This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
be discussed on the article Talk page. Shortcut WP:PRIMARYNOTBADWP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Neighbours 30th Anniversary/1 and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Additionally, several of the primary sources are then backed up by...
Click to read more »| ctrb) 18:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Keep per WP:PRIMARY not bad (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC) See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. If a topic is the subject of dozens of publications since the 1970s...
Click to read more »Sirfurboy🏄 is putting undue emphasis on the primary news issue, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Its written about (and notable) because it's a large, long-standing...
Click to read more »many of the other novels and publications that discuss Glittergold, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Delete - The non-primary...
Click to read more »has some potential for elucidating on the specific use cases where WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD applies, but it is, as has been said by Mdewman6, clearly incomplete...
Click to read more »asminternational.org/2020-fellows is sufficient to show the fellowship (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), but agree would need secondary sourcing for the latter part of your...
Click to read more »please tell me where all to remove it? I thought it was an example of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC) @Aoba47: No not...
Click to read more »case-by-case basis for the best possible source for that information, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or WP:PRIMARYCARE, which provides examples of primary sources being...
Click to read more »long as they are used with caution in a non-promotional way per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Bratjoggs (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Relisted to generate...
Click to read more »is the organisation that awarded the medal this is an example of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD) and edited a journal, which counts towards criteria 8. Her notable...
Click to read more »Comment While the Centro source is primary, it is not invalid per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Centro are (or at the time were) the overseeing government body. Est8286...
Click to read more »the primary sources are comic book pages is absolutely no problem. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD Regardless, the Marvel official handbook counts as a secondary source...
Click to read more »Primary sources can be used, they just can't prove notability, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC) Maybe I'm misunderstanding...
Click to read more »stating basic facts rather than being promotional, so fine to use per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Toviemaix (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC) You could have 50 sources...
Click to read more »film's making, and the book should not violate WP:PRIMARYSOURCE or WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD since it is an interview. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019...
Click to read more »like me to understand historians). News sources can be primary/good WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or secondary. The nom does specify that primarynews needs to be discounted...
Click to read more »Sitush (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Sitush as a general point, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Second, specific to this, I should clearly have made my <cough> comment...
Click to read more »that oversees the service does stand to reason there will be some. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states primary sources can be used, but should be done so with caution...
Click to read more »meant convenient for the reader, not for myself as an editor per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. I should have specified. My point being, Primary sources were NOT used...
Click to read more »reinforce the point about primary sources, note WP:PRIMARY#3 and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Comment It looks...
Click to read more »though that would probably warrant a separate discussion. Also, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD explicitly states "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be...
Click to read more »statement; we are simply reporting that the endorsement occurred. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is relevant here: primary sources can be reliable and, for some claims...
Click to read more »present what the authors said, in their own words. For more, look up WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. That is all, and as stark as it gets. -The Gnome (talk) 05:22, 16 June...
Click to read more »Risk Professionals. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> please review WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, and WP:PRIMARYCARE. It says, "...although it will be acceptable for...
Click to read more »When I reverted and told him that it was primary, he pointed me to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD (which is not a policy), as you can see in this diff. I only know that...
Click to read more »the foundation to the Info box. It is missing that number. Using WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD I attempted to add this number. I was reverted by Scjessey. Saying I...
Click to read more »said so. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC) WP:PSTS / WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD may apply, again I don't think this is the venue for that discussion...
Click to read more »sources." I've read the article, primary sources are not forbidden WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Lots of new editors can figure out what a review article is and how...
Click to read more »organization tself - a fully acceptible and even encouraged usage per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Jamez42's aversion to the topic of US involvement in regime change...
Click to read more »August 2017 (UTC) I am not sure we should be so prescriptive on this. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is a good thing to read, particularly when dealing with a composer from...
Click to read more »application of WP:Primary applies with verification of elected officials WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. - --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Well it has its own...
Click to read more »though that would probably warrant a separate discussion. Also, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD explicitly states "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be...
Click to read more »used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD So there is some application of this to the use of Marxist.net, but...
Click to read more »discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Per WP:PSTS and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, a primary source is perfectly acceptable as the only source for actual...
Click to read more »TOI which is a Primary Source, can be considered acceptable as per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD because this is just not the only references about his debut in Dhollywood...
Click to read more »aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC) See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. If a topic is the subject of dozens of publications since the 1970s...
Click to read more »long as they are used with caution in a non-promotional way per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Bratjoggs (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Relisted to generate...
