User talk:Csturton

Welcome!

Hello, Csturton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! TJRC (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test

Please see my comments at Talk:Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. TJRC (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TJRC, Thank you for the welcome and the feedback, I didn't realize that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. I understand that Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but I'm not sure what that means for the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test article. I didn't think I was providing any original analysis, I used the explanation of the AFC test given by the court in the published opinion for the case. Can you give me an example of where an alternate source would be preferable? Is it the Background and Acceptance and Use of AFC sections that are most in need of support by secondary sources? Thanks again for the feedback, I would like to make my Wikipedia contributions as strong as possible.

Csturton (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I never realized how many caselaw articles have the same problem until I tried to find an example of a good one! Here's one that's very well done (with respect to the OR/Primary sources issue): Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. But many of our Supreme Court case opinions have no sources whatsoever, apart from the case that's the subject of the article.

The thing that takes a while to get used to here is that the Wikipedia policy is exactly the opposite of what you'd want to do for real legal writing. In the real world, you'd never think of citing to what someone else said about the case. You'd cite to the case itself, because that's authoritative. But on Wikipedia, the goal is to reflect what's already been written about a subject.

Law review articles and notes are good sources for this kind of article; and of course Nimmer.

Once again, though Kudos to you and your classmates to adding, or substantially adding to, articles like this. TJRC (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TJRC! I certainly understand the original research and primary source concerns. However, in this case, I don't quite see how the article falls outside of either of Wikipedia's guidelines. In the case of original research, the article is virtually entirely a recap of the test as outlined in a specific law; the article contains no, "opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions" of the authors. Additionally, the facts are drawn from a particular case and are meticulously referenced.

As for primary sources, the primary source policy states that primary sources are appropriate when they, "have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper)," and they are used only to, "make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." It seems to me that this is exactly the use of primary sources in the article. Namely, it describes a process which is described within a court case. The author provides no additional analysis and only describes the analysis provided by the court.

I understand that it may be desirable to have secondary sources in addition to what is already present, perhaps to provide commentary on the impact or results of the test among other issues, but it seems to me that the article as presented falls within the Wikipedia guidelines of both original research and primary sources.

Full disclosure that I am also a member of the class :-) (See article: Apple_Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation) Thanks for the comments; I'm just trying to figure all of this out myself! Metromoxie (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]