Talk:Tertiary source/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tertiary source. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

The way in which primary source, secondary source and tertiary source has been defined in Wikipedia is not in accordance with the way in which is has been defined by UNISIST in 1971 and taken over, by among others, the present writer. (See Fjordback Søndergaard; Andersen & Hjørland, 2003).

Also, the normal language in Library and information science is to speak of bibliografies and the like as secondary sources (or secundary literature).

There are variations in the use of these concepts between the humanities and the sciences, however, if a general terminology should be established, we recommend the UNISIST terminology.

Fjordback Søndergaard, T.; Andersen, J. & Hjørland, B. (2003). Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information. Revising and updating the UNISIST model. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 278-320. Available at: http://www.db.dk/bh/UNISIST.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.186.100 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 30 March 2005

Note

Just FYI, this article is linked from the MediaWiki:Citethispage-content page, which is displayed whenever a user clicks the "Cite this article" link from the toolbox on any article page. — Catherine\^talk 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)