Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Secondary sources for notability: WhatamIdoing invited me back here to have a look. Will Beback doesn't seem to be saying anything disagreeable. I have trouble here finding the focus of the discussion. One question is: What is "SPS" in "A pre |
→Scholarly papers: It is true that "scholarly paper = primary source" is a common default assumption. I think it is generally a useful default assumption. Of course, it is not always true. The nature of a source, whether primary source or seco |
||
Line 123:
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)
:It is true that "scholarly paper = primary source" is a common default assumption. I think it is generally a useful default assumption. Of course, it is not always true. The nature of a source, whether primary source or secondarary source, can depend on how it is used. The rule of thumb that I find most useful is that if it is a report, it is a primary source; if it is a review, a story, an analysis or a commentary, etc, then it is a secondary source. This works equally well of scholarly papers as for gossip magazines. Often, whether in a magazine or an article there is a sudden change from from primary source material to secondary source material across a single paragraph division. First, the facts are presented. Then, comment is made. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 13:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
| |||