Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jaguar

A note on refs

A note on sources (replying to both Peta and Sabine). First, "you may need to go to primary sources:" eight of thirty-eight are primary sources, so it's not as if they are absent. A further eleven I would call "professional secondary"—written for professionals and drawing primary sources together. This includes the "Guidelines", IUCN, and "Sympatric Jaguar and Puma." The rest are typically zoos and conservation societies (there are also a few dealing directly with etymology). I dealt with this section-by-section. I think it perfectly fine to use a zoo to describe the coat of the animal, say; when dealing with the taxonomy, by contrast, I used primaries. Important points, such as the bite method, draw on primaries, as well. Peta's "etc." in the first post seems to suggest none of the sources are acceptable, which is not the case. Also, I disagree with the idea that all or most info should rely on primary sources. While the "blind leading the blind point" is well-taken, relying too much on primaries risks OR—not in the sense of debuting new information, but in the "synthetic" sense of creating your own research paper, which, again, is not acceptable here. Wiki is a tertiary source. Anyhow, just wanted to be clear where I'm coming from. I'll post as I eliminate/add sources. Marskell 07:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

relying too much on primaries risks OR—not in the sense of debuting new information, but in the "synthetic" sense of creating your own research paper, which, again, is not acceptable here.. I disagree strongly - while I agree that is is irresponsible to synthesise an argument from primary sources, using primary sources to back up facts and statements (example jaguars eat frogs) mentioned in secondary sources is acceptable and in fact desirable. In fact, as long as you aren't creating something new with novel sythesis of primary sources even just using primary sourceses isn't OR (though it would be very hard). What matters more to wikipeida is verifiability, reliability and no OR - not ensuring that it remains a 'pure' tertiary source. Incidenatlly, just about every primary source is a secondary source also - the introduction and discussion always synthesisies other research to provide context for the research being discussed. But maybe this is a point for arguing somewhere else. I'll take the discussion of the sources where you suggested. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting don't use them and absolutely if I see an article that is referenced numerous times I'm going to going hunting for it to back up a point. I'm refering to

• a) the example of the "Guidelines for captive management" and the IUCN "Wild Cats" used here. They appear strictly secondary: no new field work, primary research etc. is introduced. Primary sources are brought together and compressed into a large package. These are better sources than the primary sources within them, because the synthesis has already been done for us. Which primary source is most comprehensive? respected? employing up-to-date methods? I don't know, and attempting a deduction would amount to OR. Better to let the team of a dozen people working on the "Guidelines" or the IUCN decide, and then cite their work.
• b) using general level sources to describe general level things. If I have a primary source that says "jaugars eat frogs," by all means I'll use it. But if I have a couple of zoos instead for information that generic I think it an acceptable source.

Anyhow, criticizing sources is absolutely within the reviewers' perogative and is actionable. I'm trying to eliminate the weaker ones. I've dropped four today with little information loss. Marskell 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)