Knowledge (XXG) talk:Identifying and using primary sources

1486:, thanks for expanding on the secondary-preferred guideline. Ultimately the most important quality factor is the writer. Primary sources are not always reliable but the same is true for secondary sources. Reviews are great because they save us time but bad because review authors know less about the discoveries that they sum up from a distance. Primary literature, on the other hand, is bulkier but also less error-prone and easier to verify because you can directly go to the source instead of hoping from one review which cited another review which finally badly cited the original experiment. Ultimately, it's in the hand of the editor to pick the best source and check it thoroughly before summing it up nicely for the Knowledge (XXG). What will definitely lower the quality of almost any Knowledge (XXG) article is the dogmatic application of simplistic rules (no research articles ever) but I'm hopeful from your comments that there are sensible editors around and maybe even in the majority? — 1669:

journalistic investigation on the basis of too little data. The problem with sources is that they reflect the undersetanding of the time in which they were written. A 1920 scholarly analysis of the global impact of what we now call World War I (then, the Great War) is not a secondary source, because that analysis has been vastly superseded by better analyses and by actual changes in what the effects were, and by more significant later events like WWII and the Cold War. An analysis of events by someone writing in 32 BCE or 524 AD is utterly primary, because – on top of the too-close-to-the-events problem – virtually no one made any effort whatsoever to produce neutral analysis before the advent of modern scientific writing and proper journalism.

1329:, thanks for getting back to me. Yes, I think it's problematic to cut down on primary sources and promote this as a guideline or even a rule of the Knowledge (XXG). Secondary sources have an element of Chinese whispers. Information invariably gets altered, even distorted at times. You may say a news piece on a primary research publication is secondary and therefore more desirable as a Knowledge (XXG) source. I would say it's not. Better to go to the source like a detective and not rely on hearsay. Of course secondary sources often make the information easier to take up because they summarize and evaluate. So if there is a good review/newspiece/press release/highlight, why not. Often there isn't. The 241:"There can be grey areas when determining if an item is a primary source or a secondary source. For example, newspaper journalists may interview eyewitnesses but not be actual eyewitnesses themselves. They also may have completed research to inform their story. Traditionally, however, newspapers are considered primary sources…. Examples of common primary source formats can include...contemporary newspaper articles…. Newspaper articles, although often written after an event has occurred, are traditionally considered a primary source…. " 238:"Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described ... Examples of primary sources include...newspaper ads and stories. In writing a narrative of the political turmoil surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election, a researcher will likely tap newspaper reports of that time for factual information on the events. The researcher will use these reports as primary sources because they offer direct or firsthand evidence of the events, as they first took place." 1334:

richest source of information for the Knowledge (XXG). When a new drug is discovered, double-checked, and published in a reputable journal, should we really wait a year until a review article comes out, or 5 until a meta-review is published? Or should we use the news piece of a journalist that understands the research less than many of the better Knowledge (XXG) editors? Let me know what you think. If this discussion is more appropriate for another page, feel free to move it. All the best, —

303:"In the humanities, age is an important factor in determining whether an article is a primary or secondary source. A recently-published journal or newspaper article on the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case would be read as a secondary source, because the author is interpreting an historical event. An article on the case that was published in 1955 could be read as a primary source that reveals how writers were interpreting the decision immediately after it was handed down". 1236:

be colored by the authors' own view point. This often makes them a worse source than the primary research and it is different to medical research where meta-analyses and systematic reviews are often superior to primary research. But these types of publications are often not possible in basic research since at the bottom of the research tree it does not make sense to repeat the analysis on a small root many times to get enough data for a meta-analysis.

182: 467:

straight off the police blotter", "the journalist interviewed the police officer about the mayor's arrest", "the journalist mindlessly repeated the facts that the preacher claimed about last night's ice-cream fundraiser at the church", "the journalist copied two sentences out of a press release that says WhatamIdoing's Gas Station has changed its opening hours", and all of the other primary stories that appear in a typical newspaper.

309:"There can be grey areas when determining if an item is a primary source or a secondary source. For example, newspaper journalists may interview eyewitnesses but not be actual eyewitnesses themselves. They also may have completed research to inform their story. Traditionally, however, newspapers are considered primary sources. The key, in most cases, is determining the origin of the document and its proximity to the actual event". 306:"Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described In writing a narrative of the political turmoil surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election, a researcher will likely tap newspaper reports of that time for factual information on the events. The researcher will use these reports as primary sources because they offer direct or firsthand evidence of the events, as they first took place". 2519:

would also fit for games that are played on computers versus their video game console counterpart version. An example of a game looking different across a console generation is "Ghostbusters: The Video Game" 2009 release. The game was released for the PS2 and PS3, if you go look at the game you will see that the characters are styled differently for their respective console and there is even some gameplay differences as well.

22: 81: 53: 145: 1603:

pro-Athenian bias of Thucydides) and these historians were not witnessing the events they describe at there work. But considering them as secondary sources, seems awkward. Secondary sources in history are usually books or scholarly journals, from the perspective of a later interpreter, especially by a later scholar. So, is there a formal WP policy or guidance relevant to this question?

67: 2404:; and two, that the distinction has to do with context and cultural factors, as anything written in the 1930s about slavery -- even a scholarly source that is doing some interpretation -- is going to be inextricable from a pre-Civil Rights Era perspective, and perhaps less useful for what it says about slavery than what its existence says about those scholars. 374:

recommend leaving out the bit about eyewitnesses, because it's likely to mislead editors by conflating independence with primary-ness. It doesn't matter whether the reporter saw the car wreck with his own two eyes; the three-sentence newspaper story about the car wreck last night is still a primary source for the fact that a car wreck happened last night.

2337:

telling me what it says. Though also, sometimes explanations of the context are also important. Also for things like government standards documents, the actual wording, even if wrong, is usually more important. But as noted in the article, there are many cases, even for scientific journal papers, where the primary source is wrong.

532:

because the library took that page off their website. Even if we find the original title for the article, people are still not going to be able to read the page. You are pretty much going to have to trust that if I were lying about the contents of that page, that someone would have mentioned it in the archives before now.

2256:

criterion-description ignores. IMO, because such publications refer to and inherently comment upon prior research, these too can be cited as secondary literature so long as the editor is not creating a new synthesis (i.e. doing the work of a review or meta-analysis). Shouldn't the advice here recognize this?

1397:

entire article". When the policy says that "articles should be based upon" secondary sources, the policy means that a majority of the content and the major themes for an article should be cite-able with reliable secondary sources. It doesn't mean that you can't ever cite a primary source for anything.

