On 10 September 2012 17:04, Ken Arromdee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: > >> You might be justified in saying this if he was really told he wasn't >> "credible". If he was told that he wasn't a "reliable source" in WP's >> terms, that is a different kettle of fish. >> > > How's he supposed to know the difference? >
Oh, I don't know, they keep saying he should get a Nobel Prize as a novelist, so perhaps his command of the English language is above average. There is a nuance. > > Besides, once he is verified to be himself, he is a reliable source. The > issue was that he was a primary source and the secondary sources had > preference. > > The issue appears to be something different. Roth's biographer wanted the existing secondary sources zapped from the article as simply worthless, and we couldn't accept that. Roth's unpublished view as funnelled through his biographer might have had to have waited until the biography was published, in which case we would have cited it without trouble. Via what appears to be an OTRS mail Roth was given what appears to be the wrong advice, phrased in terms of secondary sources. As WP:ABOUTSELF<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF> tells us, Roth simply had to get his view published; which he did. The caveat in the article by 20 August was actually enough to cast great doubt on the other story about his inspiration, at least for any attentive reader. It is traditional to hang all sorts of other considerations on these incidents, but from the point of view of getting the case study straight, it isn't that helpful. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
