![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Index
|
|||||
Is the addition of the distinction between primary and secondary sources a new addition? I don't remember it being there before. By the way, it's utterly awful. the change creates confusion and opens the door for crack pots who can argue semantics. Dire. -- I'll bring the food 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The current definition of primary sources and the basic framework for when primary sources can and cannot be used was hammered out in March 2005, and has been stable since that time. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources.
A number of people have expressed their support for or acceptance of this version as it stants: Slrubenstein, SlimVirgin, Wjhonson, Jossi, Felonious Monk and I think Jayjg. If there continue to be specific objections, let´s try to sort them out one at a time.
I have one remaining issue with the current NOR policy. When paraphrasing or summarizing a source, the skills used might be those of any good reader and writer. But in technical material, somewhat more specialized skills might be used. Units of measure might be converted. Words like best or worst might be inserted where those words are only implied in the source, in combination with measurements that show which is best or worst. Numbers might be read from graphs, or graphs might be made from lists of numbers. All of these changes are arguably not original research and should be allowed. The process could be carried further, for example, by extrapolating the data from the source to new situations; that would be original research.
For most sources, the threshold is not explicitly set, and it would be up to a consensus of the editors for an article to decide what was or was not OR. But for articles based primarily on primary sources, the threshold is now set: any reasonable adult without specialist skills must be able to verify that the article is an accurate representation of the source. This would prevent some paraphrases that really involve no original research, because a person who lacks the skills to make a graph or convert units cannot verify the accuracy of the paraphrase. -- Gerry Ashton 16:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see much of a conflict here. On the one hand, the policy refers to the ability of a "reasonable adult without specialist skills" to verify the information. On the other hand, Gerry gives the example of changing units, paraphrasing, summarizing, etcetera (in ways that are clearly not a novel synthesis), which require some ability to read and understand the source material. However, I wouldn't consider the ability to convert units, read a graph, etcetera, to be a "specialist skill". Those are skills that any reasonable adult would have to possess in order to even begin to evaluate an such an article.
It is inevitable that, the more technical the subject of an article is, the more restricted the set of readers able to evaluate it becomes. This does not mean that articles should be written only for "specialists" — a specialist is someone who is an expert in a particular field, someone qualified to write academic papers in that subject, and I fully agree with the policy that articles should be verifiable by non-specialists. But, for example, if an editor is to verify an advanced physics or mathematics article, they should have some general knowledge physics or mathematics in order to make any sense of it. A "reasonable adult" will not try to evaluate an article on character theory if they haven't taken a math course since high-school algebra 20 years ago.
Ultimately, a policy like this has to be written in broad language that requires some common-sense interpretation. It can't be a precise legal document. I don't see any big problem with the current language, but if it would help to clarify you could change "any reasonable adult" to "any reasonably informed adult".
—Steven G. Johnson 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So far, the hypothetical situations like unit conversions don't bear much relation to reality for me—Wikipedians make unit conversions all the time with zero controversy. It would be clearer what you want if you could propose a specific wording that you think is better. If you can't propose an improvement, then this discussion is pointless. —Steven G. Johnson 03:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: The skinny on my objection to Rubenstein's inventions is that they imply that secondary sources are inherently better or higher quality in some insinuated but unidentified way. Nobody who reads any philosophy at all would ever dream of saying that. No philosopher (Phil1) has ever written about the work of another philosopher (Phil0) in a way that suffices to replace Phil0's work, even though it is not unheard for Phil1's ilk to suggest that. Ergo, there can be no sensible policy from which the reader might infer that secondary sources are somehow preferred. Jon Awbrey 12:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Here's a recipe for writing a low-quality article:
JA: Maybe this practice is pandemic in WP, but it does not conform to:
JA: It's really no more complicated than that. Jon Awbrey 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
(<---) I agree with everything you said and everything I understand you to have implied. The H5N1 example is useful to illustrate that sometimes primary sources are useful and the policy should not say otherwise, as it right now indeed does not, even if it could be more clear in that regard. I don't have a problem with the current wording, I merely have a problem with seeing why it is a problem to add a few words to make clear what what all agree is the case. Perhaps if Jon had better people skills, he might have been more successful in obtaining his objectives with regard to Peirce which as you point out had clear problems on their face. But the bottom line for me here is why not offer to add a couple of words that clarifies at best and is redundant at worse rather than go through all this mess? WAS 4.250 22:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
We prefer the use of 2ndry sources over primary ones for extra-editorial breadth, balance, expertise, and to ensure against no original theories. The current formulation can probably be stated more simply (and without all the Howevers, those are painful to read!). I'll give it some thought. El_C 06:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked at this example, and I don't follow why this is one.
