Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Will Beback (talk | contribs) |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 104:
: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)
::I have, and I'm not convinced, since, as Will notes, our goals are not the same as academic goals. I think your argument is counter to the intent of the policy, and that you are making gross generalizations about when and how analysis occurs in reporting in newspapers and magazine. A report in a newspaper that references what someone says and analyses it, especially if it does so in reference to what others have said about the same topic, is very definitely a secondary source as we use the term regardless if appears a day or two after the event. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--[[User:Nuujinn|Nuujinn]] ([[User_talk:Nuujinn|talk]])</span> 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Nuujinn, if you will look over your earlier comment, you will see that nothing like "and analyses it" is present there. Merely repeating the words that someone said to the journalist—what you originally described—does not constitute a secondary source. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
:::@WhatamIdoing: My point with [[Tropical Storm Nicole (2010)]] is that you seem to be defining these terms differently than Wikipedia has done traditionally, even recently. It's up to you to show that you are using definitions that are consistent with actual practice on Wikipedia.
:::Regarding your revert of my edits, you wrote, " This isn't over-reach. It's supported by reliable sources, and the example is obvious".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources&diff=451796321&oldid=451760858] Again, the only "reliable sources" for an issue like this would be Wikipedia discussions. Which discussion or other Wikipedia page are we using as the basis for this assertion: "Some editors—especially those with no training in historiography—incorrectly call these newspaper articles 'secondary sources'."? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 23:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Will, my point is that if you don't know what sources the article is primarily based on, then it's going to be hard to figure out whether those sources are, and are being used as, secondary sources. There are 60 sources, and we both know that the article is not 1/60th "based primarily" upon each one of them equally. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
== Scholarly papers ==
| |||