Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→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 |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →Secondary sources for notability: Quote from NOR |
||
Line 117:
primary SPS
:I suspect that Will's concerns will be addressed by him reading the footnote in NOR that gives examples of primary sources:
<blockquote>
"Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, <u>investigative reports,</u> trials (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, opinion pieces or <u>interviews</u>; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos and television programs.
[....]
"Primary sources may include <u>newspaper articles</u>, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents"."
</blockquote>
:Every single mention of how to classify news reports in NOR says that they are (normally) primary sources. Despite his belief that this page restricts these sources far more than the policy, we're actually doing the opposite and pointing out that ''some'' newspaper articles are secondary sources. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
== Scholarly papers ==
| |||