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

Revision as of 16:16, 26 July 2023

Revision as of 16:27, 1 April 2024

Line 59:

:::* 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>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  ^{[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]} 16:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}