In a message dated 4/24/2009 6:30:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nawrich@gmail.com writes:
The OR policy includes reference to "original synthesis" - which is not creating a primary source, but using available sources to draw an original conclusion. In this case, connecting the dots is absolutely original analysis leading to an original conclusion. If a reliable source doesn't say "These two people are the same person" then neither should we.
-----------------
That's overreading and here is why. Omaha is in Nebraska. Henry Fonda was born in Omaha. Henry Fonda was born in Nebraska. Nebraska is a state with a low population which grows mainly corn. Henry Fonda was born in a state which grows mainly corn.
We have no source which states this. It is a trival inference from the known statements. We are allows to make trivial inferences, observations, conclusions.
If we were not, than you could not use primary sources for any purpose. The policy was deliberately crafted so that simple statements could be drawn even those the source does not exactly draw them. If anyone is reading OR differently, than the problem is with the OR language, because that was our intent.
Will Johnson
************** The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221421330x1201417418/aol?redi r=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&; bcd=AprilAvgfooter424NO62)
2009/4/24 WJhonson@aol.com:
We have no source which states this. It is a trival inference from the known statements. We are allows to make trivial inferences, observations, conclusions.
Yes, trivial is fine. From my understanding of this case (I haven't researched it in depth), the inference was not trivial.
Those two sequences of conclusions aren't the same. There is no "original" conclusion in the Henry Fonda/Nebraska. This is more analogous to you saying "I've seen lots of corn in Nebraska, I know Fonda is from Omaha, therefore Fonda was born near lots of corn."
Anyway, the policy is clear. You often have an opinion on Wikipedia policies and practices that differs from the normal consensus interpretation, but it is the consensus interpretation that binds and not Will Johnson's.
Nathan