Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:43, 28 March 2023

Revision as of 00:27, 15 April 2023

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Essays}}

{{Archives}}

== On the “closer to the event” rule (again) ==

Isn’t ''every'' published source closer (in time) to any given event than the present? Especially if it wasn’t published in the very recent past. It seems to me that this “rule of thumb” sorely needs explaining or rewriting, or even sourcing. —[[User:Frungi|Frungi]] ([[User talk:Frungi|talk]]) 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

:I see what you mean. What we're aiming for here is that the source is closer to the event than you are to the source. So the event is in 1688, the source is in 1776, and you are in 2013: the source is primary. But if the event is in 1963, the source is in 2001, and you are in 2013, then it's at least possible that the source is not primary. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

::So the actual rule of thumb, then, is that a secondary source is no less than half as old as the event, yeah? I’d still very much like to know where that rule came from, but I’ll edit it to be more clear on that point. —[[User:Frungi|Frungi]] ([[User talk:Frungi|talk]]) 05:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

:::I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

::::Well, that ''was'' what you said, wasn’t it? Unless you’re using an odd measurement of time, or meant something other than time. I hate to keep repeating myself, but a source for that rule would definitely help my (and, no doubt, others’) understanding. —[[User:Frungi|Frungi]] ([[User talk:Frungi|talk]]) 06:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::It's more complicated than that. So the examples I gave hold true: if the [[Glorious Revolution of 1688]] is mentioned in sources written during the [[American Revolutionary War]], you must treat them as primary sources now. If JFK's assassination is mentioned in a source written shortly after the 9/11 attacks, then (depending on what the source says), that might be secondary.

:::::But there are other examples that give different proportions and won't hold true: The Gospel of Mark was written sometime late in the first century; [[Matthew Henry]] wrote his commentaries in the early 18th century; and Henry's work should still be handled as primary sources. Similarly, if the Oscars are announced on Sunday evening, and Tuesday's paper contains a truly analytical article about the winners, then you may use that article on Saturday as a secondary source, even though the source is two days away from the event and you are four days away from the source.

:::::If it were simply a matter of subtracting dates, then we could have supplied a link to an internet date calculator. But it's not simply a matter of subtracting dates. It's more complicated than that. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

::::::Hence it’s a “rule of thumb”. But it’s frankly sounding like that rule doesn’t have much value, so why include it? —[[User:Frungi|Frungi]] ([[User talk:Frungi|talk]]) 06:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::::It's helpful to people who are dealing with old documents. It is a useful way of explaining the problem to people who have found a "review article" about a historical treatment from the 19th century, for example. It's not going to be helpful to everyone. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

::::::::It's not actually helpful though. It's just leading to dispute, the reasoning in it is faulty in several ways (see earlier thread, where I explain why, though agreeing we should err on the safe side), and hardly anyone knows this page exists, so it's not providing actual advice to much of anyone anyway. (This essay needs its kinks worked out first, then to be "advertised" in the "See also" sections of all the relevant policies and guidelines and other essays.) I'll be happy to help work on this, as I've been writing [[WP:Use of tertiary sources]], and they perhaps should be merged, though their approaches are presently very different. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 20:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::I've been teaching historiography for 50 years and never came across anything remotely resembling that strange "rule." Take Abe Lincoln--died 1865 = 152 years ago, half that is 76 years = 1941. The "rule" indicates that people in the 1930s writing books and articles about President Lincoln were creating primary sources! there is zero sourcing so we can drop it. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 22:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

== Subject bias ==

This essay, especially the [[{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}#Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?|final section]], seems to lean too far toward the academic, historiographic uses of “primary” and “secondary”, rather than the definitions used by Wikipedia. In many places, it seems to be saying that the way Wikipedia internally uses the terms is somehow “wrong” because it’s different from how an academic field uses them, when really it should be about how ''Wikipedia'' uses them. I mean, the essay is in the Wikipedia: namespace, not the Historiography: namespace. —[[User:Frungi|Frungi]] ([[User talk:Frungi|talk]]) 05:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

So that section on media sources, ''is'' it ''about Wikipedia''? Because if it isn’t—if it’s about how sources are classified in a particular field of study—it really doesn’t belong on a Wikipedia-namespace page giving general direction to general editors. —[[User:Frungi|Frungi]] ([[User talk:Frungi|talk]]) 05:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

:The problem with classifying news according to "how we use it" is [[WP:Notability]]. In fact, the news section used to be a part of the section about notability.