2488:

An example text needs to be written about using Video games as a primary source. They are a good source to use for reference on writing a wiki article about it. The most one has to worry about with video games is what scenes are altered for different regions and if any parts have been changed so that

1573:

There are many cases in basic science where the primary source is a conference paper, before the actual work is done. Often enough, the facts change by the time the later paper is written. There are some documented examples, but I forget them now. In any case, one still has to be careful with science

1495:

You are writing abstractly. WAID and I are both explaining to you how the community thinks about these issues - the consensus has existed in the community for a long time, and is broad and deep. You are free to ignore us and to ignore the reasoning behind the consensus that we are explaining to you

1423:

When editors cite the primary literature, we tend to see a lot of unrepresentative or unimportant studies (e.g., people citing the one study that claims that bacon improves health, and ignoring the thousands that say it doesn't, or people citing the one study that's in the news this week). It's hard

1198:

Propaganda pictures are useful in many kinds of articles. An educated understanding of the subject will know what all the sides thought of it: the image that the Nazis chose to project for themselves, the image that their enemies used of them, the images that we now use, etc. There's nothing wrong

944:

I don't think that changing the shortcut will solve the problem. This is mostly because we won't "change" it (it's in hundreds of talk pages and edit summaries, so RFD won't want to delete it). Instead, we'd just "add another shortcut", and the familiar old one will continue to be used, and editors

628:

Despite what I wrote above about not having any problem with including it, the wording of the quote might be confusing; it's not clear what the difference is between "reporting" on events and "analysing and commenting" on events. Most of the other sources I've cited say that secondary sources analyze

2407:

Meanwhile, the supposed James Cook University material does not, in fact, originate from James Cook University. If you actually read the "secondary sources" section, you will notice that it is cut off after "More generally, secondary sources...". The oldest version on the Internet Archive is cut off

2384:"Like books, serials can function both as primary sources and secondary sources depending on how one approaches them. Age is an important factor in determining whether a serial publication is most useful as a primary or a secondary source. For instance, an article on slavery in a recent issue of the 2376:

One page cited, from Yale University, is (as the essay states) self-contradictory, listing newspapers/magazines as both primary and secondary sources. The library page is also rather slapdash and poorly written and does not do much, by itself, to support this essay's claim that there is a clean line

1752:

and some fellow Wikipedians seem to be more literalists than contextualists. According to them, it is clear that Thukydides, Plutarch and so on, are secondary sources coz they were not witnesses etc. Their argumentation ends, as expected like that: "if you want ancient historians to be considered as

1510:

J.S., I fully agree with you that dogmatic application of simplistic rules is bad for Knowledge (XXG). I believe that there are many sensible editors around. I know that we don't always get it right – especially not always on the first try (that's why we have talk pages), especially not when we're

1396:

The net effect of this particular page is to walk that policy statement (slightly) back towards common sense. We have some editors who interpret the statement that "articles should be based upon" secondary sources as "Thou must not cite a primary source, lo, not even for the smallest sentence in an

2518:

I would suggest if the future written text will mention altered scenes then the writer should read the wiki article about video game censorship as some games are altered so a game will be able to release in a certain country. About the video games being changed to fit onto different consoles, that

1411:

in behavioral sciences is well-known, even for widely trusted studies in the most reputable journals, and some days, it seems that peer-reviewed journal articles about altmed treatments are just as (un)reliable as a sales brochure. So the odds of a Knowledge (XXG) editor adding accurate scientific

1333:

is a good example. Many pieces of information entirely appropriate for the article do not have a good secondary source. This article would be much poorer without primary sources. I completely agree that data shouldn't be published in the Knowledge (XXG) but once it's peer reviewed, I think it's the

1235:

The best sources in basic science are peer reviewed research articles in reputable journals i.e. primary sources by the WP's definition. The basic science equivalent to secondary sources, i.e. reviews of a developing research field, often just contain a brief summary of the primary research and can

2423:

The other university library pages' text has also been heavily copied-and-pasted across other university libraries, but it's hard to tell which was the original since most are are unsigned. Only the last page given (University of Michigan) lists its author, a graduate student. Basically, the whole

2336:

I do understand that often enough primary sources, even close to an actual event, can be wrong. But often enough, the subject is an actual documents, especially in government documents and standards. I would rather read the actual words from the Declaration of Independence, instead of someone else

2212:

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

1435:

Because of these problems, we tend to get better results, on average, when we encourage editors to stick to the secondary literature. Yes, that can result in a lag between, say, "this disease is universally fatal" and "as of last month, exactly one person has survived this disease so far". There

855:

of what's happening. It is true that it's an oversimplification; however, it's an oversimplification that sets editors on the right path. To be candid, after producing this huge wall of text, you'll convince me otherwise when you produce actual examples of multiple editors getting it wrong while

2372:

In general, library reference landing pages targeted at students are not of high quality, as they are often copied and pasted from other sites and massively simplified for an undergraduate audience. So, as can be expected when relying on what are essentially freshman handouts, the ones cited here

1419:

and meta-analyses to either press releases or news stories (which often amount to little more than the press release anyway). You are correct that this can, in some instances, result in a delay. OTOH, that delay means that we're less likely to publish flawed results or information that can't be

2295:

Ah, yes. I well understand the issue with medicine and in a different way with topics that are politically disputatious, but unless stated otherwise this 'explanatory supplement' applies to all topics. Best to make the paragraph more inclusive for the general case, and caution editors about this

291:. The source pages for the first and fifth quotations no longer exist, even in archived form, and the fourth quotation is taken out of context; the source also names "a newscaster's commentary on the day's events" and "Articles from magazines, journals, newsletters, newspapers, etc." as types of 1250:

You wrote: "And not summarizing basic research would deprive the Knowledge (XXG) of most of its material in the sciences.". I assume that when you wrote "basic research" you meant "primary sources". Is that what you meant? If so, what about the loads and loads of actual secondary and tertiary

531:

Copyright status is irrelevant for this; we cite things in articles to show that it's verifiable, and everywhere to avoid plagiarism. But, in this instance, it doesn't actually matter how complete the bibliographic citation is: "readers" aren't going to be able to find this source themselves,

373:

The proposal is okay, but I think that the simplicity of the first one ("A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events") is extremely helpful to editors who are trying to do the right thing. In a similar vein, I

1343:

Thanks for your note. What you write, is the way that many scientists try to approach working here, in Knowledge (XXG), when they first come here. This is a discussion that many of us have had with people like yourself, many times. But scientific writing here is not like scientific writing

607:

is accurate and fairly represents the author's view. Since the Troy University quote was taken out of context as I mentioned, and the Indiana University quote (beginning with "Characteristically..") was somewhat oversimplified, with editorializing added (see difference between the two versions

466:

a few years ago) is that some editors read "journalists may interview eyewitnesses but not be actual eyewitnesses themselves" as the example and jump to the conclusion that everything except an actual eyewitness news article is always a secondary source – including "the journalist copied stuff

247:

What are primary sources? Published materials (books, magazine and journal articles, newspaper articles) written at the time about a particular event. While these are sometimes accounts by participants, in most cases they are written by journalists or other observers. The important thing is to

1668:

Generally speaking any source older than about 100 years should be treated as primary, and for news sources, any source close to the date of what's being addressed by the journalist should be as well, since it's just reguritation of off-the-cuff reactions by talking heads, maybe with some

1602:

could be considered as reliable secondary sources and hence rely on them to edit an article. As I understand, these are not self edited (but I am not really certain, we don't know how the publishing industry worked then!), they seem more or less independent (even though there was a little

2463:

gave credit to our source, even if the source might not have), and your analysis may be incorrect anyway. For example, you assume that the universities unfairly copied a hypothetical original document without giving proper credit, but it could be properly licensed text from a content

708:

More relevantly, this brief quotation has been in the page for years now, and nobody has ever expressed any confusion over it. It is, of all the quotations in that section, the one that seems to have been most useful to editors. It should remain here, even though you don't like it.

