On 12/27/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam(a)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.