I also believe we should cite primary, secondary or
tertiary sources,
whichever is available. In the case of primary sources, of course,
these should only be readily available ones. Ideally, an encyclopedia
is a tertiary source - a summing-up of knowledgable opinion - but I
would not exclude primary or tertiary sources unless better are
available.
I absolutely agree. Once you start imposing serious limitations on
the acceptability of sources you set up the basis for many future
arguments of the "my source is better than yours" variety. We need
to encourage people to use what they have, without worrying about
strict criteria.
That depends on what you mean by "limitations". "You can't use the
subject's autobiography, wait until you can get a two-page treatment
from a textbook" is kinda silly and limiting. However, there already
are very significant limitations: we aren't allowed to rely on the
ravings of madmen to build a case. Translated into NPOV, this means
that the followers of Lyndon LaRouche are no longer allowed to use
wacko LaRouchite propaganda to claim he's more important than he
really is.
I support this (well, nobody's asked me, but ...), and I imagine you
do too if you've any knowledge about LaRouche, his movement and its
followers, and the sort of material he prints.
The usefulness of a source depends on what you are using it for. As
wacko as LaRouche writings may be, if he writes about a rant that he
gave in Akron on some specified day it is prima facie evidence that he
was in Akron on that day without an implications about the value of his
speech.
Ec