Revision as of 20:16, 15 February 2025 edit Traumnovelle (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 11,776 edits →' Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source': Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:19, 15 February 2025 edit undo Blueboar (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 53,888 edits →' Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source': Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply Next edit →
Line 231: :::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) :::::Um… this isn’t a guideline. It’s an explanatory essay. [[User:Blueboar\|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar\|talk]]) 21:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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