In the scientific context, primary sources would be the raw experimental data, preprints, conference discussions, etc. On quick inspection, the article relies on peer-reviewed articles, science press reports, and so on which are secondary sources. Whether the government-sponsored papers are primary or secondary is a semantic debate -- they are proper for inclusion either way. There may be an occasional reference to other primary sources, but it doesn't jump out at me -- there is no objection current or proposed to using primary sources as leaven in an article relying on secondary sources.
What am I missing here? Robert A.West ( Talk) 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: GTB, up until 15 Aug 2006 the WP:NOR policy had remained pretty much the same for as long as I personally had been watching it, since 20 Dec 2005 at least.
JA: Slrubenstein's edit, along with all of its subsequent variations, would constitute a major alteration of long-standing policy on Original Research. I think that it's fair to say that there can be no consensus for making this change. The supporters of this policy modification have, however, simply refused to hear the objections to this change, and some have even tried to manipulate the normal procedures of talk page use in order to set aside the continuing protest.
JA: That is how I see the current situation. Jon Awbrey 02:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: I can't be sure, as we need a better way of indexing the various versions in play. By "current version" I would assume that you mean the version that is currently locked down on the main page. This is one of the subsequent variations on an original theme of Rubenstein, and it still amounts to a radical re-invention of previous policy. For "paragraph being suggested" I do not know if you mean a variant on this page or elsewhere. FeloniousMonk unilaterally changed the venue for discussing the proposed alterations in the status of primary vs. secondary sources to here:
JA: I started a longitudinal study of the changes in the policy page since its inception here:
JA: Will try to take a day off now. Good weekend, Jon Awbrey 03:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Okay, I just now read the assertions being made in the section above, and that forces me to say one more thing. It is disingenuous of anyone to pretend that no specific objections to the locked down version or its cosmetic variants have yet been put on the table. The record, no matter where somebody chooses to relocate it, will continue to show that the same objections have been made since the time that the changes in question were introduced. The essence of the specific recommendations have always been: "Put it back the way it was before 15 Aug 2006." Let us hope that this is specific enough for all to understand. And now I'm really outa here. Jon Awbrey 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Yes, "staying on one page" (SOOP) is rather a problem here, and I don't see that creating a complex of subpages has really helped the SOOP situation all that much, nor the "one can of worms at a time" (1COWAAT) situation neither. Nor does it serve much constructive community purpose to be constantly attributing trollitude, Dude, to anyone who now and then gets bewildered by the situation. Jon Awbrey 15:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is one change I made which was reverted prior to protection. I would like to put it back in. I would like to know if there are any objections. To the current list of primary sources, I would like to add this: "literary works such as poems, scripts and screemplays, or novels." Any objections? Slrubenstein 20:24, September 8, 2006 (UTC)
Gerry, I like your version except I would just drop the word "fictional." How does that sound? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point - I didn´t think of tht. Okay, we keep fictional. But I do believe we still need somehow to include the other kinds of raw video you mention. So, how about this:
I put your changes and mine in italics. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that screenplay includes script - script can apply to theatrical productions but screenplay does not. Also, I would just remove the word "fictional" since the whole clause is now "artictic or literary" which I certainly think subsumes "fictional," right? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Primary sources present information or data, such as
Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.
