On 4/2/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I chose the word "interpretation" for a reason. Sorry if I didn't make this clear earlier, but I'm not debating the Top Gear case at all - truth be told, I forgot that that was the original topic in the first place. I'm speaking in general terms about policy, because it seems to me that Phil is advocating a view of policy that permits primary sources even where secondary sources don't exist.
We have never, AFAIK, said that primary sources are forbidden when secondary sources do not exist. It's possible that policy has been rewritten to say that at points (maybe even right now) but I'd submit that that does not reflect consensus (and is a symptom of the fact that we erroneously allow policy to be rewritten outside of consensus).
We do say that we are prohibited from drawing original conclusions from primary sources; thus, if primary sources are all an article has, there are many restrictions on what that article can say. It's possible that in many cases that means the article can never be beyond a stub. Sometimes, that may mean an article can't exist, but in many cases, having a solid stub is a good thing.
-Matt