Talk:Fay Kellogg

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Station1 in topic Primary sources

Primary sources

edit

Hi folks! I want to thank all those who worked on this article, specially @Station1: for starting it! I've just noticed a secondary source i would like to add.[1] However, there seems to be some discrepancies with some of the primary sources referenced (even tho they share some of these primaries). This article seems to have a lot of primaries, which i am a little hesitant about since, primaries tend to make the article original research (see wp:NOR). Is there any consensus on whether primaries or secondaries are more accurate? I'd say, primaries, but again, i think the article should try and focus on secondaries. Thanks for your feedback! Fred (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ Brandimarte, Cynthia (December 2008). "Women on the Home Front". Winterthur Portfolio. 42 (4): 201–222. doi:10.1086/592789.
Hi Fred. Secondary sources are always preferred on WP when available. The line between primary and secondary can sometimes be blurry, but newspapers and magazines are usually secondary, even if old. Primary sources are more often things like birth certificates, diaries, letters, blueprints, etc., which should only be used with caution. The source you want to add looks fine (I've meant to write an article about hostess houses for a while but never got to it). Blogs may be secondary but usually are not considered reliable. Sources themselves do not make an article original research; that's more like "Kellogg's grandniece told me that she used to ..." (to use an extreme example). It's not too unusual for there to be discrepancies among sources. I think there were some here, but I don't remember what they were. If you have some examples, we can take a look. Station1 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply