Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

extremism is not per se a valid reason to restrict the use of a source

Extremism is not the same as fringe. Fringe opinions should not be included in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a dump for anything anyone ever conceived of. However, notable opinions should be included, even if they are not consensual, and even if they are widely regarded as objectionable. Otherwise, we've got a clash here with NPOV, which asserts that all relevant opinions must be represented without bias. There is no reason why an "extremist" source be per se restricted for articles devoted to those espousing the extremist opinion.

If the source is not reliable, that's another story. For a source to be reliable, it should have been subject to independent editorial oversight and fact-checking process. If the source satisfies these requirements, the nature of the statements made by the source are immaterial. If the source does not satisfy these requirements, then it should not be used as a reliable source, regardless of whether it expresses moderate or extreme opinions. Itayb 08:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Itayb, I understand what you are saying... however, the vast majority of extremist groups are fringe groups as well. Also, the vast majority of extremist sources are unreliable for a host of reasons. I think it is proper to call all such sources "questionable". It does not mean that you may never use them... but it does mean that you should examine such sources carefully and think twice before using them. Blueboar 13:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, if extremist sources are usually fringe and usually unreliable for various reasons, then it's quite enough to guard against fringe and against all those various reasons, and the extremist sources will be naturally filtered out by these rules. Itayb 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that determining if a source is extremist or not is, in many cases, somewhat easier than determining if, for instance, they publish incorrect information in the place of facts in order to advance their agenda. The latter is true of a rather large number of extremist organisations, although you're right to question whether it should be applied to all.

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say '[t]here is no reason why an "extremist" source be per se restricted for articles devoted to those espousing the extremist opinion' -- you seem to be suggesting that extremists should be valid sources for their own opinions, but this doesn't make a lot of sense because they already are: there is an exception to the 'no questionable sources' rule specifically to allow this. If you feel the remit of this exception should be widened, can you outline cases that you think are not currently covered but which should be? JulesH 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

JulesH wrote: "The problem is that determining if a source is extremist or not is, in many cases, somewhat easier than determining if, for instance, they publish incorrect information in the place of facts in order to advance their agenda." The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material (as asserted by WP:A). Let those who wish to add an unreliable extremist source struggle to justify why it's reliable.

JulesH wrote: "you seem to be suggesting that extremists should be valid sources for their own opinions". I'm suggesting that sources be assessed without prejudice. That's all. If a source is reasonable reliable, i.e. factually accurate and logically sound, it should be admitted, regardless of its content.

I also think that reliability should be defined in a way that any reader could verify without need for specialized knowledge, just like any reader should be able to easily verify the attributability of a statement without need for specialized knowledge. Itayb 14:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with extremist or partisan websites on articles about themselves. On articles about third-parties, though, all we are saying is to exercise caution. That's all. We call these sources "questionable" and that they "pose special difficulties". The recent addition about "not normally be used" is incorrect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why extremist sources pose special difficulties. If you want to encourage caution, you don't need to make a special reference to extremist sources. Say: "All sources are questionable unless otherwise demonstrated. The burden of proof, that a source is reliable, is on the shoulders of the one who wishes to add or to retain the material." Itayb 15:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, they do. We need to provide some guidance in assessing these sources, and many of these are most definitively questionable. Not all sources are questionable until proven otherwise. A peer reviewed article by a widely recognized Sociologist is not questionable, there are so many examples. 15:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And why is it not questionable? Because it has been demonstrated, that it is peer reviewed. Until this was shown, it was just as questionable as any other source.

I don't know if many extremist sources are questionable or not. I don't know what "extremist" means, i don't know what "many" means, and i don't know how this state of affairs compares with sources which are not extremist, whatever this means. Itayb 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to read the WP:ATTFAQ#Types_of_source_material were the assessment of sources is discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I accepted it and read the piece. I don't see your point. Itayb 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there is only so much we can do in helping editors with understanding on how to evaluate sources. We are pointing out the fact that some sources which are widely recognized as extremist, should be used with caution where appropriate (e.g. in articles about themselves). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But on what grounds are you making this vague and general claim?

