Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (46 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Essays}}
}}
{{Archives}}
== WP:PRIMARYNEWS ==
Line 242 ⟶ 61:
:::* The "festive spirit" example is irrelevant, because an encyclopedic summary should not normally need to consider such a trivial detail.
:::* Neither Yale's comp lit guide – nor any source from ''any'' single academic field – is the arbiter of the One True™ Definition of secondary sources. But if I were going to pick a single academic field to decide how to classify and use [[journalism]], it would frankly not be the field of [[comparative literature]], which ignores questions such as "Can we learn anything from this short news report?" in favor of questions like "Does this book actually 'count' as proper literature, or is it just unimportant junk?" and "What universal human truths are conveyed in this work?" [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
----
Sorry for reopening this old thread. But I see the shortcut [[WP:PRIMARYNEWS]] being often misunderstood. Many editors seem to interpret it as "News is '''always''' primary" which is definitely not the goal of the paragraph. As [[User:WhatamIdoing]] said "it's complicated" is the best assessment of the topic. Maybe the text could be clarified by starting with a sentence explaining that "it depends" and the shortcut could be changed to clear things up? Maybe something like "WP:NEWSPRIMARY'''?'''" or "WP:NEWSPRIMARYORSECONDARY" (not much of a shortcut :-P) <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u|</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Gtoffoletto|Gtoffoletto]], it sounds like you've identified another candidate for the list at [[Wikipedia:UPPERCASE]].
:I don't think that changing the shortcut will solve the problem. This is mostly because we won't "change" it (it's in hundreds of talk pages and edit summaries, so RFD won't want to delete it). Instead, we'd just "add another shortcut", and the familiar old one will continue to be used, and editors will continue to fail to read the page. Because part of the problem is that we teach Wikipedia's ruleset through a [[telephone game]] (because [[Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions]]), I don't think that changing the content of the section would actually help. They're almost never reading it now, and they will almost never read it after any changes are implemented.
:You could provide these editors with a link directly to [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Examples of news reports as secondary sources]], which ''might'' broaden their understanding. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
Line 280 ⟶ 105:
::You are writing abstractly. WAID and I are both explaining to you how the community thinks about these issues - the consensus has existed in the community for a long time, and is broad and deep. You are free to ignore us and to ignore the reasoning behind the consensus that we are explaining to you (and the reasoning makes a great deal of sense in the context of working in Wikipedia, which is not like other places) but you will find that your edits get consistently reverted. If you need to bang your head against the wall for a while, so be it. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 16:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
:::J.S., I fully agree with you that dogmatic application of simplistic rules is bad for Wikipedia. I believe that there are many sensible editors around. I know that we don't always get it right – especially not always on the first try (that's why we have talk pages), especially not when we're busy or distracted (we're all humans) – but I think that people are trying, as best as they can, to [[WP:IAR|do what's best for the encyclopedia, even if that means not dogmatically following The Rules™]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
:
*"The best sources in basic science are peer reviewed research articles"? This is not true. Research articles are too focused. The best sources are broad-audience publications. For "basic science", these are popular publications. If the facts are disputed, it is not basic science. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
* The fact that JS oversees students who edit is a bad thing, with their approach to WP. See [[User:TüBioc]]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
:
:There are many cases in basic science where the primary source is a conference paper, before the actual work is done. Often enough, the facts change by the time the later paper is written. There are some documented examples, but I forget them now. In any case, one still has to be careful with science journal articles. [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk:Gah4|talk]]) 00:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
== Are ancient historians primary or secondary source? ==
Line 332 ⟶ 159:
:[[User:TheRandomIP|TheRandomIP]], you're correct that context matters, and it's already in the page. See [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#All sources are primary for something]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
== Uses in fields other than history: primary/secondary gap ==
In an article about a science, between "the first publication of any idea or experimental result" and "Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses" there exists a large range of RS publications about follow-on results, replication, interpretation, and so forth which this criterion-description ignores. IMO, because such publications refer to and inherently comment upon prior research, these too can be cited as secondary literature so long as the editor is not creating a new synthesis (i.e. doing the work of a review or meta-analysis). Shouldn't the advice here recognize this?
<br/>[[User:Bn|Bn]] ([[User talk:Bn|talk]]) 14:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
:@[[User:Bn|Bn]], you are correct that this happens, and that this is a type of secondary material, but in the past [[WP:MEDRS]] authors felt that this material was often incomplete in a somewhat biased way (I only mention the prior research that is relevant to my hypothesis), and that it might be too confusing for most editors. That is why I didn't include it here. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
::Ah, yes. I well understand the issue with medicine and in a different way with topics that are politically disputatious, but unless stated otherwise this 'explanatory supplement' applies to all topics. Best to make the paragraph more inclusive for the general case, and caution editors about this intermediate literature for topics where it might be confusing for e.g. either of these reasons (and perhaps others).<br/>[[User:Bn|Bn]] ([[User talk:Bn|talk]]) 16:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
:::This page already says that it's possible for a source to be a mix of primary and secondary material. I'm not sure that we really need to expand upon that. It doesn't seem to be a common source of practical problems for editors. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
== official documents ==
I do understand that often enough primary sources, even close to an actual event, can be wrong. But often enough, the subject is an actual documents, especially in government documents and standards. I would rather read the actual words from the Declaration of Independence, instead of someone else telling me what it says. Though also, sometimes explanations of the context are also important. Also for things like government standards documents, the actual wording, even if wrong, is usually more important. But as noted in the article, there are many cases, even for scientific journal papers, where the primary source is wrong. [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk:Gah4|talk]]) 00:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
:There is no category of source that is always error-free. When the goal is quoting a document, then the original source is authoritative for what was said, but not for whether it said something true. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
== Plagiarized/poor quality links in "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?" subsection ==
In general, library reference landing pages targeted at students are not of high quality, as they are often copied and pasted from other sites and massively simplified for an undergraduate audience. So, as can be expected when relying on what are essentially freshman handouts, the ones cited here have serious issues.
