Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using tertiary sources

Interpreting NOR differently

Currently, the essay states:

The distinction between tertiary and secondary sources is important, because WP:No original research policy states: "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Thus, such claims cannot be cited to tertiary or primary sources.

I interpret the quoted line form WP:NOR a bit differently, and don't think it intends quite the restriction that is stated in the last sentence (which I put in bold for emphasis). For one thing, we need to remember that most statements of analysis or evaluation contained in reliable tertiary sources will be based on what is published by reliable secondary sources. I think that if the tertiary source is summarizing reliable published sources, then the analysis or evaluation will meet the requirement of NOR.

Another thing to consider... sources such as encyclopedias rarely fit into neat little boxes... Just as a reliable secondary source may contain primary data... a reliable tertiary encyclopedia can contain Secondary analysis and evaluation. In other words an encyclopdedia or almanac (etc) may be "mostly tertiary" and yet act as a published secondary source for certain specifics. In which case... when we cite the encyclopedia we are actually citing a published secondary source. Of course, we have to look at the reputation of the "mostly tertiary" source (and its authors) when determining whether it should be considered reliable for the parts of it that are secondary... but if deemed reliable, then we can cite the analysis or evaluation as if it were a secondary source.

So, to sum up my thoughts... we have two situations where a "tertiary" source can be cited for analysis and evaluation... 1) where it is summarizing the analysis and evaluation of reliable secondary sources. 2) where it acts as a reliable secondary source itself. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]