2255:

In an article about a science, between "the first publication of any idea or experimental result" and "Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses" there exists a large range of RS publications about follow-on results, replication, interpretation, and so forth which this

1537:"The best sources in basic science are peer reviewed research articles"? This is not true. Research articles are too focused. The best sources are broad-audience publications. For "basic science", these are popular publications. If the facts are disputed, it is not basic science. -- 497:

doesn't identify the source enough for readers to find the source themselves. Without this, it's not possible to verify the quotation and establish the context in which it was written – it could be over-simplified or otherwise misrepresent the intention of the author.

874:, which ignores questions such as "Can we learn anything from this short news report?" in favor of questions like "Does this book actually 'count' as proper literature, or is it just unimportant junk?" and "What universal human truths are conveyed in this work?" 569:, project pages such as this one are not among them. Indeed, it makes little sense to argue otherwise; US copyright law doesn't care whether a page is an article or an information page; they are both equally accessible to the public. The Wikimedia Foundation's 1496:(and the reasoning makes a great deal of sense in the context of working in Knowledge (XXG), which is not like other places) but you will find that your edits get consistently reverted. If you need to bang your head against the wall for a while, so be it. 2467:

The distinction between what a source "is" and how an editor "should use" it is real, but perhaps too complex for this page. We're still working on the basics, like whether a newspaper article on the big game last weekend is a primary or secondary source.

1239:

So, while I agree that secondary sources are best for history and medical research, I think this is not the best guideline for basic research. And not summarizing basic research would deprive the Knowledge (XXG) of most of its material in the sciences. —

2213:

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. --

850:

I don't think that it's possible to completely "represent informed scholarly opinion" in any 23 words. (It could, however, be done in two: "It's complicated".) But I do think that this is a useful (=the primary duty of an explanatory advice page)

2280:

authors felt that this material was often incomplete in a somewhat biased way (I only mention the prior research that is relevant to my hypothesis), and that it might be too confusing for most editors. That is why I didn't include it here.

724:

Let's not jump to any conclusions. I happen to like the quote fine; I just don't believe it represents informed scholarly opinion on the subject, and without a reliable citation, I don't see any reason to change that belief. I see that

2311:

This page already says that it's possible for a source to be a mix of primary and secondary material. I'm not sure that we really need to expand upon that. It doesn't seem to be a common source of practical problems for editors.

2388:

should be read as a secondary source, as a scholar’s attempt to interpret primary source materials such as ledgers, diaries, or government documents in order to write an account of the past. An article on slavery published in the

2412:. (The place where the James Cook page cuts off is right before some bullet points, which checks out if someone is hastily copy-pasting.) Skimming through this pamphlet, it seems of somewhat low quality; the sources it cites are 354:

I say replace the old text with this new text. The ideas are clearer and the citations are better. This is written for the humanities but it works. Ideally the quotations could be replaced with free text but that is not urgent.

908:

said "it's complicated" is the best assessment of the topic. Maybe the text could be clarified by starting with a sentence explaining that "it depends" and the shortcut could be changed to clear things up? Maybe something like

1707:- or "useful" secondary source, because it probably is outdated, and has likely been superseded by more modern sources)... but it is also a primary source for an analysis of what scholarship said about the war, back in 1920. 1710:

Regarding ancient sources... Yes, they are considered primary... and there are lots of caveats and restrictions that apply to primary sources. As for whether you can cite them... SMcC is correct that you can not cite them

1849: 1776:

In some instances, the reason for identifying a text as the "primary source" may devolve from the fact that no copy of the original source material exists, or that it is the oldest extant source for the information

1381:, if you haven't already, since they deal with scientific sources in much greater detail. I've included only a brief paragraph on scientific literature here, because editors really need to look at the longer one. 1348:

which you might find helpful. The emphasis on secondary sources exists for many, many reasons. Those reasons are pretty easy to explain and pretty easy to understand, if you are willing to listen. Let me know.

1251:

sources that are published all the time? I see no basis in reality for this claim, that generally using secondary and tertiary sources and using primary sources rarely and with care would deprive WP of anything.

2447:

said that anything "secondhand" was secondary (and a you reading a newspaper article written by a journalist who interviewed an eyewitness might seem like secondhand content), or because they didn't realize that

1390: 198: 1749: 2352:

There is no category of source that is always error-free. When the goal is quoting a document, then the original source is authoritative for what was said, but not for whether it said something true.

2563:. Video games often tell a story, so they can be used a primary sources insofar as the plot, but explaining differences in censorship and graphics is not something the game does. Journalists do that. 2520: 2490: 158: 2393:

in 1935, however, can be read not only as a secondary source on slavery but also—and perhaps more appropriately—as a primary source that reveals how scholars in the 1930s interpreted slavery."

786:, and the existing summary description of secondary sources based on Yale's comparative literature guide, I suggest removing the JCU quotation again – it's both questionable and unnecessary. — 2602: 125: 953:), I don't think that changing the content of the section would actually help. They're almost never reading it now, and they will almost never read it after any changes are implemented. 404:

The part about eyewitnesses is simply an example of the "grey areas" regarding primary vs. secondary that the source is talking about. Without it, the quotation wouldn't make much sense.

299:

Several academic research guides name contemporary newspaper accounts as one kind of primary source. Other university libraries address newspaper sources in more detail, for instance:

1803:

Whether we call them primary or secondary or whathaveyou, ancient historians cannot be considered reliable, unless filtered through a modern scholarly source. Here's a great writeup:

455:

That quotation doesn't "need" better attribution than a bibliographic citation that includes a dead URL. This isn't a Knowledge (XXG) article, so WP:CITE doesn't apply (according to

2106: 2408:

in the same place, suggesting that it was copied (poorly) from somewhere else. Googling the text turned up a lot of sketchy term-paper sites, but I believe I have found the origin:

2087:, so I made it parallel. As a separate point, I am concerned about usurping the shorter title, which is currently linked on about 1,750 pages and which points to the main policy. 2102: 1774:

article ... it nicely explains the nuances of classifying sources. In the case of Plutarch and similar classical material, I will quote one important sentence from that article: "

1415:

The secondary literature does not necessarily include news articles. A press release about a journal article is still primary. For the sciences, we tend to prefer peer-reviewed

866:

single academic field – is the arbiter of the One True™ Definition of secondary sources. But if I were going to pick a single academic field to decide how to classify and use

1804: 2232: 1973: 1745: 957: 576:

All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works'

2524: 2494: 1954: 1143:

One needs historical knowledge to understand propaganda (starting from ancient emperors to Hitler and Stalin). This Knowledge (XXG) isn't for Western academicians only.

