STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
I'm not aware of this and I don't understand
the
meaning of not using "primary sources". It sounds
weird. A source is a source -- if it's legitimate,
then why forbid the use of it? Link please.
Note: I wasn't the one to add those sources to the
sub, but I think that whoever did it, did a good job.
From [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]:
* A primary source <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source>
provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may
mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that
they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary
source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you
are writing about. An example of primary-source material would be
a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness, or a
report from that eye witness. A trial transcript is also
primary-source material. Wikipedia articles may rely on primary
sources /so long as what they say has been published by a credible
publication/. For example, a trial transcript has been published
by the court. *We may not use primary sources whose information
has not been made available by a credible publication.* See
Wikipedia:No original research
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research>.
John