Wikipedia:No original research: Difference between revisions

*:# {{strong|Do not}} analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.<!--That wording is quoted in full at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Primary – please update it if the text here is changed.-->

*:# {{strong|Do not}} base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

*{{Anchor|Secondary|AEIS|aeis}}<!--Anchor used by Template:AEIS and WP:AEIS.-->{{Policy shortcut|WP:SECONDARY}}A '''[[secondary source]]''' provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains ''analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis'' of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. [[Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent|Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources]]. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.{{efn|The [[University of California, Berkeley Libraries]] defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".<ref name=Berkeley/>}} For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.{{efn|The Ithaca College Library's page on primary and secondary sources compares research articles to review articles.<ref>{{cite web |title=Primary and secondary sources |url=http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary |publisher=Ithaca College Library |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131006053234/http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary |archivedate=6 October 2013}}</ref> Be aware that either type of article can be both a primary and secondary source, although research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources.}} Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary, or scholarly review.{{efn|Book reviews may be found listed under separate sections within a news source or might be embedded within larger news reports. Having multiple coverages in book reviews is considered one of the [[WP:Notability (books)|notability criteria for books]]; book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book. A book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author, and related writing issues, not a secondary source for the topics covered within the book. For definitions of book reviews: {{bulleted list |Princeton's Wordnet 2011 defines book review as "a critical review of a book (usually, [of] a recently published book)".<ref>{{cite web |title=book review |url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=book%20review |website=WordNet Search 3.1 |publisher=Princeton University}}</ref> |Virginia Tech University Libraries provides the following definition: "A book review is an article that is published in a newspaper, magazine, or scholarly work that describes and evaluates a book.{{nbsp}}... Reviews differ from literary critiques of books. Critiques explore the style and themes used by an author or genre."<ref>{{cite web |title=Book Reviews |url=http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |publisher=Virginia Tech University Libraries |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130105100902/http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |archivedate=5 January 2013}}</ref>}}}}

*:{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim ''only if'' it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

 

== See also ==

 

=== Guidelines ===

* [[Wikipedia:No original research/Examples|No original research examples]]

* [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard|No original research noticeboard]]{{mdash}}discussions of specific article content suspected of being OR

=== Templates ===

{{div col}}

* [[Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not|What SYNTH is not]]

* [[Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed|When to cite &sect;&nbsp;When a source or citation may not be needed]]

{{div col end}}