User talk:Yaris678/PSTS/Archive 2

764:

a court's ruling is primary, because the judge is also the one in charge of collecting and controlling the testimony and evidence, as well as making the decisions. I would require an independent secondary source to analyze the court's ruling, although if the latter includes a brief "bottom line" summary, that summary can be quoted in its entirety, with reduced risk of selective highlighting. As I see it, we need to clarify that primary sources are very close to the raw data and its collection and management process. We need a secondary source to interpret and summarize primary sources, and put them in perspective. If a primary source includes a brief built-in summary, it can generally be included as a quote, but for a good overview and perspective we'd still need a secondary source. The point is that the issue of deciding what is primary vs. secondary is so closely related to the issue of NOR itself that I believe that removing the PSTS discussion outside of NOR would weaken NOR, which is a key content policy.

677:

source is this, for example: you're writing an article about a notable writer, let's say not a living one so we don't get mixed up with BLP. You fill the article with secondary sources about his work, and some examples from his novels (primary sources,but you use them in a purely descriptive way). All well and good. Then you hop down to his local court house, and you do a search to see whether he was ever divorced, sued, arrested, or whatever. STOP! This is one of the key misuses of primary sources, and it is policy that editors should exercise extreme caution when using sources in this way, and would have to show that any edit that depended on those sources was entirely uncontentious, because no source other than you has said this is notable. It's in large measure to prevent this kind of editing that it's important to retain the primary/secondary issue as a key part of the NOR policy.

1101:). I am still not convinced that a Final Judgement is primary (or at least not convinced that it is completely primary). final judgements are published annually in tertiary reference books (in both hard copy and by on line services such as Nexus/Lexis). these are the equivalent of a legal encyclopedia. I would say they are not "raw data" (the "raw data" would be the facts and testimony presented in the case, and the legal arguments made by the attorneys). The judge is a step removed from the facts. In other words... I am not convinced that it is OR to mention a conviction (or a final judgement in a civil case). As for "who says it matters"... I would argue that being 831:(ec; reply to Blueboar) The establishment of notability via secondary sources is an important part of the NOR policy too; you can't separate them out like this. The primary/secondary distinction (and we do need to explain the terms in the policy) has been a key component of it for around five years. In fact, it was that issue that triggered the end of ATT. Jimbo found a group of editors using a primary source on a BLP. He explained to them that it was against policy. They argued with him, so he went to the NOR policy to find that section, which is when he saw someone had redirected NOR to ATT; he objected and the rest is history. 2576:

scientist is directly involved in collecting the background information, performing calculations or derivations, and making the discovery, which is akin to an invention. We can report on this primary paper descriptively, but to put it in perspective (e.g. assess its notability) and analyze it we need a secondary source doing it for us. If the topic is "theory of special relativity", and Einstein is directly involved in discovering it, which he reports in his original paper, he is very close to the topic and thus his paper is primary. Similarly for Watson/Crick DNA.

1054:" different than stating "A month later, Harry leaves the Dursleys' home to catch the Hogwarts Express from King's Cross railway station". In both cases, I am the one saying that this bit of fact matters in the context of the topic. Yes, a mistake in a BLP has real-life consequences that a mistake in a book article does not have... and I whole heartedly agree that we need to take far more care to get it absolutely right in a BLP than we do for a book article... but a mistake or misuse is not inherant in the 1073:

If the raw data in the primary source (e.g. court judgment) is notable and significant in the person's career, some secondary source should pick it up and report on it. If no secondary source has done so, then either it's not notable or significant enough, or we are misinterpreting it. In all such cases, we should err on the safe side and wait for the secondary source to publish it. This is vastly different than a plot summary, where if we make a mistake we would only harm a fictitious person.

2237:

reporter's story is a secondary source because he wasn't. But in 100 years' time, the reporter's story will also be a primary source for students of car crashes in the year 2010. Similarly, Knowledge (XXG) is now a tertiary source. Let's supposing it ends tomorrow, and is somehow lost, then a copy of it resurfaces in a thousand years' time under a rock somewhere. It will then be a primary source of material about the years 2001 to 2010, because of its closeness to that period, because it was

2374:. Various people agreed, including myself - that was my first entry into the debate. I came back, after thinking about it, and suggested it might actually be better to make PSTS a guideline. Blueboar said that is what he'd been thinking for a long time. The original debate (about the anon user's suggestion) continued. After a bit Blueboar reiterated the call to have a separate guideline so I decided to come up with a draft in my userspace, which is what we have now. 1668:

experiments, measurements, or archival research). These interpretations are clearly stated (and for published papers have been vetted through peer review and the editorial process) and do not require interpretation by a Knowledge (XXG) editor. Consequently all such published papers should be treated equivalently in Knowledge (XXG). To call scientific research primary sources and historical research secondary sources is both inappropriate and confusing. --

2395:

about scientific papers. The solution is: if you're the scientist who both conducted and is writing about the research, what you write is a primary source. If you're writing about someone else's work, it's a secondary source. Both can be used, but the former must be used very carefully; no analysis can be based on it; no article should rely on such sources. Creating a policy fork because of that one point would be a mistake, in my view.

2505:

because they are syntheses, although some scientific usage would call them "primary publications" or "primary literature," because they are the first places where the idea appears in print. I don't think the first published appearance of an idea is what Knowledge (XXG) means by "primary source". Our meaning seems to be closer to the historians' usage of it as the original/raw/uninterpreted source material. --

1492:. The astronomer (or a number of astronomers, perhaps lead by someone other than the astronomer that made the discovery, but nonetheless including that person) will then write a paper about the observations of the exo-planet including analysis and interpretation. This paper will be reviewed by a number of peers before appearing in a peer-reviewed journal. This paper will be considered a 1033:

to which, you may not even get it right, because you're operating on your own without secondary-source guidance. Ditto with the criminal record issue (or divorce, or whatever). You may misunderstand it, report it incorrectly, and yet it could seriously change the way the BLP is viewed. Nice, mild-mannered politician becomes monster who battered his wife during their divorce.

1739:(ec, for Steve) I don't see any comparison. A scientist says, "Let's mix A and B and see what happens. Oh look, there was an explosion. Therefore, A plus B leads to C in these circumstances." His report about that is a primary source, clearly, because he was directly involved in the events he describes. Indeed, he created them. 285:. I find it has nothing to say about the notability of sources, although it does address the kinds of sources that are needed to establish a topic's notability. The central concern of the notability guideline is to provide guidance for determining whether a topic is notable enough to merit a Knowledge (XXG) article. 1220:

primary sources) are accepted by a large number of editors who will edit war you to exhaustion if you try to include secondary sources, even those mentioning the underlying research. What's the proper way to resolve this? I'm hesitant to call for sanctions and am looking for constructive alternatives. Are there any?

1552:

primary report for additional details, as long as we don't add our own interpretation or selectively highlight some parts (and exclude others) to advance a position. Ideally, the secondary source(s) should give us the overall framework (the forest), with the primary source(s) providing the details (the trees).

1500:

not "primary source" but "primary publication" (see the reference provided). Hence, it makes most sense to state that, in the sciences, the observations which appear in a primary publication should be considered to be primary sources but the analysis and interpretation should be considered secondary sources.

1403:

reported on by others, since there is insufficient "distance" from the data being reported. This is not to say we can't use this as source — we can and we do — but it has to be done carefully, and if there is a secondary source discussing it, it would be a preferable starting point for a top level view.

