On 17/08/07, Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm only willing to go with your statement if
you also allow for
'negative sources' to be counted as sources - that is, sourcing of the
type "if this were true and considered important, then one would
expect this-and-that source to discuss it, but they don't".
That is a very important point. Thank you for making it Andre. :)
It's an interesting issue. Right now, we don't use it in article space
- at least, not routinely, though you do get some articles with little
discursive essays on their sources* where this sort of thing comes out
- but it gets used plenty in the editorial side of things, deciding
whether or not to include discussion in a topic.
Which I think is probably appropriate; it gets a bit silly to say "A
quotes a fringe theory, but reliable sources B, D, and F through Q
don't give it the time of day", and we should avoid duelling citations
in articlespace except when actually necessary...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
* I love it when people do this. "X is a general biography, though it
omits some details brought out in Y, specifically their legal career.
Some further anecdotes can be found in Z, thoguh at least one of these
directly contradicts X, and it is unclear which to go with. AB alludes
to the incident in C..." - it can sometimes be more valuable than the
article! If you know the literature well, please, give us a guide to
it...