Talk:Surveillance and Reconnaissance Squadron

Sources

@PAWPERSO: Can you please elaborate on your edit summary WP:PRIMARY for reverting my edit. Regards Melbguy05 (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

"Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.^{[under discussion]"} PAWPERSO (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@PAWPERSO: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used." WP:SECONDARYNOTGOOD: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary"." WP:PRIMARYUSE: "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation."

The sources you used, that you claim are secondary, do not provide analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. They are an exact reproduction of the primary source. Melbguy05 (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's me corrected. I was just worried about someone deleting the page saying it wasn't notable enough tbh as I've had that happen before when I'd just used primary sources. PAWPERSO (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)