From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already presented.
Easy to do in simple cases; quite complex when the issue is something like politics or international law. And, in the latter case, if done by the editor themselves, generally (and wisely) forbidden as original research as well, as per the No original research policy.
But your reference was at least stated to be based in genetics. The reference to editors is meaningless since we are all editors.
Huh? Of course we're all editors. And editors can't use Wikipedia articles to present novel theses etc.
There's very little in the way of original research done here in politics; you're confusing original research with original speculation.
Hmm, interesting use of a semantic argument, but irrelevant to the No original research policy.
Well, I could have used real examples from articles I've seen, but that would have bogged the list down, when it could have been doing more important things like arguing about whether or not 172's contributions were "balanced" or "pro-communist screeds".
"Bogged the list down" = "exposed your ideas to attack". The POV that you push does not need a basis in reality.
Huh? I haven't brought my own ideas or POV here, nor are they "under attack." The No original research policy is clear; whether or not you accept is another matter entirely.
As for 172, it's a question of his bringing balance to some points by removing the half-truths and innuendos promoted by the anti-communist wolf pack
"Anti-communist wolf pack"? Sheesh! The comment was meant to inject a lighter note into the discussion, though in hindsight I suppose I should have said that the list could return to the more important task of deciding whether or not Australia is a constitutional monarchy or a republic, since this kind of over the top response from you on the 172 debate should have been entirely predictable.
You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon theories.
Including those developed and presented by Wikipedia editors. If a particular argument hasn't been published somewhere reputable, then it too is a "loose cannon theory".
Again the reference to Wikipedia editors is menaingless. Are you suggesting yourself as the judge of what is reputable? :-D :-D :-D
Sorry Ray, you're not making any sense. Original research is research done by Wikipedia editors and presented in Wikipedia articles, as opposed to reasearch published in other reputable venues.
Jay.