:Once upon a time, we had a few policy editors who (in good faith) thought that 'secondary' was basically the same thing as 'independent'. So the words were used pretty much interchangeably in various policies and guidelines. That's been fixed in most of them since then. The concept of "secondary" sources crawled into [[WP:N]] sometime in 2007 (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&diff=115727151&oldid=115699605 March] (don't miss the confusion evident in that edit summary), but not [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&oldid=98138805 January]).

:Sometime later, some editors started figuring out what 'secondary' means among academics, and also figured out that we didn't actually want articles based on primary sources (as defined by most academics [there are some significant differences in academic fields]; previously, articles solely based on primary sources were explicitly permitted at NOR), and we developed a problem: if you go to NORN or RSN and ask about a source, you get a response that most academics would recognize, e.g., that eyewitness news reports are never secondary sources. But if you go to AFD and ask about the same source, you get a very different answer. The reason for this is that the [[WP:GNG]] requires secondary sources, and people "just know" that a stack of newspaper articles about whatever recent event is supposed to make their new article immune from deletion. So we get handwaving assertions that newspaper articles are secondary, even when the sources in question are plainly primary sources (and plainly not what the GNG wants from a secondary source).

:Short of convincing people to re-write the GNG, I don't believe that we can produce a single answer of "how Wikipedia uses them". We have two definitions. One is fairly close to how historiography defines it, and the other is what early versions of this page called [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources&oldid=451082246 "Please don't delete this article sources"]. This second definition is actually wrong: it is not what academics say, it is not what our own policy at NOR says, and it is not what editors at WT:N claim they mean. But it is nonetheless a pervasive claim at AFD. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

::In other words, we have ''one'' definition, and then we have a misunderstanding of the concept. —[[User:Frungi|Frungi]] ([[User talk:Frungi|talk]]) 06:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

:::If you don't want to say that we have two incompatible definitions (NOR vs N), I would say that we have one definition (which is not exactly the same as the definition used by any particular academic field, although it's closest to the historians'), one dramatic misuse of that definition that is widely supported, and a serious lack of education.

:::Or, to go back to your original comment: yes, we're saying that the way Wikipedia internally uses the terms is frequently wrong, because it ''is'' frequently wrong, and wrong even according to Wikipedia's own official definition in the policy, not just according to academics' definitions. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

::::I’m sorry, I thought you were saying the misuse in AFD was the second definition rather than [[WP:NOR]]/[[WP:N]]. That’s probably my sleep-deprived fault. Though “secondary sources” in the GNG links to NOR rather than giving its own definition, so I’m still not seeing it. —[[User:Frungi|Frungi]] ([[User talk:Frungi|talk]]) 07:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::The 'definition' actually used at AFD, and blamed on WP:N, has nothing to do with NOR. The link to NOR is simply ignored. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

:I strongly agree with the concern raised in the original post. It's okay for us to explain (more briefly) how some other contexts use these terms, but this essay should not be advocating or imposing them, or even dwelling on them. WP has its own meanings and criteria for these classifications, and if this essay continues to buck them, it should be userspaced. I think it has the potential, after a lot of cleanup and reworking, to be very useful, but the first step in this process is going to have to be normalizing it to Wikipedia's own internal voice. I appreciate WhatamIdoing's historical view of how problems have arisen, but agree with Frungi's "In other words, we have ''one'' definition, and then we have a misunderstanding of the concept." Our "job" with a page like this is to figure out what is clearly intended in policy, explicate and apply it better, and disabuse people of the incorrect interpretation. If we do this really well and still come to the conclusion that one policy or guideline or the other needs a wording tweak, it should not be an insurmountable challenge to get that taken care of. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 20:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

