Template talk:Primary sources/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Proposal: A new template "Has primary sources - needs secondary sources"

I think the best way going forward is to deprecate the current ambiguous template, and create a new template focused on the precise problem with are trying to solve: (1) Acknowledge the article has primary sources and (2) The article needs secondary sources. patsw (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your thoughts that the template should be focused. But since the current tamplate is named primary, and nearly every use of it include primary source issues (albiet sometines wiht a different inten for use such as "related") could we not morph the current template into this? Also, I'm assuming your "Has primary sources" was shorthand for "too reliant on primary sources". (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I would deprecate the current template (as in "do not add to any article") and leave it alone where it stands.
2. "Reliant" is a word that typically refers to humans or pets (i.e. actors) and not to abstractions. Dependent upon" would be a better phrase here. patsw (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

On your last point, mine wasn't proposal grade wording. I was just checking that you did not intend your discussion wording to be taken literally, i.e. that the mere presence of primary sources in the article is a problem. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Most recent change

I agree that the change is good, but is the intent of locking this so that admins can make changes based on what they unilaterally personally feel is best but others can't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a standard thing for heavily used templates. If memory serves, this has been placed on some 20,000 pages. You don't really want someone to accidentally break the template code on something that affects so many pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing some redirects

I'd like to redirect {{Reliable sources}}, {{Reliable-sources}} and {{Reliablesources}}}} to {{Unreliable sources}}. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds sensible to me. Things with very similar names should normally point at the same page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That is, to change the redirect from {{Primary sources}} to {{Unreliable sources}}. Agree. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found many instances of seemingly mistagged articles. People put {{Reliable sources}} because they simply want to say that the sources are not reliable. The resulting message ("This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject", etc.) is something else entirely. GregorB (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We already talked about this earlier, see talk above. Did you check those 43+0+35 transclusions to make sure no meaning would be changed? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wording adjustment

Any comments on the following change:

Proposed

Rationale: third-party and independent mean much the same thing. This wording is clearer and shorter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No comments, so done. Any problems let me know and I will revert — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that third party and independent mean almost the same thing. I'd like to see the actual problem with this template corrected, though: if the article is overly reliant on primary sources, then adding independent primary sources doesn't solve the problem. If the problem is too many primary sources, then you can only solve that problem by adding secondary sources.

This page needs to be swapped with Template:Reliable sources (which now redirects here), since the text of the template addresses both "too much primary" (which can be solved only by adding secondary and tertiary sources) and "too much affiliated" (which can be solved only be adding independent/third-party sources—even if those independent sources are primary sources, because WP:Secondary does not mean independent).

IMO there's nothing wrong with having a template that addresses two sourcing problems, but it shouldn't be located at a name that implies it's only for one of the two problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There are still two problems with "Please add citations from reliable and independent sources." First, we want citations "of", not "from" the sources. Second the "and" is ambibuous, potentially leaving the reader unsure whether it is a request that one source has both attributes, or that multiple sources with each attribute would suffice. I'd suggest instead "Please cite sources which are both reliable and independent." LeadSongDog come howl! 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources and BLP

I recently made an AWB feature request to change {{Primary sources}} to {{BLP primary sources}} if the article is in Category:Living people. I'm now being asked whether it would be better to use {{Primary sources|BLP=yes}} instead, based on the template documentation. Thoughts? GoingBatty (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you use the parameter rather than the effective redirect, you don't get the separate whatlinkshere output. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Using the wrapper seems to have benefits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So should Template:Primary sources/doc be changed to reflect that it's better to use the wrapper? GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Please change the documentation accordingly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Since no one objected to this proposal, I have updated the documentation. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This template does not make me happy

And I hate to be that negative, but I don't think this template knows what it wants. I read this thing, and I ask myself: which one is it? Do you want me to address a misuse of primary sources, or a misuse of affiliated sources? Others are to credit for the idea that PRIMARY DOES NOT MEAN "BAD", and that they are completely separate issues. This template implies that they are the same thing ("primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject"), or at least it does to people that don't know any better. Best I can see, the intent is to inform people about the problem of affiliated sources, because they are often unreliable. For that reason I think the template should go something like this:

And such would require renaming of the template. Assuming consensus for this were to exist, is this a change that is even possible? It's a fairly-widely used template ... which, I think, makes it all the more important to change, because it contributes badly to the muddling and conflation of the whole primary/affiliated source issue. NTox · talk 00:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right: we have a problem. And every time we get close to fixing it, someone who believes that secondary is a fancy spelling for independent throws a monkey wrench in the works.

