On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:50:28 -0600, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
At WP:ATT he has said the the issue was not the use of primary sources, but the generation of novel conclusions based on the sources. Of course, that totally contradicts his original posting, where he says that the material should not be reintroduced unless it is supported by secondary sources. In addition, as far as I can tell, the material fairly reflects the sources in the article, and no attempt was made to explain how it is that the material did not.
Um. What I see here is a statement that selectively reporting directly from primary sources is Bad, whereas reporting what the secondary sources report as the balance of opinion is fine; I don't see it as a prohibition on sourcing quotes from the primary source, only on distilling the article /directly/ from that source without the filter of independent discussions.
This is precisely the kind of problem that led to the recent Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration case, in fact.
Guy (JzG)