Let's try to clarify a couple of fundamental points:

1. What is an extremist source?

2. How can one tell/demonstrate that a source is extremist/widely acknowledged as such? Itayb 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

An extremist source would be one that all reasonable people would regard as such; that the Man on the Clapham omnibus would regard as extremist. We're talking about neo-Nazis, Socialist Workers' Party, Scientologists. We're not talking about simple bias. The term "widely acknowledged as extremist" is crucial here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"An extremist source is a source that all reasonable people would regard as such." It sounds a bit like "Linux=Linux Is Not Unix" to me. It doesn't make the meaning of the term any clearer than it had been before. Moreover, it seems to me a good vehicle for an aggressive editor to force their POV and silence opposition: "X thinks this source is extremist, X is ubiquitously regarded as a reasonable person, Y thinks this source is not extremist, so Y must be unreasonable, because all reasonable people would regard this source as extremist. If you object, you must be unreasonable as well." Itayb 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "the reasonable man" or the "man on the Clapham omnibus" is a well-known device used in law. There's no reason we can't use it here with our phrase "widely acknowledged as ..." It doesn't mean "one reasonable person thinks this." It means, for example, that you will never see Scientologists used as sources by the New York Times except in articles about Scientology. That is what we're trying to capture here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why so, i still don't understand what "extremist" means, and i still don't understand how to identify an "extremist", and i still don't understand how this whole extremist ban per holding extreme views settles with NPOV. Itayb 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is about neutrally reporting what reliable sources say, not what everyone says. Not using extremist sources, except in articles about themselves, is an important part of NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental questions remain unanswered:

1. What is an "extremist"?

2. How does one identify an "extremist", practically speaking?

3. How this whole ban on "extremists" for no other reason than their being "extremists" settles with NPOV? Itayb 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We're going round in circles. I am saying that we use our common sense. You're implying people don't have any. We'll have to agree to disagree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Common sense needs substance to chew on. Common sense is about reasoning, and reasoning cannot be productive when the basic terms are ill defined. I agree we're walking in circles. I'm trying hard to pull free from this vicious circle by starting from the ABC. I'm sorry if you feel you can't help me clarify the basic issues at hand, but this just makes my case more convincing, doesn't it? A policy should be clear and easy to follow. Meaningless terms are not conducive to these goals. Itayb 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Itayb. The word "extremist" tends to be used very subjectively and it's better not to include this word (or "fringe", "unrealistic", "overly idealistic", "overly authoritarian", etc.) in policy. I think the word "extremist" is used far more often to describe other peoples' views than it is used by anyone to describe their own views -- this is an example of its subjectivity. The word does not appear in the policies that are being merged. The closest is the phrase "an extremely tiny minority", which is a far less subjective phrase and which appears not in policy, but in the guideline WP:RS; even this less problematic phrase I would prefer to keep in guideline rather than policy. --Coppertwig 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

While I can see the dificulty with "extremist" (we seem to echo the US Supreme Court's definition of pornogaphy... "I know it when I see it") the same is not true with "Fringe"... WP:FRINGE clearly states where the line is drawn for that word as it relates to Wikipedia... if a theory or concept has been discussed by reliable manstream sources - even to disparage or disprove it - it is not "Fringe" enough for exclusion. If it is so far out there that no mainsteam source has bothered to notice and discuss it, it is too "Fringe" for inclusion. Thus, Fringe is a notability issue. Extremist is, on the other hand a reliability and NPOV issue. Blueboar 15:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The job of an encyclopedia is to document what is generally accepted, extreme/fringe sources should only be used as a primary source about the group, never to support an encyclopedic fact(imo). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not merely strive to document what is generally accepted. Where there is controversy, Wikipedia strives to document all sides of the dispute. See WP:NPOV. I object to the use of the word "extremist" in Wikipedia policy, as I stated above. --Coppertwig 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal on citing "consensus"

Please see Wikipedia:Citing consensus. Thank you.--Pharos 02:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC at WP:FRINGE

The status of the WP:FRINGE guideline has been questioned. It has been suggested that an RFC/straw poll could help determine if the guideline has community consensus or not. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#RFC - Does this guideline have consensus?.

