Wikipedia talk:No original research

New footnote at end of first paragraph

In a recent edit that was deleted, I tried to add the following footnote to the end of the first paragraph of WP:NOR:

"This rule does not, in general, refer to statements that are non-controversial and easily reducible to elementary deductive logic. See also, WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence"

I was inspired by footnote 2 at the end of the second paragraph of WP:SYN, which I used as a model and precedent:

"The rule against 'A and B therefore C' does not, in general, refer to statements A,B and C that are non-controversial and easily reducible to elementary deductive logic. See also, WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence"

It seemed that the same type of reasoning that led to the acceptance of footnote 2 applied to the new footnote. The important requirement of "non-controversial" and the application of WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence should prevent misuse of this footnote, as it prevents misuse of footnote 2. I would be interested in comments on this matter. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bob, replied to your earlier point regarding this but am fine bringing it up here. For reference I removed the original footnote that was included in September in hopes of finding some clear consensus for it. I could not find that this eventually developed so for now have removed it for now to avoid any confusion. Tmore3 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Within the context of WP:SYNT, I think the foot note is apt... if source A states that all canines have tails, and source B states that all dogs are canines, we can use basic logical deduction to synthesize the conclusion that all dogs have tails. However, I am much less certain that allowing basic deductive logic is apt in other potentially OR situations. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tmore3, It's good to hear from you here and on your talk page. The previous discussion of footnote 2 may be hard to find and I appreciate your efforts in looking for it. I too had some trouble finding it. You can find discussion of footnote 2 here. Apparently the footnote survived the rigors of that discussion so it seems that it has been accepted. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I read through that as well as the discussions that occurred previous and latter and was not able to find any consensus for keeping it other than one editor wanting to keep it in at the end of that discussion to see if any further work could be done on it. My main problem is that it it opens up the opportunity to use this as rationale to conduct all sorts of conclusion drawing. If source A makes one statement and source B makes another statement, and a wikipedia editor uses those two sources to make statement C, I don't see how this is anything but original research. I admit some may view this approach as "hardline" but the ramifications to me as we just saw with that footnote being used as precedent to allow additional caveats to OR is in my opinion not worth the trouble it would cause. Tmore3 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern but we should also be concerned with deleting footnote 2 that has been accepted as part of WP:NOR for several months and after lengthy discussion. Just as I accepted your reversion of my edit and I understand the need for discussion, shouldn't the same apply to reversion of your recent edit? There should be a relative amount of stability for something as important as WP:NOR .

Let's wait until there is a reasonable amount of discussion before removing an important part of WP:NOR that has survived for several months.

Re "My main problem is that it opens up the opportunity to use this as rationale to conduct all sorts of conclusion drawing." That is not an argument regarding whether or not it is correct. Please note the safeguards against drawing all sorts of conclusions: non-controversial and WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence.

Re "If source A makes one statement and source B makes another statement, and a wikipedia editor uses those two sources to make statement C, I don't see how this is anything but original research." Editors are always interpreting references, bringing together information from sources, and summarizing articles and groups of articles. This is original reasearch but it is OR that is acceptable. None of these interpretations, bringing together information, or summarizing can be found explicitly in some secondary source yet it is accepted practice for Wikipedia. Often contributions are controversial, as evidenced by discussion on many talk pages. The situation described in footnote 2 should be even more acceptable than those controversial edits that routinely occur at articles, since a precondition in footnote 2 is that the situation be "non-controversial". This is a tough requirement. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to make contributions to the Wikipedia if that same requirement of "non-controversial" was applied to all contributions?

Re "I admit some may view this approach as "hardline" but the ramifications to me as we just saw with that footnote being used as precedent to allow additional caveats to OR is in my opinion not worth the trouble it would cause." - Please see my response to the first item that I quoted.

I appreciate your ability to discuss these matters and I think that it will serve you well in the discussion of this issue, but as I mentioned before, the proper approach is discussion when an edit such as yours is controversial, instead of summarily deleting a 3-month old part of WP:NOR. Thus, I feel that the proper course is to put footnote 2 back into WP:NOR for now and I have done that. I hope that after reading my above discussion you are not offended and please note that I have not restored my new footnote, and only restored footnote 2 that existed previously. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure that my view on this does not get lost in the conversation between Bob and Tmore, let me reitterate... I agree with leaving the footnote in the WP:SYNT section... but I disagree with adding a similar statement to the first paragraph. Much more discussion is needed before we do that. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob, I would take issue with your assertion that consensus was reached simply because a footnote with significant voiced opposition was inserted 3 months ago in a 5 year old policy page with the caveat of seeing if it could be improved. I will not revert for now for the sake of this discussion but the language defintely needs some improvement.

Your statement "removing an important part of WP:NOR" actually illustrates my point precisely. That footnote never was part of the NOR policy body itself and as noted in the discussion you referenced earlier, the editors who supported its inclusion as a footnote were vehemently opposed to it as part of the policy itself when discovered it had creeped into the body of WP:SYN. Again there is no problem summarizing and synthesizing a variety of sources in one article in fact it's incumbent upon the editor to do this to construct a good article. However when you start using sources to draw your own un-published conclusion, and write it in the article you've crossed a line that Wikipedia does not encompass. I am fine discussing this at greater length but would pose the following question: Why do you need to add a footnote to address matters that are supposedly "un-controversial"? Also for the sake of the discussion, it would be helpful to see some actual examples put forth of issues that have occurred where this particular footnote would have been helpful to finding an agreeable resolution and not antithetical to WP:NOR. Tmore3 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this entire conversation speaks to the problems that have arisen in porting what was originally a policy about research in a more or less scientific sense and secondarily a historical sense to a near-mirror of WP:V. The notion of "direct support" and what that entails is hopelessly vague, and the policy refuses to own up to this - most problematically, as I have said, at the primary sources section, but really throughout. This policy is astonishingly poorly written - the footnote helps inasmuch as the "deductive logic" approach is reasonable, but it seems to me to continue down the same failed path of carving out individual exceptions instead of addressing the root problems. I can think of few situations where this proposed change would be practically beneficial, because pure deductive logic is rarely used in actual argumentation and thought. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Tmore3 makes some excellent points, IMO. Phil Sandifer also points up some issues that are, I think, an entirely reasonable expression of what the state of affairs is on the wiki. As to Phil Sandifer's last sentence just above, I agree fully. The footnote currently in question has arguably succeeded in settling a question posed by users that are highly skilled in areas such as logic and mathematics. The rules of reasoning in such domains are in certain ways tighter and more focused than are the rules in other areas, such as, for example, politics, theology, art criticism, psychodynamic psychology, philosophy, history, sociology and a very wide array of other topic areas. The footnote I inserted, while imperfect from the perspective of technical logic, has drawn no criticism thus far from logical positivists or the math-interested. Fact is, I inserted the footnote in response to a thread that can be reviewed here. The basic issue had in a number of instances been subject to vehement complaints by users involved in topic areas where the word "synthesis" has a different connotation than it does in informal discourse. Mathematicians and formal logicians regularly synthesize in the normal course of "business", and it's an essential part of what mathematicians and formal logicians do. The accepted rules of synthesis are much more stringent in formal reasoning than is the case in informal language. Indeed it's sufficiently different that there's a whole very important topic called "formal language". This is why, at present, the footnote is there, because it's sufficiently important to acknowledge this issue w.r.t. these topic areas where the rules of reasoning are much more well defined than in most areas of study. Yet, this issue is, arguably at least, not generally relevant to most topic areas using our standard "informal language" in the context of deciding the frequently touchy issue of where "standard article writing in WP editors' own words" ends, and where "original synthesis" begins. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate the rationale for specific use within the subject areas outlined above by Kenosis. In principle however at least until the questions I raised earlier can be sufficiently addressed I remain unconvinced as to the urgency/frequency of this issue that it requires inserting further language into the document, even if it is in footnote form. I think if the footnote does stay the language defintely needs to be shored up somehow to avoid leakage elsewhere and be even more specific perhaps on the particular subject matter/scenarios where it might apply. Tmore3 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please consider the following excerpt from the beginning of the article SKIP-BO,

