Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
Will Beback (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 85:
::::::But it's not '''all''' newspaper articles that are primary, and many of those articles cite non-primary media. For example, the ''LA Times'' report titled ""Occidental recalls 'Barry' Obama'" is a secondary source for the name of the college Obama attended, because it's writing about events that happened nearly three decades before. Three decades is significant separation.
::::::This section is dealing with the notability problems of '''recent''' events: events that happen on Monday afternoon and turn up in Tuesday morning's newspaper. Those articles are (almost) always primary sources, and those articles are ''not'' considered proof of notability in the end. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::[[Tropical Storm Nicole (2010)]] was passed as an FA in July 2011. Has the policy been changed since then? Please take a moment to review that article and see if it is based mainly on secondary sources, according to your definition of the term.
:::::::I don't doubt that there are any number of terms used on Wikipedia that have different definitions in academia. But this isn't academia. We create our own manual of style and we have our own functional definitions of "primary" and "secondary" too. It's the job of this essay to describe Wikipedia practice, not to change it to conform to academic practices. (That may be a valid goal, but this essay isn't the place to do it unless it's recast for that purpose). <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 22:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
| |||