What you propose already exists at {{third-party sources}}. What we need at {{primary sources}} is to simply remove the mention of affiliated sources. It's also been suggested that before we change the text, that someone needs to figure out which of the many of the currently tagged articles actually need to have a tag about primary sources and which need to have a tag about affiliated sources, and which need both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Surprised I missed {{third-party sources}}. But I remember it now when I click on it. What would be better for this template, may be something similar to the following. But it's a good question how many of the currently-tagged articles really have a problem with primary sources - I can see some articles about films, books, some BLPs, etc. having it, but I imagine a big of chunk of articles we'd find are simply issues with affiliated sources alone.

With 31,245 transclusions, an analysis would be a significant project, but a part of me says this is something we have to change eventually, and waiting will indeed make it harder. NTox · talk 18:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Propose making the contents match the title

I think it's time to try this again. NTox links a decent proposal in the section above:

I'm sure everyone will remember that WP:Secondary does not mean independent, so if the actual problem is "primary sources", then the only possible solution is "secondary or tertiary sources", not "independent sources" (which could be primary sources) or non-self-published sources (which could be primary sources).

Are we all agreed that the title should have a significant relationship to the contents of the template? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for re-introducing this. I remain of the opinion that this template needs an adjustment. In it, primary sources are being confused with sources that are affiliated with subjects, and as already said, they are not the same thing. IMO, this template should only be used on articles that have problems with primary sources. Right now people are applying this tag on COI/promo articles with affiliated sources, when they should be using {{third-party}} for that. And because this primary sources template is integrated in Twinkle such mis-tagging is literally occurring by the thousands. (Also: Do you think we should advertise this discussion in an RfC?) NTox · talk 02:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've nothing against an RFC, but there are 35 active editors watching this template, so perhaps if others comment then that would be enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

On the grounds that the adjustment can avoid conflation, I am for this adjustment with one condition. Some descriptions on the distinction and use of {{third-party}} and {{Primary_sources}} must be drafted properly and provided accordingly first before the adjustment takes effect. --Hanteng (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Hanteng. Also, would it be reasonable to request that {{third-party}} also be added to Twinkle (if it's not already there), and request that the descriptions for {{primary sources}} and {{third-party}} be updated to highlight the distinction? (Disclaimer: I've never used Twinkle) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks GoingBatty for your comments. Though I have no idea how Twinkle is added (do not mind doing it by learning myself), I believe it can further help to make such distinction. --Hanteng (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

For some descriptions on the distinction and use of {{third-party}} and {{Primary_sources}}, it may be less controversial and easy by referring users to current policies, guidelines and essays, such as:

For the distinction between {{Primary_sources}} and {{third-party}} sources, please refer to WP:PRIMARY (for definitions and uses of primary sources in Wikipedia) and WP:3PARTY or WP:INDEPENDENT (for definitions and uses of third-party/independent sources in Wikipedia).

I thereby scale down the condition a bit. Now I am for this adjustment with the condition if descriptions equivalent or similar (preferably stronger) to the above is properly provided along with both templates. --Hanteng (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that there is confusion as to what "primary sources" means, not helped (to put it mildly) by the annotation in TWINKLE which glosses {{primary sources}} as "article relies too heavily on first-hand sources, and needs third-party sources"! Twinkle does not include {{third-party}}. I've asked that it should. PamD 10:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's time to learn from history :p I told you over a year ago at Template talk:Primary sources/Archive 3#Secondary does not mean third-party: There are 23597 transclusions and the sources affiliated with the subject have been mentioned in the template since 2005. Sorry, I'm not removing them just because you seem to have some sort of an idea that a cleanup template's content must not deviate from its name even for a little bit. The transclusion count is now at 31735, so the same concern holds, plus another 33%. Yes, we can reduce the visible scope and the discrepancies will be fixed manually over time as editors notice, but there's not a hint of empirical proof that we're not causing a crapload of articles to become at least partly mistagged. I'll take overly broad scope over 10K badly tagged articles any day. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about Twinkle's misunderstanding of the template: it was probably (mis)informed by the misleading text on the template itself. Would this be an improvement?

