Wikipedia talk:No original research/Primary v. secondary sources discussion/Archive 2

Primary and Secondary sources

Okay, I firmly disagree with those editors who claim that prior to my edit a couple of days ago, Wikipedia treated primary and secondary sources equaly. My position is that the paragraph that ests two conditions for the use of primary sources marks a significant and major difference in our standards for using primary versus secondary sources. I believe anyone who claims that the longstanding concensus at Wikipedia was to hold the use of primary and secondary sources to the same standards is simply wrong.

My intention in my edit was merely to make the first paragraph (more general) more consistent with the second paragraph (which was more specific). A secondary intention was to reorganize the contents so the two paragraphs disucssed the use of primary sources first, and secondary sources second (since we defined them in that order). I want to be clear about my intentions in the hope that even those editors who disagree with me will accept the edit in good faith, not as an attempt to change the policy.

After reading much talk, I came to understand why some people felt my edit was too harsh. Following Gerry Ashton´s constructive suggestion, I added the word predominantly, so it is now clear that I did not mean to suggest an exclusive ban on primary sources (to repeat: my view has never changed; they are acceptable when they comply with the two conditions in the second paragraph, which has long been part of the policy consensus). Wjhonson independently made an edit or two that I consider improvements.

Just in case someone wants to search for something, search for 'Gerry', not 'Gregory'. --Gerry Ashton 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely believe we can reach an acceptable compromise. I think my reordering the material so as to discuss primary sources and then secondary sources makes sense. I also continue to insist that the the both paragraphs must be consistent, and that our core policy with regards to primary sources is set in the two conditions, exemplified by apple pie and current events. To anyone here who thinks that my wording can still be misread as prohibiting any use of primary sources I want you to know that this is not my intention and I will gladly work towards a compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see that your edit did anything but clarify the wording, so I'm a bit confused about all the reverting that's going on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But it didn't clarify it, it confused it. The apple pie example is absolutely *not* the only way in which primary sources can be used. That is an example of the extreme edge where *only* primary sources would need to be used. To use the extreme example to invalidate all other uses is a problem. Wjhonson 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish to endorse Wjohnson's change from "Original research that draws…" to "Research that draws…" The paragraph goes on to say "However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources…" Of course, primary source based research that satisfies both conditions isn't original research at all, and it shouldn't be labeled as such. --Gerry Ashton 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that was my edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please give an actual example of a legitimate use of primary-source material that you feel would be excluded by the edit Slrubenstein made? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Slim) Okay, I want to be constructive here. Wjhonson, I suggest - in good fath - that you go through featured and former featured articles (since presumably no one would dispute their compliance with policy) and find one or two more examples of use of primary sources. We can then add the examples to that of apple pie and current events. Also, by picking one or two examples from featured or formerly featured articles, we can ask what principles guided the use of primary sources and perhaps add to the conditions under which primary sources can be used. How do you and others feel about this as a method? Can we agree that if primary sources have been used in featured articles, then the principles guiding their usage in those cases can guide us here? Also, Wjhonson, I am trying to be open to your concern. Do you understand my concern? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest Wjhonson stick to recently featured articles, because older ones were passed with somewhat lower standards when it came to sourcing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Okay, Slim and I agree. Do you, WJhonston? If so, we may have the basis for a working solution to this conflict, and a way to improve the section. I still hope you understand my concerns or take them in the same good faith I take yours. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a straw-man argument - the "apple pie" and "current events" examples were for the case of articles "based entirely" on primary sources. No one is suggesting that we change the policy for non-trivial articles requiring use of some secondary sources. - O^O 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Even WP:RS, which is intended simply to expand on the fundamental points made in V and NOR, says: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Anything that deprecates primary bibliographic sources is not acceptable in the real world, and should not be acceprable here. WP's very reputation is at stake. Jon Awbrey 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Before this turns into another navel-gazing exercise, could those who feel Slrubenstein's edit signals the end of the world as we know it please provide one actual example, from a real article, of the use of primary-source material that was fine before, but which his edit would have disallowed? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Slrubenstein, et al - It is always possible for two people to read the same text and come away with different opinions of what it means. It appears that, perhaps, the existing text was being understood in radically different ways by the editors here. But clearly, the edits that Slrubenstein innocently made in his attempt to "clarify" are being seend as a major change by a cadre of editors here - a change that I for one do not endorse.

