Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 20:
:One the second point, I agree, but the essay already covers this in the "Exceptions" section. So, taking these two points together, I'm not sure there's a true problem of conflicting interpretations. It may be that the wording just needs some clarity, and I've been working on it for a few hours. I'm sure it will need more, especially if we actually contemplate merging this with [[WP:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources]], which I didn't even know existed (it's not used much, and under-linked, and full of errors). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I get what you are saying, but still disagree. One of the purposes of a tertiary source is to summarize material published in secondary sources. The best ones actually do cite their sources... but even if they don't, if the tertiary source is at all reputable, we can ''assume'' that the material it summarizes comes from reliable secondary sources (and thus ''has'' been published by a reliable secondary source. Which means it has passed the "only" wording of NOR)... Indeed, if we refer to an analysis or evaluative claim from an encyclopedia (or other tertiary source) we are ''required'' to cite that encyclopedia (or other tertiary source) for that analysis or evaluation... per [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]].
:::No, tertiary sources do have their place... and while they may not always be the ''best'' source ''possible'' they are almost always at least marginally ''acceptable'' sources. And if a tertiary source contains an analysis or evaluation it's definitely ''not'' Original research to
| |||