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