Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
Will Beback (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 57:
::::I think that such a story is one that even experts would disagree on how to classify. The existence of some bit of analysis does not automagically make the source into a secondary one. If you presented a historian with a very old newspaper article, such as one describing a debate in the Continental Congress, s/he might very well tell you are calling "anaylsis from experts" was actually individual opinions issued by insiders rather than proper analysis, and that it is certainly a primary source for the initial reaction by contemporary experts. (Or s/he might not: it would depend on the details of the source and the historian's professional view of source classification.)
::::Even such a piece, however, is likely to be largely a primary source, because the first reports about a political debate have to provide basic descriptions, like who said what. All of that is unquestionably primary source material. The existence of a few sentences of on-the-spot analysis does not transform the whole piece into a secondary source. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::I think we're basing too much here on our own speculation. I'm going to trim some of the assertions out of that section and focus it more on the simple issue of how secondary sources are importawnt for establishing notability. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 03:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
| |||