[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[Surreptitiousness]

FT2 wrote:
> To add to this, note that "primary sources" are stated to include
> "...archeological artifacts; photographs.."
>
> NOR, a core policy in this area, doesn't say that the "writings about an
> artifact" are the source. It says clearly that artifacts themselves are
> categorized as primary sources.
>
> The only way an "artifact" or photograph could ever be a "source" is that by
> its very existence, it has a number of obvious descriptive qualities and the
> like that any reasonable person witnessing it would agree upon, and that
> anyone with access to the artifact could verify.

And of course, it is this portion of policy that causes us issues with 
regards fiction. Since the work itself is a primary source.
 We haven't yet worked out to what extent a article on a fictional 
subject should rely on secondary sources.  Or at least reached a 
consensus.  It's easier to tackle fiction articles by removing 
speculation and interpretation. Generally, I think that should be the 
better approach, and I'd like to see a similar policy, in terms of scope 
rather than content, created for articles on fictional subjects.  I 
think Phul Sandifer had a draft somewhere, but it's real hard to 
organise a consensus in this area, there's real division running deep.