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

Revision as of 15:23, 14 November 2018

Latest revision as of 17:40, 3 September 2024

(4 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 28 ⟶ 31:

::::On the other point, the policy emphatically says {{em|twice}} that such analytic claims have to come from secondary sources (I didn't notice this the first time around). The second instance is at [[WP:PSTS]]: '{{tq|All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source}}, and this comes immediately after mention of tertiary sources: '{{tq|Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.}}' So, there is no confusion between or commingling of secondary and tertiary sources in the policy. Tertiary are good enough for helping to establish notability, but only secondary are good enough (it said so two times) for "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims". It's very rare for a WP policy to say the same thing twice, so clearly this is meant to be taken seriously. "''Assumed''" to be "published in" isn't the same as "referenced to" a secondary source, which is what WP:PSTS says more restrictively. But even if both lines used "published in" wording, I'm absolutely certain the interpretation that we can just assume such publication would not have been upheld, e.g. at an RfC. It's just poor wording in one spot, meanwhile it's very clear that everything in the policy is about citing sources not assuming they may exist somewhere. Your WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT point takes us right back to the previous paragraph: If a usually-tertiary source actually has any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims" that we're using, then it {{em|is}} a secondary source; we're not citing a tertiary source as if it were secondary, we're citing secondary source material directly, that just happens to be surrounded by tertiary material in the same publication. PS: By defining all reliable tertiary sources as those which summarize the analysis and evaluation of reliable secondary sources (you said we can "assume" this), your conditional, '{{tq|a "tertiary" source '''can''' be cited for analysis and evaluation per NOR [...] where it is summarizing the analysis and evaluation of reliable secondary sources}}', would automatically qualify {{em|every}} reliable tertiary source (i.e., the only tertiary sources acceptable on WP, since we don't allow unreliable sources). Thus, it would directly equate reliable tertiary and secondary sources, which the policy obviously does not do. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 01:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

:Also concerned about the jump from the NOR quote to the following bold conclusion. It seems to me this essay is addressing a certain subset of tertiary sources, not all tertiary sources. The lede sentence of this essay offers a definition of tertiary sources that is significantly more specific and qualified than the definition in policy at NOR. For example, the lede of this essay says tertiary sources are those "without significant new analysis, commentary, or synthesis," and also as those lacking in rigor of citation ("especially when it does not indicate from which sources specific facts were drawn.") I don't see the basis for these qualifications in policy. Perhaps this essay would benefit from a more considered and explicit scope and an adjustment to the title. Or maybe these additional qualifications are things most Wikipedians understand from the definition of tertiary sources in policy and so are improvements to NOR. Net net, this essay argues against using tertiary sources for analysis or evaluation. This strikes me as too broad. The policy definition of tertiary sources seems to admit tertiary sources that summarize analysis and evaluation from secondary sources, and it seems a shame to blanket exclude such. As a general observation may I say many WP articles might benefit from more good tertiary sources. Thanks. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 17:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|HughD}} {{lang|la|Re}} "this essay argues against using tertiary sources for analysis or evaluation. This strikes me as too broad." – Except it's not; [[WP:AEIS]] policy (the ''A'' and ''E'' in that are ''analysis'' and ''evaluation'') is absolutely unequivocal on this:

::{{quote|{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim {{em|only if}} that has been published by a reliable secondary source.}}

::On the other matters, some of the text could be massaged a bit here and there; it's just been a low priority, since this essay has actually been serving its purpose quite well. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 15:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

== Tertiary sources & the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' ==

Line 36 ⟶ 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)