Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:58, 7 November 2011

Revision as of 19:17, 9 November 2011

Line 91:

;Examples

* '''An article about the conquest of the hypothetical country above:''' The proclamation itself is an acceptable primary source for a simple description of the proclamation, including its size, whether it was written in [[blackletter]] calligraphy, whether it is signed or has an [[official seal]], and what words, dates, or names were on it. Anyone should be able to look at an image of the proclamation and see that it was all written on one page, whether it used that style of calligraphy, and so forth. However, the proclamation's authenticity, meaning, relevance, importance, typicality, influences, and so forth should all be left to the book that analyzed it, not to Wikipedia's editors.

* '''An article about a novel:''' The novel itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot, the names of the characters, or other contents in the book: Any educated person can read Jane Austen's ''Pride and Prejudice'' and discover that the main character's name is Elizabeth. It is not an acceptable source for claims about book's style, themes, foreshadowing, symbolic meaning, values, importance, or other matters of critical analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: No one will find a direct statement of this material in the book.

* '''An article about a painting:''' The painting itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the colors, shapes, and figures in the painting. Any educated person can look at Georgia O'Keeffe's ''Cow Skull: Red, White, and Blue'', and see that it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue. It is not an acceptable source for claims about the artist's motivation, allusions or relationships to other works, the meaning of the figures in the painting, or any other matters of analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: Looking at the painting does not tell anyone why the artist chose these colors, whether she meant to evoke religious or patriotic sentiments, or what motivated the composition.

* '''An article about a businessperson:''' The organizationperson's [[autobiography]], own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary{{ref|1|‡}} source for information about what the companyperson says about itselfhimself andor for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilitiesherself. ItSuch isprimary notsources likelycan tonormally be an acceptable sourceused for mostnon-controversial claimsfacts about howthe itperson orand itsfor products[[WP:INTEXT|clearly compareattributed]] tocontroversial similar companies and their products (estatements.g., "OurCo's FooMany isother betterprimary than Brand X")sources, althoughincluding it[[birth will be acceptable for some simplecertificate]]s, objective comparison claims ("OurCo is the oldest[[Social widgetSecurity businessDeath inIndex]], Smallville"and orcourt "OurCodocuments, sellsare moreusually widgetsnot thanacceptable anyoneprimary elsesources, inbecause the New Zealand"). Itit is never an acceptable sourceimpossible for claimsthe thatviewer evaluateto orknow analyzewhether the companyperson orlisted itson actions,the suchdocument asis anthe analysisnotable ofsubject itsrather marketingthan strategiesanother (e.g.,person "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expandingwho saleshappens to middle-aged,have middle-classthe Americansame women")name.

* '''An article about a business:''' The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary{{ref|1|‡}} source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products (e.g., "OurCo's Foo is better than Brand X"), although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective comparison claims ("OurCo is the oldest widget business in Smallville" or "OurCo sells more widgets than anyone else in the New Zealand"). It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions, such as an analysis of its marketing strategies (e.g., "OurCo's sponsorship of National Breast Cancer Month is an effective tool in expanding sales to middle-aged, middle-class American women").

:{{caption|‡ {{note|1}} AnA person's or an organization's website could contain some secondary material about itself, although this is not very common. Such material would still be [[WP:SPS|self-published]] as well as first-party/affiliated/non-independent material, and thus would still be subject to restrictions in how you can use it.}}

==Secondary sources for notability==