How would that apply to an article like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_2001_Census
Jay.
On 3/20/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com 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
On 3/20/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Ilmari Karonen" nospam@vyznev.net wrote in message news:441B614A.7020406@vyznev.net...
Fastfission wrote:
[snippety-snip]
I suspect you're wrong about this being universal. It may well be true for history, but in mathematics, for example, citing primary sources is perfectly reasonable and even desirable. The difference, of course, is that history, unlike mathematics, requires context and interpretation.
The difference is between recounting what someone actually said, for which you need primary sources, and deciding whether what they said was true, for which you almost always require the support of secondary sources.
Both have their place and function.
HTH HAND
Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l