Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →Notability: Agreed |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →Secondary sources for notability: It's more complicated than that |
||
Line 118:
::::::This question amounts to "please analyze every single source ''and'' every single sentence in this long article." Classification of a source depends on not only the inherent characteristics of the source, but also on how the source is used. A meta-analysis is normally called a secondary source, but you can turn it into a primary source by the way that you use it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::the point I'm trying to make with that featured article is that it would appear to be composed entirely or almost entirely of primary sources, according to your view. If so, either there is something very wrong with the FA process, or with your definition (for Wikipedia purposes). How can we resolve this question? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 21:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The point I'm trying to make is that if you don't know which sources the article is "primarily based upon", then you ''definitely'' don't know that those mysterious, unidentified sources are not secondary sources. It is possible—easy, even—to base an article primarily upon one good source, and still cite a dozen others. It's not just a simple matter of counting up the number of sources. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
===break===
| |||