SKIP-BO(/skɪpˈ-boʊ/) is a popular card game. In 1967, Ms. Hazel Bowman of Brownfield, Texas began producing a boxed edition of the game under the name Skip-bo. International Games, Inc. purchased the game in 1980. The company was subsequently bought by Mattel. It is a commercial version of the card-game "Spite and Malice". It includes 144 playing cards that have numbers on them ranging from 1 to 12 and 18 SKIP-BO cards totaling 162 cards. Alternatively, the 162 cards could be comprised of 3 regular decks of playing cards, including the jokers, with ace to queen corresponding to 1 to 12 and the kings and jokers corresponding to the SKIP-BO cards.

The last sentence is non-controversial and easily reducible to elementary deductive logic. However, it does not have a source, as far as I know. Thus it should be deleted according to WP:NOR. But if the new footnote were in WP:NOR, it would not be subject to deletion.

I don't think that the originators of NOR intended that it be used to delete sentences like this. I think they were concerned with material such as controversial unpublished physics theories and history analysis getting into the Wikipedia, rather than material that is non-controversial and easily reducible to elementary deductive logic. Also, we might consider whether a reader of that SKIP-BO article would prefer that the subject sentence remained in the article. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Most certainly. This issue is fairly regularly debated on this page and elsewhere, sometimes heatedly. I think this kind of frequent disagreement is to be expected, because it is tied up with the sometimes-very-difficult question of where "article writing" or "original language" or "in one's own words" ends, and where "original research" begins. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, that entire SKIP-BO article is OR, that game is unique to the American market, I can deduce that this article is in all likelihood factual, but that's not the point, and this is where I beg to differ (in respect to the accusation of me confusing OR issues with sourcing issues): we must assume the reader is absolutely ignorant of the subject matter, the means to verify the factuality of the content must be available directly to the reader, this is achieved by citing verifiable sources, its very plain and simple, and if you want a respected encyclopedia, longterm, this is the only way to deal with matters, right now different camps have different opinions on this but why have an NOR policy if it is consistently ignored in favor of NOR unless consensus agrees OR is OK? And why not state this explicitly instead of using all the pedantic idealized verbiage which nobody seems to care about unless a topic is controversial? Semitransgenic (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob K31416's point was about the "A+B=C" scenario he was talking about in the last quoted sentence from the lead of the SKIP-BO article. The rest is a WP:V issue. For convenience, I'll simply copy and past a statement I recently made at WT:V: The rules, long established, are, essentially, "if it ain't cited, it can be removed, period." Such a removal, if there's any further disagreement, engages broader discussion process to (hopefully) arrive at a consensus. A user may, for instance, argue back at the person doing the removing that "no way, it's common everyday knowledge", or "it's already cited farther down in the article and WP:LEAD allows us to summarize it in the lead without citing it". Etc. etc. How this plays out depends on the material, how many are participating in editing the article, how controversial the material is, and so forth. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[Please forgive me for inserting here, out of chronological order, some information that might clear up a possible misunderstanding of the SKIP-BO article regarding OR and WP:V. There is a source for almost all of the article in the external links at Rules for playing the Skip-bo game (PDF), except for the subject sentence that I mentioned above, which has no known source. Sorry for the interruption. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)]

more examples of sub-cultural nuances that are not encapsulated in the policy. My impression, based on somewhat limited experience across a narrow range of articles, is that insistence upon rigor seems to be almost frowned upon. The "if it ain't cited, it can be removed" is nice idea, but lets see how quickly my talk page fills up if I start clearing uncited material. Plus, it says "can be removed" meaning you first have to talk crap on a talk page about why you want to remove it, again the weight of consensus interfering with polices that are designed to improve the entire encyclopedia. I personally feel wikipedia currently weighs strongly in favor of inclusionism, the tendency to turn a blind eye to non controversial OR is quite strong. Or maybe I'm imagining this? But I don't think so, look at how convoluted the process to even propose an article for deletion is, it acts is a deterrent in my view. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

NB: "Sub-culture" is pretty much obsolete for some time now, having been largely abandoned in favor of the word "community". In this community, the decisionmaking is done by that ever-so-evasive "thing" we call "consensus". The primary exception is that User:Jimbo retains authority to dictate policy issues he or the Wikimedia Foundation deem adequately important to dictate. The informal version I gave of WP:V ("if it ain't cited, it can be deleted, period.") is a reasonable translation of a core policy set in place by Jimbo. The exact language can be found in the links given at WP:V. Having said that, ST, I do recognize the difficulties, including what you just said here. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

you may recognize them, but, and no offense intended here, you are still regurgitating the same old "community" dogma in defense of the glaringly obvious deficiencies that exist, and you are not alone in doing this. I'm trying to look at this using the perspective of someone who sees wikipedia consistently coming top ten on google and as someone who believes this really does mean that wikipedia has a responsibility to get things right, and get things right now, not whenever. There's a certain responsibility that comes with providing free knowledge on this scale, and the same standards should apply to all content, irrespective of consensus views on the matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RE "wikipedia has a responsibility to get things right, and get things right now, not whenever." : That's a very tall order-- maybe WP can get a few billion of the TARP money and hire an editing staff.  ;-) (Speaking of which, the TARP article is presently a mess too. "Welcome to WIkipedia, the Volunteer Job that Never Ends" ;-) ... Kenosis (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

