Talk:Haughley Experiment

removing content
Brilliant. Got an editor removing sourced content, then we have a citation needed because the sourced content doesn't exist anymore? Pure sabotage of a page. If you think the content was not "encyclopedic, then rewrite it in an "encyclopedic" manner, don't just remove the bulk of the page and destroy it.Redddbaron (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article needs to summarize the accepted knowledge on this topic taken from high-quality sources. Where there are none, it should be silent. Wikipedia is not for hosting large extracts from primary sources. Can you access the article from Nature I included? Alexbrn talk 06:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a readable link for the Nature article: http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/179514d0Redddbaron (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok so now you tagged a non primary source needed when a secondary source, IFOAM, published 34 years later is the source I used. What's up with that? And you replaced the citation needed after I made a citation. You want me to put the same citation (which is a secondary source) over and over repeatedly every few words or every sentence?Redddbaron (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a primary source; we need secondaries. Alexbrn talk 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a speech 29 years after the experiment was published (34 years after it started) explaining some of the results and they could point to a more sustainable agricultural policy. True the study kept going(as it is a long term study), but a speech is not published results from a scientific experiment. It is a secondary source .. a speech to IFOAM. The primary source is a book titled The Living Soil: Balfour, Lady Eve. published in London by Faber and Faber, 1948Redddbaron (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC) PS Correction, apparently the first edition wasn't 1948, it was 1943Redddbaron (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PST - this is a speech given by the person who designed and ran the experiment. "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." As our (real) secondary source says, this experiment isn't really that scientific either. Alexbrn talk 09:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the last couple edits are quite good. I wanted to say a similar thing, but couldn't because I couldn't find a citation for that. The scientific standards have changed significantly from when the study started till modern times and there would need to be many farms involved in each category to derive any statistical data for farming effects on health in general. Now a days the Haughley experiment would be considered a scientific "case study" and/or "proof of concept" only. But in the context of its time it was viewed differently, published differently, peer reviewed differently etc...Redddbaron (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had more luck searching books than searching journals ... Alexbrn talk 10:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)