This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
There is no basis to this complaint: current sources include Hansel's review, the Biographical Dictionary of Parapsychology, and an article in the review-journal, Contemporary Psychology. These are not primary sources.--Rodgarton 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The pseudo-skeptical campaigners have again tagged the article, now noting, in edit summary, that it is appropriate because "more than half" of the references are "primary sources". Firstly, where is this 50% rule to be found in WP policy? Secondly, only 2-3 of the presently 11 references can be considered as "primary sources" under the WP definition of this term, viz., refs 1 and 2, which are to two of Pratt's experimental reports. The remainder are best defined as secondary sources - removed by at least a step from an original event or observation: (3) is Hansel's self-described evaluative monograph; (4) is clearly secondary as it published in the NY Review of Books; (5) is a rebuttal of a criticism of an experimental report, so clearly at least secondary; (6) is an article by Rao again published in a review journal, Contemporary Psychology; (7) is ESP-60, which is a monographic review of original reports and comments upon them; (8) is a review by Bö of the latter review; (9) is Pratt's review of his studies and those of others; (10) is the Biographical Dict. of Parapsychology, clearly secondary; (11) is an article by Matlock on archives of primary sources, and so best described as secondary. The campaigners will have to invent other reasons for tagging this article, and expressing their dislike of it.--Rodgarton 00:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