• "primary sources": "article relies too heavily on primary sources, and needs secondary sources"
• "third-party": "article relies too heavily on affiliated sources, and needs third-party sources"

— This, that, and the other (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be an improvement. I do not think we will be able to clearly explain the differences between primary and secondary sources in the space of a template, especially considering the many cases where the distinction is disputed, and the different uses in some subjects. The reason for the confusion is that frequently a source is both primary and not independent of the subject: for example, the subject's published diary. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I totally agree that User:This, that and the other's improved wording would be better. I take that both of you agree on the basic proposal to clearly distinguish the template "primary sources" from the template "third-party". That's great! I hope we are reaching some consensus here. (I agree also with DGG that the distinction between primary and secondary sources is frequently disputed, but that issue is a separate issue from the issue at hand, right? Should we stick to the issue here as distinguishing the two templates with concise wordings (per This, that's proposal) and correct policy references (WP:PSTS vs WP:IS )--Hanteng (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I am also happy with the change to Twinkle. Thank you for doing that. About the templates: I agree with Hanteng that there should be a better description of the difference between the two on their documentation pages. That of course starts with us making sure the templates say what we want them to say. I don't have significant issues with {{third-party}}; there the title matches the contents. But with {{primary sources}} the contents still need to sync up with the title. Do others agree that the proposal at the top of this section accomplishes that job? NTox · talk 01:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to be sympathetic to Joy's concern about 30,000 previously tagged articles, but I'm at "stop the bleeding". It's only going to get worse. We could create {{Primary-muddle}} with text that says something like, "Somebody thought there was some kind of problem with the type of sources here, and whatever the problem was, we recommend using high-quality ones" and send a bot through to change all of them. We could decide that they're likely all wrong and send a bot through to just remove them. We could leave them alone and let editors at each article decide whether the revised, sensible text matches the problems they see there.

But the fact that some article-level cleanup will need to be done to clear up the mess created by letting this muddled message persist for so long is IMO not a valid reason to let this mess persist any longer. Not fixing the template's contents only making the article-level mess even worse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Agree with User:WhatamIdoing that not fixing the template's content can make the article-level mess worse. --Hanteng (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like everyone agrees that the text proposed above would be an improvement over what we've got. Shall we make this change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this from the below protected edit request. Looking it over, it is clear that the language is agreed on, but not as clear that there is a consensus regarding the objection raised by Joy, regarding the current uses of the template, so I'm going to comment instead, and leave it for another admin to judge whether there is consensus afterwards. I don't seen any other way to fix the problem raised by Joy, short of doing a massive bot edit run to swap to a holding template with the old language, other then to make the change and hope that any mistagging that results is eventually fixed. I don't think a bot edit run of that magnitude would be justified here. So I suggest making the change, and dealing with the consequences. Monty₈₄₅ 16:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Per the discussion above, this is a request that the current template be changed from its current form to:

NTox · talk 04:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Note, I updated the sandbox to include a change made to the parent template after the sandbox was drafted, the update should not effect the discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 16:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I support making this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Same here, I support the edit change. --Hanteng (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

The documentation for many tags, such as {{npov}}, state that someone adding the tag should also give a reason for it. Since primary sources are not in general forbidden, shouldn't someone adding this tag also explain why it is justified? And if so, shouldn't the documentation say so? McKay (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The tag is generally assumed to be self-explanatory. It might be more obvious if we changed the wording to say "This article relies too heavily on references to primary sources." Do you think that would help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Since primary sources are not considered desirable, even though strictly speaking not forbidden, the issue is obvious enough. I don't think we should change the text of the template. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 January 2014

Will you please change the fix section? It should be changed from:

Please add references to [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary or tertiary sources]].

to:

Please help out by adding references to [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary or tertiary sources]].

Rovio Never (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Additional information needed – what is it that you want to accomplish? It seems that the "help out" part is a given and should go without saying. Also, my early grammar days remind me verbs that end in "ing" show a weakness in the writing. Is there a better way to put it? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I don't see any reason for this change to make it wordier. Please obtain some consensus before reactivating this request. Thanks and happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that the original requesting editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a community banned editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB caveat

I'd like the "issue" of the template, currently:

 '''relies on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|references]] to {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
  |[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources|primary sources]]
  |[[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|primary sources]]
 }}'''

to be rewritten as:

 '''relies on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|references]] to {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
  |[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources|primary sources]]
  |[[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|primary sources]]
 }}''', not covered by {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
  |[[WP:BLPSELFPUB|the provisions for self-published sources by the subject of an article]]
  |[[WP:ABOUTSELF|the provisions for self-published sources as sources on themselves]]
 }}.

