Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:31, 14 November 2018

Latest revision as of 17:40, 3 September 2024

(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|

{{WikiProject Essays}}

}}

{{Shortcut|WT:TERTIARYUSE}}

Line 22 ⟶ 24:

:One the second point, I agree, but the essay already covers this in the "Exceptions" section. So, taking these two points together, I'm not sure there's a true problem of conflicting interpretations. It may be that the wording just needs some clarity, and I've been working on it for a few hours. I'm sure it will need more, especially if we actually contemplate merging this with [[WP:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources]], which I didn't even know existed (it's not used much, and under-linked, and full of errors). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

:<small>Update: It's been at least partially overhauled, and is now just [[WP:Identifying and using primary sources]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 15:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)</small>

:::I get what you are saying, but still disagree. One of the purposes of a tertiary source is to summarize material published in secondary sources. The best ones actually do cite their sources... but even if they don't, if the tertiary source is at all reputable, we can ''assume'' that the material it summarizes comes from reliable secondary sources (and thus ''has'' been published by a reliable secondary source. Which means it has passed the "only" wording of NOR)... Indeed, if we refer to an analysis or evaluative claim from an encyclopedia (or other tertiary source) we are ''required'' to cite that encyclopedia (or other tertiary source) for that analysis or evaluation... per [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]].

:::No, tertiary sources do have their place... and while they may not always be the ''best'' source ''possible'' they are almost always at least marginally ''acceptable'' sources. And if a tertiary source contains an analysis or evaluation it's definitely ''not'' Original research to repeat that analysis or evaluation here on Wikipedia. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Line 39 ⟶ 42:

That's my take on using the ''EB'' as a reliable source. Not all Wikipedia articles are as reliable as their ''EB'' counterparts, but many Wikipedia articles include abundant references unlike their ''EB'' counterparts. Wikipedia articles have a more easily determined reliability -- either good or bad -- than do ''EB'' articles. So why should we cite articles whose reliability cannot be measured? -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 05:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Llywrch}} <small>[Sorry, I've forgotten for years to look at this talk page.]</small> Some of these points are probably worth shoe-horning into the essay. As for your closing matter, I think the answer is that we generally go by reputability of the publisher. After all, most secondary sources amount to monographs, basically, and it how reliable we treat the work has much to do with whether it was published by something like the Chigago or Oxford university presses or by some "coffee-table book" company that churns out a lot of dreck. As long as ''EB'' retains a high-end reputation, the community seems comfortable treating it as an RS, within limits, while not extending this courtesy or trust to low-grade encyclopedia like ''World Book''. (I had that one as a kid, and even at age 8 or so I could tell it was crappy. As just one example, various articles on things like flags, national anthems, etc., intentionally excluded North Korea, Cuba, and other communist countries smaller than the USSR and PRC, for blatantly political reasons. It was literally indoctrinating its mostly young audience to think of these places as illegitimate and not worthy of consideration or study.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 15:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

== Categorically unreliable ==

Per [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/FAQ]], no published source is "categorically unreliable". One might not ''prefer'' a textbook aimed at 10 year olds for any purpose, but one would also never say that such a textbook was worse than the [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] and could not be cited for any reason whatsoever, including for [[wikipedia:MINREF|claims that do not technically require citations]]. A Wikipedia article is not made worse by turning the unsourced sentence "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th US president" into a sourced sentence that cites a school textbook. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

== Travel guides ==

I tend to think of a [[travel guide]] as a primary source. Why are they listed here as a tertiary source?

If the travel guide is a bare listing, or little more than a telephone directory, then it makes sense to consider it as a tertiary source, but a travel guide in this century usually sounds more like this:

* "Summers are often sweltering, so come in July and August if you like, but we advise doing as the Romans do—get up and out early, seek refuge from the afternoon heat..."

* "Unmissable experiences:  Standing in stunned silence while watching a crash of almost a dozen wild rhinos bathe, lounge and drink at one of the many secluded waterholes..."

* "Weak Chinese tea (nam chaa) makes a refreshing alternative to water and often gets served in Chinese restaurants and roadside cafés, while posher restaurants keep stronger Chinese and Western-style teas."

These don't sound like tertiary sources. I think we would consider most of them to be a mix of primary and secondary sources as well as a mix of opinion and factual content. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)