perhaps it is a tall order, though I was alluding to the notion of eventualism. Also, a deeply ingrained laissez faire mentality that exists across large sections of the community does not help matters, but that's just my opinion. Bots could probably look after a lot of the policy related editing matters that the humans on wikipedia are failing to address ; ) it really wouldn't be that difficult to do. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Sure, a bot with an order, say as follows: "1) Eviscerate all content in excess of X characters not followed by [define 'inline citation']. 2) Eviscerate all Users with [define 'main namespace content-to-citation ratio'] equal to or greater than 1000-1" ;) ... Kenosis (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Start er' up!! Seriously though I agree with much of what's been said as of late. Many of us know there are numerous articles with un-sourced content that go unchallenged for a period time for a multitude of reasons. While we can't do everything as quickly as we'd like, engaged editors, empowered by these core policies (despite all their supposed inadequacies) to challenge for accuracy has greatly improved this project as a whole. The major problem I have with arguments that essentially boil down to "it's common knowledge" or "it's obvious" is that both are extremely relative terms especially for an incredibly large and diverse audience. You don't have to present your educational credentials in order to read an article involving math or edit it for that matter, and it is dangerous if not wholly unfair to the anonymous reader to make an assumption that "everyone should know this and be able to deduce this" therefore I don't need to worry about providing a source to verify it. In regards to the original issue, I think it's usefulness is wholly unproved unless someone is willing to provide some convincing examples of where this footnote has stopped some actual re-occurring content disputes and is not in disagreement with current WP:V and WP: NOR policy as it reads currently. Tmore3 (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no evidence in support of the idea that the footnote has stopped actual recurring content disputes. AFAIK, though, there've not been further complaints about the issue on this page, at least not from the perspective of those who do mathematical or logical synthesis in their areas of expertise. I sense that it's one of those situations where, given the wide range of material presented on the wiki, not everyone will ever be satisfied no matter which way this particular issue plays out. As to the presence of the footnote, I support it but I'm certainly not hellbent on keeping it. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

I am going to remove it for now as it has now twice been confused as policy for which there is no precedent currently in WP:V or WP: NOR that supports this statement as a content standard. I am fully open to continuing the discussion about it's usefulness in practice but either way an editing instruction like this should belong as part of a broader policy POV fully embraced by both WP:V and WP:NOR or as its own essay/guideline. Tmore3 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please leave it off. If it's really "so obvious" with elementary logic, it's unlikely to be disputed anyway. I've been up to my shoulders in synth lately--much of it probably seemed "so obvious" to the editors putting in there. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem by me. As is evident in the archived thread I linked to above, I was initially opposed to this sort of caveat and later became persuaded that such a caveat was reasonable as a footnote. Come to think of it, though, maybe next time a mathematician or whatever comes in here raising cain, Professor Marginalia can handle the talk thread and do the explaining. ;-) ... Kenosis (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Professor marginalia, Thank you for weighing in on this discussion. The more the merrier. I'm very interested in the way people edit various situations in articles as a practical matter. Regarding your comment, "If it's really 'so obvious' with elementary logic, it's unlikely to be disputed anyway", if you came across a statement in an article that you found obviously true and that you had no objections to, except that you also found that it obviously ran afoul of WP:NOR, would you delete it? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I would delete what I consider "obviously true" content just because it isn't sourced, no. Not for that reason alone. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely it would be appropriate to tag rather than delete in this instance? Semitransgenic (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Professor marginalia, If I may follow up, let's consider the excerpt from SKIP-BO that I gave previously. Here's the relevant part,

...It includes 144 playing cards that have numbers on them ranging from 1 to 12 and 18 SKIP-BO cards totaling 162 cards. Alternatively, the 162 cards could be comprised of 3 regular decks of playing cards, including the jokers, with ace to queen corresponding to 1 to 12 and the kings and jokers corresponding to the SKIP-BO cards.

The first sentence can be sourced. The second sentence cannot be sourced, as far as I know. It is true but not obviously true since you need to do some arithmetic, etc. to see that it is true. The second sentence is OR that runs afoul of WP:NOR. Would you delete it? Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would but not because it uses arithmetic. Skip-Bo is a trademarked game, with its own set of cards, and the fact that one could play a similar game with an alternative set of cards is irrelevant. It's not encyclopedic to include hypothetical scenarios. What's more encyclopedic is to try and find sources that describe the ancestry or derivatives of the game itself. Skip-Bo is very possibly based on a traditional card game. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when using actual examples other issues can come up, like the one you mentioned above, which are a digression from the issue regarding the OR aspect of the sentence in question. Anyhow, thank you for your response. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>The footnote should perhaps have used a word like "uncontested" instead of, or in addition to, "uncontroversial". This issue appears to me to be one of those little glitches in policy logic that'll perhaps never get settled completely. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of problem that I worry we're inviting even more of with the "so obvious" language. Why source claims when it's "so obvious" that any child can see the association to "Tarde, Le Bon and Locke". Professor marginalia (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheese. A rather inane and angry rant by our anon-IP friend on that page. FWIW, you can quote me on that, though it appears to me your response to that user was direct and quite adequate. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful not to use any unpleasant experience as a reason not to change WP:NOR.

The requirement of "non-controversial" or "uncontested" would not engender these unpleasant experiences because it is such a tough requirement. For example, if someone disputes whether a statement is "easily reducible to elementary deductive logic", then the situation has become controversial and contested. The disputing editor is in control of the situation. He can delete the subject statement. This is an important safeguard that should prevent the misuse of footnote 2. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

who wants to waste even more time debating such matters on on a talk page? I don't agree that this footnote will benefit us. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean on an article talk page where such a contest might arise, not this talk page. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment but the present topic was the "non-controversial" or "uncontested" requirement of footnote 2. Would you care to give your opinion about whether or not you think that requirement is an adequate safeguard against the abuse of footnote 2? We can discuss other issues regarding footnote 2 later but for the sake of an orderly discussion, lets stick to one topic at a time. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sticking to the topic, in summary, you want to graft the footnote from syn and apply it to OR in general, I disagree with this measure and choose not to support such a change. There can be no abuse of the footnote as long as the context of its use is specific to acts of synthesis. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding but I think we were currently just discussing footnote 2, which I mentioned 3 times in my last message. From your last sentence, "There can be no abuse of the footnote as long as the context of its use is specific to acts of synthesis." Then, does this mean that you wouldn't object to having footnote 2 in WP:NOR? Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's be specific so everyone is clear as to what is being discussed... Bob, are you asking whether the footnote that is currently attached to the WP:SYNT section should remain? (I would agree to that) Or are you asking whether a similar footnote should be placed elsewhere in the policy? (I would probably not agree to that) Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, Thank you for asking. Perhaps other people too who are following this do not realize that footnote 2 has been deleted. The current discussion is regarding footnote 2, not the footnote that I proposed. And thank you for your opinion that footnote 2 should be part of WP:SYNT which is a section of WP:NOR.

