On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
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 Roth's unpublished view as funnelled through his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.
Let me get this straight:
He was given the wrong advice about secondary sources... and it's his fault?
This is definitely Wikipedia's problem. Wikipedia's policy *as practiced*
failed him, and failed us.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
