Talk:Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye)

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 August 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merging (general discussion)

I'm starting this on Talk:Private Eye, to generate more discussion. Jdcooper (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally baffled by the comment above this piece that says it relies too much on primary sources and that secondary or tertiary sources are better. In other words - the writer or writers of the piece are telling us what was in Private Eye based on their experience of actually reading Private Eye. But that's not good enough, we are told. Wikipedia says it would be better if they didn't read Private Eye themselves, but instead relied on the comments of people commenting on the comments of people who had read Private Eye. Call me old fashioned, but I think primary sources are sometimes the best. Andy Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.248.46 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]