Search results
Appearance
There is a page named "Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources/Archive 1" on Wikipedia
- move since this essay is about identifying and using secondary sources in addition to identifying and using primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58...103 KB (14,945 words) - 00:27, 15 April 2023
- university-based sources that address the question: "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments...59 KB (8,123 words) - 19:52, 7 May 2024
- Recent discussions on talk WP Medicine have asked: Are primary sources better than secondary sources? In particular, editors who cite papers covering basic...216 KB (33,056 words) - 17:31, 22 June 2022
- criteria that help editors identify sources that are generally better (e.g., peer-reviewed sources, secondary sources, recent sources). However, no single criterion...17 KB (2,236 words) - 09:47, 14 July 2024
- multiple similar proposals or page moves, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using primary sources#Requested move 11 December 2019. User:Dekimasu moved this...136 KB (19,477 words) - 15:03, 4 February 2023
- between primary sources and secondary sources allows a blog to be used as a primary, but not a secondary, source. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating...151 KB (24,064 words) - 18:33, 7 April 2023
- (UTC) The use of primary sources should occur only rarely and only in exceptional circumstances. Most editors should be using secondary sources 99% of the...329 KB (47,135 words) - 18:44, 3 March 2023
- See WP:MEDREV. see also Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources I work mostly on content about health, and pulled this together, which you might...5 KB (675 words) - 14:52, 3 January 2019
- official policy, I liked Identifying and using primary sources#Secondary does not mean "good", which includes a subsection, Primary does not mean "bad". ...200 KB (27,800 words) - 16:13, 21 May 2024
- general policy called Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and then there is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). No other project has...275 KB (40,253 words) - 14:40, 28 January 2023
- Wikipedia:Handling primary, secondary and tertiary sources (proposed guideline) → Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary, secondary and tertiary sources — Most people...125 KB (18,745 words) - 05:35, 18 February 2022
- using mostly secondary sources, and (only) use primary sources to fill in parts not covered by those secondary sources. (this is my own summary, and I...510 KB (74,514 words) - 02:19, 16 December 2023
- sources may not be doing a perfect job of identifying the COI of the primary studies then therefore the problem can be solved by: citing the primary studies...318 KB (48,019 words) - 18:57, 10 June 2024
- to see the source is perfectly acceptable. You might find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. WhatamIdoing...295 KB (43,037 words) - 14:40, 28 January 2023
- before" date when using reviews as sources. Also, the use of primary sources is prevalent. "Some claim that Blah."<primary source> —Mattisse (Talk) 20:36...434 KB (64,514 words) - 00:38, 13 December 2023
- February 2016 (UTC) The guidelines say to avoid primary sources and to mainly use secondary sources. In general, this is good guidance. But what about...190 KB (26,037 words) - 10:23, 15 April 2023
- sources that are individually Individually authored books advocating some position, and not summarizing the scientific consensus, are primary sources...253 KB (36,545 words) - 14:55, 4 February 2023
- sources. If the UpToDate article does not provide its sources, it's a good reason to look for a source which does use sources. II | (t - c) 22:49, 1 May...304 KB (41,033 words) - 14:33, 30 May 2022
- Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Use_independent_sources. But we should be using reviews independent of the primary source anyway. Doc...174 KB (25,584 words) - 18:45, 14 April 2023
- every case. In this instance, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources is a pretty useful essay, IMHO, and I wouldn't worry about it being linked...192 KB (25,833 words) - 10:24, 15 April 2023
- Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB (Archives) I just looked deeper at {{textinfo}} and can see that we should be using more components rather than ticking
- was also was used to generate the new articles list via a filter). For identifying articles that might be problematic [8] helped identify that as well
- about drugs, for sure, provided we use primary and secondary and other verifiable sources. But talking about drugs and crime is not the same thing at all