User talk:105.228.104.160

Help me!
Please help me with primary sources for living persons. Wikipedia claims that it is a tertiary source of information and relies on secondary material for its sources, rather than primary. There are many problems with this stance: 1) secondary sources rely on the author's view of the primary sources. If there are multiple authors, the reader can compare different views and synthesis their own viewpoint. Furthermore, the author's often reiterate the same material over and over again, without critical justification. An example is Thomas Scott being claimed to be an Orangeman despite any lack of evidence that he ever belonged to any lodge (he may have shared their views but given his situation [working migrant which would prohibit his being able to afford lodge fees or staying long enough to join a lodge], this is highly unlikely) However, primary sources allow the reader to make up their own mind directly 2) living people rarely have any secondary sources given the timelines. Often, the secondary source is a hagiography which is anything but unbiased. Furthermore, with living persons, there is an issue with libel. If primary sources are cited, it allows the reader to make up their own mind and mitigates the libel issue. Secondary sources, reflecting their authors' biases, are much more likely to be libelous.

Jake Alberta JakeAlberta (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * please take it to Talk:Harvey Cenaiko and ping the relevant editors per WP:BRD. More effective than some poor, innocent IP's talk. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)