[WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV

[WJhonson at aol.com]

<<In a message dated 12/27/2008 9:11:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
snowspinner at gmail.com writes:

In the  article [[Person A]], Person B's article is a secondary source,  
and  can be summarized freely. But because a primary source cannot be   
used for claims that are not easily verified by non-specialist   
readers, Person A's response, which is a primary source for [[Person   
A]], cannot be used the same way to respond.>>
 
If this seems what we intended, than all I can say is, it wasn't.
Involved hypothetical discussions are hard for me to follow without  specific 
examples.
In your example
 
A: blah blah blah god is dead etc
 
B: You're full of it
 
A: No I'm not
 
All of that is primary source material.  Your opinion about a source  is a 
primary source.
A secondary source isn't merely an opinion piece about a primary  source.
That is, creating an opinion article, doesn't mean you are now creating a  
secondary source.
 
Opinion pieces are all primary material.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**************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=emlcntaolcom00000025)