Slrubenstein above refers to "the paragraph that ests two conditions for the use of primary sources" - to my reading there has never been any such paragraph that establishes general conditions for the use of primary sources. Instead there is a paragraph that lays down requirements for the narrow case where an article is going to be "entirely based" on primary sources.

The policy has long included the text "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged" - (my emphasis on "primary sources .. strongly encouraged".

Put simply; the existing policy put primary and secondary sources on equal footing, strongly encouraging the use of both, with the narrow exception that articles could not generally be based exclusively on primary sources. - O^O 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, would anyone who objects please give a concrete example of an edit that would have been allowed before Slrubenstein's edit, but which would not have been allowed after it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here you go: the last paragraph of this section would not have been an issue before (as the article is not based entirely—or even significantly—on primary sources), but would (in my view) not comply with the stricter standard that any edit "drawing from primary sources" must make only "descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge". (This is based, obviously, on my interpreting that a contemporary historical account qualifies as a primary source here.) Kirill Lokshin 22:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, that's too much to read. Please pick out a couple of sentences, say what the source is, and why it would have been disallowed by Slrubenstein's edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The most obvious example would be:

Clement VII, who had meanwhile become convinced that the Emperor's growing power was a threat to his own position in Italy, sent envoys to Francis and Henry VIII suggesting an alliance against Charles.

which is sourced from Francesco Guicciardini's History of Italy (which was written at the time, and which would, in my opinion, be termed a primary, rather than secondary, source). Because this (the underlying statement, not its presence in Guicciardini's account) is obviously not something "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult", it would have been disallowed—even though Guicciardini's work is generally considered by historians to be a very accurate one. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Francesco Guicciardini was a historian. Using him as a source is perfectly acceptable so long as you stick to what he actually said. What kind of edit based on his material would have been allowed before Slr's edit that would not have been allowed after it, and why? Here is the diff showing Wjhonson's most recent revert [1] Please tell me which part of that edit would have caused the problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that last change seems quite pedantic; I was assuming you were referring to the change made here, which goes from "based entirely on primary sources" to "drawing on primary sources". Hence, the question of whether citing anything from a primary source—even in cases where this material is not significant to the article as a whole—is permitted in cases where the point being cited isn't "easily verifiable". (I'll point out that I may be misinterpreting what "verifiable" means here: does it mean only that the statement is properly cited from a primary source, or that the fact being cited is itself easily verifiable? If only the first version is applicable, than I have absolutely no issues with the change.) Kirill Lokshin 23:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: It is not just about the strictest sensible interpretation of the policy, as "sensible" or "experienced" scholars and reporters would naturally read it, and hardly even dream of reading it otherwise. It must be an educational, explanatory document, that leaves no room for the most popular misreadings among unexperienced editors, who have an unfortunate tendency to gang up and form their own "concensus" [sic] on pop articles, overriding all "sensible" customs and practices. The recent changes by SLR have opened a host of new loopholes in this respect. Jon Awbrey 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon, please give an example. I want to know that we're dealing with a real issue here, and not the usual theorizing that some editors (you included) engage in on this talk page without any real understanding of how theory and practise interact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: That's funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you. I was about to ask you what part of WP you actually write artcles in, that is so idyllic, so I could go and work there! I will look up some SOB-stories and get back to you later tonight. Jon Awbrey 22:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not constructive, and doesn't improve your stock here. If you're not going to contribute constructively you should spend your time developing a better understanding of the existing policies and how they interrelate before setting off rewriting them. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The change Rubenstein advocated would remove the use of primary sources for all articles *except* those few examples and their ilk. That is not however, the way in which the articles have been historically writen. Rather, most articles are almost entirely unsourced, so let's stick to the ones with good sources. These it turns out, are a mixture of secondary and primary sources. You are, for example, suggesting, that in an article on King Alfred we cannot quite the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which is a primary source. That is simply a ridiculous position. The admonition against primary sources was strictly to deal with cases where people drew exclusively from primary sources. It was not to limit the use of primary sources to solely those cases. If an article on George Bush says "Rush Limbaugh says 'Bush is fat'" and the actual text on Rush's page says "Bush is flat" then we can certainly link to that actual quote on what he did or didn't say. Wjhonson 22:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff showing your latest revert. [2] Please explain to me how the version you reverted could possibly have "remove[d] the use of primary sources for all articles *except* those few examples and their ilk," in a way that the policy didn't already disallow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein has clarified above that he did not intend to prohibit the use of primary sources. Unless anyone believes that a prohibition is what is intended here, I suggest we move on.

