User talk:Vassyana/NOR 002

Looking good, Vassyana! Dreadstar † 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Vassyana 22:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I've revised Dhaluza's changes. I've integrated the NPOV caveat about bias into the appropriate place. I've removed the comments about correcting obvious errors. It is a complicated and controversial issue. Wikipedia:These are not original research may be an appropriate place to address the correction of errors. However, many people consider the use of primary sources to correct secondary sources to be itself original research. I removed the added end paragraph for a variety of reasons. The change in the type of source by use is an occasional (even rare) occurance, not the defining quality, except as presented by a small minority. Primary and secondary sources as equitable is a highly controversial assertion and strongly opposed by many editors. There is no consensus that a dispute or lack of acceptance makes a secondary source into a primary source. The closing sentence is well-intended, but confusing and seems contrary to accepted practice. It's fairly noncontroversial to cite primary sources to support the conclusions and claims of cited reliable secondary sources. This draft is supposed to represent a broad consensus, in large part as a compromise between the various parties discussing the language of NOR. The emphasis should remain in that direction. Vassyana 15:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why no teriary sources? •Jim62sch• 20:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between secondary and tertiary is explicitly unclear, even in the fields that use that distinction. A further distinction of tertiary sources adds a unnecessary layer of complication to an already complicated issue. Two sentences under secondary sources covers the entirety of the possible needed definition and note of usefulness, deprecating the need for an entire separate section. (Last two statements in the first para of secondary sources.) Vassyana 20:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)