Click to read more »quotations as a secondary source. In this case, I would also refer to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. However, when it comes to notability, how much this CNBC article confers...
Click to read more »Primary sources can be used, they just can't prove notability, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC) Maybe I'm misunderstanding...
Click to read more »present what the authors said, in their own words. For more, look up WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. That is all, and as stark as it gets. -The Gnome (talk) 05:22, 16 June...
Click to read more »many of the other novels and publications that discuss Glittergold, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Delete - The non-primary...
Click to read more »Cryptocurrency as deprecated/blacklisted (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD are not being applied). They tell me that I should go to WP:RSN if I...
Click to read more »application of WP:Primary applies with verification of elected officials WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. - --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Well it has its own...
Click to read more »Comment While the Centro source is primary, it is not invalid per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Centro are (or at the time were) the overseeing government body. Est8286...
Click to read more »a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense" (see also WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Keep I feel...
Click to read more »asminternational.org/2020-fellows is sufficient to show the fellowship (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), but agree would need secondary sourcing for the latter part of your...
Click to read more »references. As I said above, I very rarely use primary sources (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). But, they have been removed. I found so many other sources since I...
Click to read more »that oversees the service does stand to reason there will be some. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states primary sources can be used, but should be done so with caution...
Click to read more »Sitush (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Sitush as a general point, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Second, specific to this, I should clearly have made my <cough> comment...
Click to read more »stating basic facts rather than being promotional, so fine to use per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Toviemaix (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC) You could have 50 sources...
Click to read more »references. As I said above, I very rarely use primary sources (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). But, they have been removed. I found so many other sources since I...
Click to read more »| ctrb) 18:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Keep per WP:PRIMARY not bad (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »YouTube video is a (necessarily rare but needed) primary source (see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). However, I am more than happy to have a discussion about all of these...
Click to read more »essays you link to - for example, that one has a section called WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. There is NO PROBLEM whatsoever with using primary sources, anywhere...
Click to read more »we're not giving undue weight to this particular blog post. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. I strongly disagree with the "extraordinary claims" analysis - that...
Click to read more »source. "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used." WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As noted therein, a primary source may be "even the best possible source"...
Click to read more »abort their pregnancies." Regarding the second issue about sources: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a...
Click to read more »addition, you can read more about the differences at WP:PSTS. Also see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD for situations when primary sources may actually be preferred. --GoneIn60...
Click to read more »discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Per WP:PSTS and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, a primary source is perfectly acceptable as the only source for actual...
Click to read more »like me to understand historians). News sources can be primary/good WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or secondary. The nom does specify that primarynews needs to be discounted...
Click to read more »source. "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used." WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As noted therein, a primary source may be "even the best possible source"...
Click to read more »context or make unsupported claims. In the past I have used the WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD to highlight the misunderstanding that primary resources are invalid...
Click to read more »TOI which is a Primary Source, can be considered acceptable as per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD because this is just not the only references about his debut in Dhollywood...
Click to read more »because sources are sponsored doesn't mean they can't be used at all (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), just they don't add to the notability case. Use of Amazon links is...
Click to read more »Wikipedia if information from this opinionated fountain is cut off (see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD; see also this RfC discussion (corrected per Newslinger's heads-up below)...
Click to read more »tweet was posted is important or to include a direct quotation. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC) My point is that twitterings...
Click to read more »life information uses secondary sources (and it is worth noting WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Long running television series (e.g. The Simpsons have pages for each...
Click to read more »many articles justify a category. Regarding WP:LISTN, when I review WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and consider the ubiquity of D&D content (deities, monsters, settings...
Click to read more »you've misunderstood the role of primary sources in Wikipedia (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Homelessness in the United States is clearly a topic worthy of inclusion...
Click to read more »sources Yes, but in compliance with WP:NNC and understanding that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Compare to the Platinga article Yes, and perhaps others. WP:Some stuff...
Click to read more »many other primary sources that should be acceptable, according to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, like links to SEC filings or annual reports. While these are self-published...
Click to read more »Fomenko claims, following the recommended advice of Wikipedia of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD : "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such...
Click to read more »the arguments against it-we're talking about a work of fiction. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians...
Click to read more »the standards of a different scientific field, failing to consider WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, dismissing the importance of valid field of scientific inquiry, and...
Click to read more »many articles justify a category. Regarding WP:LISTN, when I review WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and consider the ubiquity of D&D content (deities, monsters, settings...
