[WikiEN-l] Primary sources

[Jonathan]

The use of secondary sources gives us the breadth to mention primary 
sources that give us the depth to an article. There is no mandatory 
order in which they appear as long as the order in which they appear is 
appropriate to the objective. It appears we agree about this with the 
use of different words to describe it. The use of secondary sources to 
rule out primary sources is equivocal, not that the primary source is 
useful to trump the secondary source, but it adds further to the breadth 
and depth to have them all referenced neutrally -- even if one gets more 
attention than the others. Another words, there is no need to limit the 
article to only "the truth." Articles should cover relevant details of 
knowledge used to arrive at a truth or truths.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - 
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan - "Baloney Detection Kit" 
http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

Jonathan

Fastfission wrote:

>True, but I think one should consult secondary sources *first* for our
>project, and primary sources *second*. You cannot consult a primary
>source without an interpretative framework, and you should be deriving
>that from a secondary source, in my interpretation of [[WP:NOR]].
>Primary sources are great for adding color and authenticity to an
>article -- nobody disputes that -- but articles based solely on
>primary sources are chancy indeed, and no individual user's individual
>idiosyncratic interpretation of a primary source should trump the
>interpretation given in a secondary source. The people who usually
>insist on primary sources over secondary sources are usually the ones
>who think that the "establishment" opinion is bunk -- a fairly good
>indication of a NPOV violation or a NOR violation.
>
>FF
>