I do hope that this is not the start of a trend of calling the status of all our various policies and guidelines into question. Blueboar 12:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines reflect the consensus of editors. Consensus can change, especially when more people become aware of a "guideline" that was written by a small group of people without widespread community input. — Omegatron 14:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I have posted the RFC... the page has been a guideline for a while, and has been cited in various AfD debates. However, that status has now been called into question. We need to find out if the guideline still enjoys community consensus... if it needs revisons to reflect current consensus (and if so what revisions)... or if it has lost all consensus and should be demoted. Blueboar 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason for not posting this at WP:RFC/POLICIES, which seems to be the most useful place for it to me? JulesH 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do... although it should be noted that the reasons for the RFC may have changed... Although originally an RFC questioning the process by which the guideline was promoted... from the comments it seems that the real issue is a content dispute over what the guideline says. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs).

Article with a LOT of Synthesis

Could someone please check out List of United States Presidential religious affiliations. It seems to me that significant sections of this article amount to an original Synthesis ... drawing conclusions about the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Presidents based upon primary sources. This isn't a POV issue. My sole concern is with such a massive WP:SYNT problem. Unfortunately, based upon my discussions about similar issues on the talk page and at related articles, I am not sure if the principal editor understands this, or sees what is wrong with the article. I am not sure how to fix this... If we cut the synth, we would basically gut the article (which is definitely noteworthy and should not be deleted). I could use some help trying to explain things and figuring out how to fix them. Thanks Blueboar 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be nitpicky here, technically the article contains original research. Original synthesis (a combination of information) is okay so long as it doesn't create new information.

Now, as far as the article content, after briefly skimming it I see a number of little bits of information that appear to be original research, or at least unverified. For example, the paragraph on Jefferson says he was primarily a Deist, but does not cite any sources which specifically mention him being a Deist, or even the word Deism. The statement that he was a Deist seems to be based on the position that his beliefs more closely matched, which is blatant OR. The paragraph on Washington, however, contains the explicit notation that one of his colleagues specifically said, "he was a Deist," which is the kind of information the Jefferson article needs.

Here's a good way to phrase it to the primary editor: if you can't back up your claims by providing one link with no other explanation, it's original research. (Not always true, but a very good rule of thumb) Or, if there's an argument that has to be provided by the editor in order to make the rationale behind the claim understandable, it's original research. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that the primary editor does not see the details as making claims... he has stated that the details are not intended to be arguments in favor of a point. I see them as doing exaclty that whether it was intended or not. I suppose it is the way the article is structured, with bullet points etc. In other words, there may be an unintended synthesis happening here. I am having difficulty explaining this to the editor in question, and could use outside comments to help us a) define the problem, and b) come to an agreement on how to fix it. Blueboar 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yukichigai. I see some unsourced claims, but I don't see any synthesis going on here, because I don't see a conclusion that is supported by the facts that are being brought together which isn't part of the point of the sources that are used (at least for those that are sourced). I haven't read the entire article, but other than the unsourced facts, I don't see a problem here. JulesH 07:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is in the structure of each section in the article... the synthesis does not take the form we normally expect (A+B+C therefor D), it reverses it... (D because A+B+C). The conclusion is up front when we say President X is Affiliation Y... the details that follow end up acting as supporting statements to demonstrate that X is a memeber of Y. I think this is unintentional, but without a citation to a source that uses these same details in the same supporting role as they do in the article, we do end up with an original synthesis. Blueboar 12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is synthesis; but I'm not sure most of it's original synthesis. In the terms of WP:ATT, it's unattributed, not unattributable. The article should certainly be resourced to standard biographies of the subjects; but if it were, the text wouldn't change all that much - only the footnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in all likelihood the material in question is more unattributed than unattributable... The possibility that the synthesis isn't original, that it can be attributed, is why I have not simply cut the material or nominated the page for AfD or something. To my mind the article, as it is currently written, has a SYNTH problem. I'm not saying that the problem can not be fixed, I am simply trying to explain to the regular editors that there is a problem in the first place - so that they will fix it. Blueboar 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ascertaining a publication's "editorial oversight" and "fact-checking policy"

