Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 09:26 PM 5/24/2008, you wrote:
By the way, "Style and Color" aren't in the same category as "opinion, argument and judgement". Style and Color could be casual observations "this is a brown dog" is not in the same category as "this is a bad dog".
Style and color refer to manner of language, and neither brown dog nor bad dog show much of either, except the style is dull and colorless.
Style and colour add flow to the writing; it can include the continuity that links the various already sourced bits of information.
Opinion and argument and judgement, sourced (which generally includes attribution in the text, not merely sourcing), are facts and verifiable. (That is, the expression is verifiable. That the person *actually* held the opinion, for example, is often not verifiable. Might be, beyond a reasonable doubt, sometimes.)
The interesting Moby-Dick text would be perfectly appropriate if attributed. *Maybe* if sourced other than attribution. You really can't tell, necessarily, from the form of the text. What if it was the consensus opinion among Melville experts that these descriptions were accurate?
Again, I've encountered this: something very accurate appears to be an opinion to someone not familiar with the subject. Now, if it is sourced, that's the solution, to be sure. But if it is not sourced, that doesn't make it improper, it just means it needs source. What I'm saying here is that what may easily look like original research, or mere opinion, isn't. Requesting sources is the general solution.
And nothing prevents a person critical of missing sources from making some effort to find them. While the ultimate responsibility for sourcing a fact remains with the contributor, that responsibility is not exclusive.
Ec