== Ancient historians ==

I have just discovered an article on ancient history ([[Dacia]]) seriously (with a straight face, if articles had faces) citing ancient historical writings. Headdesk. It should be obvious that these are not citeable sources for Wikipedia (at least for everybody who has a clue about the methodology of historical research: ''any'' source older than about 1950 cannot be taken at face value, even if it was written by an academic historian), but obviously it is not. Perhaps this point merits an explicit mention somewhere. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 00:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, it should. Ancient writings can be used as primary sources in limited ways, but we would never literally cite directly to them, but to a modern, translated edition with analysis, or better yet simply to a secondary source that analyzes it as a topic. It would be perfectly fine to cite a secondary source at analyzed the poems, for assertions a WP article makes about on the meaning of a passage in "[[Sir Gawain and the Green Knight]]", while also using and properly referencing J.R.R. Tolkien's translation of the poem to provide illustrative quotations in the article, if we like his version better that some other translation. In neither case would we cite the ancient manuscript itself. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 20:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

::Agreed. "Ancient" is perhaps too narrow, considering that, as the OP pointed out, most historical scholarship before the mid-20th century is seriously problematic, with respect to both factual accuracy and POV. I have seen an alarming number of articles on WP referenced entirely to 19th century sources, despite a wealth of recent scholarship from the past two decades. There is really no excuse, considering how drastically changed our views of many of these subjects are today. "Prefer recent sources unless the older source is still considered more authoritative/accurate by experts today" would be my take on it. In an ideal world, I'd also like to see a cleanup template for articles that rely too much on outdated scholarship. I want to see what others have to say on it first though. --[[User:Difference engine|<span style="color:darkred;">'''diff'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Difference engine|talk]]) 01:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

== Use of primary peer reviewed sources from prominent minority views that seem to contradict secondary sources from majority view. ==

I am seeing some editor debate on articles I wanted to improve, and there seems to be a lot of push back on minority views in contentious medical areas. (Lyme disease)

I think I have demonstrated that the minority view has multiple prominent adherents, and that there are at least 100 peer reviewed papers that support some of the minority claims. By the very nature of being a minority, there are only some primary sources. But in order to make verifiable claims with appropriate weight, this requires apply some number of primary sources. There are usually multiple papers to cite, but of course none of them come from the medical societies that are driving the mainstream view.

All positions seem realistic, and the growing body of research is advancing the state of the disease on both sides, so it seems important to cite medical research in the context of the minority view.[[User:Bob the goodwin|Bob the goodwin]] ([[User talk:Bob the goodwin|talk]]) 08:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

:Sorry but this is the wrong approach. Please see the intro to [[WP:MEDRS]]. We need to present in Wikipedia mainstream views on health-related issues. There are some who go so far to say (and I am pretty close to this position myself), that if health-related content cannot be supported by a reliable secondary source it should not be in Wikipedia at all - we are not a medical debating society - we are an encyclopedia presenting ''knowledge'' to the public. It is OK to represent significant minorities but they must be presented that way, and only as represented in reliable secondary sources. I don't know how closely you follow the primary biomedical literature but there is a huge percentage of primary studies that turn out not to be replicable. In other words, that are not reliable science. That is one of the big reasons why we need to hew closely to the scientific consensus wherever we can find it. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

== medicine is different ==

[[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]] cuols be added somewhere here as it seems different <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/49.49.40.207|49.49.40.207]] ([[User talk:49.49.40.207|talk]]) 13:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Spinach ==

[http://sss.sagepub.com/content/44/4/638.full This] is a fantastic read regarding how important it is that when we use secondary (or later) sources, we should always attempt to trace back to the original source to ensure that it says what we're asserting it says. This is a staggeringly common problem on Wikipedia. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 08:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks for sharing that Chris... it was fascinating. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 22:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

== Plato and Socrates etc. ==

An interesting point has come up in [[Socrates]]. Is Plato a reliable source for the life of Socrates? Plato will have to be used of course, but should he be the main source, to the exclusion of modern sources. It has been argued that these later sources generally rely on Plato anyway, and so it would be better to use Plato directly. I would argue that modern sources are necessary because Plato might well be considered as a primary source for Socrates, and we need other sources to explain him. The same sort of argument might be made about eg. Boswell and Johnson. [[User:Myrvin|Myrvin]] ([[User talk:Myrvin|talk]]) 08:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

