Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Requested move 11 December 2019: the result was "not moved" |
TheRandomIP (talk | contribs) →Primary source depends on context: new section |
||
Line 320:
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>
== Primary source depends on context ==
I think what is missing on this page is how the context influences whether a source is primary or not.
Let's say you are writing about some ancient person. You use the Encyclopædia Britannica to verify the article. This is ok and not a primary source.
However, for the article [[Encyclopædia Britannica]] itself, the very same Encyclopædia Britannica ''is'' now a primary source.
Similar more subtle example would be a section "topic xy in popular science" where you write about how a specific topic is received in popular science. Popular science literature itself is now the primary source, as this is the subject of interest in your section. Optimally, you would need another source summarizing different popular science literature, then you can use this summary to verify your section. Of course this would be overkill for some articles, but technically this would be the correct practice to truly get unbiased information. --[[User:TheRandomIP|TheRandomIP]] ([[User talk:TheRandomIP|talk]]) 13:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
| |||