1663: 1407:

As every scientist knows, especially in the range of biology/medicine/psychology, there's a peer-reviewed journal article that supports just about any viewpoint. The

2416:, which basically says what the Yale guide does ("it is important to consider by whom, how and for what purpose it was produced"), and something called "buzzle.com," 2576:

Seconding Tarkus. These differences also strike me as exceedingly minor and would not ordinarily warrant mention in a generalist encyclopedia article, even if true.

1823:

I tend to agree with EEng. Whether they "are" primary or secondary or even tertiary in any given system, you need to "use them" as if they are primary sources.

1783:

source, if the older sources it was based upon have disappeared. In that situation, even though the source may not have been an actual eye-witness account, it is

2612: 1758: 1608: 470:

I think that the shorter quotation is clear enough without the intervening example, and the issue of eyewitness news is already addressed in another section.

295:

sources. I would suggest trimming these parts and rewriting the section, with references, to more accurately represent the intent of the sources, for example:

749:

Regarding "analyzing and commenting" vs. "reporting", I don't think the distinction is so clear-cut. Consider a hypothetical breaking news story that begins,

2534: 2409: 746:

as the rest of the encyclopedia. Nevertheless, it shows that false or misleading claims can and do persist until someone takes the trouble to correct them.

88: 1172:

It's not clear what action is being suggested here. Problems with specific articles should be discussed on those articles' talk pages or at the related

1156:

The same pictures are being used several times in connected pages. "repetitio est mater studiorum" which means here "Knowledge (XXG) indoctrinates you."

135: 2439:

The problem to be solved is editors sincerely and genuinely believing that everything in a newspaper is a secondary source. This may happen because

2198:

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.

2084: 1230:"Knowledge (XXG) articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." 751:"The festive spirit of the season was interrupted by a scene of chaos this afternoon, as frantic pedestrians fled the path of a careening vehicle..." 2538: 1754: 1604: 950: 514:"Knowledge (XXG)'s Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, 557:, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the 1393:

is subtle (and sometimes arbitrary), but this particular statement is a widely accepted best practice that everyone should follow appropriately.

2144:. Thousands of wikilinks from talk pages and their archives would be broken, distorting the meaning of these discussions. The target and also 547: 488: 2607: 1330: 248:

distinguish between material written at the time of an event as a kind of report, and material written much later, as historical analysis."

2396:

This is saying two things: one, that primary vs. secondary as it applies to books and media articles is less a matter of what the sources

97: 1938:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

859:

The "festive spirit" example is irrelevant, because an encyclopedic summary should not normally need to consider such a trivial detail.

698: 1640: 1680: 1226: 738:

without comment, that doesn't prove anything. Maybe not many people bother to read this information page in the first place. Also,

235:"A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." 697:

If an editor seriously cannot grasp the difference between reporting on an event and analyzing or commenting on said event, then

411:

A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events

2378: 2016: 570: 1697:

A 1920 scholarly analysis of the global impact of what we now call World War I (then, the Great War) is not a secondary source

491:). Specifically, the quotation I mentioned needs attribution unless it was explicitly published under a free content licence. 244:"Examples of primary information: A current news report that is reporting the facts (not analysis or evaluation) of an event." 58: 33: 993:"Troy University Libraries Tutorial: Terminology (Part 3): Primary Information, Secondary Information, Tertiary Information" 945:

will continue to fail to read the page. Because part of the problem is that we teach Knowledge (XXG)'s ruleset through a

614:

as the JCU quote, I think it's reasonable to ask for some better verification of the latter quote, or else to remove it. —

66: 1619: 643:

based on Yale's comparative literature guide covers these points more clearly, so the JCU quote isn't really necessary. —

566: 554: 1624: 2420:. The irony of a Knowledge (XXG) essay about usable sources depending upon a plagiarized source is left to the reader. 2169: 1929: 1083: 101: 2052: 2024: 1019: 2296:

intermediate literature for topics where it might be confusing for e.g. either of these reasons (and perhaps others).

992: 2585: 2571: 2550: 2528: 2513: 2498: 2477: 2433: 2361: 2346: 2321: 2306: 2290: 2266: 2244: 2222: 2202: 2159: 2132: 2118: 2096: 2078: 2056: 2028: 2007: 1967: 1914: 1893: 1874: 1832: 1818: 1796: 1762: 1736: 1690: 1612: 1583: 1564: 1546: 1524: 1505: 1490: 1461: 1445: 1358: 1338: 1316: 1282: 1260: 1244: 1210: 1193: 1167: 973: 927: 883: 843: 817: 795: 770: 718: 675: 652: 623: 596: 541: 507: 479: 450: 426: 399: 383: 368: 349: 323: 279: 262: 1370: 800:

One more point: I don't think it matters how "useful" a statement appears if it's flawed to begin with; confusing

154: 2101:

I notice that Interstellarity applied the same treatment without any discussion to the pages previously known as

1987: 1703:

a primary source (at the same time). It remains a secondary source for it's analysis (although it might not be a

214: 1779:" In other words... a source that may have originally been secondary (at the time it was written) can become a 735: 520:

This is not "in article space", and therefore CITE does not apply. As I said earlier, POLICY, specifically the

210: 1200:" or "Photo of military parade by famous Nazi propagandist, Watts Hisface" or "Wartime poster by <enemy: --> 839: 526:"It is therefore not necessary to provide reliable sources to verify Knowledge (XXG)'s administrative pages..." 417:

if this is a quote from a copyrighted source, then that source would need better attribution than a dead URL. —

395: 345: 275: 2181: 1939: 1177: 1173: 897: 39: 2417: 2581: 2456: 1199:

with explaining what those images represent in those other articles: "Official portrait of <person: -->

2546: 2509: 2473: 2429: 2357: 2317: 2286: 2240: 2114: 2092: 2048: 2020: 1828: 1520: 1441: 1428:

attention to the majority and minority viewpoints when you're reading this week's popular primary sources.

1312: 1206: 1068: 969: 879: 871: 714: 701:

and that editor needs to find something else to do. If you'd like, we can provide editors with a link to

537: 475: 379: 363: 938: 2218: 2177: 1719:(by citing a modern translation). Primary sources do have their place, and can be cited... but see our 1677: 1189: 1121: 813: 791: 766: 671: 648: 619: 592: 503: 446: 422: 340:, any thoughts on what Sangdeboeuf stated above? Bluerasberry, Sangdeboeuf linked to a change you made. 319: 258: 2195:

I think what is missing on this page is how the context influences whether a source is primary or not.