...in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Added BLPSELFPUB with a switch for the BLP articles --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle notified: Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Courtesy notification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Why alert WP:Twinkle users to your proposal? Why not simply notify editors at the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons talk pages, since WP:About self concerns the former and WP:BLPSELFPUB concerns the latter? Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Re Twinkle: see content of {{Twinkle standard installation}}, as shown on the template page. Just obliging to the courtesy they asked.

I'd have no problem inviting further participation by whatever WP:CANVAS approved means. Thus far I only mentioned in passing at WT:NPOV (in a huge discussion that also spread to Jimbo's talk page) as far as I remember. A bit surprised this didn't seem to have attracted further attention yet... feel free to add further invitations... and to comment on the content of the matter if you feel like! --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Other issue

After encountering yet another wikipedian believing the popular misconception that primary sources are anathema in Wikipedia ([1]), I was wondering how much of that is due to the current wording of this template which is, to put it mildly, a bit of a deformation of the WP:PRIMARY policy, that doesn't disallow use of primary sources, so I propose this further update, closer to the actual wording that can be found in the policy:

issue:

 has '''substantial content exclusively [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|cited]] to {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
  |[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources|primary sources]]
  |[[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|primary sources]]
 }}''', and/or has content cited to questionable primary sources that seem to fall outside what is permitted for {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
  |[[WP:BLPSELFPUB|self-published sources by the subject of an article]]
  |[[WP:ABOUTSELF|self-published sources as sources on themselves]]
 }}.

fix:

 Please help improve [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]] to [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary or tertiary sources]]{{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
  |. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced '''must be removed immediately''', especially if potentially [[defamation|libelous]] or harmful.
  |, or help by updating content if that is not possible.
 }}

BLP version:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOR people invited: [2] --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose such a long and detailed text. Just change "Please add" to "Please improve this article by adding", or change "relies on references" to "relies too much on references". Debresser (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Short version

Following Debresser's suggestions:

issue:

 '''relies too much on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|references]] to {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
  |[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources|primary sources]]
  |[[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|primary sources]]
 }}'''

fix:

 Please improve this article by adding [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary or tertiary sources]]. {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
  |Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced '''must be removed immediately''', especially if potentially [[defamation|libelous]] or harmful.
 }}

I suppose this is quite uncontroversial, 100% of the participants in the discussion seem to agree (agreed, only two after two weeks), but we can see for further improvements later. So, proceeding with edit request... --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

People vs. persons (not related to the 8 november consensus edit request to bring the template in line with WP:PRIMARY policy)

I have created the suggested version in the sandbox, with the addition of a full-stop, and changing "persons" to "people". Testcases here. HTH. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC).

Rich, the "p" in WP:BLP stands for "persons", not "people", so here too it should be "people". Debresser (talk)

Updated sandbox version accordingly [3] --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That is only because we were feeling a little pretentious when we wrote the policy. The plural of person is people, certainly in modern English. We want to communicate with readers/editors, not preach to them. Of course one can say "The Thinking Person's Wikipedia" (the strap line for my inevitable fork) or "having no chalk about their persons, they marked the wall with a fruit pastille" though this is terribly old fashioned, and there is the inimitable "Murder by person or persons unknown." Persons is deprecated by both the AP Stylebook (The word people is preferred to persons in all plural uses. Persons should be used only when it is in a direct quote or part of a title as in Bureau of Missing Persons.) and The New York Times.

The Economist style guide says

Use the language of everyday speech, not that of spokesmen, lawyers or bureaucrats (so prefer let to permit, people to persons, buy to purchase, colleague to peer, way out to exit, present to gift, rich to wealthy, show to demonstrate, break to violate). Pomposity and long-windedness tend to obscure meaning, or reveal the lack of it: strip them away in favour of plain words.

I really think we should avoid coming across like the policeman in Hancock's Half Hour "I was proceeding in an Eastery direction, towards the big numbers". (And indeed we should change it at BLP, because the term "persons" can be assumed to include legal persons, corporations, trusts, etc. as well as actual people.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC).