Here's the deleted footnote 2 for reference:

The rule against "A and B therefore C" does not, in general, refer to statements A,B and C that are non-controversial and easily reducible to elementary deductive logic." See also, WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Now getting back to the "non-controversial" or "uncontested" requirement of footnote 2. As I mentioned above, this requirement should be a safeguard against abuse of footnote 2. (I put that message in bold type so that it is easier to locate.) Semitransgenic seemed to agree with this for footnote 2 when it was in the context of WP:SYNT. With this line of discussion, I'm trying to address the concern regarding footnote 2 that it could be abused. Does anyone believe this safeguard is inadequate? If so I would be interested in reading your reasons why you think the "non-controversial" or "uncontested" requirement of footnote 2 isn't an adequate safeguard. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I actually missed where that item got deleted, so presumed it was in place, but I also seem to recall that when the footnote was originally proposed its intended application was for use in science and math based topics, however, I don't especially see that it can be abused if used in other contexts, because synthesis is synthesis, it's self-evident, this footnote offers an abuser nothing by way of circumventing the policy on synthesis. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob, WP:SYN does not say with an A + B = C argument it's okay to come up with your own C if it isn't published so long as you can make a deduction from A & B. In fact it says completely the opposite. I appreciate the attempt to provide an example with the Skip-Bo article, essentially what was presented though is an article that uses an instruction manual as its only source and then advocating for a need to insert more unreferenced material of questionable encyclopedic worth. One of Wikipedia's goals as far as content is to aim towards more verifiability; why would you include and more importantly what need currently exists for a statement of ambiguous weight and scope that makes editors feel they can draw and publish as many un-sourced conclusions as they want just as long you don't get challenged. Tmore3 (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tmore3, Thank you for your response but I was looking for your opinion of whether the "non-controversial" or "uncontested" requirement is a safeguard against abuse of footnote 2. There are a number of aspects of footnote 2 that we can discuss but the aspect that is currently being discussed is whether or not the safeguard would work to prevent abuse. Perhaps your silence regarding this point suggests that you feel it would be an adequate safeguard against abuse? If not, please give your reasons why it isn't an adequate safeguard. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Tmore3, I just reread your last message and part of your last sentence gave me an idea for a situation where footnote 2 wouldn't be helped by the safeguard. There may be a problem with an increase of unnoticed violations of WP:NOR. With footnote 2, some editors are bound to misinterpret the meaning of "easily reducible to elementary logic" and introduce some material that may continue in an article because it is not noticed. It is subject to deletion but it remains because it is unnoticed.

So it's a question of which is worse: a) the exclusion of worthwhile, informative, and credible material, that conforms to the requirements of footnote 2 but not WP:NOR as it stands currently without footnote 2 or b) the increase in questionable material as a result of misinterpreting footnote 2, but material that is subject to deletion if it is noticed. In other words, the questionable material is subject to deletion but it isn't deleted because it is unnoticed.

I think the suggestion "be bold" came about because people were afraid to contribute to Wikipedia because they might run afoul of a rule. I think that footnote 2 would result in an increase in the number of worthwhile contributions to the Wikipedia, but I have to admit that it's not clear how much this would be offset by objectionable material that might come into the Wikipedia too. I think this probably ends the discussion for me. Happy holidays everyone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(My following message is a belated addition to my message above and is out of chronological order. Also, I hope my style of bringing up arguments for both sides of an issue isn't too confusing. I'm just trying to follow the truth wherever it may lead.)

After sleeping on it, the effect of unnoticed violations does not appear to be a good reason for excluding footnote 2. If a misinterpretation of footnote 2 results in an OR violation in an article, the violation is still subject to deletion and I expect that it will eventually be deleted. On the other hand, if worthwhile, informative, and credible material is included in an article, but wouldn't have been allowed without footnote2, then it is not subject to deletion because of NOR. If not for footnote 2 the worthwhile material would be subject to removal and is not secure, as far as WP:NOR is concerned. Without footnote 2, any editor who feels it is his duty to remove violations, no matter how worthwhile the contribution, will do so. With footnote 2, such an editor is not compelled to remove the worthwhile contribution. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

the unnoticed situation is what we currently have, because consensus overrules policy. OR stays, unless someone makes a fuss, if they make a fuss, they are then forced to engage in a hoop jumping expedition to deal with it, the footnote will simply exacerbate an already tiresome situation. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

With the "non-controversial" requirement of Footnote 2 hoop jumping isn't exacerbated. Simply objecting is enough justification to delete because it is then a controversial situation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob brought up a question about this on my talk page, with another long-time editor jumping in and commenting about the issue here. The more I think about this issue, the more I'm inclined to advocate a bit more strongly in support of an explicit caveat of this kind. In my observation it is acceptable to remove tendentious or spurious demands for citation where no genuine controversy exists that source A+B really are saying "C"-- indeed that is standard editing practice (one aspect of writing in one' own words rather than quoting the sources verbatim). As well, it's common practice to make simple deductions, for example, of the kind given in the SKIP-BO example and of the kind we very commonly find in articles using demonstrations of mathematical formulas or formal logic. The footnote presently under discussion gives an explicit policy basis for this. I'm not even sure the extra word "uncontested" is necessary. The difference between "description" and "interpretation" presently under discussion a couple sections below only partially addresses the issue from a policy standpoint. Another way of thinking about it is to differentiate between, on the one hand, uncontroversial synthesis of the kind that constitutes plain article writing in one's own words rather than in direct quotes, and on the other hand "original synthesis" or "synthesis serving to advance a position". It's the latter that is the reason for WP:NOR and WP:SYN. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kenosis. Footnote 2 would be beneficial to the Wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't think that the originators of WP:NOR ever intended that it be used to exclude worthwhile material that is credible and doesn't involve controversy. For example, here's an excerpt from one of the messages of Jimmy Wales,

"The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is _true_ or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid, we aren't really equipped to do that."

Footnote 2 admits material involving cases where it is easy to make a valid judgement whether a particular thing is true or not. Jimmy Wales intention with WP:NOR was to exclude material where it is difficult to determine if something is true, not material where it is easy to determine if it is true, such as the cases covered by footnote 2. If a question of whether or not it is easy to determine if it is true arises, then the material is subject to deletion according to footnote 2 because it has become controversial. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps needless to say, I agree. I think that the presently removed footnote took spurious or tendentious tagging of non-controversial syntheses out of the mix, so to speak, by setting forth a straightforward statement of this particular issue, but without unnecessarily clogging up the body text with peripheral caveats. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Directly quoting primary sources

Reading the policy page, it is quite clear that secondary and tertiary sources should be relied upon. What is not discussed in as much detail is legitimate situations under which it is permissible to use, and maybe even directly quote, primary sources. Do such situations exist?

