Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

uthor confirms their sources by repeating the experiments. Will -Original Message- From: Jay Litwyn To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources I agree with Gerard on this. Textbooks are typically loaded with p

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

d meaning. > > > -Original Message- > From: David Gerard > To: English Wikipedia > Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 1:48 am > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources > > > > > > > > > > > 2009/9/9 : > >> What I said, and what I've been saying

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

Carl (CBM) wrote: >> It seems that a lot of people are prone to gaming source levels to suit >> their own objectives. >> > > Yes, this happens quite often. It's partially a consequence of certain > policies, such as WP:N, directly referring to "secondary sources", > even when this is not the

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

I dispute that this is my private meaning. And I propose that this is the standard meaning. As well as the inworld meaning. -Original Message- From: David Gerard To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 1:48 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources 2009/9/9 : > W

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > How does becoming old, and being held in only 12 libraries suddenly > cause a book to revert to primary source status? I have seen the dual argument as well: that sources which would certainly be counted as primary if they were 100 years old

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

2009/9/9 : > What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our > first incident of a particular "fact" is a primary source, no matter > what their source was. You must appreciate, though, that your private definition of this term is not the established meaning for this term

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources > > From: wjhon...@aol.com > > Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book > only held in 12 libraries. > However if that item is published that does not create a secondary > source. > And if that item incl

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

> > From: wjhon...@aol.com > > Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book > only held in 12 libraries. > However if that item is published that does not create a secondary > source. > And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not > make it a se

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

came to the writer. -Original Message- From: David Goodman To: English Wikipedia Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Yes, chronicles are accepted as primary sources, because there is nothing further back from them--they serve essentia

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

eye-witness > testimony.  Being an eye-witness is not what makes an article primary > or secondary. > > > -Original Message- > From: David Goodman > To: English Wikipedia > Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 3:42 pm > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources > > > >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources Wikipedia is not the same as the academic world. From the point of view of an historian analyzing sources, a newspaper is considered a primary source, and you will find them so classified in any manual on doing r

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

nly turn the film from primary to secondary. > > W.J. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Turvey > To: English Wikipedia > Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources > > > > > > > > >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

At what level of modification of a primary source, do you create a secondary source? Formatting a film for TV size doesn't suddenly turn the film from primary to secondary. W.J. -Original Message- From: Andrew Turvey To: English Wikipedia Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 11:16 am S

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

arly used in academic research. - wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > From: wjhon...@aol.com > To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009 19:01:49 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, > Portugal > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources > > In a message dated 8/25/2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Secondary sources

In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes: > Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance > if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary > source is something like a census return or