G'day Ray,
<snip />
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.
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/200 - Release Date: 14/12/2005