Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 340:
:@[[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)
| |||