On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, FT2 wrote:
So the resolution of your question above is, if
anyone could in principle
check it without analysis, just by witnessing the object or document and
attesting it says what it says (or is what it is, or has certain obvious
qualities), then that's verifiable. If it would need analysis,
interpretation or deduction to form the view, so that some views might be
credible/expert and some might not, then we don't try to "play the expert"
here, we look at what credible sources/experts say instead.
1) That doesn't seem to be actual Wikipedia policy.
Sure it is. Have a look at the section on dealing with primary
sources. That's almost a perfect summary of it.