Comments welcome.

Proposed Revision: ""raw data such as the untabulated results of surveys or questionnaires,written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations which have not been published in a peer reviewed source , experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research;"

• Some sources, such as a peer reviewed article in scientific journal, may contain both primary source material (ie. the authors' original experimental results presented in a table or graph)) and secondary source material. Typically, the secondary source material will appear in the article's introduction which will contain a literature review of studies related to the subject of the stdy and in a concluding section where the authors discussion, synthesize and intepret the results of the study. Because both the presentation of data and the introduction and discussion are peer reviewed, such articles are highly valued sources WP:V.

• Reliable, published secondary sources are the most preferred sources for Wikipedia articles. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may also be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

• All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not reflect any original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

This change reflects that the process of publishing results in a peer reviewed source involves (1) synthesis and analysis in theform of choosing what results should be reported and how, and in most cases involves tabulations and tables and the like representing the synthesis of the investigator, and (2) publication after peer review demonstrates both a higher degree of reliability and notability.

I found it surprising (and potentially misleading) that peer-published experimental results are considered a primary source. IMO, peer-published that contain experimental results and also the analysis of such are clearly secondary sources. I think your change makes sense. LK (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a comment agreeing with your comments over at WT:NOR#Comments:Proposal and Rationale revised about how a single phrase such as 'directly refers to the subject of the article' creates more problems than it solves. Coincidentally, in an article I'm editing, I'm facing another situation that you also mentioned, where in an article about A, the valid observation that A is related to B is followed by many invalid observations that B did lots of bad things.

Specifically, the article about the Community Reinvestment Act correctly observes that like other 'prime' loans, the CRA loans were re-packaged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into securities. I have to continually fight to fend off insertion of material about how Fannie and Freddie increased risk, and contributed to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. I wonder if you know of an guidelines I can use to help my arguments? LK (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. But hopefully the NOL suggestion will help to make headway.--SaraNoon (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have previously been involved in discussions about the policy WP:NOR, it appears that you have a depth of understanding about this policy. I would appreciate your comments concerning an application of this policy's section WP:SYNTH here. Thank you. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you have been involved in previous WP:SYNTH discussions at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Would you care to comment on the section Wikipedia talk:No original research#Insidious OR? Thank you. --Thermoproteus (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am currently involved in a proposal for a guideline on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I have just discovered that you were once involved in a similar proposal a while ago - either in contributing to it directly or in discussing it on its talk page. You may wish to get involved in the current proposal and I would encourage you to do so - even if you just want to point out where we have gone wrong! Yaris678 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:NOL. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:NOL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jax 0677 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]