On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I do not agree that stating that A sued B, when you have a court document stating that A sued B, is a "matter of interpretation involving original research." In fact, I find this to be quite strange.
Probably because you are thinking about it the "wrong" way. Wrong in the context of a project which is explicitly conceived as a tertiary source verifiable from reliable secondary sources, that is. How hard will it be to find a newspaper report and cite that? If you can't, then it probably *is* trivial.
Further down we have a discussion of a subject for which *no* secondary sources yet exist, and which is compiled explicitly and with due acknowledgement from primary sources alone. I find that a problem as well. How do we know what the reaction of the relevant academic community is if they have not yet published a single review paper?
Guy (JzG)