How does one ascertain a publisher's "editorial oversight or fact-checking policy." For instance, do we simply send the publisher an e-mail and post their reply somewhere on WP? Is there an independent method or resource that rates/documents such?

FWIW, in particular, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Citations we've run into this question primarily regarding the Buddhist Publication Society (BPS) and, in a perhaps tangential way, regarding the Pali Text Society (PTS).

Any shared wisdom or academic techniques/standards much appreciated, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to know if a source is reliable you need to find out if reliable sources use it as a source. It is a bit circular so you will find groupings of sources that trust each other. The key is to find the most reliable sources you can that offers an opinion on the reliability of the source in question or of a source that trusts the source in question. "Trusts for what claims" is an important part of this analysis. Example:The New York Times uses physicist X as a source for information on plasma physics. X used webpage Y as a reliable source for information on some plasma device. Wikipedia can now use webpage Y for plasma claims with some degree of assurance and perhaps should indicate in a footnote the reason we are trusting this webpage if on the surface it might seem iffy like it has the word "blog" somewhere in the name of the page. When deciding, one balances the evidence to trust the source with regard to a claim versus evidence not to trust the source with regard to a claim. Evidence of a conflict of interest (say the physicist is promoting the device to make a buck) would impact this desicion greatly. WAS 4.250 16:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is very helpful. (In the case of PTS and BPS, a number of their publications have been repeatedly cited [without reservation] in university published secondary sources — which seem to be the WP gold standard — so your recommendation reduces concerns about resorting to specific PTS and BPS sources that meet this criterion.)

Two follow-up questions (feel free to answer one or more :-) ), if I may:

1. Is the "cited by reliable sources" criterion identified anywhere in WP policy?

WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(If not, can it be?) [FWIW, I do remember hearing this before in graduate school -- just don't remember it being codified anywhere. (Also, I vaguely remember there being library references that identify what is cited by what -- is this recollection correct? If so, do you know the name(s) of such references?)]

2. Could you shed some light on what is meant by the phrase "editorial oversight" in this policy-to-be?

Thanks so much again! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Editorial oversight refers to whether people other than the writer are supervising and in control of what is being published. In a newspaper, a journalist submits his work to an editor, who is in turn supervised by a number of people, right up to an editor-in-chief, who is responsible for what's published. That's editorial oversight. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi SV! Thanks so much for the very quick and informative response. It's very clear and helpful, and I very much appreciate it.

Regarding the first item ("cited by reliable sources"), it may be that I'm simply misreading WP:V (since I have significant back pain at the moment so my thinking is more limited than usual) but I'm not sure I see an answer there. I'm thinking I might have worded my question poorly. I understand that WP needs "reliable sources." My understanding is that WAS 4.250 was recommending that if an already "reliable source" (such as the NYT) makes use of a questionable source (physicist X's use of blog Y), then the citation makes the once-questionable source "(more?) reliable." This makes sense to me. I just wondering if this type of indirect, limited-context reliability is written up in any WP policy. (If it's on WP:V and I've missed it in my recent re-reads, I apologize for the additional trouble.)

Thanks again for the help! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that if a NYT article cites a questionable source it could make it "more" reliable than it was... but you can not say that nescesarily makes it automatically reliable. In a large part it would depend on the context of the NYT article. Some common sense is called for. You could certainly cite to the NYT... but whether you could cite to the blog or to the pysicist is a much greyer area. Blueboar 14:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points and I hear what your saying. Perhaps my hope for clear-cut policy on this is not reasonable. In addition, the situation being hashed out on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Citations might be somewhat peculiar to that community. Basically, we have a set of secondary sources from university presses which thus appear to meet WP's standard for "reliable sources." They then cite translations of Buddhist texts (that were originally in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, etc.) that are published by non-university publishers, in the case in question, the aforementioned PTS and BPS. PTS is a primarily British organization that goes back over a hundred years and that is dedicated to pubishing Pali texts and translations. BPS is a Sri-Lanka-based publishing house, about 50 years old, dedicated to making Buddhist texts available. Recently, an important contributor to WP Buddhism questioned BPS's reliability, partly in comparison to PTS. After he and I discussed this further (given my very favorable view of a number of BPS sources), it was hoped that there might be clear WP policy statements regarding an assessment of PTS's and BPS's reliability in these contexts. This is complicated by a number of further issues, such as: (1) if PTS and BPS are translations of primarily sources, then how do we assess the reliability of the translators? (2) PTS and BPS translations invariably have introductions and voluminous end notes by editors and translators -- how do we assess the reliability of this contextual material? (3) Someone has called into question the authority of the editor-in-chief of BPS -- so while BPS has "editorial oversight," how do we assess the reliability/accuracy of editorial staff? (4) BPS's editor-in-chief is also one of their most prolific translators -- is this thus a violation of expectations regarding "editorial oversight"?

Perhaps much ado about nothing? As always, I very much appreciate your all's feedback. Any additional insights or guidance appreciated as well. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Any reader should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia

any reader should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source.

I have reverted the above because this would mean that every reader would have to have access to every book used as a source and this would severely restrict the sources which could be used and goes way beyond asking for a verifiable source. Also what about foreign sources, not every reader is able to translate the source or has access to a translation service within their budget. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The reader could find somebody who understands the language and ask them to check it for them. All sources should be available to everyone; it might require somebody to pay for the privelege of verification, or even travel to a geographically remote library, so verification may not be practical, but it would still be possible, which is the important point. Leaving this out changes the meaning of the policy from what it is at WP:V. JulesH 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It just has to be possible; not necessarily easy or cost free or quick or online. Verifying some of our math article claims would require first taking some prerequisite math courses or going to someone who has. WAS 4.250 16:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is this clause supposed to be saying? Is it a criticism of a reader if they can not check the source? If not then what does it mean? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like it, why do you keep adding it? [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I was confused over the edits. Glad we agree on something. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

SV I am suprised by your comment in the edit history "ATT is meant to be a summary of the others; not a copy, and the reference to tertiary sources has confused people in the past which is why it wasn't included here", because surly if NOR is confusing then one should change NOR not this document. After all it does say at the top of Wikipedia talk:No original research "There are no policy innovations suggested: WP:ATT is intended be a more cohesive version of the core content policies with which the Wikipedia community is already familiar."

I also find it odd SV that you argue like this here as you previously wrote "And if the descriptions of policy are not the same, that is even worse, Philip. Please allow V and NOR to deal with their issues, and RS to deal with its own. Otherwise we have repetition, which is pointless, or inconsistency, which is worse than pointless."(Wikipedia talk:No original research#V and NOR) because any new wording here will probably lead to inconsistency, particularly as you say in the edit summary that it is only a summary and that the reference to tertiary sources has confused people in the past.