What I believe the issue here is that primary sources are being deprecated below secondary sources, while that has never been the policy of NOR. If anyone believes that I am mistaken here, I welcome being pointed to established text, in this article that makes it clear that primary sources were less preferred than secondary sources.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the "apple pie" and "current events" examples apply only to the narrow case where an article is going to rely exclusively on primary sources.

In general, I support Slrubenstein's attempt to make the paragraphs flow more cleanly, my objection is to any phrasing that suggests in any way that primary sources are less desirable than secondary sources. - O^O 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The version of the policy from 11:50 23 August 2006 stated "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." This differed from earlier versions which strongly encouraged both primary and secondary sources. The featured article Central processing unit reference section contains 9 references, 4 of which I classify as primary, 4 secondary, and one I can't decide about. So this featured article is allowed, but not strongly encouraged, by the 11:50 23 August 2006 version of the policy. --Gerry Ashton 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

SL is right, Wikipedia has historically not viewed primary and secondary sources equally. Over the last year myself and other have repeatedly told others that secondary sources were preferred to primary sources, many, many times. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The policy here has never stated that secondary sources were preferred to primary sources. If you believe I am wrong, please show me the revision of this article that made such a distinction. - O^O 23:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, but you ignored me, WP:RS states clearly that: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." You made a significant change to WP:NOR on March 1, 2006, that perhaps others didn't notice. You changed "we report what other reliable secondary sources have published ..." to "we report what other reliable primary and secondary sources have published ..." [3] So you do know that that's what the policy said and will say again when protection is lifted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please, "ignore" could imply I saw your comments and choose not to respond. I assure you, I am constrained by my ability to keep up with the discussion, not by selectively reading. The change to WP:RS you refer to was made in April of this year. As you know WP:RS is guideline (not policy). In addition, an opinion in WP:RS as to the meaning of WP:NOR is not controlling over the content of the WP:NOR article itself. My inclination, once things are settled here, is to insure that WP:RS reflects what the consensus here.

Regarding the "significant change" of March 1, I believe you are representing it out of context. That change immediately went through several revisions by several editors (including yourself) and the final language agree to by all parties was similar to the language before I edited [4]. Frankly, the aggressiveness shown by the parties involved dissuaded me from making any contributions here until these latest changes appeared. Further, if you read that paragraph in context with the immediately following paragraph, you will see that it does not give primary sources preference over secondary sources, but instead discusses how the sources are used. - O^O 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, actually my copyediting wasn't done. It appears that the form that is there now, would even exclude any direct quote which provides an analysis. On a page for Abraham Lincoln, we could not quote him saying : "Apple pies are good" since that is an analytic statement. That is ridiculous. Quotes from primary sources by the subject, on the subject, are always allowable. Full stop. There are no exceptions where a quote by the subject, on the subject's own page would be disallowable in my view. Wjhonson 23:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that the objectors simply don't know how to use sources. How would writing: "Abraham Lincoln believed that apple pies are good," [link to source] amount to an "analytic statement"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I have overlooked it, I don't see any new proposals here for how to phrase the paragraphs in question. Here is my attempt to clarify the language in question: - O^O

Original research, as defined above, is not allowed on Wikipedia.

All articles on Wikipedia are to be based on information collected from published primary and/or secondary sources. Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged on Wikipedia.

Without citing published secondary sources, a Wikipedia article cannot make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims. For this reason, articles exclusively citing primary sources can make only uncontentious descriptive claims that can be easily verifiable by any reasonable editor.

I appreicate O^O´s latest comments, and the constructive tone, very much. Maybe we do disagree on one issue: as Felonious Monk says, I believe, sincerely, that for a very long time Wikipedia has favored secondary sources over primary sources, and rightly so. Based on the above remarks, I think after all there may be no conflict between O^O and myself. But, with all due respect, I think O^O´s proposal is just unnecessary. I think the current policy and my edit still work fine. To explain why I will address the other criticisms.