My personal preference is for the older (i.e. current) format (semicolons). That said, i have no objection to Gerry Ashton´s proposal. Let´s see if one or two more people won´t weigh in. If someone else objects to the bullet-point format, Gerry, is it acceptable to you to stick to the current format? If others support Gerry´s approach, as I said, I won´t object. Let´s just get a little more feedback from others, and then one of you can make the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If we do not adopt the bullet format, we must give exceptional care to all the and's, or's, commas, and semicolons. I wouldn't be able to say yea or nay to a new proposal in the existing format without having it completely spelled out. I also would like others to weigh in. -- Gerry Ashton 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that should be the next topic. Given the acrimonious and unproductive arguments that led to the page being protected, I think it makes sense to take each edit one at a time. right now we are discussing the definition of primary sources. I think we have a consensus, but let us be sure we do and then make the change. Then let us move on to the next topic. Slim, I think what you suggest is fine but I think it should be stated in a different paragraph, so can we disacuss this next *sorry my keyboard lacks a question mark( Slrubenstein | Talk 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the bulleted version is fine. SV does have a point; we want to be sure that nobody thinks they can use the arrowhead they found in their backyard, or, as happens occassionally, the manuscript they found in their attic, as a source. -- Donald Albury 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no desire to weigh in or debate the issues that I'm now going to bring up. It's just that I see these issues raising their ugly head in various places and sooner or later they'll have to be dealt with, so if stuff in this policy is to be changed/rewritten, if should be with full understanding of consequences and possible interpretations.
I made an edit to the policy, puttingin Gerry´s list in buller-points, and I added concerning movies and such "whether in analogue or digital format." If this does not satisfy WAS´s concern about DVDs, I ask Gerry or WAS to make the appropriate correction. Personally, I think it is a non-issue. It is the contents not the format that is at issue here. Television programs and motion pictures counts as original research period, what difference does it make whether it is on 16 mm film, video, or dvd? However, if Gerry Ashton can find a way to make the phrasing more parsimonious, precise, clear, go ahead. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There are three more edits I propose. I have NOT made thes edits put am laying them out, in order, here on the talk page first. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the first two paragraphs following the descriptions of primary and secondary sources is:
I have a problem with this version. Although it is clear that there is a common restriction on the use of primary and secondary sources (that they be verifiable), the second paragraph places restrictions on the use of primary sources that have no parallel for secondary sources. In other words, the policy states that the use of primary sources is more restricted than the use of secondary sources. The problem is, this sentence, "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged," puts the use of primary and secondary sources on the same level. The purpose of this sentence is to explain what "source based research is," which is fine and dandy - the sentence does not need to comment on primary or secondary sources. But by mentioning primary and secondary sources and treating them equally, this sentence can be misinterpreted to contractict the paragraph that follows. In short, it muddies the waters.
In order to clarify the waters, I have three proposals.
First, delete this (currently the second) sentence, and add in its place,
I think this is an accurate expression of our policy as it has been understood and enforced for at least the past couple of years. We discourage (nb, this does not = prohibit) the use of primary sources, and we encourage secondary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson, if you are going to participate in this discussion at least have the sense to read the proposal under discussion. Nowhere does the proposal state that quoting a primary source in and of itself is original research; on the contrary, the proposal states precisely what you are "arguing" which is that using a primary sources is not original research if it is not being used to promote a new analysis (or siynthesis, or interpretation, or explanation). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Slrubenstein is exactly right. Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources in order to avoid original research. It may well be difficult for people not used to these rules, but it's critical if we're going to create a credible encyclopedia - Wikipedia is not a blog or personal website. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
So what, Gerry? You are still not objecting to anything I have proposed. Nothing I have proposed prohibits primary sources, and indeed step 3, below, explains when it is perfectly fine to use primary sources. Are there situations in Wikipedia where use of primary sources is appropriate? Of course! Not only have I never, ever argued against this, my own proposal states this. Step 3 below allows for every situation where the use of original sources is desirable and aceptable. How on earth can you claim that I am "flat out" opposed to primary sources, when I have already proposed a section that shows how they can be used without violating the policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Several editors here expressly reject your interpretation of WIkipedia policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You are right. Would just dropping the word "original" solve the problem, i.e. something like, "Wikipedia articles that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources." Or do you have an alternative? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Wjhonson - I support your change completely. Now, let´s see if anyone has any objections to this version. If no one does, perhaps we have consensus on this one change? Let´s give it a day or two.
