On 3/24/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Stan, we go through this all the time in botany, that review articles
are
preferable to original research in journals, and we can't include the
MOBOT
APG classifications because he updates them through original research,
that
we can't use APG II directly, or rather alone in an article, that we
must
note it when we use it, that if it's seconded by Reveal or someone it's fine, the whole brya fiasco and removing her APG II direct
classifications,
blah blah blah, and that we can't wholesale use Cavalier-Smith, without including other interpretations, and making clear his attributions. I
think
you're one of the ones agreeing with these viewpoints.
Yes, we use published peer-reviewed journal articles, that are original research, but what we're often getting from them is their non-original research, the introductory sections and any broad background used to
support
the conclusions, but not the conclusions themselves.
This is a major problem in botany, which is one of the most dynamic
fields
in the sciences right now, especially basal taxonomies--it's the
equivalent
of the early 20th century genetics revolution. It's literally killing
our
ability to update the botany articles, to some good end, but sometimes
it
leaves us crippled, because it's so difficult to tread over the careful
way
we have to write the botany articles to comply with NOR, and it's hard
for
retention of new editors. We get these gung-ho algae guys in and I have
to
thump the Cavalier-Smith (my hero, by the way, along with Woese),
completely
out of them.
We do honor NOR, no primary sources in the botanical sciences, and we do
it
rather well most of the time, Stan as well as the rest of us.
You're using "original research" in a different way to WP:OR. WP:OR refers to research done originally in Wikipedia, not research done originally in a journal. All research is original the first time it is done, that's not an issue. The issue is with us doing original research, not with us using original research done (and published) by someone else.
Your examples have nothing to do with WP:OR, they are simply issues with primary sources.
Yup, total newbie and get policies confused all of the time. Primary sources, not OR, so I take it all back--not really. Just one more reason not for blasting newbies over the head with all of WP:ATT, rather than the specific policy, discretely directed to the one issue at hand.
Point remains, we don't use primary sources in the plant articles, such as the original research of a scientist published in a primary resource otherwise known as a peer-reviewed journal article, but rather we use the secondary information from the primary source, the primary source's introductory material or background material used in its conclusions, and use review articles (which, although this may be changing, not that I've seen) rather than conclusions originally and solely drawn in primary sources.
Stan said primary sources, I confused the issue with OR.
KP