One page cited, from Yale University, is (as the essay states) self-contradictory, listing newspapers/magazines as both primary and secondary sources. The library page is also rather slapdash and poorly written and does not do much, by itself, to support this essay's claim that there is a clean line delineating primary vs. secondary newspaper articles. A more clear picture can be found in [https://primarysources.yale.edu/identify-types-formats/serials-newspapers-journals-magazines Yale's Primary Source collection] -- indicating, if nothing else, how Yale interprets its own guidelines:
"Like books, serials can function both as primary sources and secondary sources depending on how one approaches them. Age is an important factor in determining whether a serial publication is most useful as a primary or a secondary source. For instance, an article on slavery in a recent issue of the ''Journal of Southern History'' should be read as a secondary source, as a scholar’s attempt to interpret primary source materials such as ledgers, diaries, or government documents in order to write an account of the past. An article on slavery published in the ''Journal of Southern History'' in 1935, however, can be read not only as a secondary source on slavery but also—and perhaps more appropriately—as a primary source that reveals how scholars in the 1930s interpreted slavery."
This is saying two things: one, that primary vs. secondary as it applies to books and media articles is less a matter of what the sources ''are'' than how they are ''used''; and two, that the distinction has to do with context and cultural factors, as anything written in the 1930s about slavery -- even a scholarly source that is doing some interpretation -- is going to be inextricable from a pre-Civil Rights Era perspective, and perhaps less useful for what it says about slavery than what its existence says about those scholars.
Meanwhile, the supposed James Cook University material does not, in fact, originate from James Cook University. If you actually read the "secondary sources" section, you will notice that it is cut off after "More generally, secondary sources...". The oldest version on the Internet Archive is cut off in the same place, suggesting that it was copied (poorly) from somewhere else. Googling the text turned up a lot of sketchy term-paper sites, but I believe I have found the origin: [https://eslm.lpude.in/LIBRARY%20AND%20INFORMATION%20SCIENCES/BLIS/DLIS105_REFERENCE_SOURCES_AND_SERVICES/index.html#p=25 a textbook/pamphlet from Lovely Professional University]. (The place where the James Cook page cuts off is right before some bullet points, which checks out if someone is hastily copy-pasting.) Skimming through this pamphlet, it seems of somewhat low quality; the sources it cites are [https://www.library.illinois.edu/village/primarysource/mod1/pg8.htm this University of Illinois guide], which basically says what the Yale guide does ("it is important to consider by whom, how and for what purpose it was produced"), and something called "buzzle.com," [https://web.archive.org/web/20001214082400/http://www.buzzle.com/about.asp which does not seem particularly reliable and is part user-generated]. The irony of a Wikipedia essay about usable sources depending upon a plagiarized source is left to the reader.
The other university library pages' text has also been heavily copied-and-pasted across other university libraries, but it's hard to tell which was the original since most are are unsigned. Only the last page given (University of Michigan) lists its author, a graduate student. Basically, the whole thing is a mess, but at the very least the plagiarized ones need to go. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 02:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
:The problem to be solved is editors sincerely and genuinely believing that everything in a newspaper is a secondary source. This may happen because [[Telephone game|another editor told them that]], because they started editing back when [[WP:PSTS]] said that anything "secondhand" was secondary (and a you reading a newspaper article written by a journalist who interviewed an eyewitness might seem like secondhand content), or because they didn't realize that ''secondary'' isn't just wikijargon for "reliable source".
:What's on the page now does not violate our [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism]] guideline (because ''we'' gave credit to our source, even if the source might not have), and your analysis may be incorrect anyway. For example, you assume that the universities unfairly copied a hypothetical original document without giving proper credit, but it could be properly licensed text from a content service.
:The distinction between what a source "is" and how an editor "should use" it is real, but perhaps too complex for this page. We're still working on the basics, like whether a newspaper article on the big game last weekend is a primary or secondary source. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
== Addition needed on "Primary sources should be used carefully" ==
An example text needs to be written about using Video games as a primary source. They are a good source to use for reference on writing a wiki article about it. The most one has to worry about with video games is what scenes are altered for different regions and if any parts have been changed so that the game can fit onto different consoles. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1014:B077:2FA5:E183:CC33:E983:9A53|2600:1014:B077:2FA5:E183:CC33:E983:9A53]] ([[User talk:2600:1014:B077:2FA5:E183:CC33:E983:9A53|talk]]) 03:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:Would you like to suggest a particular text? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
::I would suggest if the future written text will mention altered scenes then the writer should read the wiki article about video game censorship as some games are altered so a game will be able to release in a certain country. About the video games being changed to fit onto different consoles, that would also fit for games that are played on computers versus their video game console counterpart version. An example of a game looking different across a console generation is "Ghostbusters: The Video Game" 2009 release. The game was released for the PS2 and PS3, if you go look at the game you will see that the characters are styled differently for their respective console and there is even some gameplay differences as well. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1014:B077:2FA5:E183:CC33:E983:9A53|2600:1014:B077:2FA5:E183:CC33:E983:9A53]] ([[User talk:2600:1014:B077:2FA5:E183:CC33:E983:9A53|talk]]) 22:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I wonder if this information might be more usefully placed in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources]] or [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
: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>]]<sup>[[User talk:TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''talk'''</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/TarkusAB|<span style="color: #aa0000">'''contrib'''</span>]]</sup> 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)
| |||