:You are asking two separate questions... 1) is Plato '''a''' reliable source for the life of Socrates? Yes. An article on Socrates that did not mention (and thus cite) Plato would be incomplete. 2) Should Plato be '''the''' (main) source? Probably not. Certainly, where modern scholarship disagrees with Plato, we should highlight the discrepancy. The same would be true for Boswell and Johnson. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 22:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

== conflict of interest ''of a source'' ==

{{u|WhatamIdoing}} back in March 2013 you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources&diff=next&oldid=542089226 the following edit], adding the underlined text: "It is a third-party or independent source<u>, with no significant financial or other [[conflict of interest]].</u> That sentence is part of a bulleted list, introduced by: "According to our [[:Category:Wikipedia content guidelines|content guideline]] on [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|identifying reliable sources]], a reliable source has the following characteristics:". [[WP:RS]] doesn't say anything about conflict of interest of a source. I am not sure what this means in the context of [[WP:PAG]] broadly speaking. Can you please say more, about what you meant? thx [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

:For a source to be independent, it has to be uninvolved in the issue, by definition. That would obviously include COI. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah (SV)]] <small>^{[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]}</small> 21:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

:i understand that you are interested in getting clarity on issues around COI and sourcing. I am too.

:I don't know what it meant ''to WAID'' to say that a source has a COI, so I asked her.

:about your statement, SV... Authors can have a COI (they are required to disclose it). Funding of research used by authors to do research that is published in a source can influence the results/conclusions conveyed in the source; that funding is also disclosed in the source itself. A source can be SPS and not independent of its author... all three of those things are understandable to me. WP:RS only deals with the third of them. I don't understand what "a source has to be uninvolved in the issue" means, concretely, to you, nor what it means to you to say that a source has a COI. What does that mean to you? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

:I see you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources&type=revision&diff=665383260&oldid=665381362 restored] the content. i still don't know what that means. this is just an essay, not a big deal. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

::Hi [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]],

::Actually, WP:RS stresses the need for third-party sources. The [[WP:BIASED]] section specifically mentions financial COIs. On the English Wikipedia, ''third party'' and ''independent'' are used interchangeably, so everything it says about third-party sources is also about independent sources. (There is [[User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox_3#Third-party_versus_independent|a technical difference]], but conflating the two pretty much only bothers lawyers.)

::Given the relatively poor state of [[WP:INDY]] and [[WP:THIRDPARTY]] (which I still hope to merge some day, as soon as I find another 30 hours or so to spare), my goal in that edit was to help people understand what it means for a source to be independent/third-party. The main source of non-independence is having some sort of COI.

::It's really important to remember that we're talking about COI, not WP:COI. This is about the sort of real-world COI that an ethical author would disclose in a research article, not the sort of COI that a Wikipedia editor has.

::"Source" has three meanings on the English Wikipedia: author, publisher, and document. A document probably can't have a COI, but both authors and publishers can and do (even when they're not the same entity/self-published). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

:::Thanks for writing here {{reply to|WhatamIdoing}}. I read BIAS before I wrote here. What BIAS says is: "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs". In other words, "financial beliefs". Which is not saying financial COI. And which I found to be strange and strained. I'm also trying to reconcile your dif above, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&diff=prev&oldid=352252782 this dif]] at MEDRS, where you added to MEDRS the following: "Do not reject a high-quality ''type'' of study because you personally disagree with the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." [[WP:MEDINDY]] seems to be focused on FRINGE stuff not on any kind of financial COI. In [[Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_8#Question_about_a_journal|this thread]] in the WT:MEDRS archives you argued that a third party/independent analysis doesn't read on the composition of a journal's editorial board. I think it would be very helpful if our guidelines and essays on sources dealt clearly with what a COI or lack of independence in a source (publisher, authors, funding too) is and looks like. Am not asking for a definition to wikilawyer but rather just some clear and coherent discussion of it.

