<<In a message dated 12/27/2008 9:11:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, snowspin...@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) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l