Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
Will Beback (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 93:
:Technically, nothing published as an article in a newspaper is self-published, even if the article is word-for-word the same as the self-published press release. What makes something self-published is if the author and the publisher are the same entity. "Big Marketing Company, Inc" is not the same as "Smallville Times' publisher". Therefore the newspaper's publication constitutes proper publication—even if the source is still essentially lousy for Wikipedia's purposes.
:I agree that separation need not be temporal, although temporal separation is the simplest concept to explain, and the most relevant to notability issues (since what's wrongly touted as a "secondary source" in the weeks after an event will be derided as merely primary at the successful AFD years later). An investigative report can be a secondary report. A report about a crime may also be a primary report: merely repeating the statements made by involved parties is not sufficient separation. It's [[Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources#Not_a_matter_of_counting_the_number_of_links_in_the_chain|not just a matter of counting links in the chain]]. As someone else said recently, a secondary source is a work of the mind, not simple regurgitation of what you saw or what someone else told you. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
::[[Tropical Storm Nicole (2010)]]? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 07:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
| |||