, not secondary sources. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 12:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yukichigai, most articles about films rely on reviews, not on primary-source material. Similarly, most articles about novels rely on sources who've written about the novel. It is, indeed, unusual to find a legitimate article that relies entirely on primary sources. If you can find one, please let us know. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, we may have gotten some wires of communication crossed. I'm not suggesting any articles ONLY need primary sources (it's pretty hard to satisfy WP:N with just primary sources), I'm merely pointing out that the primary basis for information contained within articles about works of fiction is primary sources. Works of fiction rely on primary sources more than they do secondary sources. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What about an article about a railroad, where there isn't going to be a lot of controversy or incorrect information, and, some might argue, it's inherently notable. Most of the information from the article, about where the stations are and what kinds of trains they have, would come from the railroad's web site, a primary source. There might be a few citations to newspapers that ran opinion pieces about the railroad, but this is one kind of article where the primary source has the best information. Squidfryerchef 14:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. We need to clarify whether we're talking about articles with only primary sources versus articles that cite mostly primary sources. I agree that except in articles where inherent notability implies, we need at minimum one secondary source to establish notability. Squidfryerchef 14:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that I don't disagree with. Virtally all articles (all that I can think off off the top of my head) need secondary sources at the very least for WP:N purposes. The point I'm trying to make is that the wording seems to indicate that all articles, no matter what, should be based on secondary sources over primary sources. For works of fiction this is quite the opposite; information about the work of fiction is far less reliable when based off of secondary sources. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

While that's true for basic factual information, it's imperative (as long as there's a policy of "no original research") that no interpretation be put on the text/film/whatever that aren't from a secondary source. Well, I suppose an author or similar making a statement about how things are supposed to be interpreted is technically a primary source, but that would be an exception in this case (provided it's stated as being the author's own interpretation). SamBC(talk) 22:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of tangential though; a separate section addresses that problem completely. Like you said, information about the interpretation of the work of fiction can come from the primary source still. It's not really relevant to my point, regardless. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that people shouldn't be writing a Film Studies/Literature/Theatre Studies/whatever essay. They should not say, "character Y is cruel, as shown in chapter umpteen when they fnordle character X's brip" (excuse nonsense words) or similar. Plot summaries are inherently original research unless they're based on other published plot summaries. There's a line to tread between OR and copyvio, but it's not so thin a line. SamBC(talk) 00:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's quite easy to write a plot summary which simply lists the events of the film without any sort of interpretation or other type of OR. It may not be the most inspiring and articulate plot summary, but numerous plot summaries rely on no sources outside of the primary source for the information they contain. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have found myself messing with some cryptozoology articles recently, and here we have a case where it is the secondary sources that most often violate WP:V. As CZ is basically dealing with animals too cryptic, or apocryphal or probably fictional for classical zoology to bother with, secondary sources are prone to outlandish claims and go at great lengths to POV-push their pet interpretation. The only really reliable sources are indeed the original observations, and these are often misrepresented, misquoted etc in the secondary literature. This is the case why most cryptozoology websites are, from the point of a professional zoologist, so abysmal: because they rely on the twisted version of a primary source, twisted even further to serve some particular end (such as that there are surviving pterosaurs). Dysmorodrepanis 08:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that "debunk" cryptozoology, so this is not as difficult of a situation as you would make it appear. If you have trouble finding such sources, you could for example contact the Center for Inquiry, who would be quite happy to point you towards opposing sources. Be aware that secular humanist debunking material is no less biased. However, that's not really a problem, since we don't try to avoid the bias of the available sources here, but rather represent all notable POVs appropriately. Vassyana 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, at WP:N an attempt to make secondary sources an absolute requirement lead to a similar edit war and edit-protection, which was finally worked out by making it strongly favored, but not absolutely necessary. This dispute has many of the same underpinnings. One notable example of using primary sources was the thousands of articles created for geographic places in the U,S. based on U.S. Census Bureau data. I have also noted below that most articles on aircraft and airports rely heavily on primary source data because it is the most reliable source in these areas. Dhaluza 09:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

