On 3/20/07, SonOfYoungwood(a)aol.com <SonOfYoungwood(a)aol.com> wrote:
If Wikipedia decides to ban primary source citing, here's what
will happen:
* Numerous articles will be removed of featured, A-class, or GA status.
* Wikipedia's coverage and material will be significantly limited.
* A lot of good work will be removed (ruined).
* Numerous editors will leave Wikipedia because their chance of writing
featured articles, especially on popular culture and many other subjects,
will be
gone. Not to mention the fact that their hard work is being removed.
Plus, stating the facts of primary sources - like citing a script example
that Darth Vader is killed at the end of Return of the Jedi, or citing an
interview with a developer when stating that he was influenced by Japanese
paintings - are not the same as OR.
At WP:ATT he has said the the issue was not the use of primary sources, but
the generation of novel conclusions based on the sources. Of course, that
totally contradicts his original posting, where he says that the material
should not be reintroduced unless it is supported by secondary sources. In
addition, as far as I can tell, the material fairly reflects the sources in
the article, and no attempt was made to explain how it is that the material
did not.
So now it would appear that OR has not been redefined, except where it has.
It's ok to use primary sources, but information supported by primary sources
cannot be reinserted into an article unless it is supported by secodnary
sources? Maybe that's what's being said? Who knows. But be careful,
because if you do use primary sources, Jimbo may call you a POV-pusher
holding Wikipedia hostage.