The whole argument for moving from three documents to one was that it would be less confusing, but that there was not change in policy. If this is true why not keep the wording from NOR until ATT becomes policy and there is agreement to change it? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PBS - The issue here is whether these relatively minor wording changes amount to "inovations" or a "change in Policy". I don't see the wording that what SV wants as being an innovation or a "Change in policy"... rather I see it as a rephrasing of policy in a clearer and more consice form. When you summarize something you do not change it's meaning... you simply restate it in shorter more consice form. Blueboar 18:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem to me clearer or in a more consice form. If it is, then first change the NOR and then change this to match. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What don't you see as being clearer or more consice?

If the point is for this page to summarize what V and NOR say... shouldn't the wording of this page be a summary and not identical? Why the need for word for word copying?

Or is it that you think the wording does amount to a change in policy? If so, please explain what the change is? Blueboar 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip, can you break down the section you keep adding into bits, and say of each part why you think it's better than what's currently here? Then we can deal with each thing separately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit clash got to go but I what wrote: The intention is that WP:ATT is to be a replacement for V and NOR, so if there is anything that is unclear in the NOR then as that is a current policy then that should be changed now. If ATT is not an intended replacement for V and NOR then it should use NOR wording otherwise in introduces (to quote SV) "inconsistency, which is worse than pointless." If there is no inconsistency then the wording in ATT can be put into the NOR now as you are arguing it is clearer and more consice. However I would argue that it is not clearer. For example it introduces the term Primary source before it defines it. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. ATT is a summary of NOV and V. There's therefore no point in reproducing them word for word, because then it wouldn't be a summary. Please list the separate points that you prefer in the version you keep adding, rather than the current version, then we can deal with your objections one by one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It was/is the stated intention of many to replace WP:V and WP:NOR with WP:ATT (of which I think that you SV are one). If I am mistaken on this assumption please explain you position. If you are not pre-empting the recommendations of the committee formed under Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion and saying that the option of replacement is no longer under consideration please explain how you come to that conclusion. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm losing track of what you're saying, Philip. You keep reverting to a particular version. Please say of that version exactly what you feel is better about it, point by point so we can address them. No meta discussion, please, because I can't follow it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not reverting to a particular version. I am altering this text to match the current NOR text, (If that changes then I would change the text in this article to match it). I do not think that what I wrote above is complicated. But if you are confused by anything I have written I will be more than pleased to clarify it for you. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, as you say that you are unable to follow what I have written, I think we should start off with the source text (the current policy) and go through it line by line explaining why it needs changing. This would seem a better way around than starting with changed text and trying to retrofit it back to the policy text. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What needs changing:

• This page largely uses a format of bold line giving a short description of what users should or shouldn't do followed by a more detailed explanation of what that means and why. This is easier to read as it puts the more important/interesting stuff first, keeping the readers attention and not asking them to accept on faith that what they're reading is important. It also enables easier skimming, as you can just read the text. Therefore, one change that should be made is to separate out the text that says what readers should do or not do with primary or secondary sources and put it before the description of the source type it applies to, highlighted in bold. This is not a change in policy, so can be done without needing to change the other pages (although I'd recommend changing the other pages also).
• It would be useful to have an example of the kind of way a primary source can be abused.
• The long list of primary sources is not necessary in a summary and disturbs the readability of the paragraph.
• The existing paragraph on tertiary sources does not anything relevant, and in the interests of brevity should be deleted.

I think that covers everything. JulesH 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitions should come before usage of a phrase or it is open to misunderstanding. It is not clearer to use a phrase before it is defined. What is the point of having one specific book mentioned here where it is not mentioned in the NOR? WP:RS and WP:ATT/FAQ are there to give examples.

At the top of the page it states "This page was created to serve as a combination of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources." If that is what it is then it should use the text from the NOR for this section. If not then it should just link to WP:NOR as does WP:RS Types of source material, because as SV said in the history of the WP:RS edits "don't repeat what is on policy pages; repetition is pointless if it's the same, and possibly contradictory if it ends up being changed. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jules has given a list of reasons why the summary is better. Your "rule" that the def must come before the usage is your own. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)