Really, Rich, this is *not* about the "people" vs. "persons" terminology. If you have an axe to grind about that: WT:BLP. The edit request above has a consensus, your later addition to it regarding "persons" and "people" hasn't, and this isn't really the forum for it. Don't stall a highly needed update to the template for this other discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not stalling anything, I fixed your error and another that has been there for some time. If you object to my fixing of the older error, then it need not go live. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

Template-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

replace content of "issue" (what follows after "| issue = ") with:

 '''relies too much on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|references]] to {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
  |[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources|primary sources]]
  |[[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|primary sources]]
 }}'''

replace content of "fix" (what follows after "| fix =") with:

 Please improve this article by adding [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources|secondary or tertiary sources]]. {{#ifeq:{{{BLP}}}|yes
  |Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced '''must be removed immediately''', especially if potentially [[defamation|libelous]] or harmful.
 }}

as it is now in the sandbox [4] --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Reasons: see prior discussion starting above at #WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB caveat --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Template proposal

Previous related archived discussions: Primary Sources, REWORD, Primarysources = Unsourced?, Wording misses the point?, Reliable sources, "Primary sources ...", Secondary does not mean third-party, Template_talk:Primary_sources/Archive_3#Let.27s_work_out_what_it_should_sayLet's work out what it should say, This template does not make me happy, Propose making the contents match the title

Pinging previous participants @BesigedB: @Danielfolsom: @Jeepday: @Centrx: @HJ Mitchell: @Skier Dude: @MSGJ: @Str1977: @Debresser: @LeadSongDog: @WhatamIdoing: @Jinnai: @Hrafn: @North8000: @Joy: @Jc3s5h:

I would like to propose that, once an article title has been chosen in reference to the more reliable amongst the sources available to us and once a topic has been proven to be notable, then there is nothing wrong with many uses of Primary sources. I'd also propose that in many cases the use of primary sources may even be preferred. Obviously some primary sources, perhaps being put together by a webmaster or similar, may contain some of the errors that may be generated through the use of secondary or tertiary sources but, in general, a primary source of information will be closer to the source of information.

The template text currently states: "...relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources."

Here "primary sources" is a link to WP:OR. How does that figure? An editor might just be going to a primary source for a basic information that the primary source might be more likely to get correct.

I would prefer content to read as something like: "...relies heavily on primary source references. Please improve this article by validating or correcting its content through an addition of secondary or tertiary sources." I would also be happy if the entire "primary source references" linked to WP:verifiability. I think that a different "original research" template should be used on articles with those specific problems. gregkaye ✍♪ 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that addresses the basic problem of wp:SYN in the selection of specific primary sources. This is the underlying reason we must rely on secondary sources to establish the "good" primary works upon which we can rely. It isn't just how to verify statements, but how to maintain NPOV: not just which papers are correct, but which papers are important in understanding the material. In biomedical topics this is a very frequent issue that wp:MEDRS tries to address. The wording "Please improve this article by validating or correcting its content through an addition of secondary or tertiary sources" leads one to the idea that neutral perspective can be grafted on after the fact, but it can't. One starts from secondary sources, then only if they show it to be necessary does one expand using primary sources that they have cited. This outsources the choice of perspective to the experts who wrote the secondary sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with your points in the first paragraph, and I also agree that the link to WP:OR is better removed. I oppose changing the text of the template, as I find the current wording to be more correct and precise than the proposal. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• A couple of quick thoughts:
  • The link to NOR is because WP:PSTS is still part of NOR (for better or worse). It probably ought to be a link directly to PSTS (the shortcut, not the section heading, because that shortcut will always get updated if the section heading is changed).
  • The content policies require that articles be primarily based on secondary sources. This tag accurately reflects the policies in that way. If you disagree with the policy (and it sounds like Debresser might, too), then you need to change the policy first.
  • Also, from several comments on this page: "primary" does not mean "self-published". WP:Secondary does not mean independent. There are three different axes in operation here: primary vs secondary; self-published vs traditionally published; and independent vs affiliated. This tag should only be used to deal with the first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've retired from editing (just happened to notice this because I happened to log in, and thought it important), so probably won't be around for any extended discussion. I would however like to make a few points:
  I emphatically disagree that "once an article title has been chosen in reference to the more reliable amongst the sources available to us and once a topic has been proven to be notable, then there is nothing wrong with many uses of Primary sources." Turning primary sources into a coherent account is an inherently synthetic process, of determining what is important for the exposition of the subject, and of creating a narrative out of this. This synthesis can either come from secondary sources or from the editor's own original research, and Wikipedia's policy is emphatically WP:NOR. The purpose of primary sources in Wikipedia articles should be to 'flesh out' a skeleton provided by secondary sources. If this secondary source skeleton does not exist, then either the article becomes an unstructured blob of random PS-based material, an artifact of the editor's own WP:SYNTHESIS of these sources (or often something in between). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't quite see how the proposed wording would be an improvement. You can fine-tune the link use WP:primary sources, sure, but it will still lead to the section of WP:NOR that deals with this problem, and which exists for good reason. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• This does not work for several reasons. Those listed above as well as logistical. It is bad for the reasons listed at Wikipedia:No original research, and even if there were cases where it was not bad, how would you clearly define the cases where it was bad and where it was not bad? Jeepday (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 November 2015

