On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:47 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
<<In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:45:37 P.M.
Pacific Standard Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
that nobody who has actually
read the novel would dispute is true, even if it is not on the level
of obvious description>>
Well then there you go.
You have just recited policy, so go and do it.
If nobody with an understanding of it, would dispute it, then make
it so!
You seem to be ignoring the fact that people are perfectly happy to
remove claims they agree with because some hypothetical, imagined
person might find them non-obvious. The current interpretation of NOR
- which you will find frequently stated on the talk page in the
version of this debate going on there is... well, let me find you a
quote.
"What you are saying is that some novels require some degree of
interpretation in order to discuss their plot. I have no problm with
that. However, in those circumstances, we need to cite a reliable
secondary source for that interpretation, and not interject our own
interpretation. That is the heart of WP:NOR."
"ll that we should be focused on in presenting a work of fiction is
the "facts" - the fundamental plot, characters, and those aspects"
And "Keeping with your earlier example, you stated it is widely known
in this particular work, the narrator was being deceptive. My response
to you would be if the content has some truly encyclopedic value to
it, it should not be entirely that difficult in obtaining a reliable
secondary source that supports it."
Clearly, as it stands, NOR either supports this approach, or is so
badly written as to lead people to believe that this approach is
acceptable. Much of this stems from the language in question. I remind
you, as it stands, the policy reads:
"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable
secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source,
a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the
accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated
person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a
novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any
interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."
The phrases that lead against the Stilson situation being described
accurately are "Any interpretation," and "used only to make
descriptive claims." The claim that it is slowly made clear to both
the reader and Ender that Ender killed Stilson is an interpretation,
and it is not "only descriptive." But, on the other hand, it is also
brain-searingly obvious.
And this is the problem. "Not an interpretation but a description" and
"brain-searingly obvious" are not actually equivalent sets.
-Phil