:::In my own editing, I strive to use sources that are what I view as independent as best as I can define that (again I think our guidance is weak). As an example, there is a discussion about sourcing for a statement about the relative safety of GM food. Two of the most recent reviews (published in peer reviewed journals) are authored by Monsanto scientists: {{PMID|25972882}} and {{PMID|24579994}}; I wouldn't cite them on this, nor would I cite other sources by advocates with clear financial ties like [[Jon Entine]] or something put out by [[Biotechnology Industry Organization|BIO]] nor an SPS by an advocacy group like [http://coalitionforsafeaffordablefood.org/benefits-of-biotechnology/ this]. The current content does cite a review in a solid, peer-reviewed journal by [[Pamela Ronald]], a University of California scientist who is very well regarded and who does a lot of public outreach about GM food - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120150/ that review] cites funding by the NIH and the DoE. I think SV's [[Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Funding|question at WT:MEDRS]] about how we should handle funding of published research (especially of reviews) is a good one, and I would like our discussion of independence/third party/BIAS to present a coherent picture that everybody can make sense of and follow. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 11:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

:::* If you read BIAS as applying to "financial beliefs" rather than financially motivated sources of bias, then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources&diff=534579697&oldid=531328734 I] did a poor job of writing it (hardly surprising; I started with a bold effort and didn't get many suggestions for improvements in the subsequent discussions).

:::* Independence (intellectual, financial, and otherwise) is good. It's not an absolute requirement. A systematic review with "tainted" funding (from your POV) is not unreliable, and is not worse than a case study that "pure" funding (from your POV). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

::::i agree 100% that independence is good. it is just a matter of saying what that means relatively clearly. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::So far, I think that "relatively clearly" is going to take between two and three thousand words. This place on this page can reasonably include about half a sentence on the subject. Assume that the main goal is to help inexperienced people remember that [[WP:Secondary does not mean independent]] and that ''self-published'' doesn't mean non-independent. What would you tell them that ''independent'' means? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for asking! I think it would be more clear if we changed this from

::::::* from: third-party or independent source, ''with no significant financial or other [[conflict of interest]].''

::::::* to: third-party or independent source, ''where the authors or publisher have no significant financial or other [[conflict of interest]].''

::::::Might it be useful to add to the beginning of the short paragraph following the list, something like: "A source that has all these characteristics is optimally reliable; a source that lacks one of these characteristics is less reliable; consider finding a better source, and if you must use the source, use it only with care and with attribution."? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 09:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::{{u|WhatamIdoing}} thoughts on that? I know you are busy working on BRD which may be promoted to a guideline but didn't want to let this fall by the wayside. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::::If you are willing to change the ''where'' to something like ''for which'' (because a source is not a geographic ___location ;-) then I think that all of your suggestions here would be significant improvements. Be bold. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Jytdog, I would object to that change. Authors and publishers are not the only sources of COI, as we've discussed elsewhere. Although COI funding would normally give the authors a COI, a situation could arise where it seems not to. Another example is where an author's source has a COI unknown to the author (a history book written on the basis of a conflicted primary source). And on WP, if someone makes an edit by more or less copying over material written by a paid advocate, neither the editor/author nor WP has a COI, but the article has been affected by COI.

:::::::What is the purpose of changing the wording? [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah (SV)]] <small>^{[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]}</small> 05:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::b/c COI ''of a source'' is not meaningful. a document cannot have a COI. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 06:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::SV, I'm not looking at this as the be-all and end-all of the definition. I'm just trying to get half a sentence or so to give people an idea of what we mean. How would you explain INDY sourcing to someone who has no idea what we're talking about? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

== Name change to Identifying and using primary sources ==

This essay was titled, "[[Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources]]". I just changed it to [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources]].

Using secondary sources is the norm, and practically all guidance and policies on Wikipedia editing refers to secondary sources. As this essay says, "primary does not mean bad" and "secondary does not mean good", but usually it does, and if anyone has come to this essay they have gone through the basics and want more nuance. This essay does not try to describe the common case in Wikipedia of using "reliable sources". Instead it is a place for describing the use of exceptional cases - sources which are not [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], and which are primary and under the rule of [[WP:PRIMARY]].

