Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
BruceGrubb (talk | contribs) →Scholarly papers: new section |
||
Line 103:
:Also, your claim that quoting someone else makes your paper secondary is simply wrong. Reprinting someone else's words does not magically transform your publication into a secondary source. (And if someone reprinted yours, would that be tertiary? And when I cite that third source, do you propose making up names for the classification?) The policy is trying to provide a simple overview. It says "second-hard" to indicate a significant degree of separation, not to imply that [[WP:Secondary does not mean independent|secondary is a fancy way to spell independent]]. If you post X on your blog, then your blog post is a primary source for your words. If I quote your post, my quotation is ''also'' a primary source for your words (but now an ''independent'' primary source).
:Please: go read real sources about this subject. A number of them are linked above, but there are even more detailed sources available. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
== Scholarly papers ==
One problem I have encountered is the scholarly paper = primary source view of many editors (see [[Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_3#Planned_reworking_of_second_paragraph_of_introduction]] and [[Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_3#Price_and_FIT-inspired_.27holistic_dentistry.27]] for two such examples). Certainly the actual words of the person the biography is about regarding one of the two subjects (focal infection theory-root canal) that has made him notable to the general populous would be worth mentioning--especially as all the current sources talk the man's 1923 work and act like he didn't say a word on the matter afterword.
Yet direct nearly entire paragraph quotes from the ''Journal American Medical Association'' and a book by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers that show that Price's views on the matter were far more complicated then the more recent sources (based on a RS flawed interpretation of Price's 1923 work) show have been kept out simply because they are viewed as primary even though they are in fact a mixture of both primary and secondary.--[[User:BruceGrubb|BruceGrubb]] ([[User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]]) 19:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
| |||