Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Primary / secondary sources in basic science: primary sources still aren't always right |
→official documents: new section |
||
Line 343:
::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)
| |||