Wikipedia:Identifying and using tertiary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m ce |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m ce |
||
Line 21:
* Material found in university textbooks ranges from secondary to tertiary, even in the same work, but is most often tertiary, especially at lower levels and covering more basic subjects. Textbooks intended for primary and secondary schools are tertiary and, for Wikipedia purposes, categorically unreliable.
* Children's books of any kind are tertiary at best, often primary, and categorically unreliable sources. Especially beware citations to books about animals; the majority of them are children's books, so check to be sure. In the same [[Wikipedia:Children's, adult new reader, and large-print sources questionable on reliability|class of suspect works]] are "adult new reader" books, and abridged large-print editions, or any other digest version.
* Some material published in general [[Journalism|news and journalism sources]] (which are usually secondary) is actually tertiary, such as topical [[overview article]]s that summarize publicly-available information without adding any investigation or analysis; and sidebars of statistics or other [[factoid]]s in an otherwise secondary article. (Some is also primary, such as editorials, op-eds, film reviews, advice columns, and highly subjective investigative journalism pieces.) News reporting is often mostly primary (quoting eyewitness statements, or the observations of an eyewitness reporter, rather than based on more in-depth material from experts and notable organizations). New reporting is treated more and more {{em|as if}} primary, regardless of what it contains, the closer it is to the date of the events, and the further in time those events recede.
* Similarly, not all [[Documentary film|documentaries]] aired on quasi-nonfictional TV networks are actually secondary sources; many are tertiary, and simply summarize various views of and facts about a history or science topic, without the result being novel. Some are even primary, for any exaggeratory conclusions they reach on their own. This has become increasingly true as documentary channels produce more [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] entertainment material about aliens, ghosts, ancient alleged mysteries, etc.
* [[Systematic review]]s in [[academic journal]]s are secondary sources, especially when they are themselves [[Peer review|peer-reviewed]], despite aggregating information from multiple previous publications. The less analytic kind of academic [[review article]], the [[literature review]], may be secondary or tertiary depending on its content.
| |||