On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Seraphim Blade wrote:
Agreed. Allowing "straightforward interpretation" guts NOR.
Not allowing it guts everything. The classic example is saying that someone is a female lawyer when the sources separately say that they are female and a lawyer. To claim the person is a female lawyer is to draw an inference (in this case, using a logical conjunction) that is not in the source material. We *have* to allow such things. It makes no sense not to.
What is straightforward, and what is over the line? What if I think my interpretation is straightforward and you don't?
The same thing you do if Wikipedians disagree about anything else. We routinely make decisions which include some degree of personal judgment; why should "is this straightforward?" not be one of them?