778:

Considering these three factors: the questionable sourcing, the fact that secondary sources comment on

739: 2413: 2368:

Plagiarized/poor quality links in "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?" subsection

2038: 1983: 2276:, you are correct that this happens, and that this is a type of secondary material, but in the past 2061:

Contesting the above. The latter does not redirect to the former, and should be discussed first. --

1511:

busy or distracted (we're all humans) – but I think that people are trying, as best as they can, to

743: 521: 1942:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1542: 958:

Knowledge (XXG):Identifying and using primary sources#Examples of news reports as secondary sources

852: 835: 702: 391: 341: 271: 1845: 1345: 456: 93: 2577: 2003: 1792: 1732: 1657: 1487: 1408: 1366: 1335: 1288: 1241: 601:

As to the second point, this is asking not just me, but every reader of this page, to trust that

584: 524:

section, says that content policies don't apply to these pages. Look for the sentence that says

216: 2277: 1378: 1374: 1270: 1266: 1153:, where they are explained, not as an image of Nazi Germany or Adolf Hitler or some other idol. 2542: 2505: 2469: 2425: 2353: 2313: 2282: 2236: 2155: 2128: 2110: 2088: 2071: 1824: 1637: 1516: 1483: 1437: 1436:

are costs to this choice. But the choice tends, on average, to result in stronger articles.

1326: 1308: 1202: 1037: 965: 905: 875: 827: 742:

have gone undetected on Knowledge (XXG) for years at a time. I'm aware that project pages are

710: 533: 471: 375: 356: 337: 333: 2444: 1720: 1513:

do what's best for the encyclopedia, even if that means not dogmatically following The Rules™

1389:

The "guideline" that you quote at the start of this section is a widely supported "policy".

580: 558: 484: 2228: 2214: 1753:

a primary and not as a secondary source, go chance the guideline". So...how do we fix this?

1672: 1560: 1551:

The fact that JS oversees students who edit is a bad thing, with their approach to WP. See

1501: 1457: 1354: 1278: 1256: 1185: 934: 918: 809: 787: 762: 667: 644: 615: 588: 499: 442: 418: 315: 254: 212: 181: 2377:

delineating primary vs. secondary newspaper articles. A more clear picture can be found in

2233:

Knowledge (XXG):Identifying and using primary sources#All sources are primary for something

1900: 1512: 1425: 561:), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote: --> 1163: 1150: 96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 2560: 1856:" where there's a short bio of him along with the bio of other contributors. Is that bio 1102: 1028: 1010: 2440: 2342: 1963: 1909: 1880: 1861: 1813: 1771: 1579: 1552: 1538: 1416: 1292: 946: 487:

applies to all copyrighted material in Knowledge (XXG), even in information pages (see

1029:"Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction : What is a Primary Source?" 2596: 2564: 1999: 1788: 1728: 2302: 2262: 2151: 2124: 2065: 2042: 1631: 1053: 834:

is helpful, but let's see if she has anything to state about your latest points.

753:

Do the words "festive spirit", "frantic", and "scene of chaos" represent factual

525: 513: 390:

Yeah, I agree that we should retain that first sentence from the original piece.

1556: 1497: 1479: 1453: 1350: 1322: 1274: 1252: 1628:

or whatever, so you have to cite what you're actually reading, something like:

1595: 1159: 867: 144: 80: 52: 1715:(unless you are holding the original in your hands)... but you can cite them 808:

seems a pretty important misunderstanding of the role of secondary sources. —

2338: 1959: 1904: 1808: 1575: 1087: 1180:, so simply finding some material "disgusting" is not adequate grounds for 2231:, you're correct that context matters, and it's already in the page. See 1744:

Thank you both for your responds. Is it possible to change the wording of

1122:"Knowledge (XXG)'s longest hoax ever gets busted after more than 10 years" 1599: 900:

being often misunderstood. Many editors seem to interpret it as "News is

2424:

thing is a mess, but at the very least the plagiarized ones need to go.

2381:-- indicating, if nothing else, how Yale interprets its own guidelines: 253:

Which "university-based sources" is this section quoting from exactly? —

2298: 2273: 2258: 1304: 1300: 1622:. You are not holding in your hands an ancient manuscript of Caesars 937:, it sounds like you've identified another candidate for the list at 2418:

which does not seem particularly reliable and is part user-generated

1748:, so to clarify it even better? We are having a dispute in Greek WP 1232:

because it is not easily applied to the basic sciences. Here's why.

1086:. Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Archived from 1038:"Comparative Literature: Primary, secondary & tertiary sources" 1412:

information while citing a primary source is lower than we'd wish.

1373:. You probably also want to take Jytdog's suggestion and look at 583:. Infringing copyrights is also prohibited under the Foundation's 553:

Articles and other Knowledge (XXG) pages may, in accordance with

1296: 512:

That's not actually true. CITE says (second complete sentence)

231:

Sampling of university-based sources that address the question:

913:" or "WP:NEWSPRIMARYORSECONDARY" (not much of a shortcut :-P) 904:

primary" which is definitely not the goal of the paragraph. As

92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of 2533:

I wonder if this information might be more usefully placed in

217: 175: 15: 2484:

Addition needed on "Primary sources should be used carefully"

1854:

the Palgrave encyclopedia of imperialism and anti-imperialism

1630:

Caesar, Julius; McDevitte, W. A.; Bohn, W. S., trans (1869).

2176:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this

896:

Sorry for reopening this old thread. But I see the shortcut

462:

One of the problems with the "grey area" quotation (which I

143: 1403:

About whether editors should prefer the primary literature:

1146:

I find the Nazi propaganda present in many pages digusting.

579:

The only exemptions to this policy are those covered under

2107:

Knowledge (XXG):Identifying and using self-published works

1391:

WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays

2103:

Knowledge (XXG):Identifying and using independent sources

2251:

Uses in fields other than history: primary/secondary gap

1727:

we should use Primary sources. There are restrictions.

1103:"Knowledge (XXG) hoaxes: From Breakdancing to Bilcholim" 956:

You could provide these editors with a link directly to

2410:

a textbook/pamphlet from Lovely Professional University

2146: 1978: 1857: 1594:

I have been wondering whether ancient historians, like

1011:"Primary sources: a guide for historians: Introduction" 831: 727: 662: 639: 610: 603: 493: 463: 437: 287: 1805:

Knowledge (XXG):Identifying_reliable_sources_(history)

2168:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2123:

These bold changes should be reverted and discussed.

1974:

Knowledge (XXG):Identifying and using primary sources

1746:

Knowledge (XXG):Identifying and using primary sources

1291:, and thanks for the comment. Are you talking about 1020:"Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started" 2603:

High-impact WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages

862:

Neither Yale's comp lit guide – nor any source from

1699:" - I would disagree... it both a secondary source 1590:

Are ancient historians primary or secondary source?

856:

citing this sentence, and not a moment before then.

