Talk:Wishful Drinking

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

So....[edit]

What's the book about and/or what does it discuss? Got everything about that in the article. --12.201.252.10 (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why use secondary over primary source?[edit]

Peter, why cite Vanity Fair in reference to CF's self-penned obit instead of her book (the primary source)? I see the wording about the obit getting press after her death, but why single out VF? I learned about the obit via a tweet. What's special about VF? — tbc (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, it is my understanding that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources; articles by experienced analysts. And the Vanity Fair article adds some useful perspectives and confirms that the quote is being used in various news media as my text indicated. Of course there are many other citations one could use too, or instead. See https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=carrie%20fisher%20moonlight%20bra Peter K Burian (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[6] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers

Peter K Burian (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the VF article: Useful perspective. According to Fisher, Lucas did eventually explain why galaxies far, far away are underwear-free zones—which led her to a great gag about how she'd eventually like to go: What happens is you go to space and you become weightless. So far so good, right? But then your body expands??? But your bra doesn't—so you get strangled by your own bra. Now I think that this would make for a fantastic obit—so I tell my younger friends that no matter how I go, I want it reported that I drowned in moonlight, strangled by my own bra. As you wish, your Worshipfulness. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]