I tend to dislike direct quotes in most cases because they can so easily be cherry-picked and used to enforce a certain POV held by the person quoting. Recently in discussion with some other editors, the argument was brought up that if multiple secondary sources directly quote a primary source, then it would be a permissible circumstance to make a direct quotation.

I believe that the position of this argument in a nutshell is that "if a primary source (and by extension, opinion) is referenced by enough secondary sources, then the primary source itself (opinion) is also notable". I take issue with this argument by stating that verifiability does not always ensure reliability. Furthermore, the fact that a secondary source quoted a primary source to establish their own critique of a subject does not magically make the primary source more reliable. What thoughts do others have here? ←Spidern→ 04:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:PSTS: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." This defines the range of permission to use "primary sources". The footnotes have links to several sources that illustrate some examples, to which I would also add this University of Maryland library guide, which lays out a useful set of examples of primary, secondary and tertiary sources.
..... The issue of reliability is a separate question, discussed as policy in WP:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and as a guideline in WP:RS. Reliability can't be universally determined by asking the question "Is it primary, secondary or tertiary?". ... Kenosis (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to determine is whether it is correct to justify usage of a direct quote by saying that it is well-sourced by secondary sources. I don't believe that it always is. ←Spidern→ 05:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned, this is a reliability analysis, not a question of whether it's original research. This is particularly the case with a direct quote, where no arguments would properly arise over whether your words accurately express the content of the source you're proposing to use. There's no need to justify its use-- if you reasonably think its reliable, use it without apology. If someone else catches some set of factors indicating it may not be reliable (the nature of such factors will depend on what kind of topic it is, of course), then in due course it may get pointed out, which would generally trigger a more thorough WP:RS analysis. (NB: Many experienced contributors to WP would, I think, appreciate your diligent caution. WP:BE BOLD exists as a counterbalance to excessive cautiousness-- that feeling of wanting to get it exactly right the first time. No need to be a perfectionist-- if it's all that controversial, at some point one or more other users will likely respond accordingly.) ... Kenosis (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Inside information

I have recently added this new section based on discussions elsewhere:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Inclusion of "inside information" that one is aware of from his/her employment, studies, or connections, but is yet to be published in any newspaper, web site, or publication, or broadcast on the air, is not permitted on Wikipedia. For example, this may include news on the latest scientific breakthrough, a trade between sports teams, layoffs planned by a company, or legislation about to be passed. Not to mention, this may be a violation of the secrecy policies of one's employer or agent, or even the law.

I feel this mention is necessary because I have seen such additions myself.

Hellno2 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to disagree. There are numerous types of original research. Ho reason to list them there. "inside info" is hardly a major source. Unreferenced information of any type may be challenged at any time. Adding not critical text unnecessaarily bloats the policy and makes it difficult to read. Mukadderat (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• No. Unpublished claims are never allowed at wikipedia, period. The policies already have sufficient wording to that effect, and they should stay as short as possible. If you see rumor-type content added to articles, remove it-the policies are already utterly against unpublished sourcing. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• No need to spell this out in the policy... it is already covered from multiple angles by multiple policies and guidelines. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR all address "rumor" and unpublished information. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Blueboar is right. Material that is "yet to be published" is unverifiable, and thus -- by definition -- fails WP:V. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Description vs. interpretation

It seemed like, by the end of the last conversation on this, at least everybody largely was willing to grant that the description vs. interpretation wording was unclear. I proposed new wording, which seemed controversial - but I think this is something we really need to shore up, because right now this policy does not provide coherent or useful guidance on this point. Does anyone have any better proposed wording? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't find the wording unclear at all, and would be quite happy to leave it as is. That said, I do understand that you (and a few others) do find it unclear and think a rewrite is needed. I will be quite willing to consider any wording you may propose. I will base my agreement or disagreement of any proposed language based upon whether I think it mearly restates what the policy currently says using different language, or whether I think it changes the policy. A restatement in different language I am likely to accept; I am unlikely to accept a change in policy. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, my problem is that the current language is unclear, so I'm hard-pressed to figure out how to restate it so that is says the exact same thing, given that right now it seems to say nothing. Perhaps you could make an attempt at a clearer explanation of this supposed description/interpretation divide. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you see it this way, perhaps you are getting a little distracted by the deconstructive process you touch on above, but average readers are not operating on this level and seem to get the point. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Have you looked at fiction articles? The line on what is and is not allowable is a mess over there, with regular edit wars. If there is a clear line, by all means, explain it to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry that's something I meant to mention, I personally do not think editors should be describing plots, or talking about fictional content, unless they are referring to sources that have already done so, but that's just my personal view. There are enough book reviews, video game reviews, film reviews etc. that can be drawn upon. Also, film, book, video game promotional information, although primary, would be better than nothing. Yes, I have come across many fiction articles that I thought should simply not exist, if the policy infringements are considered, but the problem is endemic, and unless there is a concerted drive to address this it seems like a battle lost. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So, actually, your position is that use of primary sources is outright forbidden? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, we have explained it to you... several times. But here it is again: A very basic summary of the surface plot of a work of fiction is assumed to be easily cited to the primary source (the work itself) and thus it is not considered a violation of WP:NOR for an editor to write such a summary. Any analysis, or interpretive statement beyond that would require a secondary source for it not to be OR. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I would personally rather we didn't have editors summarizing primary sources but instead referred to a secondary source that has already undertaken such a task, but this does not mean to say I think primary sources should be forbidden, it depends on the context of their usage. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's my problem with that explanation - it's still relying on a surface/depth distinction that I think is artifial and non-universal. Superficiality and depth are not inherent features of a work of fiction. How can I tell whether a given statement is surface or not? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about this, it's not my area, I can only guess you are talking about the distinction between writings that are very literal and those that are deeply allegorical. In the case of the latter, I assume it would be more appropriate to lean toward secondary sources in discussing the content. You, it seems, are a specialist, if other specialists on wikipedia operating in the same domain share these concerns, make yourselves heard, give clear examples, and give a workable alternative, then gage consensus Semitransgenic (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if there is any doubt as to whether a given statement qualifies as a legitimate NOR summary of the basic surface plot... assume that it isn't. Go find a secondary source for it. After all, it is never wrong to cite a secondary source to support a statement. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question, though - how does one tell if something is surface or not? That says what to do when in doubt, but that's not what I asked. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The surface plot of a story includes the events that happen to the main characters... where they go and what they do( X character goes to Y place and does Z action) It does not include the characters' motivations for going to the place or doing the action. The surface plot does not include the characters thoughts about what they do. It sticks to "X then goes to Y and does Z". Blueboar (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a specific example, but I was looking for the general case - in any given primary source, how do I tell if a given claim about it is surface or not? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If the statement simply discribes where the characters go or what they do in the story, then it is a discription of the surface plot. If the statement goes beyond that it isn't. Simple. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all primary sources are works of fiction. The example given is plot summary, but I mean more generally about primary sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been using "surface" purely as a modifier in conjunction with the word "Plot". Non-fiction does not have a plot to summarize, so the modifier "surface" would not be relevant to non-fiction. For non-fiction the line between appropriate use and inappropriate use (OR) of a primary source is drawn in a different way. It is not OR to give a basic description/paraphrase of what is specifically stated in a primary source. Such basic descriptions are not OR, because you can point (and cite) to the primary source itself, and any reader who looks at the source will be able to see that the source does in fact say what you claim it says. As soon as you start to go beyond what is specifically stated in the source, as soon as you include interpretation or analysis of the source, you need to point to a secondary source that contains this interpretation or analysis. In other words, you have to show that the interpretation or analysis originated with someone other than you, a Wikipedia editor. And again, if there is any doubt as to whether something you want to say is verging on OR or not, you are better off assuming that it is OR, unless you can find and cite a secondary source to support it. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake are said to have plots of which an aspect is "on the surface". It makes my head spin. On the other hand, Charlotte's Web, another famous allegorical work, has a surface plot that is fairly straightforward, the basic story of which most reasonable persons who've read it would agree what it is. Maybe it's best to simply apply the rule on a case-by-case basis. The rule, as presently expressed, is: "Primary sources ... may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." ... Kenosis (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Kenosis, we got into this discussion because Phil seems to have a problem with the very section of the policy you just quoted... he does not seem to understand the distinction between interpretation and descriptive claims (at least not where articles on fiction are concerned). Perhaps you can do a better job of explaining it to him than I have. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The events which take place in Ulysses are straightforward--the understanding of the connection between them is what needs elucidation--but this is an exceptional example in two respects--first, that the book is exceptionally complicated, second, that multiple reliable descriptions of the events and their connections are readily available as sources. Few books are quite as complicates; few books have the plots as much discussed. the ordinary case is where we have the description of a plot in a secondary or tertiary source. If the source is a reliable textbook , such a even published notes for students, those retellings are usually reliable. If the source is a review, or a summary at a place like IMdB, they are not in my opinion reliable,and would much prefer a direct account from the work, with key events perhaps sourced to particular pages or scenes. Too many of our plot summary pages are made unencyclopedic by paraphrasing such unreliable sources, typically written as teasers. I interpret NOT TV GUIDE as meaning we write real summaries when necessary, rther than use such sources. DGG (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the events being extremely complicated when the book is taken as a whole, so much so that the editors of Ulysses (novel) apparently chose to reduce the overall plot description to one sentence in the article lede. The plot descriptions given in Ulysses_(novel)#Structure, in my opinion, are a very reasonable application of the policy, since they describe each chapter's plot and structure on face value. Even Ulysses_(novel)#Episode_3.2C_Proteus, which refers to the famous stream of consciousness technique, is a reasonable description that does not appear to transgress the general prohibitions of WP:NOR. As is typical of many WP articles, there could be better application of WP:V via more inline citations, although that basic issue is not necessarily relevant to this discussion here at WT:NOR. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm asking in general, not just for fiction. How, when reading a primary source, do I tell whether a given statement about it is descriptive or interpretive? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

