Concern arises in the cases of secondary sources which take particular
points of view. Such sources marshall evidence which supports that point of
view. Being "unwilling or unable to check the primary references" applies
when those references are relatively easy to locate, not the case here.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" <jayjg(a)hotmail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:28:51 -0500
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Let us not attack sources as unreliable without reason
Indeed. And the way *not* to handle them is to put caveats beside them
stating (in so many words) that "we have not been able to verify these as
truthful" (which, of course, we don't do). Doing so, of course, would be
highly POV, since it would naturally create the impression that the sources
were suspect and untrustworthy, rather than the actual case that certain
editors are unwilling or unable to check the primary references. The fact
that only a tiny number of seconday sources seem to even be candidates for
this kind of treatment is interesting.
Jay.