I suspect that, to be clear, we have to explain the rationale for preferring secondary sources at the same place this preference is expressed. (I would also express it as a positive "preference" rather than a negative "discourage".) Let me propose the following alternate wording for the first sentence:
This way, we nip objections in the bud, and furthermore knowledge of the rationale makes it easier to understand the exceptional cases where a primary source might be useful. —Steven G. Johnson 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Gerry, is this objectionable to you? If so, is it the spirit that is objectionable, or the wording? If the spirit is unobjectionable to you, can you suggest more precise wording? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand exactly what Steven G. Johnson and Slrubenstein would like to take out and put in. I have created two pages, User:Gerry Ashton/sources-Johnson and User:Gerry Ashton/sources-Slrubenstein containing the Primary and secondary sources section, revised as I think these two editors would like to edit them. I invite these editors to make any necessary changes in case I have misinterpreted them. -- Gerry Ashton 18:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As for what exactly we are proposing to add/delete, let's be concrete: something like the following (old text italics, deleted text strikethrough, and inserted text bold).
For the new sentence, Slrubenstein proposed Original research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources.. I proposed Reputable secondary sources, such as authoritative textbooks and review articles, are generally preferred over primary sources in Wikipedia—primary sources often require specialists to interpret them correctly and place them in the proper context, and it is especially difficult to avoid original research when relying mostly on primary sources. for the new sentence. As I explained above, I think it is both clearer and less controversial if we explain the rationale. What do others prefer? —Steven G. Johnson 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson has proposed the following, which is elegant: "Articles which draw predominantly on primary sources are generally discouraged, in favor of articles based predominantly on secondary sources". As to Stevenjohnson´s version, I admire the intent but my objection stands. Could Stevenjohnson or others modify his proposed version to meet my concerns? Slrubenstein | Talk 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
While responding to a fact template on an article I watch, Anno Domini, I noticed that a useful secondary source (Blackburn and Holford-Strevens' The Oxford Companion to the Year) alluded to the Gospel of Matthew, but did not quote sufficient material for the reader to undersand the argument. I suspect that if we looked, we could find many other examples where the author of a secondary source will expect the reader to have a certain primary source at hand in order to understand the secondary source. If a Wikipedia editor is using the secondary source, and thinks our readers may not have the primary source at hand, it would be very appropriate for the editor to quote or paraphrase the relevant parts of the primary source, so the reader can follow the arguement.
I think this is one specific use of primary sources which our guideline could not only tolerate, but encourage. -- Gerry Ashton 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This passage has been in the policy for well over a year. When I made my initial edit, I kept it; when my edit was reverted, this passage still remained. I just want to confirm that we keep it as is:
Some have criticized this as overly restrictive but after lengthy discussion I don´t think anyone could find an example of a use of a primary source in an article that violated these conditions. I think they are precise but not overly restrictive - just restrictive enough to prevent people from using Wikipedia as a vehicle for publicizing their own original research or views. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Gerry, would changing to wording (below, step 3) to, "where an article, or a section of an article," resolve your concern? I hope I understand your concern correctly. If you think this change in wording solves the problem, I have no problem making the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Gerry, I agree with you entirely. My only remaining concern is that I think if we drop the apple pie example, we need to provide another example. Can you find an article that is not current efvents, that relies predominantly on primary sources, and that conforms with this paragrasph? I think it is very important to add another example so that newbies will have a positive model as to how to comply with the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection. The important thing is we have a second example. Does anyone object to this version, that Gerry has proposed and I support? Do we have general agreement to make this one change? Let´s give it a day or two to see if anyone objects. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the version currently poroposed:
Any objections, or are we moving towards a consensus?
I propose that we then conclude with the following, which concludes with the sentence on "source based" research.
This seems pretty straightforward and innoccuous to me. But it makes sense, after clarifying the use of primary sources, to then have a couple of sentences on secondary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have no objection to deleting it is "source-based research" from this sentence, if that would satisfy Gerry Ashton Slrubenstein | Talk 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson, Why can´t you go along with this modification? it is not a persuasive argument (and also not a sign of good faith) for you to disagree with my proposal simply because you disagree with my proposal. What (for both versions of this statement, the one that includes "it is 'source-based research'" and the one that does not include it) do you actually object to, and why? Provide an actual reason, otherwise you are just being argumentative and obstructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just what the heading says. Any objections? Anyone have any ideas as to the most appropriate way to do this? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It is time to achive it. By any means necessary :) WAS 4.250 11:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Index
|
|||||
Is the addition of the distinction between primary and secondary sources a new addition? I don't remember it being there before. By the way, it's utterly awful. the change creates confusion and opens the door for crack pots who can argue semantics. Dire. -- I'll bring the food 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The current definition of primary sources and the basic framework for when primary sources can and cannot be used was hammered out in March 2005, and has been stable since that time. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources.
