Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:48, 4 June 2015

Revision as of 17:46, 4 June 2015

Line 27:

::::On the other point, the policy emphatically says {{em|twice}} that such analytic claims have to come from secondary sources (I didn't notice this the first time around). The second instance is at [[WP:PSTS]]: '{{tq|All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source}}, and this comes immediately after mention of tertiary sources: '{{tq|Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.}}' So, there is no confusion between or commingling of secondary and tertiary sources in the policy. Tertiary are good enough for helping to establish notability, but only secondary are good enough (it said so two times) for "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims". It's very rare for a WP policy to say the same thing twice, so clearly this is meant to be taken seriously. "''Assumed''" to be "published in" isn't the same as "referenced to" a secondary source, which is what WP:PSTS says more restrictively. But even if both lines used "published in" wording, I'm absolutely certain the interpretation that we can just assume such publication would not have been upheld, e.g. at an RfC. It's just poor wording in one spot, meanwhile it's very clear that everything in the policy is about citing sources not assuming they may exist somewhere. Your WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT point takes us right back to the previous paragraph: If a usually-tertiary source actually has any "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims" that we're using, then it {{em|is}} a secondary source; we're not citing a tertiary source as if it were secondary, we're citing secondary source material directly, that just happens to be surrounded by tertiary material in the same publication. PS: By defining all reliable tertiary sources as those which summarize the analysis and evaluation of reliable secondary sources (you said we can "assume" this), your conditional, '{{tq|a "tertiary" source '''can''' be cited for analysis and evaluation per NOR [...] where it is summarizing the analysis and evaluation of reliable secondary sources}}', would automatically qualify {{em|every}} reliable tertiary source (i.e., the only tertiary sources acceptable on WP, since we don't allow unreliable sources). Thus, it would directly equate reliable tertiary and secondary sources, which the policy obviously does not do. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 01:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

:Also concerned about the jump from the NOR quote to the following bold conclusion. It seems to me this essay is addressing a certain subset of tertiary sources, not all tertiary sources. The lede sentence of this essay offers a definition of tertiary sources that is significantly more specific and qualified than the definition in policy at NOR. For example, the lede of this essay says tertiary sources are those "without significant new analysis, commentary, or synthesis," and also as those lacking in rigor of citation ("especially when it does not indicate from which sources specific facts were drawn.") I don't see the basis for these qualifications in policy. Perhaps this essay would benefit from a more considered and explicit scope and an adjustment to the title. Or maybe these additional qualifications are things most Wikipedians understand from the definition of tertiary sources in policy and so are improvements to NOR. Net net, this essay argues against using tertiary sources for analysis or evaluation. This strikes me as too broad. The policy definition of tertiary sources seems to admit tertiary sources that summarize analysis and evaluation from secondary sources, and it seems a shame to blanket exclude such. As a general observation may I say many WP articles might benefit from more good tertiary sources. Thanks. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 17:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

== Tertiary sources & the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' ==