2184:. No further edits should be made to this section. 1363:I have a couple of separate thoughts about this: 1618:Primary. And you cannot cite them directly, per 1265:This discussion is probably more appropriate at 2535:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Video games/Sources 1787:to an eye-witness account as we can get today. 1225:I would like to get some clarification on this 32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2205:itself, the very same Encyclopædia Britannica 408:I have no problem with including the statement 2504:Would you like to suggest a particular text? 574: 551: 297: 229: 8: 2455:What's on the page now does not violate our 2452:isn't just wikijargon for "reliable source". 2085:Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources 1662:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 1385:About whether you can cite a primary source: 1221:Primary / secondary sources in basic science 1084:"Primary and Secondary Sources: An Overview" 2539:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Video games 1120:Lubin, Gus; Renfro, Kim (4 February 2016). 1069:"Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources" 951:Knowledge (XXG):Nobody reads the directions 161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links. 2489:the game can fit onto different consoles. 1928:The following is a closed discussion of a 1369:sound like you're the target audience for 1344:elsewhere. This is explained somewhat in 47: 2443:, because they started editing back when 744:not subject to the same content standards 548:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content criteria 489:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content criteria 2613:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 116:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 2521:2600:1014:B077:2FA5:E183:CC33:E983:9A53 2491:2600:1014:B077:2FA5:E183:CC33:E983:9A53 2083:When I picked that title, WP:RS was at 2015:This is a contested technical request ( 984: 870:, it would frankly not be the field of 429:(updated 00:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)) 49: 1655: 1149:Propaganda pictures are acceptable in 1176:. However, please also remember that 774:(edited 15:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)) 438:inserted the text as it appears above 7: 1947:The result of the move request was: 1138:Images are sometimes primary sources 21: 19: 1101:McCauley, Ciaran (3 October 2016). 38:It is of interest to the following 110:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays 100:. For a listing of essays see the 89:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays 14: 2559:What you are suggesting would be 2414:this University of Illinois guide 2191:Primary source depends on context 611:originally added at the same time 86:This page is within the scope of 2379:Yale's Primary Source collection 288:where the citations were removed 180: 79: 65: 51: 20: 2608:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays 1990:) 12:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC) 1979:Knowledge (XXG):Primary sources 1921:Requested move 11 December 2019 1452:Wow you said that so, so well. 1299:) or the basic sciences (as in 1178:Knowledge (XXG) is not censored 1071:. Indiana University Libraries. 1054:"Primary and Secondary Sources" 1013:. Princeton University Library. 736:remaining on the page for years 604:the James Cook University quote 2245:22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC) 2223:13:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC) 2147:Knowledge (XXG):Primary source 1955:closed by non-admin page mover 1858:considered as a primary source 1833:01:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC) 964:broaden their understanding. 705:to help them figure it out. 435:Pending further input, I have 1: 2441:another editor told them that 2362:20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 2291:22:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC) 2267:14:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC) 2160:08:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 2133:08:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 2119:01:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC) 2097:01:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC) 2079:13:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC) 2057:23:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC) 2029:23:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC) 2008:10:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC) 1670: 1211:08:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 1194:19:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC) 1168:14:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC) 1031:. Harvard University Library. 761:on this hypothetical event? — 719:21:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC) 676:00:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC) 653:00:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC) 624:23:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 597:14:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 542:00:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 508:19:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 480:07:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 451:19:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC) 270:WhatamIdoing probably knows. 1819:23:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC) 1797:22:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC) 1763:20:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC) 1737:14:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC) 1691:12:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC) 1625:Commentarii de Bello Gallico 1613:07:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC) 995:. Troy, AL: Troy University. 427:03:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC) 400:00:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC) 384:23:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC) 369:13:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC) 350:07:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC) 324:20:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC) 280:07:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC) 263:01:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC) 130:This page has been rated as 2391:Journal of Southern History 2386:Journal of Southern History 2150:should remain as they are. 1968:17:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 608:above), both of which were 113:Template:WikiProject Essays 2629: 2478:00:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC) 2457:Knowledge (XXG):Plagiarism 2434:02:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC) 2322:03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 2307:16:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 1915:14:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC) 1894:12:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC) 1875:19:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC) 1636:. New York: Harper. p. 9. 1565:18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC) 1547:16:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC) 1525:22:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC) 1506:16:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC) 1491:16:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC) 1462:15:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC) 1446:15:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC) 1283:19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 1261:19:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 1245:10:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 1067:González, Luis A. (2014). 