2894:

Yaris, I also think it's misleading to place official policy or guideline tags inside user space. Newer editors could easily land there by mistake and misinterpret them. There is no need to add them anywhere unless the proposal is accepted. Using false and possibly misleading policy or guideline tags

2748:

do something and then write about it; but in the case of the two papers I mentioned above, the majority of the evidence discussed by Watson & Crick and Einstein was done by other scientists. I want to avoid the claim that a scientific paper that first publishes an idea (the Structure of DNA, the

2722:

Steve, why is this being made so horribly complicated? If you do something, then write about it—whether you're describing or analysing your actions—what you write is a primary source of material about the thing you did. If I read your account, then write up my own, what I write is a secondary source.

2394:

Okay, thanks, Yaris. I think really that question could have been dealt with either on the policy talk page or the talk page of whichever article prompted it. I don't think it's appropriate to remove, or seriously dilute, a long-standing key part of a core content policy because of a misunderstanding

1832:

Blueboar, I think you're trying to grapple with issues here that would need to be discussed on the article talk pages, if and when those issues arose -- "what if the scientist later had amnesia and couldn't remember he was the one who conducted the experiment, if he wrote about it would that still be

1769:

Slim, by your logic, a history of the Vietnamese War, written by a historian who served in Veitnam would have to be considered a primary source... as the historian was "directly involved in the event". As for the scientific report... what if someone else (say a lab assistent) mixed the two chemicals

1551:

To emphasize, a reliable primary source is not "taboo", and is in fact highly desirable. It's just that we need to rely on a secondary source describing the primary source to establish its notability and provide perspective and top level interpretation and analysis. We may still refer to the original

1499:

I hope you can see the inconsistency here and appreciate that if we are to be consistent, we should consider the observations of the exo-planet to be a primary source and the analysis and interpretation to be secondary. Fortunately, it appears that the correct term for the paper on the exo-planet is

1448:

I am not familiar with those articles, but I would say, without looking, that if they are reviews of other articles, they would be secondary, while if they present their own data and analysis they would be primary. But regardless of the primary/secondary classification, in a contentious issue one has

1219:

If I understand this page's assertions, Tertiary and secondary sources are to be used over primary ones. This is exactly 180 degrees reversed from my general experience in climate change pages where secondary sources are regularly denied inclusion and only peer reviewed papers (which I understand are

1072:

The reason we are not allowed to rely on primary sources for negative BLP material is two-fold: first, primary sources are "raw data" in nature and therefore easy to misinterpret by WP editors, thereby creating real-life harm to a living person, and second, there is the issue of notability and UNDUE.

2427:

Thirdly, that one point made by the anon user is not the only reason for creating a separate guideline. It was just the trigger. The main reason is to allow the NOR policy to stick to the NOR aspects of PSTS and have a place where we can talk about all the things related to PSTS – not just the NOR

2369:

There were various posts sparked by the anon users comment and then Blueboar said that he had long thought that PSTS needed to be re-examined because the current situation leads to people asking those sort of questions, which actually had nothing to do with original research. Crum375 suggested that

2258:

I've been away for a few hours and have to catch up, but as I read the early discussion I cited above, the primary concern behind Knowledge (XXG)'s PSTS distinction is to avoid interpretation of raw observations. Avoiding original interpretation is the essential element to avoid original research.

2175:

Both are correct (the second always, the first mostly), and there's no need to introduce a new term. Yaris, I see you've made 500 article edits. I suggest you spend some more time on articles where these sourcing issues matter, and perhaps reading what academics say about primary/secondary, and then

1898:

Bear in mind, Blueboar, that the people who come to the NOR page asking the kinds of questions being raised here are the ones who (by definition) don't understand what the policy is saying. I see these terms being used daily on article talk pages by editors who clearly do understand them and who are

763:

Blueboar, you asked me to comment on this, so here is my take. I feel that NOR and PSTS are very closely inter-related, and if we remove the definition of PSTS from NOR we'll weaken NOR, and create more confusion, given the wiki process. I agree with much of what you say. In my opinion, for example,

216:

As far as WP:RS and WP:NOTE go... both are more than "just guidelines"... they have real impact (in fact, they have more of an impact than many of our Policy pages). To some extent they fall into a special category of their own. I could see PSTS falling into this special category as well. Perhaps

2807:

Steve, if there were a background section in Einstein's article reviewing and summarizing the state of the art prior to his discovery, that could be a secondary source for the level of scientific knowledge prior to Einstein's work. But the discovery itself, despite being a "synthesis", based on and

2628:

Historians or literary critics perform exactly the same functions you describe: "collecting the background information, performing calculations or derivations, and making the discovery...", yet we do not call their research primary sources. One of the reasons this essay was proposed was to resolve

2575:

I would disagree on the classification of these papers. If a scientist evaluates information and comes up with a novel conclusion or discovery, the original paper which presents the conclusion and the data it derives from is primary, because no one has ever reached that novel conclusion before. The

2504:

I think you're right here. Two scientific papers that I mentioned above (Watson and Crick's DNA paper and Einstein's Special Relativity paper) are both original syntheses that draw (primarily) on other people's experimental work or on existing basic principles. These are clearly secondary sources

1479:

In archeology, an archeologist will search away until they find, say, a piece of ancient pottery. This pottery will then be a primary source. The archeologist (or a number of archeologists, perhaps lead by someone other than the archaeologist that made the discovery, but nonetheless including that

1142:

why I find the PSTS section of NOR so problematic. Every case of OR needs to be examined based on specific contex... whether the source (be it primary, secondary, or hexidecimalary) is being misused or used appropriately. As you say: "Trying to pin things down even further in a policy won't work".

1032:

Because no one other than you has said it matters. Going to search for someone's criminal record, which no other source has seen fit to mention or even knows about, is like highlighting a plot element that no one has mentioned, but which is contentious and changes your view of the whole work. Added

856:

Just another brief point: the essence of NOR is that Wikipedians should not produce primary or secondary sources. We are supposed to provide an overview of both, a tertiary source. We may use primary sources only to describe what is in them, and only if secondary sources have already discussed them

2850:

By putting the template there I am not trying to pretend it is a guideline. I don't think anyone could mistake it for a guideline since there is the hatnote explaining what it is. Since we are trying to make a draft guideline, it makes sense to show what it will look like when it is a guideline.

2752:

To add confusion to this discussion, in other contexts, say discussing the history of those scientific discoveries, these papers would be primary sources which require interpretation by professionals to understand the contributions of Watson, Crick, and Einstein--in your terms, what they did. The

1867:

however, my feeling is that in the process of saying it, we create confusion. It encourages editors to ask exactly the type of nit-picky (and pointless) questions, and raise the same pettty points that I have been asking and raising. In our various discussions, you have been able to sum up quite

1537:

scientist is directly involved in the collection and initial analysis of the data, he would be "close to the data", hence his report would be primary. When someone subsequently writes about and interprets the primary report, it adds distance (and perspective), and this would be a secondary source.

1341:

I think it depends on the type of study and the specific part of it. If it's a scientific experiment, with lots of raw data and analysis, it would be essentially primary. If there is an introductory section which reviews the state of the art, discussing other studies, that part would be secondary.

1124:

Blueboar, the thing is that primary/secondary is a relative term. We can't formulate a description in a policy that is going to cover every eventuality. The point is that a primary source is very close to the topic, close to the point of involvement. That's really all we should say, because as the

1862:

Actually, I am not grappling with the issues... I fully understand what PSTS is saying... to some degree I have been playing devil's advocate... trying to demonstrate the kind of arguments that the current language generates over and over again on the policy talk pages and at NORN. I fully agree

1667:

In all published research papers, whether by a historian or a scientist, the author(s) present the raw data (measurements, experimental results, or quotations from original sources) as well as their own interpretations of the data (whether those data are the results of their own or someone else's

916:

Hmmm... in which case, perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by "or the issues they deal with"... because I suspect that I am reading a much narrower meaning into that phrase than you seem to. How does your phrase allow for a plot summary to be cited to the primary source ie the work itself?

