Matt Brown wrote:
On 7/20/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/07/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
No, it isn't. I'm sorry you can't see that.
Perhaps you could humour me and explain how they are different?
I suspect Anthony might be of the opinion that an encyclopedia should only be a tertiary source, summarising the judgment of secondary sources.
If so, it seems like pointless pedantry to me. What if we were to summarize a transcript of the episode instead? The extra step of indirection has no effect on the end result.
And primary sources are explicitly allowed by WP:NOR anyway, so the whole issue seems moot. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources