FT2 wrote:
To add to this, note that "primary sources"
are stated to include
"...archeological artifacts; photographs.."
NOR, a core policy in this area, doesn't say that the "writings about an
artifact" are the source. It says clearly that artifacts themselves are
categorized as primary sources.
The only way an "artifact" or photograph could ever be a "source" is
that by
its very existence, it has a number of obvious descriptive qualities and the
like that any reasonable person witnessing it would agree upon, and that
anyone with access to the artifact could verify.
And of course, it is this portion of policy that causes us issues with
regards fiction. Since the work itself is a primary source.
We haven't yet worked out to what extent a article on a fictional
subject should rely on secondary sources. Or at least reached a
consensus. It's easier to tackle fiction articles by removing
speculation and interpretation. Generally, I think that should be the
better approach, and I'd like to see a similar policy, in terms of scope
rather than content, created for articles on fictional subjects. I
think Phul Sandifer had a draft somewhere, but it's real hard to
organise a consensus in this area, there's real division running deep.