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

Revision as of 17:39, 3 September 2024

Latest revision as of 22:24, 17 April 2025

(19 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 202:

:What you are suggesting would be [[WP:OR|original research]]. Video games often tell a story, so they can be used a primary sources insofar as the plot, but explaining differences in censorship and graphics is not something the game does. Journalists do that. [[User:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #000000">'''TarkusAB'''</span>]]^{[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''contrib'''</span>]]} 00:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

::Seconding Tarkus. These differences also strike me as exceedingly minor and would not ordinarily warrant mention in a generalist encyclopedia article, even if true. [[User:Axem Titanium|Axem Titanium]] ([[User talk:Axem Titanium|talk]]) 16:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

== Tertiary sources in legal studies ==

I no longer remember what the source for the statement about legal studies not using the concept of tertiary sources, and I'm occasionally asked about it, so here are a couple of websites that may be useful for the curious:

* https://sia.libguides.com/c.php?g=521408#s-lg-box-11009371 – provides "Primary and Secondary Sources in Law", and has tertiary for other fields, but not for this one. Includes "Law reference books" as an example of a secondary source (e.g., a legal dictionary), which includes what would normally be considered tertiary sources.

* https://shsulibraryguides.org/c.php?g=699719&p=4963009 – names "legal encyclopedias, legal periodicals (law reviews), legal dictionaries, treatises, and digests" as examples of secondary sources in the field of legal studies.

* https://guides.loc.gov/law-secondary-resources – names six types of secondary sources, many of which would be considered tertiary in any other discipline:

*# [https://guides.loc.gov/law-secondary-resources/definitions Definitions] (dictionaries with legal terminology and terms defined by law)

*# [https://guides.loc.gov/law-secondary-resources/legal-encyclopedias Legal Encyclopedias] (multi-volume works about many different topics)

*# [https://guides.loc.gov/law-secondary-resources/books-binders Books & Binders] (single- or multi-volume works about one particular topic)

*# [https://guides.loc.gov/law-secondary-resources/articles Articles] (in-depth works about highly specific topics)

*# [https://guides.loc.gov/law-secondary-resources/restatements Restatements] (rules and examples from common law)

*# [https://guides.loc.gov/law-secondary-resources/legal-directories Legal Directories] (listings of people and organizations)

[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

== ' Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source' ==

[[WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD]] states 'Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source', goes against other policies such as OR and NPOV. Secondary sources are required to establish importance and justify inclusion. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 23:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Given a choice between:

:* a secondary source that accidentally misquotes the original, and

:* quoting directly and accurately from the original source

:which would you choose? If you pick the latter, then you have to agree that "sometimes" a primary source is the best possible source.

:BTW, [[WP:NPOV]] barely mentions primary/secondary sources at all, and [[WP:PSTS]] (the only section in NOR to mention the distinction at all) does not require secondary sources for everything. We should not have whole articles [[WP:Based upon]] a primary source, but you are allowed to cite them. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::Why can't you use the secondary source to establish weight and the primary source to correct a mistake? Although the primary source could have a typographical error and minor changes to a quote shouldn't be considered incorrect. I only ever see this policy linked to to justify bad use of primary sources. A primary source cannot establish importance/notability. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 00:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, primary sources are not appropriate for establishing importance/notability. However, they are often great sources for verifying the ''details'' once that importance/notability has been established by independent secondary sources. Our best articles use both. The hard part is understanding HOW and WHEN to appropriately use each. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 02:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::And this guideline is frequently cited in situations where secondary sources have not been provided. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 20:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Um… this isn’t a guideline. It’s an explanatory essay. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well, I guess that changes a lot. Apologies for ignoring the banner at the top. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 21:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::[[WP:JUSTANESSAY]] is not a strong argument. To the extent that this page provides true and accurate information, the label at the top is irrelevant.

:::::::If you are in a dispute, and someone says 'Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source', I suggest that your reply will be more effective it it sounds more like "Yes, well, that might be true in theory, but this isn't one of those times" than like "That's 'just' a widely supported essay". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I won't reference specific disputes, but every time I have seen it used it is to justify inclusion of content I would characterise as either UNDUE or OR. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 21:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If someone is incorrectly pointing to this essay to justify adding UNDUE or OR material, I doubt they have actually read the essay. This essay attempts to explain how and when to use various sources ''correctly''. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 22:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You're correct, sorry this has been a bit of a waste of time. I don't have any actual suggestions on how to improve the wording of the section to avoid bad interpretations. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 22:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

== Primary sources for BLP content ==

The last sentence of the ''An article about a person'' section says: {{tq2|Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.}}

But [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]] says: {{tq2|Do '''not''' use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do '''not''' use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.}}

Am I missing something about why the text here says "usually," when the policy says to never use public documents? [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 20:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:BLP is for living people only, you can use court documents for dead people (but you shouldn't typically). [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 20:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I assume that the editors who worked on this page understood that there are inevitably “occasional exceptions” to all our policy and guideline “rules” - sooner or later there is bound to be a situation we didn’t think about when we wrote the “rule”. It is better to avoid “never” and to instead say “usually don’t” instead. That way you don’t have to rewrite “the rule” when those occasional exceptions crop up. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Blueboar, the problem is that then you have newer editors arguing that it only says "usually," so it's really OK to use this court document that they want to use as a source for a living person (which happened today, leading me here to read the text). Personally, I'd rather say that it's never acceptable for living persons (recognizing that there may be an IAR exception that gets OKed through consensus), and that they're usually not acceptable for people who have died.

::Traumnovelle, thanks for pointing that out, I'd totally overlooked that. I think it would be good to distinguish between people who are/aren't living in this text. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 21:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Anyone who is arguing that an explanatory essay says "usually", and so that overrides a core content policy saying "Do '''not'''" has a losing argument, and they probably know it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::It's simpler than that.

::* First it says that some primary sources are acceptable: "The person's [[autobiography]], own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website ... can normally be used..."

::* Then it says that some other primarily sources are not acceptable: "Many other primary sources...are usually not acceptable...".

::The "usually" applies to "Many other primary sources", not to the example of birth certificates. (Though, as Blueboar notes, there are inevitably "occasional exceptions", and you can use even a birth certificate if, e.g., it is published by the person in question.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:The BLPPRIMARY bit is about BLPs. The first part is not. Don’t think you would get a social security death index about a living person. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 21:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::PARAKANYAA, yup, I wasn't thinking. The biographical content that I work with usually involves living persons, and the exchange that led me here was on the talk page of an article about a living person ([[Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia]]), so I just had "living person" in mind. I decided to walk away from the exchange, as this other editor wants to use totally unacceptable court docs (posted to a Dept. of Homeland Security webpage as part of a smear campaign to try to justify their illegal act).

::Thanks to everyone for the quick clarifications. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 22:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)