Mark Gallagher wrote:
I also believe we should cite primary, secondary or tertiary sources, whichever is available. In the case of primary sources, of course, these should only be readily available ones. Ideally, an encyclopedia is a tertiary source - a summing-up of knowledgable opinion - but I would not exclude primary or tertiary sources unless better are available.
I absolutely agree. Once you start imposing serious limitations on the acceptability of sources you set up the basis for many future arguments of the "my source is better than yours" variety. We need to encourage people to use what they have, without worrying about strict criteria.
That depends on what you mean by "limitations". "You can't use the subject's autobiography, wait until you can get a two-page treatment from a textbook" is kinda silly and limiting. However, there already are very significant limitations: we aren't allowed to rely on the ravings of madmen to build a case. Translated into NPOV, this means that the followers of Lyndon LaRouche are no longer allowed to use wacko LaRouchite propaganda to claim he's more important than he really is.
I support this (well, nobody's asked me, but ...), and I imagine you do too if you've any knowledge about LaRouche, his movement and its followers, and the sort of material he prints.
The usefulness of a source depends on what you are using it for. As wacko as LaRouche writings may be, if he writes about a rant that he gave in Akron on some specified day it is prima facie evidence that he was in Akron on that day without an implications about the value of his speech.
Ec