Practice 1 edit
Alright, so what I want you to do for this each citation you can access in the listed article, identify whether the source is primary, secondary, or tertiary, and give a brief explanation as to why. For sources that combine various types of coverage, it may be helpful to cross-check which parts of the source are actually relevant to the claims that cite it. If you have trouble accessing a source, feel free to skip it. For sources in languages you cannot read, use Google Translate and give it your best shot.
| Citation | Type | Explanation | Comment by Trainer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who won the Battle of Fallujah?, Jonathan F. Keiler at Military.com (link is dead but relevant quote is visible in the article's references) | This is Primary. | The reason I believe this is primary, though not 100% sure, is because of the editor using many sources from the US Armed Forces. This means his sources are primary, and in turn makes the article primary. Note: I don't see any editor additions/notes which show otherwise where he used secondary sources, etc. himself. |  , sources do not become primary by virtue of citing primary sources: in fact, that is precisely what we expect a secondary source to do. As for the affiliation with the US military, as the US was not a direct belligerent it can be considered secondary, although we would also expect it to have a bias.
|
| Janan Osama al-Salwadi (28 November 2017). "ذكرى رحيل اللواء الركن محمود دعاس "أبو خالد"" [Anniversary of the departure of Major General Mahmoud Daas, "Abu Khaled"]. Amad.ps (in Arabic). Retrieved 12 December 2019. | This is Primary. | A clear support of this man, and use of information from the government would tell me that this is a primary source, that uses primary sources itself. | , so I'll start by saying that I'm not 100% sure about the ultimate reliability of the piece in this case, but your reasoning is off. As far as I can tell, this appears to be an independent Palestinian news website. Now, as with the prior source, we can note the bias, but that doesn't make it a primary source, and its own use of primary sources does not demote it. All that having been said, if the publication is state media (in this case, either Hamas or PA affiliated) without editorial independence, then it would arguably be a primary source. But, in the absence of proof that this is a state media mouthpiece, it's secondary.
|
| "4,000 Palestinians evacuate Tripoli on Greek vessels". The New York Times. 21 December 1983. | This is Secondary. | This is secondary, because contrary to the above articles, this time the article is completely in the author's words (so to speek). Though an account of the US forces is used, is is overall and independent and secondary documentary/source. |  , this is a mixture of primary and secondary reportage. The journalist's account is indeed secondary, but it also includes a fair amount of primary source information in the words of interviewed individuals. However, with respect to the specific claim in the article that "4,000 Arafat loyalists evacuated", it is indeed secondary.
|
| Gabriel, Richard, A, Operation Peace for Galilee, The Israeli-PLO War in Lebanon, New York: Hill & Wang. 1984, p. 164, 165, ISBN 0-8090-7454-0 | This is Secondary (with Primary). | This area (specifically requested for the pages) in secondary with primary references. Because of the use of both, but more of the former, this makes this article a secondary reference. | These two pages are just secondary coverage, I don't see any primary information
|
| "Begin 'deeply hurt' by Reagan in call on Beirut 'holocaust'". Ottawa Citizen. 30 August 1982. Retrieved 28 March 2015. | This is Primary. | This is very clearly primary, as the entire section is made from quotes of those involved in the Lebanon Crisis. This therefore makes it primary as there are no other "sources". | 
|
| "The forgotten massacre". The Independent. September 15, 2012. | This is Secondary. | This is a secondary source as the article is telling the story of the event, and not using primary sources itself to back up information which is used. | , like the NYT piece, this report intersperses secondary analysis with quotes from primary sources. As far as the claim in the article is concerned, the source is secondary.
|
| "God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers". The Guardian. London. October 30, 2004. Retrieved May 25, 2010. | This is Primary. | This is primary because it is the terrorist speaking himself, and not someone giving an account, or another citing his words with descriptions, etc. | , I'd actually question whether it's really DUE to include that quote in the article on this basis.
|
So, let's pause. Do you have any questions about the above sources? signed, Rosguill talk 23:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, so now I'm comfortable, if a source has primary sources, but is backed up by author/secondary information, it overall secondary? Also, to add onto that, if an article mentions a national group it becomes automatically primary (I'm referring to an author using information from said national group) ? J-Man11 (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi again @Rosguill: if you have the time, would you mind making another practice. Of course there's no rush, but if you get the time that would be amazing. Cheers J-Man11 (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Practice 2 edit
I'm going to ask you to do more of the leg work this time around: please go over each citation in the section Thomas_Sankara#Presidency and assess for the source's perspective. To make it easier for me to evaluate your work, please also note the relevant claim in the article and the relevant quote in the source, as many of these sources are mixed primary and secondary in character.
| Citation | Type | Claim in article | Relevant passage in citation | Explanation | Comment by Trainer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|