Talk:Secondary source

A survey of previous work .. is secondary source information

I disagree with this statement (currently in WP:Secondary) "A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary source information." At least in the technical publishing business where I work, there is a huge difference between the intro to a primary source and a review article. The former is setting up the background for a specific set of results to be disclosed, whereas a review is more comprehensive and is detached from supporting the disclosure of new results. If Wikipedia's allows introductions to papers to serve as secondary sources, we are inviting abuse of this guideline. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, this article is not about Wikipedia policy, it is about the term secondary source as understood in a number of fields, partcularly history. Of course, a survey of previous work is different from a review article, but both are secondary sources. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A peer reviewed review of the literature contained in the introduction of a primary source is by definition secondary. The potential of abuse is not sufficient justification prohibit its use. Boghog (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have re-added an edited version of the previous text that I hope is an acceptable compromise. Boghog (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Rjm at sleepers is right. This article is not a Wikipedia guideline, but rather a definition of what a secondary source is. Hence I have remove the qualifiers mentioned above and left a simple declarative statement in this edit. Boghog (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Science, technology, and medicine

Hi, useful article, however there are areas STM, where secondary sources (review articles, books in Xth edition, etc.) are very rare due to the niche-live of the topic or minimum of presence, not saying that some of these "niches" have world-wide impact, but the level of work can be considered research as compared to productive. Any means of Wikipedia exceptions, templates, etc. which cover such special areas? MoS? Appreciate feedback. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Secondary source, the specific material within a document or recording and not the enveloping document or recording itself.

One packet of content can contain largely primary source material with a bit of secondary. Another might contain largely secondary source material with a bit of primary. Other combinations can also work as follows:

I worked from the WP:NOR example given in the secondary source related text: Template:Tq (I summarised this as the book as including secondary source material with personal primary source material included). In more common practice Template:Tq a topic might include photographs and various accounts related to that topic, (as potentially primary source material within secondary source material). If the Template:Tq made reference to, say, another person's war experiences, that account may itself have included that Template:Tq on, for instance, personal perceived follies/successes in pervious wars, (secondary source material within primary source material). Closer to home, Wikipedia calls itself Template:Tq (as primary within tertiary with a whole encyclopaedia's worth of PST references placed into a phenomenally voluminous content on the way).

There's also a current discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:No original research#P/S/T sources; P/S/T sourcing; or P/S/T source materials, etc. for anyone interested.

GregKaye 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Who is Holmes?

In the 29th citation, it says "Holmes" with no page number, title, or link. Who is this referring to? BadEditor93 (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Added here SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe User:Rjm at sleepers can help. He is still active! SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It is Richard Holmes, Tommy. At one point the article had a list of further reading which included a fuller citation to a number of sources. These were then referred to by the authors last name. When this list of further reading was removed, that note was not updated. I'll add the full citation later today. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Relevance(?) of first picture

I understand that it may be historically significant, but is a 400+ year old book the best representation of a secondary source in a modern encyclopedia? 2403:6200:8956:14DC:5DE8:78F1:2278:9698 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)