<<In a message dated 1/6/2009 4:17:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:
The result described at [[Green-Tao_theorem]] was groundbreaking and of extraordinary scientific interest. It will no doubt eventually be covered in a text some day. The present article is just a stub, but if we were to expand the article to something longer, the main sources at the moment would have to be journal articles. There is a 0% chance this article would be deleted at AFD.>> ----- I think "extraordinary scientific interest" is pushing it ;) It is *already* covered in a text. In fact, I note, just on Google Books, at least six print secondary sources which *mention* it, and a few go into details.
You mistake my point, if you think I was suggesting that an article, with secondary mentions, even if trivial, is an AfD candidate. What I was suggesting is that an article with no secondary mentions (of any kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate.
However the main point here is on the appropriate mix of primary and secondary sources. We're not really discussing AfD quite.
Will Johnson
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:44:58PM -0500, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
It is *already* covered in a text. In fact, I note, just on Google Books, at least six print secondary sources which *mention* it, and a few go into details.
A book which only mentions a theorem but doesn't go into depth is useless as a source. I would always cite the original paper in preference.
What I was suggesting is that an article with no secondary mentions (of any kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate.
Every topic I am intrested in having an article for will some sort of oblique secondary mentions - but I don't consider those to be sources for the article, and would not include them when I add material.
- Carl
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:44:58PM -0500, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
It is *already* covered in a text. In fact, I note, just on Google Books, at least six print secondary sources which *mention* it, and a few go into details.
A book which only mentions a theorem but doesn't go into depth is useless as a source. I would always cite the original paper in preference.
Why not both? Wikipedia requires editorial judgment for some things, but selection of primary sources is one of the more tricky ones, and a secondary source showing that you are not cherry-picking the primary sources is a good safeguard.
What I was suggesting is that an article with no secondary mentions (of any kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate.
Every topic I am intrested in having an article for will some sort of oblique secondary mentions - but I don't consider those to be sources for the article, and would not include them when I add material.
Consider those oblique secondary sources to be "notability sources" to "allow" the use of the primary sources.
Carcharoth
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 01:03:12AM +0000, Carcharoth wrote:
Why not both? Wikipedia requires editorial judgment for some things, but selection of primary sources is one of the more tricky ones, and a secondary source showing that you are not cherry-picking the primary sources is a good safeguard.
I wouldn't cite a source that just says "Thoerem X was very interesting" because such a source is of no interest to someone who is trying to learn more about Theorem X, and because such a source would never be cited in the scientific literature. The point of sources is fundamentally to enable readers to learn more about the topic.
A reader who knows nothing about the material is in no position to worry about whether the sources have been cherry-picked, and has to trust whoever wrote the article. This is true for both secondary and primary sources. There are many discredited secondary sources that no knowledgable writer would use, but which would seem perfectly reasonable to an untrained reader.
What I was suggesting is that an article with no secondary mentions (of any kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate.
Every topic I am intrested in having an article for will some sort of oblique secondary mentions - but I don't consider those to be sources for the article, and would not include them when I add material.
Consider those oblique secondary sources to be "notability sources" to "allow" the use of the primary sources.
I usually only mention the notability sources at an AFD, when someone needs an infusion of clue.
- Carl
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Carl Beckhorn cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 01:03:12AM +0000, Carcharoth wrote:
Why not both? Wikipedia requires editorial judgment for some things, but selection of primary sources is one of the more tricky ones, and a secondary source showing that you are not cherry-picking the primary sources is a good safeguard.
I wouldn't cite a source that just says "Thoerem X was very interesting" because such a source is of no interest to someone who is trying to learn more about Theorem X, and because such a source would never be cited in the scientific literature. The point of sources is fundamentally to enable readers to learn more about the topic.
A reader who knows nothing about the material is in no position to worry about whether the sources have been cherry-picked, and has to trust whoever wrote the article. This is true for both secondary and primary sources. There are many discredited secondary sources that no knowledgable writer would use, but which would seem perfectly reasonable to an untrained reader.
Very good point. Some people are too ready to believe secondary sources.
What I was suggesting is that an article with no secondary mentions (of any kind, whatsoever) is probably a good AfD candidate.
Every topic I am intrested in having an article for will some sort of oblique secondary mentions - but I don't consider those to be sources for the article, and would not include them when I add material.
Consider those oblique secondary sources to be "notability sources" to "allow" the use of the primary sources.
I usually only mention the notability sources at an AFD, when someone needs an infusion of clue.
Well, that's your approach, which is fair enough, but it does help to do that beforehand.
Carcharoth