707:

To use your example... if this came up at NORN, I would fully expect to see the argument that not all court documents are primary sources. The judge's final decision, for example, is secondary... a judge is a legal expert, who's job is to analyze the primary sources (the testemony presented, the

676:

Just to expand, I often see the argument, and it's implied in this proposal, that it's just as easy to do OR based on secondary sources as it is on primary sources. But it isn't. OR based on primary sources isn't just a question of SYN, which is basically just bad editing. The misuse of a primary

1800:

If he was writing about issues he had direct and personal knowledge of, then yes, of course. We have that situation in the Israel-Palestine history articles. Some of the early historians about 1948 were themselves involved in it, and were being paid by the IDF's history department, so we have to

1608:

For refereed publications, this is incorrect. The interpretation of the authors (and I use the plural intentionally, because especially in the sciences, most papers have multiple authors) has been examined and critiqued by the referees and journal editor, and if their objections are not met, the

1402:

I agree with some parts of it, but disagree that "conclusions" of a scientific report are automatically considered secondary. I would say if it is a review of other people's work, it would be secondary, but if it's the authors' own work reported in this document, it would still be primary, until

609:

the intent. The intent is to allow NOR to say what it says more clearly, by shifting extranious explanitory material and definitions that have nothing to do with the concept of OR to this page (which can be pointed to at NOR). As far as I know, no one is suggesting that we completely remove all

351:

SMcC, I'm glad that has been cleared up - it wasn't the intention to imply that any primary source can be used, provided that it is notable. Perhaps the term "expand things a bit" in point two was misleading - I have rephrased it now. Perhaps point 3 needs to be rephrased too. The point I was

2779:

You need to be careful, though, that you're not engaging in OR when you describe Watson and Crick's work, for example, as a secondary source. If you're writing about their work, their papers are primary sources for that work, even if you think a lot of it came from elsewhere. A paper that first

1475:

Obviously, we can change the wording of that section is we decide that it is better not to classify primary publications as partly primary sources and partly secondary. However, I think I should first describe why the current wording is as it is. It was done to address an apparent discrepancy

652:

to be policy, namely that misuse of primary sources is a key source of OR. That is a central part of the NOR policy, and I see the detail there as an important component. I'd worry that this might become another WP:RS nightmare, where we have two pages that essentially say the same thing (one a

325:

OK, I wasn't quite following the direction of the talk page discussion, which seemed to be stressing NOTE in a way that wasn't clear to me. I was juxtaposing point 1, about allowability of primary sources, with WP:NOTE to infer that the intent was to open the way to unrestricted use of notable

2311:

I think Slim has it right here... look at this from another angle... If I were to write a study on how car crashes are covered by the media through history, then SV's news article about the car crash (a secondary source when it comes to discussing that specific car crash) is. for me, a primary

2236:

Sorry, one more point then I'll shut up. The thing to grasp is that the key issue is distance. Whether something is primary or secondary depends on the relationship to the issue. So for example, with the car accident I described above, my statement is a primary source, because I was there; the

1584:

In the sciences, research papers in which ideas are first published are commonly called primary literature or primary publications. Such papers may include experimental data, which is a primary source for Knowledge (XXG). However, such papers will also contain analysis of experimental data and

1536:

view of the data. So for your example, WP-wise, a piece of pottery would be "raw data", the archeologists' original paper reporting their discovery of this pottery would be a primary source, and a subsequent review and analysis of this report would be a secondary source. The point is that if a

1112:

of a crime, or alleged to have committed some civil misconduct, is different. Accusations and allegations are not published in legal reference materials. They are "raw data". For accusations or allegations, I would agree that we would need it to be mentioned in a reliable source. Does this

939:

If the work has been discussed by secondary sources, it's fine to use primary sources for general plot summaries, but if the particular plot elements are contentious, or the choice of them might be, then secondary sources would be needed for those particular edits too, not only for the article

198:

I thought it would be handy to keep a list of reasons to create a PSTS guideline. I have done this above. Please feel free to modify the list or give comments below. As with the user page, if you make a change to the list and I revert it, please stick to comments until you have persuaded me

2049:

I crash my car and give a statement about it to the police. That statement is a primary source, because I was there, I saw it. A journalist takes my statement and writes a story about it. That story is a secondary source, because he wasn't there, he didn't see it. Every judgment about whether

1593:

If editors want to write an article on primary/secondary, I suggest you develop the articles that already exist about them in mainspace, where you'll have to cite academic sources who discuss sourcing. Then if you still feel the primary/secondary section in NOR is too long, we can link to the

1421:

And here we are... once again parsing out whether the source is primary or secondary, or which parts are primary or secondary... and no one has bothered to answer the underlying issue that TMLutas raises: Whether the journal articles that are used at the climate change articles are being used

940:

overall. We should be asking ourselves constantly when we write, "Who, apart from me, says that this matters?" The aim is to avoid producing an article that itself amounts to a primary source (a firsthand account) or a secondary source (one that discusses and interprets primary sources).

2348:? The reason I ask is that we've had quite a few situations of new users finding they had problems adding something to an article, and then wanting to change the policies as a result, when in fact it was just a misunderstanding about how to apply the policies that was the issue. 2319:

Also, the age of a document does (to some degree) influence whether historians consider a document primary or secondary. Livy's "History of Rome" is considered a primary source by historians, even though it would have been considered a secondary source at the time he wrote it.

1712:

adds a layer of vetting to the reported results, and therefore makes the source more reliable, but it does not add perspective and distance. The latter is only added when a report or review is written about the original primary report, which makes the former a secondary source.

2283:

No SlimVirgin. Even if 100 years pass, and someone digs up that research it will still be a secondary source. The paper created based on that source will be considered a tersiary source. Now if he had a camera footage of the crash, that would still be a primary source.

882:

with supporting a statement within an article? A topic does need to be discussed by secondary sources (Per NOTE)... but many individual statements can be supported solely by reference to a primary source (a perfect example of this are basic plot summaries for works of

811:, but I think that the most logical location for PSTS is inside NOR. The problem is that the wiki process all too easily leads to discrepancies and confusion, as we have today with RS and V, so separating things out is not a good idea if we wish to retain coherency. 1363:

one of the sources we use in the PSTS section. For sciences, it says "report of scientific discoveries" is primary, whereas if the source "analyzes and interprets scientific discoveries", it is secondary. The bottom line is distance from the data being reported on.

1157:

And the NOR policy doesn't try to pin it down. We say articles should be based on secondary sources, and that primary sources should be used only for descriptive claims. The rest we leave up to editors. Which part of PSTS do you feel pins things down even further?

2456:

All those issues are related to NOR -- the notability issue is also related to NOR. I find this proposal worrying. I see definitions being made up on the hoof, issues being conflated and misunderstood, and a policy fork being proposed of one of our most important

806:

I think NOR and PSTS are so closely related that a discussion of PSTS is often also a discussion of NOR (and vice-versa), so they can't be easily separated. I agree that notability is also an issue which relates to PSTS, as are probably NPOV and UNDUE, as well as

1967:

people don't understand what the policy is saying and, more to the point, when their misunderstanding stems from confusion about the same section, you begin to think that maybe the problem isn't with the editors, but with the policy. Since I don't think

255:(for example) because it's "in the primary source." The requirement that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source" is an essential bulwark against such Original Research. -- 2590:

We both agree and disagree. In scientific usage these are "primary publications," since scientific usage makes "the first disclosure..." the element of primary publication. (Council of Biology Editors , "Proposed definition of a primary publication"

647:

I see the benefit of having a page in the form of an essay that expands on the primary/secondary sourcing issue, but calling it a guideline implies that it's not policy, when it is, and having it as a standalone policy separates it from the reason it

415:

I agree, although I think it would be more of a {{see also}} than a {{main}}. The part in WP:NOR would only talk about PSTS in relation to NOR, the guideline would talk about various aspects of PSTS, although NOR would be an important part of that.

