On 5/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
No, this isn't using a secondary source. If we are stating the fact "[X] has been named 'Kook of the Year' by the UseNet newsgroup alt.usenet.kooks", then we're using alt.usenet.kooks as a primary source for the award. If we were saying "[X] *is* a UseNet kook", then we would be using it as a secondary source to back up that fact. But we aren't saying anyone is a kook---merely reporting that someone else has said so. In short, the article is about the group and what they've said, using their words as a primary source for what they've said.
Right, I agree. But then there's no need to name the award winners. As soon as you do that, you're reporting that X was said about John Smith. You're not commenting on the truth of it, but you're repeating the allegation. Therefore, it must have been published by a credible, secondary source. That's our policy.
Mark, I've removed the name again. Now that the problem has been pointed out to us, we're on very sticky ground inserting the material back into the article. Perhaps we could discuss this instead either here or on WP:AN/I? If I'm the only person who thinks it should be removed, then obviously I'll abide by the majority view, but I'd like to see what a few others think first.
Sarah