Sure but in this case, to what you actually refer, is an refutation by him, of his position on some philosophical point, etc etc. That's not really about "him" per se, in the same vein that say "I was born in Topeka" is about him. If he, as a Topekian, engaged in an long-winded argument with another, about his activities on the cheerleading squad of Topeka high, then shouldn't we say, that his long-winded repartee is a secondary source, on the primary assertion that "I was the most decorated cheerleader in Topeka High history."
If you're going to take the position that any opinion about a primary-source-assertion is secondary, simply because it is addressing an underlying original statement-of-fact, than a consistent approach is that this is true, no matter if the speaker is also the subject themself.
That seems consistent to me, and would remove your quandary.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/28/2008 2:44:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
On Dec 28, 2008, at 3:27 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The sole useful alternative view, would be that *both* report and counter-report are secondary sources. The simple fact that a person is speaking about their own work, doesn't make their words primary for that, it depends on the context in which they are speaking.
I.E. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
For the most part, we'd treat anything by Person X as a primary source for [[Person X]]. I mean, if we want to make an explicit exception for a category, that's fine, but right now, nothing I can see in NOR even slightly undermines the idea that an article by Person X is a primary source for [[Person X]].
-Phil
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)