Talk:Tertiary source

Sources? References?

This definition of a tertiary source is close to, but contains different data from any definition of it that I have ever read. I believe this misinformation is damaging to the understanding of what a tertiary source is and that the article should be replaced for the time being with a simple dictionary definition (making sure to cite) for the time being. --Trakon 12:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Anyway, essentially what I was getting at was that tertiary sources echo primary and secondary sources. If a "tertiary" source were to add its own opinions or make conclusions on a primary source it would actually be a secondary source. If a "tertiary" source reports first-hand knowledge it is actually a primary source. The main problem I have with the definition is where it says that tertiary sources are "more relevant to the practice of scholarship than to the content." I only disagree to this statement as a general case, not to the chance of it being a case. --Trakon 08:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reword intro?

The way the article begins is very off-putting for a casual reader:

In research, the term tertiary source is a relative term. What is considered tertiary depends on what is considered primary and secondary.

So what is a tertiary source then? The reader must go through several vague sentences to get an answer. Including a caveat about the difficulty in defining a tertiary source might be needed, but not in the first sentence where it can be frustrating for a reader looking for a "nutshell" definition.

How about something like this:

In scholarship, tertiary source is a term used to describe a work which is a chiefly selection or compilation of other primary and secondary sources. The distinction between a secondary and tertiary source is relative, whereas the difference between primary and secondary sources is more absolute in historiography. As a general rule, however, tertiary sources tend to be more focused on the identification of scholarly work than on the content itself.

After that, the next paragraph can follow as-is and the examples of bibliographies, library catalogs, etc. will be useful in clarifying the distinction. Thoughts? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I just realized this page hasn't seen any activity for a few years, so I'm going to make the change without waiting for consensus. Others feel free to edit as you see fit, of course. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yearbooks and Passports

Are yearbooks and passports considered secondary or tertiary sources of information? Can they be used in articles as reliable references? Carmelmount (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Passports are primary sources and are probably banned under WP:BLPPRIMARY for anything about a person. They're notWP:Published, and so not useful at all, but I'm assuming you're talking about a scanned copy on someone's website or something like that, rather than the actual passport.

Yearbooks could be any type. Try reading WP:USINGPRIMARY. Note that yearbooks are self-published and thus fall under WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF rules on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole page may be inaccurate.

A Princeton website, which states "What is a secondary source? A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias "

This contradicts the Mryland [1] source. So... what do we do?Kude90 (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd guess that the person writing it was thinking about law, where the concept of a tertiary source does not seem to exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

[2] this is the page which leads to the secondary sourrce page. It has to do with "research." So, I don't think it's law. The page which leads to that page is unavailable, though, so I can't be sure.Kude90 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the article is confusing and maybe even contradictory. Quite amazing for a short article on what a tertiary source is. Meaning that WP editors are not sure exactly what WP is? :-) - Nabla (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Most people publishing do not know what a secondary source is. No one ever thought about these things before Wikipedia. The article is confusing and contradictory, but that is because of a problem with the sources and not with Wikipedia. I am not sure what should be done with this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"No one ever thought about these things before Wikipedia", really? - Nabla (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Come see for yourself at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard what academia thinks. I work in health and at least I think we at WP:WikiProject Medicine would say that most people studying or practicing health care do not understand. Perhaps you are accustomed to working with a more educated demographic. Wikipedians have a really valuable skill set which is not difficult to acquire, but which is largely lacking among college graduates. I really would like to see education systems teach everyone to think critically about the sources from which they get their information, because the confusion is not in Wikipedia itself. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

The lead of the article currently says "Some tertiary sources are not to be cited in academic research. Rather, they should be used as an aid to find other sources." While this is obviously a sentiment held throughout the academic world, the very fact that the statements are unattributed opinions makes them neutrality violations. (You could call them guidance of sorts, but that's also disallowed outside of editor/author-facing areas.) Not sure how to fix this though. Glades12 (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)