etc. All four of them currently have discussions about sources. Adding more sources doesn't hurt. WAS.250 08:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I also agree with putting those sentences back into the policy, and that they would go a long way towards solving the problem. That website is not even remotely close to peer-reviewed, but I see your point. In order to clarify the distinction between acceptable source-based research, and pohibited original research, Wikipedia distinguishes between three kinds of source materials. This is especially true 1) where many differing primary sources on a particular topic of discussion are in wide disagreement, or 2) where the editors cannot agree on the plain meaning of the primary source(s and/or 3) where there are significant analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory.
300 word essay on drugs and alcohol, Compare and contrast essay high school vs university, Hotel swot analysis essay pdf,
However, we still need to hear from the other respected members who may still have some valid objections, notably Jossi, Slrubenstein, and Kenosis. The description of encyclopedic matter as primarily tertiary helped to resolve this confusion right on essay god lacroix r richard selected the policy project page. 2.) Does moving a very brief definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources out of this policy suddenly allow original research? Jossi (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Badgerpatrol, I think you are glossing over significant differences as I outlined in more detail in the section above, explaining how these differences are relevant, or more specifically how the definitions are irrelevant to NOR. Jacob Haller 17:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC) See WP:npov, WP:npov#Undue_weight, WP:VER#Sources, and WP:CON. Each of the four main content policies needs to define "sources" differently because each definition is an inherent part of each policy. Wbfergus Talk 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC) We should not move psts. I expect we all would. A scientist could very well have a strong amateur interest in history and decide to edit some of those articles. Dave souza, talk 09:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC) I think I might even go as far as saying that it is not the expression of policy itself that is the issue at the moment, but it is the way that the debate is distorted. I repeated it, for the zillionth time, in the section above, in response to a comment by David souza. Why do we want to weaken that policy by making distinctions based on the type of source?