Primary vs. Secondary vs. Tertiary sources Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

There is a potentially meaningful discussion going on at the "Identifying reliable sources" talk page. Like I said, "potentially." It comes back to the perennial question of whether the News 'n' Entertainment Media are universally applicable as sources for a putative encyclopedia. Specifically, the issue is whether "opinion pieces" are to be considered primary sources, but as User:Wilfione opines, "I sometimes wonder whether the distinction primary/ secondary/ tertiary is not in itself something a bit fuzzy." As well he might -- much of what is presented as straight news coverage is actually veiled "opinion pieces." Will Beback, who is always concerned about what impact such policy discussions may have on the POV pushers, expresses his concern that "no clear distinction between opinion (primary) and analysis (secondary or tertiary)." I believe he means "in the policy discussion", because in practice, we all know that it's "analysis" if it is congenial to the POV you are pushing. Or, in the words of User:kmhkmh, "It is indeed an often misleading approach that invites for wikilawyering."

[Kelly Martin]

How classic: we have a rabid leftie denying the existence of leftwing cabals, and a rabid rightie denying the existence of rightwing cabals. The rabid leftie also identifies SlimVirgin (an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment) as a "right wing cabalist".

Hersch is right: it's not about left and right, but about extremism, orthodoxy, and the Wikipedia House Point of View.

[Ottava]

How classic: we have a rabid leftie denying the existence of leftwing cabals, and a rabid rightie denying the existence of rightwing cabals. The rabid leftie also identifies SlimVirgin (an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment) as a "right wing cabalist".

Hersch is right: it's not about left and right, but about extremism, orthodoxy, and the Wikipedia House Point of View.

Libertarians are not right wing. They are anarchists. No one who believes in legalizing pot, free immigration, etc., is "conservative".



Thekohser:

"And you even edited your post. Are you sure about all of what you said there, Ottava?"

I added in a bit about opinion pieces. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)



Communicat:

"My stated terms of reference were with specific regard to military-political and modern history topics, which as far as I'm concerned are firmly under the control of rightwing cabals. "

LMAO. What? Ahahaha. Roger Davies, Kirill, etc., are all leading the mil hist project and the "military cabal" and are solidly lefty. As are most of the editors like Ed17 who edit in those areas. Just because they write about military doesn't mean they aren't lefty. Our coverage of things like the Iraq War and such things are not pro-Conservative in anyway. Hell, look at the material related to the prison incident.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[communicat]

How classic: we have a rabid leftie denying the existence of leftwing cabals, and a rabid rightie denying the existence of rightwing cabals. The rabid leftie also identifies SlimVirgin (an assiduous animal-rights activist, generally considered a left-wing alignment) as a "right wing cabalist".

Hersch is right: it's not about left and right, but about extremism, orthodoxy, and the Wikipedia House Point of View.

Libertarians are not right wing. They are anarchists. No one who believes in legalizing pot, free immigration, etc., is "conservative".



Thekohser:

"And you even edited your post. Are you sure about all of what you said there, Ottava?"

I added in a bit about opinion pieces. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)



Communicat:

"My stated terms of reference were with specific regard to military-political and modern history topics, which as far as I'm concerned are firmly under the control of rightwing cabals. "

LMAO. What? Ahahaha. Roger Davies, Kirill, etc., are all leading the mil hist project and the "military cabal" and are solidly lefty. As are most of the editors like Ed17 who edit in those areas. Just because they write about military doesn't mean they aren't lefty. Our coverage of things like the Iraq War and such things are not pro-Conservative in anyway. Hell, look at the material related to the prison incident.

What crap. Davies and Kirill are certainly not "solidly left" nor are they "leading" the milhist project. They are theoretically supposed to be "project co-ordinators" but in reality they are conspicuously absent from project activities, and this is/has for some time been a source of greivance at the project. Davies, who is also an arbitrator, is notable also for recusing himself from Arbcom proceedings concerning the goings-on at milhist project, which as everyone knows is the most conflict-ridden project at WP. As for that snot-nosed kid Kirill, he's too busy sucking up to his fellow arbitrators in the hope of having a few more barnstars bestowed upon him.