A number of people have expressed their support for or acceptance of this version as it stants: Slrubenstein, SlimVirgin, Wjhonson, Jossi, Felonious Monk and I think Jayjg. If there continue to be specific objections, let´s try to sort them out one at a time.
I have one remaining issue with the current NOR policy. When paraphrasing or summarizing a source, the skills used might be those of any good reader and writer. But in technical material, somewhat more specialized skills might be used. Units of measure might be converted. Words like best or worst might be inserted where those words are only implied in the source, in combination with measurements that show which is best or worst. Numbers might be read from graphs, or graphs might be made from lists of numbers. All of these changes are arguably not original research and should be allowed. The process could be carried further, for example, by extrapolating the data from the source to new situations; that would be original research.
For most sources, the threshold is not explicitly set, and it would be up to a consensus of the editors for an article to decide what was or was not OR. But for articles based primarily on primary sources, the threshold is now set: any reasonable adult without specialist skills must be able to verify that the article is an accurate representation of the source. This would prevent some paraphrases that really involve no original research, because a person who lacks the skills to make a graph or convert units cannot verify the accuracy of the paraphrase. -- Gerry Ashton 16:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see much of a conflict here. On the one hand, the policy refers to the ability of a "reasonable adult without specialist skills" to verify the information. On the other hand, Gerry gives the example of changing units, paraphrasing, summarizing, etcetera (in ways that are clearly not a novel synthesis), which require some ability to read and understand the source material. However, I wouldn't consider the ability to convert units, read a graph, etcetera, to be a "specialist skill". Those are skills that any reasonable adult would have to possess in order to even begin to evaluate an such an article.
It is inevitable that, the more technical the subject of an article is, the more restricted the set of readers able to evaluate it becomes. This does not mean that articles should be written only for "specialists" — a specialist is someone who is an expert in a particular field, someone qualified to write academic papers in that subject, and I fully agree with the policy that articles should be verifiable by non-specialists. But, for example, if an editor is to verify an advanced physics or mathematics article, they should have some general knowledge physics or mathematics in order to make any sense of it. A "reasonable adult" will not try to evaluate an article on character theory if they haven't taken a math course since high-school algebra 20 years ago.
Ultimately, a policy like this has to be written in broad language that requires some common-sense interpretation. It can't be a precise legal document. I don't see any big problem with the current language, but if it would help to clarify you could change "any reasonable adult" to "any reasonably informed adult".
—Steven G. Johnson 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So far, the hypothetical situations like unit conversions don't bear much relation to reality for me—Wikipedians make unit conversions all the time with zero controversy. It would be clearer what you want if you could propose a specific wording that you think is better. If you can't propose an improvement, then this discussion is pointless. —Steven G. Johnson 03:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: The skinny on my objection to Rubenstein's inventions is that they imply that secondary sources are inherently better or higher quality in some insinuated but unidentified way. Nobody who reads any philosophy at all would ever dream of saying that. No philosopher (Phil1) has ever written about the work of another philosopher (Phil0) in a way that suffices to replace Phil0's work, even though it is not unheard for Phil1's ilk to suggest that. Ergo, there can be no sensible policy from which the reader might infer that secondary sources are somehow preferred. Jon Awbrey 12:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Here's a recipe for writing a low-quality article:
JA: Maybe this practice is pandemic in WP, but it does not conform to:
JA: It's really no more complicated than that. Jon Awbrey 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
(<---) I agree with everything you said and everything I understand you to have implied. The H5N1 example is useful to illustrate that sometimes primary sources are useful and the policy should not say otherwise, as it right now indeed does not, even if it could be more clear in that regard. I don't have a problem with the current wording, I merely have a problem with seeing why it is a problem to add a few words to make clear what what all agree is the case. Perhaps if Jon had better people skills, he might have been more successful in obtaining his objectives with regard to Peirce which as you point out had clear problems on their face. But the bottom line for me here is why not offer to add a couple of words that clarifies at best and is redundant at worse rather than go through all this mess? WAS 4.250 22:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
We prefer the use of 2ndry sources over primary ones for extra-editorial breadth, balance, expertise, and to ensure against no original theories. The current formulation can probably be stated more simply (and without all the Howevers, those are painful to read!). I'll give it some thought. El_C 06:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked at this example, and I don't follow why this is one.
