Talk:The Research Magnificent

Sources

Whoever placed the tags removed appears to have little conception of scholarly sources. Biographies of subject are standard secondary works, not "works associated with the subject," because H.G. Wells had no association with the biographer in question... he'd been dead for decades! And university press biography of a noted author is a reliable, not an unreliable source. Mark K. Jensen (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I restored the primary source tag. The use of the book (The Research Magnificent) as a source for the article on the book is a primary source. Wikipedia policy prefers the use of secondary and teriary sources. The article has 6 inline refs, 5 of which are to the book itself. The use of the biography as a secondary source is fine, but more secondary sources are needed. Please review the policy on primary sources. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have studied the material you refer to, and I sincerely believe you've misunderstood how 'original research' applies to articles about works of fiction. As Blueboar (a history teacher and winner of a Barnstar who is well-versed in these matters) says somewhere in the talk page of the "No original research" page you referred me to, Quoting form a novel and describing the plot of a novel "isn't OR. It is a simple descriptive statement about something that occurs in the work of fiction that a reader can verify by looking at the work of fiction itself." Best, Mark K. Jensen (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I said nothing about "original research", I commented on the lack of use of secondary sources, which is preferred by policy and third-party sources. Since was easier to fix the problem than continue the debate, I found secondary sources and added them to the article as references, without changing any of the prose of the article. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 12:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)