True, but I think one should consult secondary sources
*first* for our
project, and primary sources *second*. You cannot consult a primary
source without an interpretative framework, and you should be deriving
that from a secondary source, in my interpretation of [[WP:NOR]].
Primary sources are great for adding color and authenticity to an
article -- nobody disputes that -- but articles based solely on
primary sources are chancy indeed, and no individual user's individual
idiosyncratic interpretation of a primary source should trump the
interpretation given in a secondary source. The people who usually
insist on primary sources over secondary sources are usually the ones
who think that the "establishment" opinion is bunk -- a fairly good
indication of a NPOV violation or a NOR violation.
FF
On 3/20/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"Ilmari Karonen"
<nospam(a)vyznev.net> wrote in
message news:441B614A.7020406@vyznev.net...
Fastfission wrote:
[snippety-snip]
I suspect you're wrong about this being
universal. It may well be true
for history, but in mathematics, for example, citing primary sources is
perfectly reasonable and even desirable. The difference, of course, is
that history, unlike mathematics, requires context and interpretation.
The difference is between recounting what someone actually said, for which
you need primary sources, and deciding whether what they said was true, for
which you almost always require the support of secondary sources.
Both have their place and function.
HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l