 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Sourcing
editἀνυπόδητος We agree all sources here are from the subject ie not third party, non-independent (see {{Third-party}}). [1]
- (moved from User talk:Widefox/Archive 5#ATC code V10)
- Interesting point. I agree of course that the source is closely connected to the subject, but I don't see how it can be biased. It's just a replication of the official WHO list. Would you say that List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry (a featured list; it's only non–Nobel Prize associated ref is broken) would deserve that template as well? Or ICD-10 Chapter I: Certain infectious and parasitic diseases which links to who.int for verifiability, or ISO 639:a? Looking forward to your thoughts, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yup, following the letter and spirit of articles being based on secondary, independent sources yes. For articles like these that just precis official documents they may be spinout lists of notable topics, so therefore evade WP:V "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Widefox; talk 11:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really agree with your assessment. To avoid discussing technicalities of WP policy, I've asked at WT:PHARM#Verifiability of our ATC lists for secondary sources. Best, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- What don't you agree with in particular? An article with no secondary source being an issue? (the tag may or may not be the most pertinent one) Widefox; talk 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I don't understand the problem. The tag says the list may not be verifiable or neutral. As the lists on whocc.no are, by definition, the correct ATC lists, the best imaginable way of verifying them is comparing them with the original WHO publication. As these are simply lists, I see no room whatsoever for non-neutrality. For the same reason, the definition of a secondary source ("It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.") doesn't seem to make sense in this context. The relevant section in WP:V says "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic" (my emphasis). Perhaps you can point me to the policy that the list is in violation of, and/or give your thoughts about possible solutions (adding a secondary source that's just a copy of the WHO list? deleting our ATC lists?). Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- So far I see predominantly an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which is to be avoided. I haven't looked at the history, maybe the article/list has been split for technical reasons (like size)? I'm not sure if this (haven't checked others) are notable (per WP:LISTN) - hence a prompt for sources to decide or a cleanup / rationalisation (that's the overarching sourcing problem that's being flagged for fixing). Potential tags for assisting are "one source" "no third party" etc. Widefox; talk 19:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the issue is size. For this reason, there never was a single ATC list, and these lists were (as far as I know) never part of the article Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System. So the point is not that the individual list entries need independent sources, but that we need to establish notability for the list as a whole? Am I interpreting you correctly? That would be easy as any number of drug databases, professional drug infos and package leaflets use ATC codes for classification. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- So far I see predominantly an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which is to be avoided. I haven't looked at the history, maybe the article/list has been split for technical reasons (like size)? I'm not sure if this (haven't checked others) are notable (per WP:LISTN) - hence a prompt for sources to decide or a cleanup / rationalisation (that's the overarching sourcing problem that's being flagged for fixing). Potential tags for assisting are "one source" "no third party" etc. Widefox; talk 19:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe I don't understand the problem. The tag says the list may not be verifiable or neutral. As the lists on whocc.no are, by definition, the correct ATC lists, the best imaginable way of verifying them is comparing them with the original WHO publication. As these are simply lists, I see no room whatsoever for non-neutrality. For the same reason, the definition of a secondary source ("It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.") doesn't seem to make sense in this context. The relevant section in WP:V says "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic" (my emphasis). Perhaps you can point me to the policy that the list is in violation of, and/or give your thoughts about possible solutions (adding a secondary source that's just a copy of the WHO list? deleting our ATC lists?). Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- What don't you agree with in particular? An article with no secondary source being an issue? (the tag may or may not be the most pertinent one) Widefox; talk 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really agree with your assessment. To avoid discussing technicalities of WP policy, I've asked at WT:PHARM#Verifiability of our ATC lists for secondary sources. Best, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yup, following the letter and spirit of articles being based on secondary, independent sources yes. For articles like these that just precis official documents they may be spinout lists of notable topics, so therefore evade WP:V "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Widefox; talk 11:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- You don't need an independent source or a secondary source (NB: Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent) when the non-independent primary source is authoritative for the specific content in question. The intro for this might be usefully expanded (and that could, as it already does, use independent sources), but I doubt that any content below the Table of Contents would benefit from an independent source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)