I would like to eliminate the suggestion that anyone should come here to learn to identify and use secondary sources. This is a guide for distinguishing between primary and secondary in confusing cases, but usually there is no confusion, and usually the situation is clear. I think this page's focus should be

#identifying primary sources

#distinguishing primary and secondary sources, if immediate identification is not easy

#using primary sources

I think this essays focus should not be

#Basics of using [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], which is the common case covered elsewhere

#characteristics of secondary sources outside the context of distinguishing them from primary

The part most lacking in this essay is usage instructions and use case examples for primary sources. I think this page is the best place for that kind of content. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 19:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

:[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]], I'm not sure that I agree with the move since this essay is about identifying and using secondary sources in addition to identifying and using primary sources. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 21:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

:Agree. {{u|Bluerasberry}} and {{u|Flyer22 Reborn}}, this should be moved back. The page isn't only about primary sources. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small>^{[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]}</small> 22:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

::{{u|Flyer22 Reborn|SlimVirgin}} Could either or both of you respond to the idea that using "secondary sources" is the default norm in Wikipedia and implied when sources are discussed, when this page seems to be talking about the different and special case of using primary sources? I can agree that this page includes more than discussion of primary sources, but I feel that this page is different from almost all other pages because it discusses primary sources when that is not the norm.

::An analogy would be calling this page "Identifying and using a special sort of source". Technically it is correct to say "Identifying and using the usual sorts of sources and a special sort of source", but I feel that the second title is a bit misleading because this the focus of this page is the special case, and this is not the place to learn about the norm. What do you think? [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 03:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:::I don't feel strongly about the title, but I doubt your assertion that secondary sources are "the norm" (in the statistical sense of being the most common in actual use, rather than the theoretically preferred type; check any current politician's or celebrity's article for the number of primary sources in use), and I think that [[WP:NOTGOODSOURCE]], which is mostly about secondary sources, is one of the more popularly cited sections. Either of those could be reasons to move the page back. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:::[[User:Bluerasberry|Bluerasberry]], I simply think that the previous title is more accurate. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 15:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

::::I can confirm that many Wikipedia articles use primary sources. When I referred to "the norm", I meant to refer to Wikipedia guideline pages like [[WP:RS]], which I feel talk about secondary sources as the norm and to not anticipate primary sources. Like for example, when notability guidelines talk about citing sources, they want a certain number of secondary sources and not for example self-published biographical information and accomplishment lists as commonly seen in politician and celebrity articles.

::::I still fail to understand why the page should be titled in such a way that suggests that this would be a place for people to come to learn about secondary sources. If someone wanted information about secondary sources, I think that I would send them to [[WP:RS]] or almost any of the other help pages talking about reliable sources, and if someone wanted information about primary sources, then I would send them to this page. Do you not share my perception that this page is unusual for addressing primary sources, and that in general, help pages like [[WP:RS]] talk about secondary sources? [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 15:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

:::::As I said, I don't feel strongly about the title. Either way is okay with me. I agree that before I started this page, there was very few pages explaining primary sources (and most of what we have on secondary sources is an exhortation to use them, rather than practical information on how to identify them).

:::::(Notability cares more about independence than historiographical classification. We could delete a significant number of articles on businesses and living people if the existence of two true secondary sources were actually required.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

::::::I am willing to support the judgement of any new person to join this conversation, if that path to resolution would satisfy others involved. This would be like [[WP:3O]]. Otherwise, anyone else currently participating could propose their own path to resolution of this. I care a little but this is not worth so much conversation. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 15:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

== Primary sources in organizations ==

Previously the "primary sources from businesses" example said that it was okay to make some limited promotional claims if they were true. The example was, "sells more products than others in the region". I do not ever recall a time when this was allowed. I removed this.

Some people find it controversial to allow any primary sources from businesses, but I just listed some facts commonly taken from primary sources which I think usually are allowed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_and_using_primary_sources&type=revision&diff=730555377&oldid=730554931 See my edit]. The facts that I listed are these -

*annual revenue

*number of staff

*physical ___location of headquarters

*status as a parent or child organization to another

As a further explanation -

*Having the annual review of an organization differentiates small organizations with a low annual budget from massive corporations with huge budgets. It is useful context to provide some measure of money, and this information often is only in an annual report

*similarly, number of staff can be a measure of the size of an organization. Sometimes on Wikipedia it is difficult to differentiate companies with no staff from those with hundreds. List the number outright when it is available in primary sources.

*Knowing the ___location of a company is useful like the nationality of a person. It can be misleading for multinational, multi-site organizations but in many cases country matters and GPS coordinates are welcome

*If one organization is controlled by or controlling others then it is useful to note relationships, in the same way that primary sources for biographies often note family relationships not otherwise established in secondary sources.