833:

The danger of tampering with such a long-standing and crucial part of the policy is that it will be weakened if relegated to a guideline or if separated from its context. The only reason primary sources are problematic is that they often lead to OR.

2474:

As for the scientific paper thing, can you give an example so we can see clearly what you mean? If the paper is analysing work by the writer, it's a primary source. If not, a secondary one. Do you have an example where that distinction is unclear?

1257:

Hm, I guess that I was misinformed then. It won't be the first time. The problem is thus excluding tertiary sources in favor of secondary ones. Still an issue if not what I thought it was. Or is excluding tertiary in favor of secondary acceptable?

2703:

I agree that the Knowledge (XXG) sense should be the operative one here, but where does it say in Knowledge (XXG) that "the first disclosure of an idea" is a primary source. If it does, when did this get added to the Knowledge (XXG) definition?

2687:

I think the only "sense" that matters here is the Knowledge (XXG) one, where these papers are primary sources. This means that they may not be interpreted, analyzed or put into historical perspective without a secondary source which reviews them.

239:

As I see it, the primary reason for restricting primary sources is that these are not transparent to the untrained reader and therefore require interpretation in order to be used; their use invites -- and seems to be an inherent violation of --

1694:. The difference is the distance: if you are involved in the collection and initial analysis of the data, your report is a primary source, while if you write about such a report and interpret it, your work is a secondary source for that data. 1125:

topic shifts, the relationship to it of the source shifts too. Trying to pin things down even further in a policy won't work. These discussions belong on the article talk pages where the issue has arisen, so they can be examined in context.

714:

Now, I am not really interested in debating which of these arguments is correct ... I raise it purely to make a point... I agree that what you are discribing in your example is a red flag, and is very likely to result in OR. But whether it

2808:

derived from other people's contributions, is known as "the special theory of relativity" and is a novel concept. So for that specific topic, as well as its derivation, the paper would be primary. Similarly for Watson/Crick and DNA.

787:

of a discussion of NOR. The tail is wagging the dog. Also, there are PSTS issues other than OR (such as needed a secondary source to establish notability). I think it is helpful to have one guideline/policy page that discusses

153:

The current situation has lead to many (inexperienced) editors miss-reading the policy to mean, for example "Primary sources are not allowed." This should be reduced by having a separate guideline for the reasons given in 1 and

1052:

I still am not sure I see the distinction you are making... How is simply stating: "On March 15, 2001, Joe Blow was successfully sued for breach of contract by John Smith<Blow v Smith, District court of NY, case no. 01cv432:

493:

I would start to advertize it as a potential guideline/policy proposal. Not just at the talk pages of NOR or NOTE... but to some of the regular editors to those pages. Well done and thanks for doing the grunt work on this.

2154:. I see little evidence for Version 2 so far although I dare say some people use the term to mean that. I suggest that we should call Version 2 independent sources, rather than secondary sources. This fits in nicely with 2023:. I see little evidence for Version 2 so far although I dare say some people use the term to mean that. I suggest that we should call Version 2 independent sources, rather than secondary sources. This fits in nicely with 2658:

Although Watson & Crick and Einstein may be "primary publications," in the scientific sense, to the extent that they provide syntheses of the evidence, they are not primary sources in the humanistic/historical sense.

2262:

That being said, we should try to source any discussions about these terms by reliable scholarly discussions of them. A well-sourced essay/guideline of this sort seems a useful place to do it. That's my two cents here.

1589:

That's not correct if the scientists are writing about their own work, whether current, previous, raw data, or analysis. Scientists writing about their own research is primary-source material, no matter how it's packaged.

352:

getting at was that you shouldn't really write an article about a book if the only source you have on the topic is the book itself. Perhaps one of you could make a more general point, or the same point in a clearer way.

1487:

In astronomy, an astronomer will search away until they find, say, an exo-planet. The observations that point to it being an exo-planet would be considered a primary source but they are highly unlikely to be published

1480:

person) will then write a paper about the pottery including analysis and interpretation. This paper will be reviewed by a number of peers before appearing in a peer-reviewed journal. This paper will be considered a

1585:

drawing of conclusions - these parts should be considered secondary sources within Knowledge (XXG)'s usage of the term. A scientific paper may also include a survey of previous work, which is also a secondary source.

355:

On the fact that "No original research based on primary sources" is an application of "No original research"... That is true, but it does not dictate that WP:PSTS should go into WP:NOR. For example, the guideline

50:. Feel free to make changes to it if you think you can improve it. However, if I revert the change, please stick to discussing it here on the talk page until I agree with you - this is in my user space after all! 357: 179: 98:

Thanks for starting the ball rolling on this... I agree that it should probably be a Guideline rather than a Policy... but can understand some of the arguments for it going the other way. 21:54, 27 December 2009

1503:

Of course, if a source has more distance and a greater scope to synthesise information this is obviously a good thing. This is why the current wording says that greater weight should be given to such secondary

1658:

that are prohibited in Knowledge (XXG). The results of experiments and original historical sources were put on the same level; this is the principal reason that the use of such primary sources is discouraged.

310:

NOTE does not have anything to do with PSTS... PSTS however, has something to do with NOTE (in that you need secondary sources to establish that a topic is notable enough to merit a Knowledge (XXG) article).

708:

legal arguments presented by the attorneys, etc) to reach an expert conclusion. This leads to the further argument that going to the court house is no different than going to a library or searching on line.

512:

I was going to ask about how to get this accepted as a guideline. Am I right in thinking that you have been contributing to policy pages for a while? Would the adverts sound better if they came from you?

2539:

I suppose there might be ways in which these could be used that would make them secondary sources, but if they're being used to describe Watson and Crick's and Einstein's work, they're primary sources.

247:

If we concede that any primary source whose notability is attested by a secondary source can be used, then we open the way to all sorts of unwanted syntheses. This draft must stress the primacy of

1833:

a primary source?". No policy can cover every possibility. What we do is give the broad brushstrokes of the meaning of the terms, explain what our policy is and why, and leave the rest to editors.

1180:

But we don't say anything about when they should or shouldn't be used, except that primary-source material should only be used descriptively, and that articles shouldn't be based on such sources.

553:

As an occasional contributor, I'm also favorably impressed by the current state of the draft. Comments from interested parties who have not been involved in the draft so far would be welcome. --

2957:

Think I've sorted it now. Rather than having two tags, one hatnote and a title trying to give a vague impression of what its all about, I have a single tag which, I hope, explains it clearly.

625:

Another benefit of having this page is that we can discuss PSTS issues that relate to other guidelines and policies... such as how different source types are important to WP:NOTE and WP:RS.

783:

discussion of PSTS in NOR, but not the one we currently have. I think the way we currently discuss it is more harmful than it is helpful. Far too often we end up with a discussion of PSTS

735:

a source is primary or secondary, and that encourages the misconception primary/secondary determines OR/not OR. What we need at NOR is language that focuses on whether the source is being

2780:

publishes an idea can indeed be used as a source to discuss its own idea, and e.g. DNA in general. Primary sources may be used. They just can't be used as the basis for interpretation.