In the scientific context, primary sources would be the raw experimental data, preprints, conference discussions, etc. On quick inspection, the article relies on peer-reviewed articles, science press reports, and so on which are secondary sources. Whether the government-sponsored papers are primary or secondary is a semantic debate -- they are proper for inclusion either way. There may be an occasional reference to other primary sources, but it doesn't jump out at me -- there is no objection current or proposed to using primary sources as leaven in an article relying on secondary sources.
What am I missing here? Robert A.West ( Talk) 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: GTB, up until 15 Aug 2006 the WP:NOR policy had remained pretty much the same for as long as I personally had been watching it, since 20 Dec 2005 at least.
JA: Slrubenstein's edit, along with all of its subsequent variations, would constitute a major alteration of long-standing policy on Original Research. I think that it's fair to say that there can be no consensus for making this change. The supporters of this policy modification have, however, simply refused to hear the objections to this change, and some have even tried to manipulate the normal procedures of talk page use in order to set aside the continuing protest.
JA: That is how I see the current situation. Jon Awbrey 02:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: I can't be sure, as we need a better way of indexing the various versions in play. By "current version" I would assume that you mean the version that is currently locked down on the main page. This is one of the subsequent variations on an original theme of Rubenstein, and it still amounts to a radical re-invention of previous policy. For "paragraph being suggested" I do not know if you mean a variant on this page or elsewhere. FeloniousMonk unilaterally changed the venue for discussing the proposed alterations in the status of primary vs. secondary sources to here:
JA: I started a longitudinal study of the changes in the policy page since its inception here:
JA: Will try to take a day off now. Good weekend, Jon Awbrey 03:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Okay, I just now read the assertions being made in the section above, and that forces me to say one more thing. It is disingenuous of anyone to pretend that no specific objections to the locked down version or its cosmetic variants have yet been put on the table. The record, no matter where somebody chooses to relocate it, will continue to show that the same objections have been made since the time that the changes in question were introduced. The essence of the specific recommendations have always been: "Put it back the way it was before 15 Aug 2006." Let us hope that this is specific enough for all to understand. And now I'm really outa here. Jon Awbrey 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Yes, "staying on one page" (SOOP) is rather a problem here, and I don't see that creating a complex of subpages has really helped the SOOP situation all that much, nor the "one can of worms at a time" (1COWAAT) situation neither. Nor does it serve much constructive community purpose to be constantly attributing trollitude, Dude, to anyone who now and then gets bewildered by the situation. Jon Awbrey 15:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is one change I made which was reverted prior to protection. I would like to put it back in. I would like to know if there are any objections. To the current list of primary sources, I would like to add this: "literary works such as poems, scripts and screemplays, or novels." Any objections? Slrubenstein 20:24, September 8, 2006 (UTC)
Gerry, I like your version except I would just drop the word "fictional." How does that sound? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point - I didn´t think of tht. Okay, we keep fictional. But I do believe we still need somehow to include the other kinds of raw video you mention. So, how about this:
I put your changes and mine in italics. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that screenplay includes script - script can apply to theatrical productions but screenplay does not. Also, I would just remove the word "fictional" since the whole clause is now "artictic or literary" which I certainly think subsumes "fictional," right? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Primary sources present information or data, such as
Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data from other sources.
