On 2/28/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I think where people get (sometimes justifiably) paranoid is that the writing does have to be careful not to introduce new statements inadvertantly. For instance, "B, A, and therefore C" is not just a rhetorical improvement on "B, A, and C". It's an interesting exercise, for instance, to update the carefully-chosen words of an old 1911EB entry without changing the original author's meaning.
I agree with you, Stan, except for your use of the word "paranoia," because edits like "A, B, and therefore C," where the sources in fact only say "A, B, C" are commonplace, and that's precisely what NOR and V are there to guard against. Any editor can request a source for the "therefore," and if it's not forthcoming, "therefore" is removed. It isn't removed only where it's "controversial," as The Cunctator was trying to add to V, and which is anyway a subjective judgment. It can be removed, whether controversial or not, if no reliable source can be found to support it.
What The Cunctator may be worried about is that people will use this as an excuse to remove statements like "The sun rose on Monday. The sun rose today. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow," where being asked to track down a source would be WP:POINT. This is where commonsense kicks in. Anyone removing obvious and undisputed facts is engaged in a form of vandalism and we all know it when we see it. But just because we can't produce a complete list of undisputed facts that don't need a source doesn't mean we have to worry about making our policies are tight as possible. Every policy contains the invisible sentence "Use your commonsense."
In any event, I've yet to see an example of an undisputed fact for which no reliable source could be found, or an example of an editor going around removing undisputed facts because they lack sources.
Sarah