Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

edit

Needs a basic lead sentence here, like "Wikipedia editors often classify source material according to whether it is primary, secondary, or tertiary."

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one. Even a given source can contain both primary and secondary source material for one particular statement. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:[a]

We could replace the bullet-list formatting with separate section headings for ==Primary==, ==Secondary== and ==Teriary==

  • Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[b]
    Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,
    1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[c]
    2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
    3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
    4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
    5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
    6. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

==Secondary==

  • A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[d] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[e] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.[f]
    Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

==Teriary==

  • Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source.[g] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.
    Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles).

We'll probably end up with a ==See also== section (possibly duplicating NOR's).

Notes

edit
  1. ^ The University of Maryland Library provides typical examples of primary, secondary and tertiary sources.[1]
  2. ^ Further examples of primary sources include: archeological artifacts; census results; video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, etc.; investigative reports; trial/litigation in any country (including material – which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial – published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial); editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations); tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings; tomb plaques and gravestones; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. For definitions of primary sources:
    • The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, and pottery.[2]
    • The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer. Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during a historical event or time period".[3]
    • Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."[4]
  3. ^ Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
  4. ^ The University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes a historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".[3]
  5. ^ The Ithaca College Library's page on primary and secondary sources compares research articles to review articles.[5] Be aware that either type of article can be both a primary and secondary source, although research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources.
  6. ^ Book reviews may be found listed under separate sections within a news source or might be embedded within larger news reports. Having multiple coverages in book reviews is considered one of the notability criteria for books; book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book. A book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author, and related writing issues, not a secondary source for the topics covered within the book. For definitions of book reviews:
    • Princeton's Wordnet 2011 defines book review as "a critical review of a book (usually, [of] a recently published book)".[6]
    • Virginia Tech University Libraries provides the following definition: "A book review is an article that is published in a newspaper, magazine or scholarly work that describes and evaluates a book … Reviews differ from literary critiques of books. Critiques explore the style and themes used by an author or genre."[7]
  7. ^ While it is a tertiary source, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles; see WP:Verifiability § Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it, and WP:Identifying reliable sources § User-generated content.

References

edit
  1. ^ "Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources". University of Maryland Libraries. Archived from the original on 1 February 2013.
  2. ^ "What is a Primary Source?". University of Nevada, Reno Libraries. Archived from the original on 9 February 2007.
  3. ^ a b "Finding Historical Primary Sources". University of California, Berkeley Library. Archived from the original on 2 July 2012.
  4. ^ "How to Find Primary Sources". Duke University Libraries. Archived from the original on 13 March 2012.
  5. ^ "Primary and secondary sources". Ithaca College Library. Archived from the original on 6 October 2013.
  6. ^ "book review". WordNet Search 3.1. Princeton University.
  7. ^ "Book Reviews". Virginia Tech University Libraries. Archived from the original on 5 January 2013.