On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 03:04:30PM -0400, ffm wrote:
Or would this be the best neutral wording:
"As of <date>, the bridge was reported to be closed".
If we now know that the bridge is open, then rather than
directly claiming the other source is wrong, we could either:
1. Not say anything about the bridge being closed, or
2. Say that the bridge "was closed," and use the reference provided.
In other words, just because something was said by a reference doesn't
mean we have to include it. We can simply ignore the reference.
"Original reasearch" refers to the actual text written in our articles.
It doesn't refer to the process by which we decide what text to
include; that will always involve a great deal of editorial discretion
and synthesis. For example, consider the process by which we decide the
"due weight" for a particular point of view.
I find it very implausible that any significant group of editors would
fight to keep the wording "the bridge is closed" if someone could
present compelling evidence that it isn't.
- Carl