1930:

Just to add: I have no problem at all if we tighten the PSTS section, so long as it's written by editors who understand what the terms mean. The problem lies in creating a policy fork.

2288:

gives a good definition of distinction in such cases between secondary and tertiary. Since the person 100 years from now would be so peripheral, he would be more of a tertiary source.

1426:

or not. This is what I find so frustrating. All the focus goes to arguing "it's primary" and "no, it's secondary"... and we never get to "it is being used correctly/incorrectly".

1594:

mainspace articles, and put some of our examples in a footnote. That would shorten that section without losing any material, and without creating a fork that may be misleading.

1449:

to be extra careful not to create original analysis or interpretation, and rely on sources which review other sources wherever possible, instead of doing the reviews ourselves.

43: 2044:

No, version 2 is wrong. A secondary source has distance from the topic, not from any other primary source. It may also have distance from the latter, but that's a side issue.

711:

I would also expect to see arguments saying that this is not the case... that a judge's decision is primary in that it deals with a specific case and not the Law in general.

1682:

As I noted above, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is their distance, or perspective, from the data they are reporting on. As example, according to

2363: 1177:" tries to pin it down. We give a definition in order to pin it down... we give examples of each type of source in order to pin it down. 19:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 579:

This is a proposal to remove a key part of NOR and reduce it to guideline status, which means people can happily ignore it. I'm struggling to see the benefit of that.

2114:

Version 1 isn't really correct either. A secondary source might simply be a description of something the writer has no direct involvement in. It needn't be analysis.

393:

policy, while the expanded discussion we're working on here should be a separate guideline, with a {{main}} template linking from WP:NOR to this article, following

2012:

Version 2 – A secondary source is separated from primary sources by “distance”. This basically means it is written by people independent of the primary source.

174:"No original research based on primary sources" is an application of "No original research". However, that does not dictate that WP:PSTS should be part of the 2176:

if you still feel there's a problem, come back to this at a later date. There's no substitute for editing to see how the policies work in practice—and they

981:

The question would be, "Who, apart from me, thinks this book matters?" not the plot as such; otherwise we'd have to imagine a reliable source who says, "

2362:

You have the right conversation, but I was not the anon. You can see the evolution of the idea if you look at the whole conversation in the archive at

2259:

Published interpretations (secondary sources) generally also imply personal distance from the observations, but this is not necessarily so in all cases.

2428:

aspects – i.e. The definitions, issues around notability etc. This should reduce the number of comments we get in future from confused novice users.

71:

I can also anticipate some discussion on the status of the separate page. I think it should be a guideline because it is mostly about how to apply

161:

is a guideline and not policy. Referring to a guideline from a policy could give the impression that the guideline has been upgraded to a policy.

1528:

cited in the PSTS section sheds some light, but is not absolutely clear. But for WP's purposes, we traditionally define "primary" as a source

47: 1089:

Well, this returns us to the issue of whether court rulings are primary or secondary... Perhaps we need to distinguish between a final court

2416:

The question by the anon was dealt with on the policy page. Secondly, there are two separate issues here and I don't want to conflate them

361: 183: 1342:

The concept of secondary sources is that they interpret and provide perspective for other published sources, typically primary. And we

389:

My thoughts on the final arrangement is that an abbreviated discussion of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources should remain in the

1868:

clearly what the PSTS section is all about - in very clear one or two line statements. I would be much happier if PSTS did the same.

857:

or the issues they deal with. The issue of primary/secondary/tertiary therefore needs to be understood for the policy to make sense.

369: 191: 1508:. However, if we only allow secondary publications to be treated as secondary sources we are not really being fair to the sciences. 1305:

SV, If peer reviewed journal papers are primary... then we have a conflict between core policies that needs resolving. WP:V firmly

622:

the statement that we need to use extra caution when using Primary sources). All that we would "remove" is the distracting verbage.

132: 2364:

WT:No original research/Archive 48#Introductory surveys of previous work in primary peer-reviewed publications as secondary sources

365: 187: 2180:

work. I don't think I've ever seen a content dispute that a really thorough application of all the content polices can't resolve.

1280:

Peer-reviewed journal papers are primary sources if written by people who were involved in whatever study they're writing about.

2847:

Apologies for the the cryptic edit summary. That was supposed to read "Of course its not a guideline - it's in my user space."

2599:, 2009). This is a different thing than Knowledge (XXG)'s (and humanistic discipline's in general) concept of primary sources. 998:

I agree... Now let us relate this to some other article... Say a BLP. How is using a primary source to support a plot summary

692:

I understand what you are saying... and for the most part I completely agree... the problem is that the statements about the

217:

we should designate them as "Core Guidelines", in the same way that we designate certain Policies as being "Core Polices".

602:

Thanks for responding SV. Would you be happier if we proposed it as a Policy page (so people had to pay attention to it)?

164: 2299: 113:

Rather, it should say less than it does now and a link should be provided to the guideline that this page will become.

1002:

than using a primary source such as a court ruling to support a statement that the subject was sued and lost his suit?

2344:

Yaris, I'm curious about how this proposal evolved. Are you the anon who asked the initial question that triggered it

1346:

allowed to use primary sources, just more carefully, since they are trickier to use properly, without introducing OR.

2749:

Theory of Special Relativity) is ipso facto a primary source and can't be used to discuss DNA or Special Relativity.

1476:

between how we deal with sources from say archeology, in comparison to how we deal with sources from say astronomy.

394: 2316:

of my study. I am not using it to discuss the specific car crash... but to discuss how SV covered the car crash.

1976:

we say it. If we can clear this up without the need for a seperate PSTS page, fine... but I am not sure we can.

1532:

to the raw data, and "secondary" as a source which reviews and interprets a primary source, i.e. provides a more

167:

is a guideline that deals with a different aspect of source categorisation. It is arguably more important than

2758: 2709: 2664: 2510: 2268: 1673: 558: 402: 331: 301: 260: 157:

Part of the reason why PSTS is important is that a primary source can not establish a topic's notability - but

2422:

How we categorise scientific papers that contain analysis and interpretation as well as experimental results.

731:. Yet because NOR spends an inordinate amount of space on definition, it focuses editors on the question of 1650:

that primary sources require interptetation by the Knowledge (XXG) editor, and therefore invite the kind of

21: 158: 2134:

This is what I mean by "Substitute your definition for Version 2 and everything else I said still holds":

1627:

That doesn't change that it's a primary source. The people who conducted the experiment also wrote it up.

1614: 959:

ask the same question about a plot summary... "who, besides me, says that the plot of this book matters".

1801:

treat what they write with great caution, because their work is almost (or is) primary-source material.

531:

Possibly... I can certainly ask a few of the "usual suspects" to drop by and comment, and will do so.

1387:

I think this issue is dealt with quite nicely in the section called "Complex source categorisation".

2371: 808: 2754: 2705: 2660: 2506: 2264: 1972:

the policy says is wrong, I have come to the realization that the misunderstandings must stem from

1669: 554: 398: 327: 297: 256: 2962: 2940: 2919: 2877: 2435: 2381: 2325: 2165: 2072: 2034: 1981: 1873: 1775: 1515: 1431: 1392: 1318: 1244: 1148: 1063: 1007: 964: 922: 888: 797: 751: 630: 536: 518: 499: 469: 443: 421: 379: 316: 222: 204: 118: 86: 31: 17: 1655: 241: 2137:

O.K. The issue here seems to be that we have two different definitions of a secondary source.

2006:

O.K. The issue here seems to be that we have two different definitions of a secondary source.

