User talk:66.44.38.208

August 2022
Hello, I'm Tkbrett. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, "Heroes" (David Bowie song), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Tkbrett  (✉) 17:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out that I had not included a source. I went back and added a reliable source for my edit (the scene in The Perks of Being a Wallflower in which the song Heroes is featured, which I linked to and correctly cited), but I just checked and it looks liked it was reverted again. Why was the edit changed back after I cited a reliable source? 66.44.38.208 (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's because you cited a primary source (the film itself) rather than a secondary source (like a book, to name but one example). To include something like this, Wikipedia demands not just that it happened, but that it is significant enough to be mentioned. The way we establish that significance is by checking secondary sources. For example, if someone mentions in a book or news article something about that song appearing in that movie, that could indicate significance. The problem comes if you start citing the film directly, because that's like you're making the judgement about its significance on your own. I hope that clears things up!  Tkbrett  (✉) 13:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that and appreciate the clarification and the addition of the secondary sources you added). However, I don't see how citing a primary source in this context went against Wikipedia's rules on the subject. From my understanding, the use of primary sources is guided by the rule below:
 * "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
 * Using the clip of the song Heroes being used in the film The Perks of Being a Wallflower in order to show that the song Heroes is used in The Perks of Being a Wallflower seems like the most straightforward application of this rule that one could have. The sentence in question simply stated "The song has also been used predominately in advertising over the years and has appeared in several television series and films, including Moulin Rouge! (2001), The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012), and Regular Show (2017)." That is a "straightforward, descriptive statement of a fact," that can be easily verified through the source I provided without any further, specialized knowledge. The rules limiting the use of primary sources only limit citing them when interpreting, analyzing, evaluating, or synthesizing material and when basing large passages on them, as described in rules listed below:
 * "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
 * "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
 * "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
 * My use of a primary source did not involve any analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis and it was not a large passage, it was simply part a statement of fact that was less than a sentence long. How is citing an article that includes the track listing of the film any more reliable of a source than simply citing the clip where it is used in the film?
 * Thank you for the help. I definitely appreciate the clarification and will follow your guidance on this matter in the future, but I just am curious about what was wrong with the primary source in this context. 66.44.38.208 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)