All of these are grey area but in my experience this information is routinely included from primary sources. Furthermore - this sort of information is often desired to be hidden by many companies, which limits the potential for abuse that is common about sharing other organizational information. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 19:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

== Photos on Commons are primary sources ==

It is a quirk of Wikipedia to need to address this but photos on Commons are typically original research without verification and primary source material included in Wikipedia articles.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_and_using_primary_sources&type=revision&diff=730554931&oldid=730554570 I just added a statement that this is okay]. I am not sure where or how this has been addressed elsewhere, but now it is here. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 19:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

== All citations removed ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_and_using_primary_sources&type=revision&diff=730557043&oldid=730555377 I just removed all the citations to external sources] for this article. There were 5, and they seemed to all go to university library websites describing the difference between primary and secondary sources.

4 of the links were dead. I did not bother to try to find their updates, archived version, or any replacement. [http://trojan.troy.edu/library/assets/tutorial/graphics/module7/mod7-005five.html One link was alive], but since it is published in the outdated format of a 1990s website, it is obvious that it is obsolete content.

This is an essay which will be used mostly by experienced Wikipedians. I have regularly seen young Wikipedians, high school and early college, easily outthink university librarians regarding the difference between primary and secondary sources from the perspective of good practice in Wikipedia editing. At this point, I think easier to understand, more comprehensive, and more applicable "primary versus secondary" explanations can be found in Wikipedia's own editing guides than in any homemade university writing center guide. This essay is kind of old - I also removed notes which said, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_and_using_primary_sources&type=revision&diff=730554427&oldid=730554319 Wikipedia is not the real world]", which is Wikipedia community jargon from the time when it was imagined that Wikipedia is a fringe community. Nowadays Wikipedia has its own extensive in-house documentation on these things.

If anyone finds a good external link, share it, but I think these are not necessary. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 19:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

:

: Unfortunately, not only is removing these citations (dead links or no) extremely unhelpful for readers who may wish to check the sources, but quoting a non-free source without any citation or attribution is likely to be a copyright violation (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria]]). I've suggested a possible way to improve sourcing for this section under {{section link||WP:PRIMARYNEWS}} below. —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 18:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

::{{u|Sangdeboeuf}} Confirmed - if I had this to do over again I would have deleted the content along with the citations. I was careless about that. I will comment about changes below where you made a proposal. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

== "The first published source for any given fact is often considered a primary source." ==

"The first published source for any given fact is often considered a primary source" is not a true statement - it should be "often" not always. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources&oldid=prev&diff=735544977 Disagreement]?

A very common case is the publishing of research analysis (secondary source) while keeping the original study data unpublished. The presumption behind the above statement is that primary sources have to be published before secondary sources are published, and this is not correct. Secondary sources can be based on unpublished primary sources, leaving the reader to wonder if it is possible to find the primary source elsewhere.

Perhaps this entire sentence could be omitted just because it makes a sweeping debatable generalization. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 10:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

:[[User:Bluerasberry|I]] don't disagree with saying that it's "always", but it seems to be one of those things that depends upon the field. Regardless of whether such a source actually "is" primary (according to whatever definition is preferred by any given speaker), the fact remains that on Wikipedia such a source "should be treated as" primary (i.e., used carefully, without giving too much weight to it). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

== Illustration ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources&oldid=prev&diff=735542514 I used a familiar example]. It was replaced with a copyrighted work that is hardly known.

Can the example be something that can be seen in Wikimedia Commons? Wiki favors free content. I do not understand the bit about removing pictures to increase diversity, and think that if art is mentioned at all then it should be shown. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 10:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

:I'm not sure that there's any advantage to showing the art work (we don't give excerpts from the other primary sources, after all), especially when the title itself provides all of the description that's needed to understand the example. I also have a bias in favor of using examples that don't conform to the "white male as default", especially when the examples are relatively unimportant.

:I'm also not sure that we're helping users optimally by showing a picture of antique travel diary. A modern blog or a travelogue in a magazine is equally a primary source. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

== WP:PRIMARYNEWS ==