The use of secondary sources gives us the breadth to mention primary sources that give us the depth to an article. There is no mandatory order in which they appear as long as the order in which they appear is appropriate to the objective. It appears we agree about this with the use of different words to describe it. The use of secondary sources to rule out primary sources is equivocal, not that the primary source is useful to trump the secondary source, but it adds further to the breadth and depth to have them all referenced neutrally -- even if one gets more attention than the others. Another words, there is no need to limit the article to only "the truth." Articles should cover relevant details of knowledge used to arrive at a truth or truths.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan - "Baloney Detection Kit" http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
Jonathan
Fastfission wrote:
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