At WP:N, the consensus was not that secondary sources should be the favored sources. The consensus was that notability is best evidenced by the presence of secondary sources, which is entirely true and in line with current Wikipedia practice and the consensus of the community. If somebody has written about something, it's notable. However, for purposes of WP:NOR, once the notability criterion is passed, the best Wikipedia articles use a combination of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Current practice is to use all three, and this policy statement must reflect current practice, not lead it. COGDEN 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said that in the current compromise language of WP:N, secondary sources are strongly favored for judging notability. And you are correct that many editors objected to the attempt to modify WP:N to make secondary sourcing a prescriptive requirement there, because it did not reflect community consensus or practice. I suspect the same thing is happening here. Dhaluza 09:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Time chain

The NOR policy should reflect the dynamics of the subject matter at hand. An article about a breeding edge issue such will require different sources than an article about the French Revolution.Arebenti 13:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No original research is a core policy. It doesn't matter what the subject is, wikipedia only includes information and analysis that are directly based on reliable third-party (generally secondary) sources, in order to ensure that there is no original research or invalid synthesis. SamBC(talk) 13:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Much content in many articles on TV shows are based on primary source material. Much content in many "wrestling" articles is based on first person claims (as is natural, cause lots is made up fiction). Much song information is from those with a direct financial interest. Many articles on small companies rely on those companies web sites. Should we run wild deleting all this? No. It should be sourced better, but we need to get there in increments. Absolutist terminology is generally not helpful for this. WAS 4.250 16:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a point, I should have said that it's wikipedia policy to only include information blah blah blah... the point is, we should resist the addition of such material beyond a reasonable start, and we should resist attempts to change policy to say that all that stuff is okay. It's currently tolerated because such policies describe a goal, and that is still the goal AIUI. Some of those articles probably should be deleted, and some kept. If anyone wants to start going through it all and tagging stuff, then that's cool. For me, the effort isn't worth the return. SamBC(talk) 17:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To further the point by WAS 4.250, aircraft articles are based on primary source manufacturer data, which is the most reliable source. Secondary source "tests" are not reliable because of the cost of doing a proper flight test, and the engineering data needed. For airports, we also rely on primary source data from the aviation authorities. Secondary source data for basic airport characteristics usually just copies the primary source data. So primary sourcing is critical to our coverage of aviation as well. Dhaluza 09:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless Jimbo speaks, Wikipedia policies are not prescriptive. They only reflect current consensus practice, or at least a consensus aspiration. For a good explanation of this fact, see Help:Modifying and creating policy, as well as Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. A "policy" that's just a goal by some editors is not a policy, but a proposal. If we can convince the Wikipedia community to make that "goal" a predominant practice or aspiration, then it can become a policy. COGDEN 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is listing a subset from a published government document original research?

Hi All, Requesting feedback on this: The National Institutes of Health posts a yearly Excel spreadsheet of medical grant awards. About 56,000 entries, $20 billion. Does this fall under WP:NOR: "Figure 2 lists entries from the NIH's 2006 Grant Database containing the words Giardia." On the one hand, it involves some kind of research activity by the author. On the other hand anyone can verify the statement by downloading the Excel file and repeating the search. Thx, Gastro guy 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, any process, with the possible exception of complex mathematical calculations, that can be perfectly reproduced is not original research . The only potential issue is with the interpretation of data ... one must be careful to state only that which is unquestionably supported by the data. For instance, interpreting "country with the highest GDP per capita" as "wealthiest country" is original research. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gastro guy 06:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your NIH example is not original research. However, cherry picking information might produce NPOV issues, which is a different beast entirely. —Kanodin 07:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What about information where sources cannot be found at all?

I am interested in putting up entries in WP on the Cairo metro system. No revolutionary theories, just the names of the stations, their general location in Cairo, prominent landmarks nearby, etc. This kind of content is common for other cities such as London, Paris, Moscow, etc. Most metro station pages I have read cite no sources anyway. Since no sources are cited, what is this referred to, if not original research? 41.196.184.19 10:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters, there should be an official map from the operator which you can cite. You can translate what the cartographer depicted into plain English without crossing into OR, as long as you don't interpret it or draw any non-obvious conclusions. So you could capture the names of the stations, and their order on each line. This would probably only be enough info for a summary article, and if you tried to create stubs for each station, some editors would object to using a single primary source and probably nominate for deletion. So start off with the content merged into one article, and split off sub-articles as you find more sources. Dhaluza 11:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For most major cities, there should be abundantly available travel guides that describe major points about the city, including the public transportation system. There are plenty of sources available for articles like this, especially for "world centers" like Cairo and London. Just be cautious using such sources, since Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Vassyana 15:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, another question posed

I just spent somewhere around an hour reading all of the above (and several other pages), and I'm more confused now than I was before I started reading everything. So, without any further ado, here's a particular case in point, hopefully which this group can help solve.

I've been primarily interested in several articles where I was personally invloved in the subject matter, Axe Murder Incident and Joint Security Area (JSA), though I've also made numerous edits to a slew of other articles as well. So, I am an eyewitness to many of the events/articles that I have working on. This makes me a primary source, correct? As a primary source on these articles, "part" of what I edit may fall under original research, which I understand. I try to comply with this rule as much as possible by finding other references that I can cite which support my edits.

However there are several things which I either have problems with, or completely disagree with. First, let me start with a quote from this article that I vehemently disagree with, followed by (what I consider) a very good example. The quote is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." So, in essence any lies (falsehoods) which have been published or otherwise made publicly available are perfectly legitimate Wikipedia inclusions since they can be verified from the published source, but somebody who was an eyewitness who hasn't published a "document" of some sort can't rebut the falsehood, therefore perpetuating the falsehood into eternity. Now for the example.

Regarding the Axe Murder Incident, the US Army released a statement the following day that one of the reasons for a slow reponse was that the Quick Reaction Force (QRF) was over a mile away from the DMZ at the time of the incident. This is blatantly false to anybody that has ever been there simply due to the fact that at NO TIME is the QRF ever 1 mile away from the DMZ. The farthest the QRF ever gets from the DMZ is approximately 100 meters, which is where the Advance Camp is located, anf this is usually just for a very short period of time. On this particular day and time however, the QRF was actually sitting at the entrance to the JSA which is right smack dab in the middle of the DMZ. Here is part of an email I received from the guy who was actually working the checkpoint at the entrance to the JSA that day.

"Thirdly, to answer the question about who recovered the USA soldiers bodies? It was 3rd Platoon. The information below, "In actuallity, the QRF was sitting in their trucks at CP#2, at the entrance to the JSA, at the beginning of the fight with the 3rd Plt. Ldr awaiting authorization from Capt. Bonifas (who was already dead) for authorization to go in, right smack dab in the middle of the DMZ," is a very accurate statement. Moreover, it took the actual JSA CDR, on this day, to order the 3rd Platoon Leader to go in to recover the bodies.

Lastly, Mike, as you may recall, the above quoted statement truly supports what I have been telling you, M.S. (from the History Channel) and others all along. And, that is, that I was assigned to UNC CP#2 at the time of the August 18, 1976, Axe-Murder Incident. When I initially saw the QRF platoon approaching my guardpost, I was somewhat happy that help was coming. Contrary to what was stated by the 3rd Platoon Leader during the December 28, 2004, airing of the documentary, it was he in the lead vehicle (and not an E-7 Platoon SGT) that I vigorously tried to wave into the JSA -- but my request fell on death ears. Instead, the foregoing platoon leader, subsequently, got out of his vehicle, went into my checkpoint, and then called the JSA CDR, whom, upon his arrival to UNC Check Point #2, ordered him to go in. You can imagine how much time had elapsed! I was saddened by his actions.

