[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

[jayjg]

On 12/27/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
> >
> > No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
> > pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
>
> The problem with that, of course, is that, given sufficient time and
> sufficiently many people, _anything_ can and will be disputed, including
> the color of the sky on a clear day.
>
> Or, let me quote the start of an actual argument from [[Talk:Elision]]:
>
> "Oh, I deliberately used my version of showing speech because I dispute
> the IPA's. I deny the existence of the schwa, I object to r/R sounds as
> being difthongs, I refute its status of r and R as consonants but as
> vowels, I object to its fictive prescription of whether whichever words
> are aspirated or unaspirated, I object to its using lone or blended
> glyfs for clusters as careless overlooking of the intention of the key
> as showing a one-to-one relationship between sound and glyf, and as no
> part of speech was given to the words in my list. Do you wish to obscure
> my work from accuracy?"
>
> --
> Ilmari Karonen

Right, we can all come up with some extreme example of an absolute
madman editing some page. At some point common sense has to prevail,
if not the "extreme minority" provisions of [[WP:NPOV]]. But, to get
back to the original point, there's no way that a claim that something
is "legal consensus" based on a search of some database you've done
can ever be considered a "simple fact", or even something that has
been "reliably cited". Quote a legal expert or legal tome making that
claim.

Jay.