Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources
Things to think about
I do like the idea of noting that "secondary is not always good"... but I think it more important to note that "primary is not always bad". Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have added something to that effect. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
What excellent work! One note: I'd recommend avoiding getting into the article deletion stuff. For starters, it's a different subject. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If by "article deletion stuff" you mean "don't discuss how primary/secondary sources impact WP:Notability", I disagree. I think that is something this essay should discuss. To me, the focus/topic of this essay should be inclusive... "Primary/secondary sources - what they are used for and how to use them appropriately - also how they can be misused and how to avoid doing so". Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that we need to address secondary-for-notability directly, because the odd, non-standard definition in play at AFD is where most editors get their first training on what a secondary source is. Then they wander out to the rest of the encyclopedia and get completely confused and often upset when someone points out that yesterday's 'eyewitness news' story actually isn't a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Notability
The major use of secondary sources in Wikipedia is to show something has been noticed. As it is currently written a yellow pages directory of companies would be considered a secondary source, do we really want to consider that as source of notability? I think a lot more has to be made of the noticing and evaluating function of a secondary source. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the yellow pages would be considered a tertiary source, rather than a secondary source.
- Also, the yellow pages are paid advertisements. As such, they are entirely non-WP:Independent sources and completely worthless for showing notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Initial thoughts
I think there is a lot of related material found at Wikipedia_talk:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources. I personally recall writing "I’d suggest instead writing a new guideline “Interpreting WP:PSTS”"
On the section "Characteristics of a secondary source"...
RE: "A secondary source is based on primary sources" "is based on" is used a bit too much. A secondary source is not so much based on primary sources as it is a product of the mind of the author. A secondary source makes reference to at least one primary source, even if implicitly, sometimes using the assumption that the reader is familiar with the facts, or may even assume that the reader is a personal witness to an unnamed event making primary sources virtually untraceable. It is the commentary, analysis, criticism, etc, that defines a secondary source.
Secondary sources need not necessarily be significantly separated in time or space (although they usually are).
I find it easy and useful to tie the word "story" to secondary sources, and and "report" to primary sources. This works quite well with newspapers and other newsmedia. If it tells a story, the must be some transformation of the basic information. (Of course, if the subject is the story itself, then the news story is a primary source)
"A secondary source is usually based on more than one primary source" is debateable. How do you count secondary sources to establish "usualy"? Private commentary, such as your housemate talking to you, happens a lot and may use a single primary source. "Good" or "useful" secondary sources are usually based on more than one primary source. Reputably published secondary source material is usually based on more than one primary source.
On the section "Secondary sources for notability" RE: "One rough rule of thumb for identifying primary sources is this: if the source is noticeably closer to the event than you are, then it's a primary source." I don't think that is so correct. While usually true, it is often not. A discussion of the event of January 1, 1800, published the next day, was, and is, a secondary source with regards to the event. It may not be the most useful secondary source, but if it presents opinion and analysis and does not repeat the facts verbatum, it is a secondary source. The reason that it is likely treated as a primary source is because today's story probably goes beyond discussion of the event to include discussion of local reaction at the time. It thus comes down to "usage"
It may be best to ignore non-historiographical usages, but just to note that they exist: In the sciences, there is often a single capital P Primary source. It will be the first, the original, the most authorative source for some highly specific thing. It may well be the first account of an eyewitness. It may be the the technition's labbook. It may be the paper that first speculates the explanatory theory. This very narrow definition of a single Primary source seems to encourage people to think that all other sources are secondary. However, in the sciences, there is no concept of a "secondary source", and "Primary" simply means "first".
The above concept of a single Primary source applies readily to eyewitness accounts, and seems to be a familiar usage in journalism. In journalism, a "secondary account" is an account of what someone else said. The information is therefore "second hand". It is also less realiable, but it has some relationship to notability in that if something is worth repeating, then it is more notable than something not worth repeating. This use of secondary seems completely independent of the historiographical "secondary source".
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your useful comments. I've made some changes already based on them.
- Since Wikipedia has decided to use PSTS for everything, I think we're stuck with trying to shoehorn the non-history fields into this framework. It's always going to be inelegant, but at least we'll can tell editors what Wikipedia they can realistically expect when they are working on (e.g.) medicine-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Secondary sources for notability
- One rough rule of thumb for identifying primary sources is this: if the source is noticeably closer to the event than you are, then it's a primary source. For example, if an event occurred on January 1, 1800, and a newspaper article appeared about it the next day, then Wikipedia (and all historians) considers the newspaper article a primary source.
- Typically, very recent newspaper articles are mis-labeled as a "secondary source" during AFDs, by way of trying to finesse the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist, when no true secondary sources actually exist.
An 1800 newspaper is an extreme example. I don't think that we'd consider a 1985 newspaper article or book to be a primary source. I'm not sure that calling all newspaper articles primary sources is accurate either. Will Beback talk 00:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- I gave the extreme example on purpose, because it's a clear-cut example. An article from 20 years ago might go either way. A rough rule of thumb is not guaranteed to work well for borderline cases.
- All newspaper articles are certainly not primary sources, and this page makes no such claim. However, all "eyewitness news" reports are primary sources (by definition), and basically all the newspaper articles that appear within hours of an event are primary sources (for purely practical reasons). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's not true. If a news report from hours after a political debate includes analysis from experts then that's clearly a secondary source. I think a lot of the text in this section is misleading and doesn't address the topic of the section. Will Beback talk 22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think that such a story is one that even experts would disagree on how to classify. The existence of some bit of analysis does not automagically make the source into a secondary one. If you presented a historian with a very old newspaper article, such as one describing a debate in the Continental Congress, s/he might very well tell you are calling "anaylsis from experts" was actually individual opinions issued by insiders rather than proper analysis, and that it is certainly a primary source for the initial reaction by contemporary experts. (Or s/he might not: it would depend on the details of the source and the historian's professional view of source classification.)
- Even such a piece, however, is likely to be largely a primary source, because the first reports about a political debate have to provide basic descriptions, like who said what. All of that is unquestionably primary source material. The existence of a few sentences of on-the-spot analysis does not transform the whole piece into a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think we're basing too much here on our own speculation. I'm going to trim some of the assertions out of that section and focus it more on the simple issue of how secondary sources are importawnt for establishing notability. Will Beback talk 03:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not basing any of this on speculation. This is what the sources actually say. See, for example, "Primary sources include original manuscripts, periodical articles reporting original research or thought, diaries, memoirs, letters, journals, photographs, drawings, posters, film footage, sheet music, songs, interviews, government documents, public records, eyewitness accounts, newspaper clippings, etc."[1] (emphasis added)
- Someone's original thoughts about a political debate, as reported in a newspaper, falls into the standard definition of a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)