In a message dated 12/17/2008 7:01:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:

But current policy explicitly forbids even summary of sources that require expert knowledge to understand.>>

---------------- I don't concur with that interpretation of what we were trying to convey. We already have articles that require expert knowledge in order to summarize sources. So apparently others, also view the policy a bit looser than you are doing now. Summarize the effect of the Chandrasaker limit on the properties of a Black Hole ? That requires an expert to understand, or at least a grounding in Astrophysics that the typical reader wouldn't be able to grasp.

When we write, we write to the typical reader (say tenth grade level or below), that doesn't mean that all of our editors must also *read* at that level or *understand* at that level, or consistently with each other.

Which is why we have experts in areas, and our policy specifically states that an expert in the area of the subject material should agree with your summary. Not that all readers in the world should.

Novels, fiction in general, is usually not of such a technical nature that it requires jargon or a great amount of in-depth study to understand what the novel is saying. The in-depth study would be reserved to understanding what the novel is *meaning*. The "why", not the "what".

We don't allow physicists to go spinning off into theories about what broader meaning Black Hole behaviour has on the rest of the cosmos, without a source. And we don't allow literary critics to expound on the deeper meaning of Kafka turning into a giant cockroach versus say a giant turtle, without a source.

We state what occurs, or did occur, without going into deeper issues of why and what-if.

Will Johnson

**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)