These are simple words. (from dictionary.com)

• Describe: 1) to tell or depict in written or spoken words; give an account of: He described the accident very carefully. 2) to pronounce, as by a designating term, phrase, or the like; label: There are few people who may be described as geniuses. 3) to indicate; be a sign of; denote: Conceit, in many cases, describes a state of serious emotional insecurity. 4) to represent or delineate by a picture or figure.
• Interpret: 1) to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable. 2) to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable. 3) to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution. 4) to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc.) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity: The actor interpreted Lear as a weak, pitiful old man.

Does this help? Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not really at all - observe the similarity between "explain" and "give an account of," for instance. The most sizable difference that I see is this issue of "hidden meaning," but that brings up a host of problems too - hidden suggests that the meaning is not intended to be found - that it is a secret meaning. So that would not rule out intended subtext. And again, the key question I have - how do I know, reading a primary source, whether a meaning was hidden or not? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

When describing fiction as presented in the primary source (the work of fiction itself), a statement is descriptive if it summarizes the fiction on "face value" or makes a statement about some particular portion of it which would be apparent to reasonable persons with a general education upon a plain reading of the primary source. It's interpretive if it explains, explicates, or elucidates the fiction in ways not evident upon a plain reading of the story. If there's disagreement about which is which, it should be discussed or argued among those involved in the applicable WP article. Any disputes should be regarded as a "content" dispute, not a "policy" dispute. As an editorial policy matter, the difference between descriptive and interpretive is fairly straightforward, even with respect to fiction, and even if it doesn't have a hard-and-fast borderline between what's descriptive and what's interpretive. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes a reading plain, or on face value? What any normally educated reader would be expected to glean from it? In which case, that is, I think, a better explanation than descriptive/interpretive. Also, what do we do with specialist texts? A reasonable person with a general education would get relatively little from, say, a scientific paper, or from a book by Derrida - but then again, such readers aren't really part of the intended audience of such works - so I'm not sure how a general education is relevant to such works. Do we mean a reasonable editor with a general education, or do we mean the sort of reader the work is aimed at? Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's at least a two-part question.
.. RE "What makes a reading plain, or on face value? What any normally educated reader would be expected to glean from it? In which case, that is, I think, a better explanation than descriptive/interpretive." :
.......... This is a reasonable definition that's already given in the policy page w.r.t. use of primary sources. I quoted it above.
.. RE "Also, what do we do with specialist texts? A reasonable person with a general education would get relatively little from, say, a scientific paper, or from a book by Derrida - but then again, such readers aren't really part of the intended audience of such works - so I'm not sure how a general education is relevant to such works."
.......... Yep, that is also dealt with in the present language of the policy about use of primary sources. I'll quote it again. It reads: '"Primary sources ... may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Thus, when dealing with something obscure like Derrida or implications of quantum physics, quote Derrida as may be deemed appropriate by consensus of participants in the article, but if there's any question about what Derrida meant, use the secondary and tertiary sources in support of such interpretation. Same with interpretations of quantum physics and other obscure material that require specialist knowledge. That, essentially, has been the policy for quite some time now-- for a couple years at least. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That has not been the methodology followed in practice on pages on specialist topics. In fact, I have trouble thinking of a page on a specialist topic that works that way. The widespread declining to follow this policy makes me doubt its accuracy. Does anyone know the origins of this phrase? I'm really curious if it was proposed originally to forbid the use of difficult sources, or if it was originally intended to preclude specialist readings of general sources. Going back and figuring out what this phrase came from and what it was intended for seems to me important in clarifying it.