1040:. Yale University Library. 796:23:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC) 771:23:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC) 516:anywhere in article space. 2586:16:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 2572:00:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 2551:23:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 2529:22:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 2514:20:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 2499:03:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 2347:00:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC) 2201:However, for the article 1584:00:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC) 1359:17:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 1339:15:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 1317:01:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 1056:. Ithaca College Library. 974:16:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC) 939:Knowledge (XXG):UPPERCASE 928:16:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC) 884:01:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 844:00:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 818:07:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 699:WP:Competence is required 151: 129: 74: 46: 2174:Please do not modify it. 1935:Please do not modify it. 1899:Almost always these are 1022:. UC Berkeley Libraries. 728:the quote was added back 640:information I just added 565:While certain pages are 2203:Encyclopædia Britannica 1841:Biography of the Author 1295:(as in what happens at 1082:Sanford, Emily (2010). 567:exempt from this policy 2209:now a primary source. 872:comparative literature 578: 564: 562:, or a similar method. 546:Please have a look at 312: 251: 155:automatically assessed 148: 136:project's impact scale 94:Knowledge (XXG) essays 2373:have serious issues. 2047:queried move request 1770:Suggest you read our 1090:on 22 September 2011. 494:The existing citation 153:The above rating was 147: 740:many outright hoaxes 2459:guideline (because 1620:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT 1331:accelerator article 853:first approximation 826:I still agree with 703:Analytic journalism 550:, which is policy: 2400:than how they are 2332:official documents 1879:Hello there...? -- 1574:journal articles. 1409:replication crisis 1009:Knowlton, Steven. 559:citation guideline 149: 34:content assessment 2561:original research 2049:Anthony Appleyard 2031: 2021:Anthony Appleyard 2010: 1958: 1005:See for example: 925: 917: 906:User:WhatamIdoing 734:As for the quote 223: 222: 204: 203: 174: 173: 170: 169: 166: 165: 162: 2620: 2569: 2149: 2077: 2068: 2046: 2014: 1991: 1982:– shorten title 1981: 1952: 1937: 1891: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1865: 1689: 1667: 1661: 1653: 1651: 1649: 1371:WP:10SIMPLERULES 1130: 1129: 1126:Business Insider 1117: 1111: 1110: 1098: 1092: 1091: 1079: 1073: 1072: 1064: 1058: 1057: 1050: 1044: 1041: 1032: 1023: 1014: 1003: 997: 996: 989: 926: 923: 921: 915: 730: 665: 642: 613: 606: 571:licensing policy 527: 519: 517: 496: 440: 366: 361: 290: 218: 195: 194: 184: 176: 152: 118: 117: 114: 111: 108: 83: 76: 75: 70: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 25: 24: 23: 16: 2628: 2627: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2593: 2592: 2565: 2486: 2370: 2334: 2253: 2193: 2188: 2145: 2074: 2066: 2062: 2039:Interstellarity 2036: 1984:Interstellarity 1977: 1933: 1923: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1881: 1869: 1866: 1863: 1862: 1843: 1687: 1654: 1647: 1645: 1643: 1633:The Gallic Wars 1629: 1592: 1424:to end up with 1417:review articles 1223: 1184:excluding it. — 1151:Nazi propaganda 1140: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1100: 1099: 1095: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1035: 1026: 1017: 1008: 1004: 1000: 991: 990: 986: 919: 914: 909:"WP:NEWSPRIMARY 726: 661: 638: 629:and comment on 609: 602: 515: 492: 436: 364: 357: 286: 228: 219: 213: 189: 115: 112: 109: 106: 105: 102:essay directory 64: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2626: 2624: 2616: 2615: 2610: 2605: 2595: 2594: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2485: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2465: 2453: 2369: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2333: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2297: 2257: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2192: 2189: 2187: 2186: 2170:requested move 2164: 2163: 2162: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2081: 2072: 2059: 2033: 2032: 1971: 1945: 1944: 1930:requested move 1924: 1922: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1772:Primary source 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1708: 1685: 1642:978-1604597622 1641: 1591: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1571: 1568: 1567: 1549: 1534: 1533: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1421: 1413: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1382: 1293:basic research 1263: 1222: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1157: 1154: 1147: 1144: 1139: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1112: 1093: 1074: 1059: 1045: 1043: 1042: 1036:Gilman, Todd. 1033: 1024: 1018:Lee, Corliss. 1015: 998: 983: 982: 978: 977: 976: 954: 947:telephone game 942: 898:WP:PRIMARYNEWS 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 860: 857: 836:Flyer22 Reborn 821: 820: 798: 776: 747: 732: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 655: 637:. I think the 626: 599: 529: 468: 460: 430: 405: 402: 392:Flyer22 Reborn 388: 359:Blue Rasberry 342:Flyer22 Reborn 331: 311: 310: 307: 304: 283: 282: 272:Flyer22 Reborn 268: 250: 249: 245: 242: 239: 236: 227: 226:WP:PRIMARYNEWS 224: 221: 220: 215: 211: 209: 206: 205: 202: 201: 191: 190: 185: 179: 172: 171: 168: 167: 164: 163: 150: 140: 139: 128: 122: 121: 119: 84: 72: 71: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2625: 2614: 2611: 2609: 2606: 2604: 2601: 2600: 2598: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2578:Axem Titanium 2575: 2574: 2573: 2570: 2568: 2562: 2558: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2451: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2421: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2405: 2403: 2399: 2394: 2392: 2387: 2382: 2380: 2374: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2331: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2210: 2208: 2204: 2199: 2196: 2190: 2185: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2148: 2143: 2140: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2069: 2060: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2044: 2040: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1996: 1989: 1985: 1980: 1975: 1970: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1956: 1950: 1943: 1941: 1936: 1931: 1926: 1925: 1920: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1902: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1892: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1840: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1817: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1751: 1747: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1709: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1675: 1665: 1659: 1644: 1639: 1635: 1634: 1627: 1626: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1601: 1597: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1570: 1569: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1532: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1434: 1427: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1401: 1395: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1365: 1364: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1347: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1243: 1237: 1233: 1231: 1228: 1220: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1158: 1155: 1152: 1148: 1145: 1142: 1141: 1137: 1127: 1123: 1116: 1113: 1108: 1104: 1097: 1094: 1089: 1085: 1078: 1075: 1070: 1063: 1060: 1055: 1049: 1046: 1039: 1034: 1030: 1027:Bell, Emily. 