Talk:Richard Pine

The Heaney-Pine letter

There has been some user talk page discussion over the validity of this letter as a reference. I took the view during the WP:AFC process that it is a primary source, but one that is useful for, nay important for, the article and that it may be used despite being a primary source because it qualifies as something that cannot be found in other sources. As a source it is certainly unique, but I think it to be valid.

It is possible that it may require OTRS validation on Commons for the deployment of it there, but that is a different topic entirely. Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are not excluded from Wikipedia, but they must be used with care. The letter is a primary source, but does not create OR as I saw suggested in a discussion, in my opinion, since content in the article is directly quoted with out adding commentary or drawing conclusions. The question is whether the letter can be verified as authentic. As well, this is a BLP and extra care must be taken with sources. However, the way this letter is being used is neutral and I believe the content it supports acceptable. I do believe the letter with verification is an acceptable addition to the article even as a primary source.

If this can't be resolved here I'd suggest the RS Notice Board. I don't see a definitive position on this source; arguments on both sides are legitimate, so community input and agreement might be helpful. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC))

Than you for that analysis. I have already suggested to the uploading editor on my own talk page that WP:RSN may prove to be a useful venue for discussion. Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting and helpful. The issue is not directly about the quote from the letter from Heaney to Pine which I employed as evidence of the subject's notability i.e. an opinion of Pine's writing from a Nobel poet. It is about the means I employed to give a reference to the quote, suggested, incidentally, by another Wikipedia editor. "Ask the subject if they will send you a scanned copy of the letter in which the public quote appears, as a PDF document, then up-load the two pages of the scanned letter to Wikimedia. " The subject did this. It seemed to me this added to the quote's authenticity but another editor suggested that this was unsatisfactory as I or Pine could have 'faked' the letter. I then pointed out that an edited quote from the same letter had, with Heaney permission while he was alive, been cited by the publisher of Pine's latest book and can be read on Cambridge Scholars Publishing website - a secondary source '“Pine’s strength as a commentator comes from his meditative, associative, habit of mind. His readings constantly deepen our sense of complexity and modernity.” - Seamus Heaney" Does this absolutely prove the quotation is genuine? No. There could simply be more people colluding in the fraud. It was suggested that I write an academic paper that includes the letter, which could then be cited. I suggested that the fact that the Heaney estate had given permission for this letter to be in the public domain as part of the poet's collected letters was better evidence than anything that I endeavoured to publish elsewhere - a process that could take many months and which is not in any case in my area of expertise. Heaney died only a year ago. Does the use of a quote from a letter whose use has been permitted by the Heaney estate need to await publication at some time in the future of the poet's collected letters before it can be used as evidence? I suggested the permission given me to use the letter in a Wikipedia article effectively turns the letter, from a primary to a secondary source. If the weight of Wiki opinion regards that as casuitical, perhaps we should fall back on using the publisher's quote only, with the evidence being a referenced citation of a review of Pine's latest book "The Disappointed Bridge" Simon Baddeley (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly: Permissions as far as I know can't turn a primary into a secondary source. However, the permission and release by the estate may make the source verifiable. There is no taboo on primary sources but rather they must be used with care. In this instance I'd use both sources for the quote, the verified, primary one, and the publisher.

I'd be very leery of writing a paper and then citing your own paper...might be a conflict of interest and possibly a non-neutral editing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC))

References

I couldn't agree more Simon Baddeley (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)