Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →Secondary sources for notability: Too much work |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 139:
: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)
::I agree that Bruce has found Wikipedia's approach to primary sources inconvenient for adding his beliefs about Price's work to that article. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
| |||