Talk:Secondary source

RfC: Dubious statement in section In science and medicine

The sentence "Unlike in the humanities, scientific and medical peer reviewed sources are not generally considered secondary unless they are a review or a meta-analysis." isn't backed up by any reliable outside source I can find. - Stillwaterising (talk)

There's a recent book (April 2001) that appears to be an in-depth and authoritative source on this topic by Bobick and Berard titled Science and Technology Resources: A Guide for Information Professionals and Researchers The book says on page two regarding scientific and technical sources: "Secondary sources are defined as those sources and publication types that compile, organize, analyze, synthesize, and repackage information from primary sources." I searched the book for the term "medical" and "health" but did not find a differential definition for this term. This source also says about the same thing. I'm going to mark this statement as disputed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I've been told, policy statements *like articles that start with wp:* do not have to match what reliable outside sources say, and mainspace articles do not have to match what policy statements say. Since this a mainspace article, all statements need to be based on reliable independant (outside of wikimedia) sources. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source found for definitions of sources in Health Sciences

There's a recent book (October 2010, 3rd revision) that appears to be an in-depth and authoritative source on medical sources by Judith Garrard titled Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy. This book has 143 citations according to Google Scholar. On page 30 there's a definition of Primary and Secondary sources in Health Sciences which are defined as follows:

*Primary source materials are original research papers written by the scientists who actually conducted the study. An example of primary source material is the description of the Purpose, Methods, and Results section of a research paper in a scientific journal by the authors who conducted the study.
*Secondary source materials are papers or other documents that summarize the original work of others. In other words, secondary source materials are based on information from primary source materials. Although secondary source materials often are written by individuals other than those who actually did the research, it is possible for authors to summarize their own previously published or reported research, in which case, these later summary descriptions can still be considered secondary source materials.
Examples of secondary source materials include a summary of the literature in the Introduction of each scientific research paper published in a journal, a description of what is known about a disease or treatment in a chapter in a reference book, or the synthesis you write as you review the literature.

It would seem that this article is based on inaccurate and uncited sources, or inaccurate synthesis. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

Being that there's no apparent objection to removing the dubious statement and revising the article, I have started revising the section that was called "In science and medicine" and renamed it "In science and technology" and added another subsection for medicine. For reference, the revision that was being debated above is here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have moved and re-ordered the statement about primary sources in science - it was in the section about secondary sources in the humanities. I have removed the "definition" of a primary source from the humanities section since it was not sufficiently precise and this article is about secondary sources. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Diagram

I am about to remove the diagram that was added recently. It looks like a Venn diagram and therefore implies that primary sources are a subset of secondary sources which is not true. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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: "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 for those experiences." (I summarised this as the book as including secondary source material with personal primary source material included). In more common practice "A book ... about ..." a topic might include photographs and various accounts related to that topic, (as potentially primary source material within secondary source material). If the "book by a military historian" made reference to, say, another person's war experiences, that account may itself have included that "author's own thinking" on, for instance, personal perceived follies/successes in pervious wars, (secondary source material within primary source material). Closer to home, Wikipedia calls itself "Wikipedia" (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)