I would also suggest that "easily verifiable" is not a very good synonym for "would be expected to glean." But based on this, I would suggest that the description/interpretation distinction (which is misleading at best) should be removed in favor of the reasonable person test, at the least, and that the specialist knowledge phrase should be re-examined, both in terms of what accepted practice actually is, and in terms of what the phrase was actually inserted to accomplish. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It may not be optimally followed, but it is the present policy w.r.t. this basic issue, one which has remained stable for an extended period of time. Similarly, WP:V may not be optimally followed, but it too is the present policy (I leave aside the residual debate about the difference between "verifiable" and "verified with an inline citation" ). The wiki has an extremely broad range of topics for which the core content policies need to account. A great deal of work and discussion went into the above-quoted passage about primary sources. At present, there appears to be little cause to change this aspect of policy, at least lacking a broad wiki-wide consensus to do so. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I point out in the section above, the specialist knowledge line was inserted with a misleading edit summary, and was never the subject of a prolonged discussion. It seems to me clear that this phrase is an instance of a change made by one person in the days when policy changes were much easier and made much more carelessly, and that it has persisted with no serious thought about its meaning or consequences. To say it has consensus is deeply misleading - that would imply that some discussion has taken place. All there is is an extended failure to actually look at the line. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the words "without specialist knowledge" were very extensively discussed in the latter part of 2007, as was the entirety of WP:PSTS. It's a key phrase of the policy, so as to help prevent pretense of legitimacy to statements such as the one Professor Marginalia refers to above, made by an anon IP at Talk:Meme#History. It's also a key phrase intended to help prevent further proliferation of quack theories in general, which was the original policy reason for the very existence of WP:NOR. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you link this discussion? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try archives 20 through 34, and type "without specialist knowledge" into your "find" box. It's mentioned something like 70 times from September 2007 through January 2008. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Phil, one method of dealing with this issue of levels of obscurity has involved splitting topics into basic introductory versions and advanced versions of such topics, intended for general audiences and specialized audiences, respectively. A number of examples of such bifurcation can be found at User talk:Kenosis/Research2. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that that is a very good approach, but it seems incidental to the question of the use of advanced sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us some examples of pages on specialist topics where this "methodology" has not been followed in practice or where editors have declined to follow the policy? Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Derrida summarizes difficult Derrida works. As does Jacques Lacan. In science topics, Single-molecule magnet relies primarily on scientific journal articles that require specialist knowledge to understand, and that are primary sources as they are the places where the research was first presented. I suggest anyone who supports the idea that sources requiring specialist knowledge cannot be used attempts to cut the "OR" from any of these articles and see how it goes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking over this section, I see three readings of the descriptive/interpretive distinction:

1. The distinction is meaningless (that would be me)
2. The distinction allows only things that are explicitly and clearly stated in the text, precluding any reading beyond the direct meaning of the words. (Blueboar)
3. The distinction allows only things that a reasonable editor would agree the text means. (Kenosis)

I hope I am correct, Kenosis, in reading your agreement with my comment about hidden meanings as meaning that implications that it is clearly intended that the reader will see, and that a reasonable reader would see are allowable even if they are not stated in the text.

I would suggest, however, that if three readers come to substantially different conclusions about the distinction, the language is unclear. I would like to move towards a functional test rather than a definitional one - that is, to focus on the "reasonable person" test rather than the simple definition of interpretive/descriptive. This, I think, makes the standard clear, which it is, apparently, not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You slightly misinterpret my stance. Let me rephrase it: "In order to discuss things that are not explicitly and clearly stated in the text, or to discuss any reading beyond the direct meaning of the words, you must cite a reliable secondary source for that thing or reading." In other words, we most certainly can include discussion of quite complex ideas and arguments in our articles, as long as these ideas and arguments come from a reliable secondary source. What we can not do is include our own ideas and arguments, as that would be Original Research.

I took it as obvious that we were still talking about the use of primary sources, but yes. In any case, we have three very different views. Actually four, as I'd forgotten Semitransgenic's "Primary sources cannot even be used for plot summary" view of what description/interpretation means. This is clearly a disfunctional part of the policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, perhaps this will be helpful. If you look at The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power#Synopsis, you'll note it cites only secondary works. That is how it should be; we do not rely on the views of Wikipedia editors to cull primary sources for the salient and important points, but instead rely on reliable secondary sources to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Specialist knowledge

I found the edit that inserted the "specialist knowledge" claim - it was [1]. There was no discussion prior to its insertion, and none of the discussion following (which can be read at the bottom of [2]) dealt with specialist sources. Looking at SlimVirgin's history at the time of the edit, it's clear that the edit was intended to deal with situations like this one: [3]. The case here is use of a source to support claims well beyond what was made in the source - not a case of a source targeted at a specialist audience.

I can find no evidence that this line was ever seriously thought about, considered, or worked through, or that any consensus for its insertion or intentions was ever formulated. It appears to me that it was an ill-considered insertion from the early days when policy formation was easier and done more carelessly, and one that has never been thoroughly examined.

Can anyone show any evidence that a consensus has ever been demonstrated on Wikipedia that sources aimed at a specialist audience cannot be summarized? That is, that this view formed because of active thought on the subject and not because of, to be only mildly ironic about it, interpretive claims about an undiscussed change to the policy three years ago? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, regarding the statement in your second paragraph just above, If you were unable to find evidence of serious consideration of the phrase "without specialist knowledge", that would be because you did not search through the archives covering the time period I stated above, which was "the latter part of 2007". Maybe try archives 20 through 34, and type "without specialist knowledge" into your "find" box. It's mentioned something like 70 times from September 2007 through January 2008. Far from being ill-considered and careless, t's been hashed over and over and over again. Lacking something new here, I'm going to go focus on something else for awhile. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now read all uses of the word "specialist" in all 14 of those pages. I stand by the fact that there has been minimal discussion of this issue. Furthermore, every time it has come up, it has, frankly, been controversial. In fact, I can find few discussions where this concept is in any way agreed upon. The main argument appears to be "Well if we don't have that rule in place we have no quality control because we don't check expertise." Which is a bizarre claim at best, as it seems to suggest that the available alternative - that articles should be written by people who don't understand the relevant sources - is desirable.

If a person does not understand the sources relevant to editing an article on a given topic, they have no business editing the topic. But on the other hand, it remains an absurdity to suggest that an article like single molecule magnet or Jacques Derrida can be written without going to difficult primary sources. We may as well delete both of those articles if primary sources that require specialist knowledge to understand are forbidden, because the topics are flat-out impossible to write a useful, NPOV analysis of.

