Wikipedia talk:WikiProject True Origins/Reliable sources

I want to match this up very closely with the existing text and discussion at WP:RS, and at the RS Noticeboard. It will take a while. Anything we want to say that is different from there really has to be presented at WP:RS talk page for discussion. If we're just expanding, that's another matter.
 * And in fact I see one. primary sources here is used in the way scientists use it--and naturally, the way I've always taught it as a science librarian. But it is not the way humanities people use it. Humanities people consider primary sources to be the material being studied, say a novel.  Articles in scholarly journals about a subject are considered secondary sources. In the discussion of humanities based topics, such as popular culture, the term is used the same way: the primary material is the video programs or whatever, and the use of this is disapproved. The secondary source are reviews, or discussions  about the material. (Now of course if you are studying the criticism itself its another matter-the criticism is the primary source.)
 * In history too, the primary sources are the documents and physical monuments. The research done about them is a secondary source. I made a quick  fix it.
 * This mismatch has in fact been a problem in discussing science. WP articles in science and medicine routinely cite research articles primarily. (and in many fields there is nothing else) Obviously reliable articles evaluating them are important, but they way they tend to be used is to impeach particular sources. I do not think it practical to change the way its done here, and I hope that is not the intent. It would be better to discuss individual articles with the accepted criteria and methods.
 * (and If you think the term is used otherwise in history, I'd like a citation):

DGG (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)