The second area of dispute seems mostly to be with Wjhonson, who characterizes my position as "suggesting, that in an article on King Alfred we cannot quite the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which is a primary source." Wjhonson, I implore you to believe me when I tell you: you are wrong, this is not what I am saying, nor is it in the text I have written. The text I wrote states, primary sources can be used if it "makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims." Surely this would be the case with the Alnglo-Saxon Chronicle, surely my edit allows for one to use the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. What you consider a narrow exception is indeed a wide one that fully accommodates your objection and Kirill Lokshin´s. So it seems to me, we have no dispute.

Gerry Ashton is correct that my main change was to remove the claim that primary sources are equally encouraged as secondary sources. The reason I did so is that that setntence contradicted the following paragraph which contained the actual policy. I feel that the paragraph introducing the policy in general terms has to be consistent with the actual policy. That is why I made my edit. The actual policy to which I refer, "where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events)," has been our consensus policy for a very long time. My edit does nothing to change it. Indeed, it sounds like some want to change it. But let us be clear: I am not changing the policy, I am maintaining it. Should we change the policy? Given that it currently accommodates the examples Kirill and Wjhonson came up with, I believe, yes, we should keep it. It is a good policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No it would not. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is speaking of a particular Abbott states that he "was the spawn of Satan, cruel, manipulative, abusive..." or something like that. Are you going to say that's not an evaluative claim? I think it evaluates the Abbott pretty seriously personally. And yet the above language would forbid it being quoted in an article about that Abbott. Wjhonson 23:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, but I still think you are wrong. YOU are not using the text to make your own evaluative claim (THAT would be original research), you are merely quoting a source that itself makes an evaluative claim. This simply does not violate NOR. NOR does not (now, yesterday, the day before, last week, last year) prohibit us from using primary sources that themselves make interpretive, analytical, synthetic, evaluative, or explanatory claims. It only prohibits us from using primary sources to make OUR OWN interpretive, analytical, synthetic, evaluative, or explanatory claim. If this is unclear, then it was unclear before my edit. And if it is unclear I agree we should clarify it. But my edit did not make things less clear, at worst, it left this unclear point unchanged. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you write "But let us be clear: I am not changing the policy, I am maintaining it.", to which I say again - I disagree. Perhaps (just perhaps) the old language was written in an ambiguous way, such that two logical editors could read it and understand it to mean different things. In that case, your language is restating the policy to clearly read the way you always understood it. But that change is explicitly disallowing the interpretation that other editors have long given it. - O^O 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I went back about a month, to a time when there wasn't a lot of edit warring and here is the way this page read: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."Wjhonson 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I changed was to say that we encourage using secondary sources more than primary sources. I did not make any change prphibiting the use of primary sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is to say "primary and secondary..." "primary and secondary". Absolutely no distinction whatsoever between them. And that's the way it should remain. Articles that are based predominately on primary sources should be discouraged in favor of secondary sources is fine. But to remove "primary" altogether from the above allowable sources is not fine. And discouraged is not the same as disallowed by the way. An article on a minor historical figure may have to rely on primary sources like to identify elements of his biography "born in Alaska (1900 census), clerk in a mill (WW1 Draft Card)..." etc. Those cases should be referred on a case-by-case basis, not excluded in an all-or-nothing manner such as the previous edits would have done.Wjhonson 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, at this point I have to ask, are you responding to anyone who has posted on this talk page? You certainly are not responding to anything I wrote. What constitutes a primary and a secondary source is stated in the policy and the definitions of these terms have been stable for years and are clear policy. Nothink I have done in the past few days has altered that in one bit. PLEASE explain why you write, "But to remove "primary" altogether from the above allowable sources is not fine" given that NO ONE has removed "primary" altogether from the allowable sources. Since you are suggesting someone has done this, when no one has, it seems like you are acting in bad faith. Yet I want to understand you - what exactly are you talking about? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the idea that quotes are evaluative because you the editor are evaluating something is specious. You the editor are not allowed to opine whatsoever, evaluative or otherwise. Any opinion of the editor is OR and already disallowed. So to attempt to restate it in a primary source area is not useful. Wjhonson 00:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you criticizing yourself now? First, you write that you are not allowed to use the Anglo-Saxon Chronical because it does not fit the criteria allowing use of primary sources (using a primary source to evaluate). Then I said, you ARE allowed to use it because the source presents Abbott´s evaluation, not yours. Now you say that now, it should not be allowed because spomehow you are reinstating a judgement in a primary source? Look, if you do not want to use the Anglo Saxon Chronical, don´t. But our policy allows someone to use it, and I have explained why. Your attempt to exclude using it just seems bizarre to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my concern is somewhat different; the problem is that the criterion in question is that an article using a primary source "makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive or evaluative claims" (emphasis mine). I have no problem with the second part, but the first part is an impossible requirement for historical articles, as you're demanding (as I read it) that not only the citations, but also the claims themselves, must be "easily verifiable" as accurate. Clearly, historical primary sources won't meet this requirement (an editor can easily verify that Guicciardini records the Pope as doing X, but he cannot verify that this record is actually accurate); thus, applying this requirement to any use of primary sources—rather than merely to articles which predominantly use primary sources—is a very substantial change, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill I agree with your point. We cannot insist that the content of the quoted passages is accurate. We can only request that the orthography is correct. That is, the quote is an accurate quote from the source, not that the quote itself represents an accurate state of things. Wjhonson 03:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both Krill and Wjhonson on this. Perhaps this specific clause needs to be rewritten. This is what the policy means: that the source that presents the claim must be verifiable, not that the claim itself is verifiable. If the Anglo Saxon Chronical states that Abbott states that someone was the spawn of satan, our NPOR and Verifiability and NPOV policies all agree that the issue is NOT whether x really was the spawn of satan and that any reader must be able to verify that x was the spawn of Satan, but rather that the Anglo Saxon Chronical states that Abott believed x to be the spawn of satan, and any reader can be able to verify that this is indeed what the Anglo Saxon Chronical states. This is our policy. This is what the clause in question is meant to communicate. If the clause in question is not communicateing this effectively, lets have proposals to edit it to make it clearer. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe change "makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" to "makes only uncontentious descriptive claims which are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge"? Omitting the mention of accuracy would, in my opinion, make clearer that "verifiable" is used here in the same sense that it occurs in WP:V. Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholely endorse this proposed change. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make my point on "evaluative, etc" clear. To state that a primary source must not be evaluative to me says that we cannot quote certain statements. If the intention is that "we" cannot make an evaluative statement, or use it to make an evaluative statement, then that is redudant, since that issue is already covered in *general* not with regard to whether a source is primary or secondary. Even with secondary sources *we* cannot use them to make an evaluative statement — we simply quote them, or summarize them as best we are able, making the exact or essential points they are making. So this entire paragraph should be struck as confusing and/or redundant. Wjhonson 03:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson writes, "state that a primary source must not be evaluative to me says that we cannot quote certain statements." Again, I am baffled as to why he says this, because the policy does not say this and no one on this talk page has said this, and indeed I wrote yesterday explaining to Wjhonson that the policy does not state this. I will repeat what I wrote at 23:45 UTC yesterday:

NOR does not (now, yesterday, the day before, last week, last year) prohibit us from using primary sources that themselves make interpretive, analytical, synthetic, evaluative, or explanatory claims. It only prohibits us from using primary sources to make OUR OWN interpretive, analytical, synthetic, evaluative, or explanatory claim.

In other words, if the AS Chronical itself makes an interpretive or analytical claim, well, we can then argue whether it is a primary or secondary source but EITHER WAY it is permitted and indeed editors are encouraged to add it. Get it, WJhonson? Please reread what I just wrote again. I am saying it is permitted. It is permitted. Do you get it? Stop suggesting it is prohibited. Here is what is prohibited: Let us say I have a host of primary sources that say Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and that he won the Civil War. I can add these primary sources to the article (according to our policy last week and according to my edit). However, after citing these sources, an editor cannot then go on to add in his or her own words "Thus, Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents of the United States." THIS is the violation of NOR. THIS is using primary sources to make the editor´s own evaluation. Now, what if a verifiable source claims that Lincoln was the greatest president who ever lived? THIS source too can be added as long as it is verifiable meaning a reader of the article can find the source. Adding this statement, properly cited to a verifiable source DOES NOT VIOLATE NOR. Not now, not yesterday, not after my edit, not before my edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)