Which is something you've agreed with before, it appears. The issue is that these are somehow "exception" articles. Just like, apparently, difficult works of fiction (which are another can of worms - is the issue with Finnegan's Wake that it requires specialist knowledge? It seems like not. It seems like that book isn't specialized, it's just plain hard). What I wonder is if there are not more exceptions than articles where this rule is useful. It appears to be a classic case of a rule designed for the most pathological of bad articles (in fact, we know exactly what article it was designed for - Animal rights. SlimVirgin wrote it specifically to forbid something she found frustrating on that article), with no regard to the general case. And in all of the discussions in archives 20-34, there is precious little attention paid to the general case. Has a discussion ever actually concluded with a decision regarding this? I've seen inconclusive discussions and no discussion, but as it stands, the specialist knowledge aspect of this policy appears to stand primarily on the weight of tradition - it was around for a long time, so it by default became consensus despite the fact that nobody had ever really thought about it. And even though every time it was thought about it was contentious, because it's old, it stays. This despite the fact that numerous articles, including the vast majority of our advanced topics in any academic field, routinely violate this policy in a way that I am unable to believe anyone would have a serious chance at changing were they to go in and start citing this policy.

I do not believe that the "no specialist knowledge" rule has consensus. Unless someone can show a discussion where the issue was actually worked through and the consensus among participants was that this is policy, between its dubious origins (modifying policy to solve a particular editing dispute is not a sound approach) and its routine lack of application, I am strongly inclined to remove it as a part of policy that lacks community consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I have to object to the idea that we have a "no specialist knowledge" rule. The whole point of this policy is that specialist knowledge is what we want... as long as it is cited. Put the statement about "specialist knowledge" into context an it makes far more sense... "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." This limitation only applies when we are citing a primary source, and only when there is not a secondary source being cited. It does not ban specialist knowledge. It simple says we need to cite secondary sources to support any statements that require specialist knowledge (ie we have to cite the specialists). Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonably obvious we're talking about the primary sources section here. You will forgive my saving of keystrokes in not specifying "primary sources" every other sentence. The fact remains that advanced topics in almost any academic field are uncoverable under this rule, as is well known by anyone who edits them. And yet I challenge anyone to eviscerate Deconstruction based on the fact that it is based primarily on summaries of primary sources and get that move to have consensus. Or to show that the language in this policy has ever demonstrated consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

the article Deconstruction should be completely rewritten, the lack of secondary sources is hugely problematic. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article Deconstruction is pretty good, and were you to try to slash and burn it you would be swiftly and correctly reverted. If changes to enforce policy have no chance of garnering consensus, it suggests a serious problem. It could use more secondary sources, however the summary of the main ideas of deconstruction is both pretty good and the single most important aspect of the topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"The fact remains that advanced topics in almost any academic field are uncoverable under this rule, as is well known by anyone who edits them" - I would agree that it is extremely difficult to cover advanced topics using just the Primary source... or rather it is very difficult to so without slipping into OR. However, this does not mean such topics are uncoverable. In fact, it is fairly easy to cover such topics if you use reliable secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Derrida and Deconstruction are poor examples, there are reams of secondary sources available on both topics. I beg to differ, but in both instances it would be possible to avoid using Derrida directly; there is nothing an editor can say on either subject - in the context of writing an encyclopedic article - that will not already have been published in a reliable secondary source and I'm a little suprised Phil seems to believe otherwise. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether reams of secondary sources exist, but rather whether an encyclopedic overview can be given using them entirely. Of course the secondary sources have a huge role to play in these articles. However the primary sources also have a very large role to play. That's the issue - that in addition to secondary sources, primary sources are needed to provide an encyclopedic overview. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer stated:"In science topics, Single-molecule magnet relies primarily on scientific journal articles that require specialist knowledge to understand, and that are primary sources as they are the places where the research was first presented". Academic journals are generally peer reviewed i.e. a body of experts has confirmed that such research adheres to the accepted scientific practices of one discipline or another, I don't see how you can make any comparison between this and what you were originally discussing. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that ought to also allow in Derrida's books (all published under university presses), and a host of other specialized works that come via academia. But the policy as it stands makes no such exception. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point, if there are a host of academic works, which have been peer reviewed, there is nothing to prohibit there use. In terms of Derrida as a primary source, there are many secondary sources that deal with his life and his ideas, an editor doesn't need to refer directly to Derrida's work, there simply is no need. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that's not true. One is very hard pressed to cover Derrida's work encyclopedically without going and summarizing the work. (And to attempt to do so creates a grotesque NPOV problem. For one thing, Derrida comprehensively addressed several of his critics - to the point where secondary sources generally did not continue to engage that bit of criticism. So if we work entirely from secondary sources, for instance, John Searle's attack on Derrida goes un-answered - a huge NPOV problem. Second of all, Derrida is published by university presses - the situation is analagous to single molecule magnets. If we can summarize the academic-published work on single molecule magnets in Single molecule magnet, we ought to be able to do the same with Derrida in Jacques Derrida. However, current policy seems to forbid both. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) with little effort I found Derrida, Searle, Contexts, Games, Riddles, Edmond Wright, Source: New Literary History, Vol. 13, No. 3, Theory: Parodies, Puzzles, Paradigms (Spring, 1982), pp. 463-477. This is a a secondary source that has already addressed the issue you raise. There is also Taking It Personally: Reading Derrida's Responses, Reed Way Dasenbrock, College English, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Mar., 1994), pp. 261-279. Published by: National Council of Teachers of English

For the record, having looked at the Derrida article someone is already taking libertties with OR, for example:

Derrida began speaking and writing publicly at a time when the French intellectual scene was experiencing an increasing rift between what could broadly speaking be called "phenomenological" and "structural" approaches to understanding individual and collective life. For those with a more phenomenological bent, the goal was to understand experience by comprehending and describing its genesis, the process of its emergence from an origin or event. For the structuralists, this was precisely the false problem, and the "depth" of experience could in fact only be an effect of structures which are not themselves experiential. It is in this context that in 1959 Derrida asks the question: must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?

this is a good example of why a seondary source would be preferable Semitransgenic (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I just pulled up the Dasenbrock article you cited. Of the 75 pages of Derrida's response to Searle that it summarizes, it is summarzing approximately... 10 pages of it. The vast majority of Derrida's response to Searle and engagement with him is not touched by that essay. This is typical - the problem you run into is that simply summarizing existing scholarship (such as Derrida's) is not considered meaningful scholarship for the most part, and won't get published in a journal. So people summarize the parts they're working with in their arguments, but not the rest. Sure, perhaps if we stitched together a dozen or so articles we could cover the bulk of Derrida's engagement with Searle, and thus, by summarizing all dozen piecemeal, create a patchwork summary of Derrida. I would suggest, however, that this is a staggeringly stupid way to approach the problem, and is unlikely to produce a satisfactory result. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what was the key issue of debate between Derrida and Searle? Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)