On 3/20/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/20/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/20/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
In a recent posting, Jimbo stated that anything that draws from primary sources is OR. The section is question was drawn in part from primary sources (San Diego courts case detail, a Superior court judgement).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons suggests that whether or not primary sources can be used depends on how public the figure is.
True. But if the issue is BLP, say that it's BLP. If the issue is NPOV, say that it's NPOV. But if you do so, then don't say "this is OR, and can only be reintroduced if seconday sources are found".
I don't know the particulars of this case, but in case it helps -- in general the issue is that we need a secondary source so we know that the issue is important enough to write about in the first place. If the only people writing about something, apart from the primary sources, are Wikipedians, there's a danger that undue weight will be given to the issue, which is where the NPOV policy kicks in.
WP:ATT says that primary sources should only be used to make entirely descriptive claims. Any contentious issue, or anything that requires interpretation, shouldn't be based entirely on primary sources.
Sarah