2900: 2813: 2693: 2581: 1718: 1699: 1610: 1557: 1542: 1454: 1408: 1369: 1351: 1263: 1225: 1078: 816: 769: 42:. Hopefully, one day, the contents of the page will be moved to a page called something like 293: 289: 282: 168: 35: 2294: 2218: 2147: 2140:

Version 1 – A secondary source is a work of interpretation and analysis of primary sources.

2016: 2009:

Version 1 – A secondary source is a work of interpretation and analysis of primary sources.

1647: 872:"...and only if secondary sources have already discussed them or the issues they deal with." 53:

The first version of this page in the revision history is the text from the PSTS section in

1651: 653:

policy, one a guideline) or, worse, two pages that ought to say the same thing, but don't.

390: 248: 175: 144: 108: 72: 54: 39: 2966: 2944: 2923: 2904: 2881: 2863: 2856: 2842: 2835: 2817: 2788: 2781: 2762: 2731: 2724: 2713: 2697: 2668: 2585: 2548: 2541: 2514: 2483: 2476: 2439: 2403: 2396: 2385: 2356: 2349: 2329: 2306: 2285: 2272: 2249: 2242: 2229: 2222: 2207: 2200: 2188: 2181: 2169: 2122: 2115: 2097: 2090: 2076: 2058: 2051: 2038: 1985: 1938: 1931: 1907: 1900: 1877: 1841: 1834: 1809: 1802: 1779: 1764: 1757: 1722: 1703: 1677: 1635: 1628: 1618: 1602: 1595: 1561: 1546: 1519: 1458: 1435: 1412: 1396: 1373: 1355: 1322: 1288: 1281: 1267: 1248: 1229: 1188: 1181: 1166: 1159: 1152: 1133: 1126: 1082: 1067: 1041: 1034: 1011: 993: 986: 968: 948: 941: 926: 905: 898: 892: 865: 858: 842: 835: 820: 801: 773: 755: 685: 678: 661: 654: 634: 587: 580: 562: 540: 522: 503: 473: 447: 425: 406: 383: 335: 320: 305: 264: 226: 208: 122: 90: 2596: 1646:

Slim, The core issue in the Knowledge (XXG) Primary/Secondary distinction has long been,

696:

of sources are lost in all the verbage that explains what the different types of sources

2914:

I've put in a different tag now, to show where it will go. I hope this is acceptable.

1058:

of the source. The source just sits there waiting to be used correctly or incorrectly.

2196: 2050:

something is a primary or secondary source can be boiled down to that simple scenario.

2155: 2024: 76: 2958: 2936: 2915: 2873: 2431: 2377: 2321: 2214: 2161: 2068: 2030: 1977: 1869: 1771: 1511: 1427: 1388: 1314: 1240: 1144: 1059: 1003: 960: 918: 884: 793: 747: 626: 532: 514: 495: 465: 439: 417: 375: 312: 218: 200: 114: 82: 2872:

Its not misleading, as I explained. Please stop dicking about with my user space.

1580:

One of the problems with this page is that it's engaging in OR itself. For example:

2931:

May I suggest that we not include any tags at this point... this is still a user's

2896: 2809: 2689: 2577: 1714: 1695: 1553: 1538: 1450: 1404: 1365: 1347: 1259: 1221: 1074: 812: 765: 704:. It leads to innumerable arguments over whether a source is primary or secondary. 2067:

Substitute your definition for Version 2 and everything else I said still holds.

700:. This gives the impression that the problem is with the source, and not in the 438:

I have just modified point 3 and added a point 5, inline with discussions here.

2289: 746:

the key to NOR... the key to NOR is understanding "approprate use vs. misuse".

2151: 2020: 1683: 1525: 1360: 251:. It cannot open the way to justifying fringe interpretations of Aristotle's 150:

It allows us to write slightly more in the guideline and clarify a few things.

742:

Understanding "primary vs. secondary" is important and helpful... but it is

111:

should say nothing on the subject of primary, secondary and tertiary source.

1690:

source, while "analysis and interpretation of scientific discoveries" is a

2935:... it isn't even an essay or a formal proposal at this stage. Patience. 2834:

Yaris, please don't add the guideline tag. It's not for use in userspace.

1313:

the use of primary sources. Or am I missing something in what you wrote.

244:. That is a much more important concern than the concern with notability. 2146:

Version 1 is supported by the two sources cited so far in this argument:

2015:

Version 1 is supported by the two sources cited so far in this argument:

878:

Knowledge (XXG) Policy. Are you perhaps confusing sourcing an article's

1752:

I don't see what the comparison is with an historian who describes what

1105:

of a crime is inherantly notable. The legal system has said it matters.

48:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:No original research#Renewing the call to move PSTS

2753:

distinction isn't simple and can't be reduced to a few short lines. --

2855:

People know what it will look like. Please don't add misleading tags.

1108:

However, I would agree that mentioning the fact that someone has been

870:

Whoa... you started off fine, SV... but you are way off base with:

1686:, which is cited on NOR, "report of scientific discoveries" is a 2723:

Whether it's in the sciences or humanities makes no difference.

105:

Something else I should mention at the top of the talk page...

1770:

that resulted in the explosion... is the report still primary?

1756:

did many years ago, events that he was not involved in at all.

2629:

the confusion arising from these two very different concepts.

2143:

Version 2 – A secondary source has distance from the topic.

1235:

Um... Peer reviewed journal papers are normally considered

1309:

the use of peer-reviewed journals. NOR on the other hand

358:

WP:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources

180:

WP:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources

60:

I see this talk page being used mainly for discussion of:

2345: 281:

After having written the above, I toke a close look at

147:

to concentrate on the original research aspect of PSTS.

44:

Knowledge (XXG):Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

723:

the doucment is used. What would make it OR is the

1524:There is no perfect external definition of PSTS. 610:discussion of source types from NOR. Certainly 2597:Basics of Research Paper Writing and Publishing 605:As for "removing" a key part of NOR... that is 138:Why having a guideline on PSTS is a good thing 8: 2419:Whether to have a separate guideline on PSTS 985:the book, couldn't care less what it says." 955:I understand what you are saying... But one 779:Thanks Crum... I totally agree that we need 2895:anywhere on Knowledge (XXG) is disruptive. 897:I did say, "or the issues they deal with." 79:), rather than being a stand-alone policy. 46:. I have created it after a discussion on 326:primary sources. Thanks for clarifying, 67:Whether that should have a separate page. 1708:Let me add that the peer review process 464:I've just added to and re-jigged list. 171:, so why is WP:PSTS at the policy level? 2671:-- revised 14:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 64:What should be in the guidance on PSTS. 2595:, 1968; as quoted in Michael Derntal, 2593:Newsletter, Council of Biology Editors 2370:one solution would be to move PSTS to 1609:article is ordinarily not published.-- 34:to become a guideline page to replace 2217:gives a good definition too, as does 7: 2089:I don't understand what you mean. 1138:I completely agree... and this is 727:of the document, not the document 178:page. For example, the guideline 28: 133:User talk:Yaris678/PSTS/Archive 1 2744:I'll agree if it's a case where 2199:, gives a pretty good overview. 614:intent is that we will keep the 368:is an application of the policy 360:is an application of the policy 190:is an application of the policy 182:is an application of the policy 490:Yaris... this looks very good. 1211:sources in favor of secondary 362:WP:What Knowledge (XXG) is not 184:WP:What Knowledge (XXG) is not 143:It allows the PSTS section of 1: 2340:How this proposal got started 1865:what it says isn't "wrong"... 395:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style 336:19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 321:19:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 306:19:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 265:18:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 227:17:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 209:16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 91:21:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC) 38:, which is currently part of 2967:09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 2945:19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 2924:18:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 2905:18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 2882:18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 2864:18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 2843:18:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 2818:22:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2789:21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2763:21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2732:21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2714:21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2698:20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2669:14:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2586:04:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2549:21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2515:03:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2484:01:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2440:01:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2404:00:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2386:23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 2357:19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 2330:15:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2307:04:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2273:03:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2250:02:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2230:02:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2208:02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2189:02:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2170:01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2123:01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2098:01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2077:01:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2059:01:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 2039:00:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 1986:22:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 1939:19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 1908:19:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 1878:15:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 1842:18:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1810:18:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1780:17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1765:16:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1723:16:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1704:16:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1678:16:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1636:16:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1619:15:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1603:14:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1562:14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1547:13:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1520:09:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1459:00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1189:19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1167:19:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1153:18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1134:16:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1083:05:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 474:13:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 57:so you can compare the two. 1863:with what PSTS says... and 1436:23:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1413:23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1397:22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1374:22:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1356:21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1323:21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1289:20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1268:19:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1249:19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1230:19:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1068:23:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1042:22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1012:22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 994:22:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 969:21:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 949:20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 927:20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 906:19:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 893:19:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 866:17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 843:17:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 821:17:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 802:17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 774:16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 756:16:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 719:OR or not is determined by 686:15:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 662:15:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 635:15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 588:12:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 563:16:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC) 541:16:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC) 523:15:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC) 504:15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC) 448:00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC) 426:00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC) 407:20:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC) 384:14:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC) 123:15:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC) 2987: 1173:Almost everything after " 107:I am not suggesting that 2312:source... it is primary 2152:the BMCC library website 2021:the BMCC library website 370:WP:Neutral point of view 192:WP:Neutral point of view 75:(and to a lesser extent 2195:Our mainspace article, 1113:distinction make sense? 366:WP:Conflict of interest 188:WP:Conflict of interest 1899:using them correctly. 1587: 1582: 1963:I agree... but when 1648:as Jimbo once noted, 874:That is not part of 199:otherwise. Thanks, 165:WP:Reliable sources 2221:. Hope this helps. 1207:excluding tertiary 618:statements of NOR ( 2314:within the context 1526:An external source 32:User:Yaris678/PSTS 18:User talk:Yaris678 2862: 2841: 2787: 2730: 2547: 2482: 2402: 2355: 2248: 2228: 2206: 2187: 2148:the post by Jimbo 2121: 2096: 2057: 2017:the post by Jimbo 1937: 1906: 1840: 1808: 1763: 1652:original research 1634: 1601: 1287: 1187: 1165: 1132: 1040: 992: 947: 904: 864: 841: 792:the PSTS issues. 