My personal preference is for the older (i.e. current) format (semicolons). That said, i have no objection to Gerry Ashton´s proposal. Let´s see if one or two more people won´t weigh in. If someone else objects to the bullet-point format, Gerry, is it acceptable to you to stick to the current format? If others support Gerry´s approach, as I said, I won´t object. Let´s just get a little more feedback from others, and then one of you can make the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If we do not adopt the bullet format, we must give exceptional care to all the and's, or's, commas, and semicolons. I wouldn't be able to say yea or nay to a new proposal in the existing format without having it completely spelled out. I also would like others to weigh in. -- Gerry Ashton 22:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that should be the next topic. Given the acrimonious and unproductive arguments that led to the page being protected, I think it makes sense to take each edit one at a time. right now we are discussing the definition of primary sources. I think we have a consensus, but let us be sure we do and then make the change. Then let us move on to the next topic. Slim, I think what you suggest is fine but I think it should be stated in a different paragraph, so can we disacuss this next *sorry my keyboard lacks a question mark( Slrubenstein | Talk 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the bulleted version is fine. SV does have a point; we want to be sure that nobody thinks they can use the arrowhead they found in their backyard, or, as happens occassionally, the manuscript they found in their attic, as a source. -- Donald Albury 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no desire to weigh in or debate the issues that I'm now going to bring up. It's just that I see these issues raising their ugly head in various places and sooner or later they'll have to be dealt with, so if stuff in this policy is to be changed/rewritten, if should be with full understanding of consequences and possible interpretations.
I made an edit to the policy, puttingin Gerry´s list in buller-points, and I added concerning movies and such "whether in analogue or digital format." If this does not satisfy WAS´s concern about DVDs, I ask Gerry or WAS to make the appropriate correction. Personally, I think it is a non-issue. It is the contents not the format that is at issue here. Television programs and motion pictures counts as original research period, what difference does it make whether it is on 16 mm film, video, or dvd? However, if Gerry Ashton can find a way to make the phrasing more parsimonious, precise, clear, go ahead. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
There are three more edits I propose. I have NOT made thes edits put am laying them out, in order, here on the talk page first. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the first two paragraphs following the descriptions of primary and secondary sources is:
I have a problem with this version. Although it is clear that there is a common restriction on the use of primary and secondary sources (that they be verifiable), the second paragraph places restrictions on the use of primary sources that have no parallel for secondary sources. In other words, the policy states that the use of primary sources is more restricted than the use of secondary sources. The problem is, this sentence, "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged," puts the use of primary and secondary sources on the same level. The purpose of this sentence is to explain what "source based research is," which is fine and dandy - the sentence does not need to comment on primary or secondary sources. But by mentioning primary and secondary sources and treating them equally, this sentence can be misinterpreted to contractict the paragraph that follows. In short, it muddies the waters.
In order to clarify the waters, I have three proposals.
First, delete this (currently the second) sentence, and add in its place,
I think this is an accurate expression of our policy as it has been understood and enforced for at least the past couple of years. We discourage (nb, this does not = prohibit) the use of primary sources, and we encourage secondary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson, if you are going to participate in this discussion at least have the sense to read the proposal under discussion. Nowhere does the proposal state that quoting a primary source in and of itself is original research; on the contrary, the proposal states precisely what you are "arguing" which is that using a primary sources is not original research if it is not being used to promote a new analysis (or siynthesis, or interpretation, or explanation). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Slrubenstein is exactly right. Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources in order to avoid original research. It may well be difficult for people not used to these rules, but it's critical if we're going to create a credible encyclopedia - Wikipedia is not a blog or personal website. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
So what, Gerry? You are still not objecting to anything I have proposed. Nothing I have proposed prohibits primary sources, and indeed step 3, below, explains when it is perfectly fine to use primary sources. Are there situations in Wikipedia where use of primary sources is appropriate? Of course! Not only have I never, ever argued against this, my own proposal states this. Step 3 below allows for every situation where the use of original sources is desirable and aceptable. How on earth can you claim that I am "flat out" opposed to primary sources, when I have already proposed a section that shows how they can be used without violating the policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Several editors here expressly reject your interpretation of WIkipedia policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You are right. Would just dropping the word "original" solve the problem, i.e. something like, "Wikipedia articles that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources." Or do you have an alternative? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Wjhonson - I support your change completely. Now, let´s see if anyone has any objections to this version. If no one does, perhaps we have consensus on this one change? Let´s give it a day or two.