Click to read more »which is blurred out. Such a link is a PRIMARY reference, but as per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, is not a material issue as the information is not manipulated and is...
Click to read more »August 2017 (UTC) I am not sure we should be so prescriptive on this. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is a good thing to read, particularly when dealing with a composer from...
Click to read more »no primary source is reliable, which is contradicted directly by WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, as well as by WP:PSTS and a whole host of other policy pages. Red Rock...
Click to read more »he considers inadmissible because he does not appear to get that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. I am not foreclosing on the possibility of a section...
Click to read more »is still guided by Butler's work" creates guilt by association. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states, when you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document...
Click to read more »attention to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, the opposite in fact.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC) I believe WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD here is overridden...
Click to read more »than a region"[[23]]. On the talk page I went over things such as WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:WINARS with him. I even pointed out a book named Jacob Abbot...
Click to read more »desirable by beign more recent and belonging directly to author, then WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, but also because accussation is reinstated with more explicit and understandable...
Click to read more »sources, including notable newspapers, magazines, and news outlets. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD says, "While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can...
Click to read more »sources Yes, but in compliance with WP:NNC and understanding that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Compare to the Platinga article Yes, and perhaps others. WP:Some stuff...
Click to read more »20 January 2026 (UTC) Support use of primary sources. Simply put, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. If a primary source is the highest-quality source available, there...
Click to read more »Sirfurboy🏄 is putting undue emphasis on the primary news issue, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Its written about (and notable) because it's a large, long-standing...
Click to read more »case-by-case basis for the best possible source for that information, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or WP:PRIMARYCARE, which provides examples of primary sources being...
Click to read more »life information uses secondary sources (and it is worth noting WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Long running television series (e.g. The Simpsons have pages for each...
Click to read more »material. Bon courage (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Well, what about WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD? Just because something is primary is not an automatic deletion. Geogene...
Click to read more »a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense" (see also WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Keep I feel...
Click to read more »primary source, it would be acceptable as said in WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. It seems like other editors are saying you're calling mainstream press...
Click to read more »subject is non-notable. SilverserenC 23:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC) WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. It is not true that there is a blanket prohibition on primary source...
Click to read more »WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SPS, ignoring well-established discussions like WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, other language RSN's, usage of shortened footnotes, and more). This...
Click to read more »meant convenient for the reader, not for myself as an editor per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. I should have specified. My point being, Primary sources were NOT used...
Click to read more »content, Primary Sources would be best sources as mentioned in Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As the intention of the section is to present the claims made by each...
Click to read more »peer review journal. Per WP:SPS, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:RSOPINION, and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD; primary sources are not only allowable, but hold significant weight...
Click to read more »meme post-2014. The usage of the primary source appears valid under WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, however to provide context for who Professor Ivan Denikin and his "Magazine"...
Click to read more »used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD So there is some application of this to the use of Marxist.net, but...
Click to read more »Also, please keep in mind that primary sources are not always bad (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), and I would even go so far as to say that that government registry...
Click to read more »source; and again we already have policies such as PRIMARYCARE and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. With regard to their website research, this is not the forum for that...
Click to read more »the primary sources are comic book pages is absolutely no problem. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD Regardless, the Marvel official handbook counts as a secondary source...
Click to read more »is the organisation that awarded the medal this is an example of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD) and edited a journal, which counts towards criteria 8. Her notable...
Click to read more »reinforce the point about primary sources, note WP:PRIMARY#3 and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Comment It looks...
Click to read more »because sources are sponsored doesn't mean they can't be used at all (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), just they don't add to the notability case. Use of Amazon links is...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Neighbours 30th Anniversary/1 and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Additionally, several of the primary sources are then backed up by...
Click to read more »sources, including notable newspapers, magazines, and news outlets. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD says, "While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can...
Click to read more »statements and new reporting that incorporates them) comply with WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: "authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved...
Click to read more »and that doesn’t really seem to be the case in Wikipedia as far as WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and secondary sources can say things completely innacurate too WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD...
Click to read more »WP:CONSENSUS. I have rescued dead links and tweaked misused tags under WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and I know those aren't policy violations. So, nothing to add in that...
Click to read more »subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher" (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), and to discount them serves no valid purpose. You point me to WhatamIdoing's...
Click to read more »investigative reporting is often considered primary (keeping in mind WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). But that distinction doesn't hugely matter for the purposes of an...
Click to read more »