A consensus has clearly been reached at the relevant merge discussion. Please remove the merge tag, so that it no longer imposes the additional confusing visual pollution upon readers, at all places that this important and necessary tag appears. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No need for such requests. After the discussion will be closed, in die time and by a competent editor (usually an admin), he or she will take care of the merge. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 January 2016

The template should have a "Section" variant as many other templates do. I ask this because a biographical article may be cited well in most sections but rely on, for example, a subject's resume entirely or primarily for one section. People have been known to pad their resumes. Tenebrae (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to mock up the changes that you would have made if this wasn't protected in Template:Primary sources/sandbox, then reactivate this edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second. This template already takes "section": {{Primary sources|section}} renders . Debresser (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

" Got it. The first one did, the second was always "article". Done now. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

Please change the link from the Wikipedia article defamation to Wikipedia:Libel as that pertains more to Wikipedia's policies. Thank you! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Small

Please implement the "small" parameter so that the template can be presented in a similar manner to {{refimprove|small=yes}}. Bright☀ 19:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please implement a Talk parameter

I like improvement templates that can offer a link to the Talk page section related to the tag. E.g. Refimprove |date=Nov 2018 |talk=Refimprove request November 2018 . The argument to the talk parameter is the article's Talk page section name. If the argument is left blank, or the value is incorrect, the template defaults to its current behavior to link to the article Talk page. Thanks for considering it. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 09:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC of potential interest

An RfC is underway that could affect this template and may therefor be of interest to watchers of this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 November 2019

Please add {{find sources mainspace}} to the template. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done see note at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Template-protected_edit_request_on_9_November_2019. If you want to just request someone else to make this later they can follow up below. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC about indicating removal of undue content in template

Should the sentence "Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources." be changed to "Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources, and also by removing undue sources."?

This would show both issues at once. Yleventa2 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Surely WP:UNDUE is a separate subject. If one were to include that, then all other Wikipedia policy and guidance would be fair game for inclusion in the template, which would clearly make it ineffective. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

We obviously shouldn't include everything, but simply adding sources is only one side of improving. We need to both add secondary sources and remove primary sources. Yleventa2 (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It is quite easy to have undue weight in an article without using any primary sources whatsoever. That is why it is a separate subject. The whole area of the quality of sources, including secondary sources, is a huge subject and WP:UNDUE is just one small part of the job of source selection.

And it is worth remembering that sparse use of primary sources may be entirely appropriate - depending on the article and the actual sources.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, UNDUE and OR are separate things. They can both be present at the same time, or one to the exclusion of the other. UNDUE can show up in articles completely free of OR issues, and vice versa. These are apples and pineapples. The template as is is sufficient. I don't see any need that changing it this way would address. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

And to throw this out there before anyone else can: No, we don't need to create a whole new template that contains this message. We already have Template:Multiple issues which can group UNDUE, OR, and other issues into one template that essentially functions as OP suggests. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

Template:Primary sources has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=BLP primary sources}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

TFD withdrawn. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Find sources links added

Functionality has been added to generate the standard "find sources" links as seen at templates like {{unreferenced}}, {{more citations needed}}, and their section wrappers or analogs. The wrapper at {{Primary sources section}} and the former wrapper (now stand-alone template) at {{BLP primary sources}} have been similarly updated. Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 September 2022

in the templatedata, remove the underscores from "tag". lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 14:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: TemplateData is managed at Template:Primary sources/doc, which isn't protected. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)