I suspect that, to be clear, we have to explain the rationale for preferring secondary sources at the same place this preference is expressed. (I would also express it as a positive "preference" rather than a negative "discourage".) Let me propose the following alternate wording for the first sentence:
This way, we nip objections in the bud, and furthermore knowledge of the rationale makes it easier to understand the exceptional cases where a primary source might be useful. —Steven G. Johnson 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Gerry, is this objectionable to you? If so, is it the spirit that is objectionable, or the wording? If the spirit is unobjectionable to you, can you suggest more precise wording? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand exactly what Steven G. Johnson and Slrubenstein would like to take out and put in. I have created two pages, User:Gerry Ashton/sources-Johnson and User:Gerry Ashton/sources-Slrubenstein containing the Primary and secondary sources section, revised as I think these two editors would like to edit them. I invite these editors to make any necessary changes in case I have misinterpreted them. -- Gerry Ashton 18:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As for what exactly we are proposing to add/delete, let's be concrete: something like the following (old text italics, deleted text strikethrough, and inserted text bold).
For the new sentence, Slrubenstein proposed Original research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources.. I proposed Reputable secondary sources, such as authoritative textbooks and review articles, are generally preferred over primary sources in Wikipedia—primary sources often require specialists to interpret them correctly and place them in the proper context, and it is especially difficult to avoid original research when relying mostly on primary sources. for the new sentence. As I explained above, I think it is both clearer and less controversial if we explain the rationale. What do others prefer? —Steven G. Johnson 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson has proposed the following, which is elegant: "Articles which draw predominantly on primary sources are generally discouraged, in favor of articles based predominantly on secondary sources". As to Stevenjohnson´s version, I admire the intent but my objection stands. Could Stevenjohnson or others modify his proposed version to meet my concerns? Slrubenstein | Talk 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
While responding to a fact template on an article I watch, Anno Domini, I noticed that a useful secondary source (Blackburn and Holford-Strevens' The Oxford Companion to the Year) alluded to the Gospel of Matthew, but did not quote sufficient material for the reader to undersand the argument. I suspect that if we looked, we could find many other examples where the author of a secondary source will expect the reader to have a certain primary source at hand in order to understand the secondary source. If a Wikipedia editor is using the secondary source, and thinks our readers may not have the primary source at hand, it would be very appropriate for the editor to quote or paraphrase the relevant parts of the primary source, so the reader can follow the arguement.
I think this is one specific use of primary sources which our guideline could not only tolerate, but encourage. -- Gerry Ashton 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This passage has been in the policy for well over a year. When I made my initial edit, I kept it; when my edit was reverted, this passage still remained. I just want to confirm that we keep it as is:
Some have criticized this as overly restrictive but after lengthy discussion I don´t think anyone could find an example of a use of a primary source in an article that violated these conditions. I think they are precise but not overly restrictive - just restrictive enough to prevent people from using Wikipedia as a vehicle for publicizing their own original research or views. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Gerry, would changing to wording (below, step 3) to, "where an article, or a section of an article," resolve your concern? I hope I understand your concern correctly. If you think this change in wording solves the problem, I have no problem making the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Gerry, I agree with you entirely. My only remaining concern is that I think if we drop the apple pie example, we need to provide another example. Can you find an article that is not current efvents, that relies predominantly on primary sources, and that conforms with this paragrasph? I think it is very important to add another example so that newbies will have a positive model as to how to comply with the policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection. The important thing is we have a second example. Does anyone object to this version, that Gerry has proposed and I support? Do we have general agreement to make this one change? Let´s give it a day or two to see if anyone objects. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the version currently poroposed:
Any objections, or are we moving towards a consensus?
I propose that we then conclude with the following, which concludes with the sentence on "source based" research.
This seems pretty straightforward and innoccuous to me. But it makes sense, after clarifying the use of primary sources, to then have a couple of sentences on secondary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have no objection to deleting it is "source-based research" from this sentence, if that would satisfy Gerry Ashton Slrubenstein | Talk 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson, Why can´t you go along with this modification? it is not a persuasive argument (and also not a sign of good faith) for you to disagree with my proposal simply because you disagree with my proposal. What (for both versions of this statement, the one that includes "it is 'source-based research'" and the one that does not include it) do you actually object to, and why? Provide an actual reason, otherwise you are just being argumentative and obstructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just what the heading says. Any objections? Anyone have any ideas as to the most appropriate way to do this? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It is time to achive it. By any means necessary :) WAS 4.250 11:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)