I specifically remember this aspect of the incident because due to my assignment at CP2, the LTC ordered me to assure that the soldiers congregating around to view CPT Bonifas' body did not, in fact, see him. I did, and I have been living with the residuals of it ever since. That's why I am telling this story, as it actually occurred."

BTW, my name is Bill, and the reference to Mike above is to another buddy of mine who was also included on the email. I also changed a person's name to just their initials in case they don't want their name known. So, since the US Army issued a statement almost immediately that was wrong in so many ways, it is allowed to stand since the other eyewitnesses and/or myself haven't published anything to contradict it, and the lie is allowed to florish forever? And seriously, if I was to issue to press relase staing the actual events that day, would any news organization really run it or care? No, because it would contradict the "official" version as published by the US Army.

I am very careful about my edits, trying to remain as nuetral as possible and report the actual events as accurately as possible, however this came to a head when somebody wanted to change the word "Murder" to "Killing", claiming that the term murder is POV and trying to diminish the actual events of that day Talk:Axe Murder Incident. I do have some references to a web page I have where I placed some of my recollections from Korea, and also from another buddy who was there with me (Mike, from the quoted part above). Both of our references are listed as "eyewitness account...". Also regarding the term "Murder" for the above immediate problem, a Google search for +"Axe Murder" +korea returns 1100 hits, while the same search that replaces "killing" for "murder" only returns 209 hits. Both sets of hits return some entries for other events, but more inaccurate results occured with the word "killing". So, the term "murder" is also more associated with the events of this day than the term "killing" is as well, adding prevalent thought and opinion to the term.

In conclusion, the history of the world would be in sad, sad shape if it was solely relegated to whichever side expended the most effort in promoting their version of events. I do see where this leads to edit wars, etc., but in many cases, I strongly feel that they need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, where a "group" of educated, non-partisan parties, preferably with both an interest and some background on the subject matter, can decide what should be "allowed" or not. Otherwise, as others have said above (and paraphrased by me), all Wikipedia is, is just a regurgitation of what's already available, so where's the added "benefit" of even using Wikipedia, if all you're are going to see is what's already available everywhere else? Has anybody ever tried (and had success) writing Encylopedia Britannica telling them a cited "fact" is incorrect, offering proof, and actually gotten them to change it? I haven't, and I seriously doubt if anybody else has had any luck in that regard either. That's what makes Wikipedia unique and adds value to many of the articles.

Thanks for any and all opinions on this, regardless of whether there's agreement or disagreement from my POV. wbfergus 15:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your biggest misunderstanding is the role of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be the place where ground is broken, discoveries are made, or truth uncovered. An encyclopedia is the place all the currently acknowledged information on a subject is laid out comprehensively. When someone reads an encyclopedia, they should come away with knowledge of "things as they are known to be". Encyclopedias are a starting off point to research, not the final answer. You start research by finding out what is already said on the subject. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth does not mean choosing falsehood over truth, but disavowing both as irrelevant. Encyclopedias are a summation of existing knowledge, what has already been printed and then acknowledged and/or disputed. Your difficulty with WP policies is because you wish Wikipedia to be something it is not. It is designed to be "just a regurgitation of what's already available". The benefit is that it is a free-content regurgitation of what's already available. That is the revolutionary part.--BirgitteSB 16:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the article Jennings Rutter Battle original research?

The article describes a "battle" between Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, two US game-show contestants. They have appeared on various game shows, sometimes head-to-head and sometimes not. The article attempts to compare their achievements and declare a "winner" of each "round". I believe that editors have invented the structure of this "battle" themselves, although each specific fact in the article is referenced to a source. Is this OR? --Cinematical 16:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)