Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Traumnovelle (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 230:
::Why can't you use the secondary source to establish weight and the primary source to correct a mistake? Although the primary source could have a typographical error and minor changes to a quote shouldn't be considered incorrect. I only ever see this policy linked to to justify bad use of primary sources. A primary source cannot establish importance/notability. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 00:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Sure, primary sources are not appropriate for establishing importance/notability. However, they are often great sources for verifying the ''details'' once that importance/notability has been established by independent secondary sources. Our best articles use both. The hard part is understanding HOW and WHEN to appropriately use each. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 02:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
::::And this guideline is frequently cited in situations where secondary sources have not been provided. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 20:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
| |||