1025: 1021: 1016: 1012: 1007: 1006: 1002: 999: 994: 988: 985: 981: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 952: 948: 943: 940: 936: 932: 931: 930: 929: 922: 912: 907: 903: 899: 885: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 858: 854: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 824: 823: 822: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 780:other sources 777: 775: 772: 768: 764: 760: 757:or editorial 756: 752: 748: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 723: 722: 721: 720: 716: 712: 706: 704: 700: 677: 673: 669: 664: 660:I removed it 659: 656: 654: 650: 646: 641: 636: 632: 631:other sources 627: 625: 621: 617: 612: 605: 600: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 577: 572: 568: 563: 560: 556: 555:the guideline 549: 545: 544: 543: 539: 535: 530: 523: 511: 510: 509: 505: 501: 495: 490: 486: 483: 482: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 458: 454: 453: 452: 448: 444: 439: 434: 431: 428: 424: 420: 416: 412: 409: 406: 403: 401: 397: 393: 389: 387: 386: 385: 381: 377: 372: 371: 370: 367: 362: 360: 353: 352: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 332: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 321: 317: 308: 305: 302: 301: 300: 296: 294: 289: 281: 277: 273: 269: 267: 266: 265: 264: 260: 256: 246: 243: 240: 237: 234: 233: 232: 225: 208: 207: 200: 197: 196: 193: 192: 188: 183: 178: 177: 160: 156: 146: 142: 141: 137: 133: 127: 124: 123: 120: 103: 99: 95: 91: 90: 85: 82: 78: 77: 73: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 31: 27: 18: 17: 2566: 2543:WhatamIdoing 2506:WhatamIdoing 2487: 2470:WhatamIdoing 2460: 2449: 2426:Gnomingstuff 2422: 2406: 2401: 2397: 2395: 2390: 2385: 2383: 2375: 2371: 2354:WhatamIdoing 2335: 2314:WhatamIdoing 2283:WhatamIdoing 2254: 2237:WhatamIdoing 2211: 2206: 2200: 2197: 2194: 2173: 2167: 2141: 2111:WhatamIdoing 2089:WhatamIdoing 2063: 1994: 1993: 1972: 1948: 1946: 1934: 1927: 1910: 1905: 1878: 1853: 1846:Eric Walberg 1844: 1825:WhatamIdoing 1814: 1809: 1784: 1780: 1775: 1743: 1724: 1716: 1712: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1673: 1646:. Retrieved 1632: 1623: 1593: 1517:WhatamIdoing 1484:WhatamIdoing 1438:WhatamIdoing 1402: 1384: 1327:WhatamIdoing 1309:WhatamIdoing 1238: 1234: 1229: 1224: 1203:WhatamIdoing 1181: 1125: 1115: 1106: 1096: 1088:the original 1077: 1062: 1048: 1001: 987: 979: 966:WhatamIdoing 961: 910: 901: 895: 876:WhatamIdoing 863: 828:WhatamIdoing 805: 801: 783: 779: 773: 758: 754: 750: 711:WhatamIdoing 707: 696: 657: 634: 630: 585:Terms of Use 575: 573:states that 552: 534:WhatamIdoing 472:WhatamIdoing 432: 414: 410: 407: 376:WhatamIdoing 358: 338:Bluerasberry 334:WhatamIdoing 313: 298: 292: 284: 252: 230: 186: 131: 87: 40:WikiProjects 30:project page 29: 2229:TheRandomIP 2215:TheRandomIP 2182:move review 1940:move review 1850:contributed 1674:SMcCandlish 1553:User:TüBioc 1420:replicated. 1186:Sangdeboeuf 1174:WikiProject 935:Gtoffoletto 920:Gtoffoletto 810:Sangdeboeuf 788:Sangdeboeuf 763:Sangdeboeuf 668:Sangdeboeuf 645:Sangdeboeuf 616:Sangdeboeuf 589:Sangdeboeuf 500:Sangdeboeuf 443:Sangdeboeuf 419:Sangdeboeuf 316:Sangdeboeuf 255:Sangdeboeuf 132:High-impact 62:High‑impact 2597:Categories 1723:policy on 1717:indirectly 1596:Thucydides 1307:, etc.)? 980:References 868:journalism 759:commenting 522:WP:NOTPART 285:I see now 98:discussion 2450:secondary 2178:talk page 2017:permalink 1995:Relisted. 1949:not moved 1755:Τζερόνυμο 1658:cite book 1648:8 January 1605:Τζερόνυμο 1539:SmokeyJoe 1346:WP:EXPERT 1227:guideline 949:(because 755:reporting 457:WP:POLICY 293:secondary 199:Archive 1 2567:TarkusAB 2464:service. 2278:WP:MEDRS 2180:or in a 2000:Ammarpad 1789:Blueboar 1785:as close 1729:Blueboar 1713:directly 1600:Plutarch 1379:WP:MEDRS 1375:WP:SCIRS 1271:WP:MEDRS 1267:WP:SCIRS 1182:removing 1107:BBC News 960:, which 459:itself). 187:Archives 2445:WP:PSTS 2152:Andrewa 2125:Andrewa 2043:Alex 21 1889:hossein 1870:hossein 1781:primary 1721:WP:PSTS 1305:physics 1301:biology 806:sources 658:Update: 581:WP:NFCC 485:WP:CITE 433:Update: 134:on the 2142:Oppose 1901:WP:SPS 1777:cited. 1688:ⱷ< 1557:Jytdog 1498:Jytdog 1480:Jytdog 1454:Jytdog 1426:WP:DUE 1351:Jytdog 1323:Jytdog 1275:Jytdog 1253:Jytdog 902:always 802:events 784:events 782:, not 635:events 633:, not 365:(talk) 157:using 107:Essays 59:Essays 36:scale. 1695:Re: " 1683:: --> 1273:btw. 1160:Xx236 962:might 830:that 804:with 464:added 28:This 2582:talk 2547:talk 2525:talk 2510:talk 2495:talk 2474:talk 2430:talk 2402:used 2358:talk 2343:talk 2339:Gah4 2318:talk 2303:talk 2287:talk 2263:talk 2241:talk 2219:talk 2156:talk 2129:talk 2115:talk 2105:and 2093:talk 2067:Alex 2053:talk 2041:and 2025:talk 2004:talk 1988:talk 1964:talk 1960:Jerm 1860:? -- 1852:to " 1848:has 1829:talk 1793:talk 1759:talk 1733:talk 1705:good 1664:link 1650:2017 1638:ISBN 1609:talk 1580:talk 1576:Gah4 1561:talk 1543:talk 1521:talk 1502:talk 1488:J.S. 1482:and 1458:talk 1442:talk 1355:talk 1336:J.S. 1325:and 1313:talk 1297:SLAC 1289:J.S. 1279:talk 1257:talk 1242:J.S. 1207:talk 1201:". 1190:talk 1164:talk 970:talk 916:{{u| 880:talk 840:talk 832:this 814:talk 792:talk 767:talk 715:talk 672:talk 663:here 649:talk 620:talk 593:talk 538:talk 504:talk 476:talk 447:talk 423:talk 396:talk 380:talk 346:talk 336:and 320:talk 276:talk 259:talk 159:data 126:High 2537:or 2398:are 2109:. 2019:). 1911:Eng 1815:Eng 1725:how 1701:and 1598:or 1515:. 1478:Hi 1377:or 1367:You 1321:Hi 1287:Hi 1269:or 864:any 666:. — 587:. — 441:. — 415:but 2599:: 2584:) 2549:) 2541:. 2527:) 2512:) 2497:) 2476:) 2461:we 2432:) 2360:) 2345:) 2320:) 2305:) 2299:Bn 2289:) 2274:Bn 2265:) 2259:Bn 2243:) 2235:. 2221:) 2207:is 2172:. 2158:) 2131:) 2117:) 2095:) 2073:21 2055:) 2027:) 2006:) 1998:– 1976:→ 1966:) 1951:. 1932:. 1903:. 1831:) 1807:. 1795:) 1761:) 1735:) 1684:ⱷ҅ 1671:— 1660:}} 1656:{{ 1611:) 1582:) 1563:) 1555:. 1545:) 1523:) 1504:) 1460:) 1444:) 1357:) 1315:) 1303:, 1281:) 1259:) 1209:) 1192:) 1166:) 1124:. 1105:. 972:) 924:}} 882:) 842:) 816:) 794:) 769:) 717:) 674:) 651:) 622:) 595:) 540:) 506:) 478:) 449:) 425:) 413:– 398:) 382:) 348:) 322:) 278:) 261:) 2580:( 2545:( 2523:( 2508:( 2493:( 2472:( 2428:( 2356:( 2341:( 2316:( 2301:( 2285:( 2272:@ 2261:( 2239:( 2217:( 2154:( 2127:( 2113:( 2091:( 2070:/ 2064:/ 2051:( 2045:: 2037:@ 2023:( 2002:( 1992:— 1986:( 1962:( 1957:) 1953:( 1906:E 1886:h 1883:M 1867:h 1864:M 1827:( 1810:E 1791:( 1757:( 1750:1 1731:( 1686:ᴥ 1681:¢ 1678:☏ 1666:) 1652:. 1607:( 1578:( 1559:( 1541:( 1519:( 1500:( 1456:( 1440:( 1353:( 1311:( 1277:( 1255:( 1205:( 1188:( 1162:( 1128:. 1109:. 968:( 941:. 933:@ 911:? 878:( 838:( 812:( 790:( 765:( 731:. 713:( 670:( 647:( 618:( 591:( 536:( 528:. 518:" 502:( 498:— 474:( 445:( 421:( 394:( 378:( 344:( 318:( 314:— 274:( 257:( 138:. 104:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Identifying and using primary sources - Knowledge (XXG)

Index