Talk:Primary source

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

The term in library science and medicine[edit]

The article focuses much on the term used in history, but very little on library science and medicine. Hope that Wikipedians familiar with these disciplines can use reliable sources to add information about it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When was the primary source written that is all I want to know 🙄[edit]

When was the primary social and that's all I want to know 🙄 24.126.199.147 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source is the material within an enveloping content that may contain other than solely primary source material.[edit]

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.

Greg Kaye 14:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

I tried to add to the article about Primary Sources. For my addition, it is extremely important that I add an emoji. However, the automatic filter did not allow me to publish the addition of the emoji. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmrv1 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Primary Source" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect The Primary Source has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § The Primary Source until a consensus is reached. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]