Indeed, there is no reason to have a purely intellectual impass,
whereby one side consistently refuses to cite their sources, turn into
a 'personal' dispute. I realize that, in a certain sense, when one
fails to provide references after being requested to do so, might be
counted as a form of misconduct; but that's really a stretch since it
can take place with all due civility. Of course, when dragged for too
long, the exchanges almost invariably turn uncivil, which, I think,
Steve is alluding to as something that can, and should be, avoided.
There is no need for such needless, eliptical stress, on the article
and those editing it if the content policies (providing verifiable
sources when requested to do so) are adhered to, as a matter of
principle, not merely loose convention.
This is another instance in which Conduct/Community, by design,
muddles and places Content/Encyclopedia to 2ndry role; in needlessly
-driving- intellectual disputes towards the personal after much waste
of genuine effort and potential (including amongst the content policy
violators themselevs, who are, yes, encouraged, but not urged, to
follow said policies) ensue. In short, it's not a republic.
El_C
>I just don't want any personal arguments between me and RJII on the talk
>pages to divert attention from, or overwhelm, these content-issues.