684: 660: 586: 288:What, then, does 2978: 2861: 2859: 2840: 2838: 2786: 2784: 2729: 2727: 2546: 2544: 2481: 2479: 2401: 2399: 2354: 2352: 2303: 2297: 2292: 2247: 2245: 2227: 2225: 2219:Secondary source 2205: 2203: 2186: 2184: 2120: 2118: 2095: 2093: 2056: 2054: 1936: 1934: 1905: 1903: 1839: 1837: 1807: 1805: 1762: 1760: 1692:secondary source 1633: 1631: 1600: 1598: 1286: 1284: 1186: 1184: 1175:Primary Sources: 1164: 1162: 1131: 1129: 1039: 1037: 991: 989: 946: 944: 903: 901: 863: 861: 840: 838: 683: 681: 659: 657: 585: 583: 509:Thanks Blueboar, 364:; the guideline 292:have to do with 186:; the guideline 2986: 2985: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2857: 2836: 2832: 2782: 2725: 2542: 2477: 2397: 2350: 2342: 2304: 2301: 2295: 2290: 2286:Tertiary source 2243: 2223: 2201: 2182: 2116: 2091: 2052: 2004: 1932: 1901: 1835: 1803: 1758: 1629: 1596: 1578: 1282: 1217: 1182: 1160: 1127: 1035: 987: 942: 899: 859: 836: 679: 655: 581: 488: 140: 130: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 2984: 2982: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2867: 2866: 2831: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2755:SteveMcCluskey 2750: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2717: 2716: 2706:SteveMcCluskey 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2661:SteveMcCluskey 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2507:SteveMcCluskey 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2429: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2420: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2389: 2388: 2375: 2367: 2341: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2317: 2300: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2265:SteveMcCluskey 2260: 2253: 2252: 2233: 2232: 2211: 2210: 2197:Primary source 2192: 2191: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2062: 2061: 2046: 2045: 2003: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1670:SteveMcCluskey 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1622: 1621: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1549: 1509: 1501: 1497: 1485: 1477: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1416: 1415: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1252: 1251: 1216: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1136: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1106: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 974: 973: 972: 971: 953: 952: 951: 932: 931: 930: 929: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 849: 848: 847: 846: 826: 825: 824: 823: 761: 760: 759: 758: 740: 712: 709: 705: 690: 689: 688: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 640: 639: 638: 637: 623: 603: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 555:SteveMcCluskey 546: 545: 544: 543: 526: 525: 510: 487: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 431: 430: 429: 428: 410: 409: 399:SteveMcCluskey 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 328:SteveMcCluskey 298:SteveMcCluskey 286: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 257:SteveMcCluskey 245: 232: 231: 230: 229: 196: 195: 172: 162: 155: 151: 148: 139: 136: 129: 126: 103: 102: 101: 100: 69: 68: 65: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2983: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2865: 2860: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2845: 2844: 2839: 2829: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2790: 2785: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2733: 2728: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2598: 2594: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2550: 2545: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2485: 2480: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2430: 2426: 2421: 2418: 2417: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2405: 2400: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2376: 2373: 2368: 2365: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2353: 2347: 2339: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2315: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2305: 2298: 2293: 2287: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2261: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2251: 2246: 2241:that period. 2240: 2235: 2234: 2231: 2226: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2204: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2190: 2185: 2179: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2144: 2141: 2138: 2135: 2124: 2119: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2099: 2094: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2060: 2055: 2048: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2013: 2010: 2007: 2001: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1940: 1935: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1909: 1904: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1843: 1838: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1811: 1806: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1761: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1637: 1632: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1599: 1591: 1586: 1581: 1575: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1502: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1486: 1483: 1478: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1424:appropriately 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1362: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1290: 1285: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1190: 1185: 1179: 1178: 1176: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1163: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1141: 1137: 1135: 1130: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1111: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1051: 1043: 1038: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 996: 995: 990: 984: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 945: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 928: 924: 920: 915: 907: 902: 896: 895: 894: 890: 886: 881: 877: 873: 869: 868: 867: 862: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 845: 844: 839: 830: 829: 828: 827: 822: 818: 814: 810: 805: 804: 803: 799: 795: 791: 786: 782: 778: 777: 776: 775: 771: 767: 757: 753: 749: 745: 741: 738: 734: 730: 726: 722: 718: 713: 710: 706: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 682: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 663: 658: 651: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 636: 632: 628: 624: 621: 617: 613: 608: 604: 601: 600: 599: 598: 589: 584: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 564: 560: 556: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 542: 538: 534: 530: 529: 528: 527: 524: 520: 516: 511: 508: 507: 506: 505: 501: 497: 491: 485: 475: 471: 467: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 449: 445: 441: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 427: 423: 419: 414: 413: 412: 411: 408: 404: 400: 396: 392: 388: 387: 386: 385: 381: 377: 373: 371: 367: 363: 359: 353: 337: 333: 329: 324: 323: 322: 318: 314: 309: 308: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 284: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 266: 262: 258: 254: 250: 246: 243: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 228: 224: 220: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 206: 202: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 170: 166: 163: 160: 159:WP:Notability 156: 152: 149: 146: 142: 141: 137: 135: 134: 127: 125: 124: 120: 116: 112: 110: 97: 96: 95: 94: 93: 92: 88: 84: 80: 78: 74: 66: 63: 62: 61: 58: 56: 51: 49: 45: 41: 37: 33: 23: 19: 2932: 2913: 2849: 2846: 2833: 2745: 2686: 2592: 2343: 2313: 2238: 2177: 2160: 2145: 2142: 2139: 2136: 2133: 2029: 2014: 2011: 2008: 2005: 1973: 1969: 1964: 1864: 1754:other people 1753: 1709: 1691: 1687: 1611:Curtis Clark 1592: 1588: 1583: 1579: 1533: 1529: 1506:publications 1505: 1493: 1490:on their own 1489: 1481: 1423: 1386: 1343: 1310: 1306: 1236: 1218: 1212: 1208: 1174: 1139: 1109: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1055: 999: 982: 956: 879: 875: 871: 832: 789: 784: 780: 762: 743: 736: 732: 728: 724: 720: 716: 701: 697: 693: 649: 619: 615: 611: 606: 492: 489: 486:Looking good 374: 354: 350: 252: 197: 131: 106: 104: 81: 70: 59: 52: 29: 2002:Definitions 1684:this source 1311:discourages 2858:SlimVirgin 2837:SlimVirgin 2783:SlimVirgin 2726:SlimVirgin 2543:SlimVirgin 2478:SlimVirgin 2398:SlimVirgin 2372:WP:SOURCES 2351:SlimVirgin 2244:SlimVirgin 2224:SlimVirgin 2202:SlimVirgin 2183:SlimVirgin 2117:SlimVirgin 2092:SlimVirgin 2053:SlimVirgin 1933:SlimVirgin 1902:SlimVirgin 1836:SlimVirgin 1804:SlimVirgin 1759:SlimVirgin 1630:SlimVirgin 1597:SlimVirgin 1307:encourages 1283:SlimVirgin 1183:SlimVirgin 1161:SlimVirgin 1128:SlimVirgin 1099:allegation 1036:SlimVirgin 988:SlimVirgin 943:SlimVirgin 900:SlimVirgin 860:SlimVirgin 837:SlimVirgin 809:WP:SOURCES 680:SlimVirgin 656:SlimVirgin 620:especially 582:SlimVirgin 30:I created 2457:policies. 1656:synthesis 1482:secondary 1237:secondary 1209:secondary 1103:convicted 1091:judgement 1000:different 883:fiction). 2959:Yaris678 2937:Blueboar 2916:Yaris678 2874:Yaris678 2432:Yaris678 2378:Yaris678 2322:Blueboar 2162:Yaris678 2069:Yaris678 2031:Yaris678 1978:Blueboar 1870:Blueboar 1772:Blueboar 1512:Yaris678 1428:Blueboar 1389:Yaris678 1315:Blueboar 1241:Blueboar 1239:sources. 1145:Blueboar 1060:Blueboar 1004:Blueboar 961:Blueboar 919:Blueboar 885:Blueboar 794:Blueboar 748:Blueboar 627:Blueboar 533:Blueboar 515:Yaris678 496:Blueboar 466:Yaris678 440:Yaris678 418:Yaris678 376:Yaris678 313:Blueboar 242:WP:SYNTH 219:Blueboar 201:Yaris678 128:Archives 115:Yaris678 83:Yaris678 20:‎ | 2897:Crum375 2810:Crum375 2690:Crum375 2578:Crum375 1715:Crum375 1696:Crum375 1688:primary 1576:Problem 1554:Crum375 1539:Crum375 1534:distant 1496:source. 1494:primary 1484:source. 1451:Crum375 1405:Crum375 1366:Crum375 1361:Here is 1348:Crum375 1260:TMLutas 1222:TMLutas 1213:primary 1140:exactly 1110:accused 1075:Crum375 813:Crum375 785:instead 766:Crum375 739:or not. 737:misused 733:whether 294:WP:PSTS 290:WP:NOTE 283:WP:NOTE 253:Physics 169:WP:PSTS 36:WP:PSTS 2302:Jinnai 1965:enough 1710:per se 1095:filing 1093:and a 1056:nature 729:itself 725:misuse 702:misuse 694:misuse 391:WP:NOR 249:WP:NOR 176:WP:NOR 145:WP:NOR 109:WP:NOR 73:WP:NOR 55:WP:NOR 40:WP:NOR 2933:draft 1530:close 957:could 880:topic 650:needs 296:? -- 99:(UTC) 16:< 2963:talk 2941:talk 2920:talk 2901:talk 2878:talk 2814:talk 2759:talk 2710:talk 2694:talk 2665:talk 2582:talk 2511:talk 2436:talk 2382:talk 2346:here 2326:talk 2269:talk 2215:This 2166:talk 2156:WP:N 2150:and 2073:talk 2035:talk 2025:WP:N 2019:and 1982:talk 1970:what 1874:talk 1776:talk 1719:talk 1700:talk 1674:talk 1615:talk 1558:talk 1543:talk 1516:talk 1455:talk 1432:talk 1409:talk 1393:talk 1370:talk 1352:talk 1319:talk 1264:talk 1245:talk 1226:talk 1215:ones 1149:talk 1097:(or 1079:talk 1064:talk 1008:talk 983:Love 965:talk 923:talk 889:talk 817:talk 798:talk 770:talk 752:talk 631:talk 559:talk 537:talk 519:talk 500:talk 470:talk 444:talk 422:talk 403:talk 380:talk 332:talk 317:talk 302:talk 261:talk 223:talk 205:talk 119:talk 87:talk 77:WP:V 22:PSTS 2830:Tag 2746:you 1974:how 1654:or 1344:are 1053:--> 876:any 790:all 744:not 721:how 698:are 616:key 607:not 397:. 2965:) 2943:) 2922:) 2903:) 2880:) 2816:) 2761:) 2712:) 2704:-- 2696:) 2667:) 2584:) 2513:) 2438:) 2384:) 2328:) 2271:) 2263:-- 2239:of 2178:do 2168:) 2158:. 2075:) 2037:) 2027:. 1984:) 1876:) 1778:) 1721:) 1702:) 1676:) 1617:) 1560:) 1545:) 1518:) 1457:) 1434:) 1411:) 1395:) 1372:) 1354:) 1321:) 1266:) 1247:) 1228:) 1151:) 1081:) 1066:) 1010:) 967:) 925:) 891:) 819:) 800:) 772:) 754:) 717:is 633:) 612:my 561:) 539:) 521:) 502:) 472:) 446:) 424:) 405:) 382:) 372:. 334:) 319:) 304:) 263:) 225:) 207:) 154:2. 121:) 89:) 2961:( 2939:( 2918:( 2899:( 2876:( 2812:( 2757:( 2708:( 2692:( 2663:( 2580:( 2509:( 2434:( 2380:( 2366:. 2324:( 2296:内 2291:陣 2267:( 2164:( 2071:( 2033:( 1980:( 1872:( 1774:( 1717:( 1698:( 1672:( 1613:( 1556:( 1541:( 1514:( 1453:( 1430:( 1407:( 1391:( 1368:( 1350:( 1317:( 1262:( 1243:( 1224:( 1147:( 1077:( 1062:( 1006:( 963:( 921:( 887:( 815:( 796:( 781:a 768:( 750:( 629:( 557:( 535:( 517:( 498:( 468:( 442:( 420:( 401:( 378:( 330:( 315:( 300:( 259:( 221:( 203:( 194:. 117:( 85:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index