-------------- Original message --------------
In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases, new words, or reason.
Why do you think so? I see nothing in the policy which indicates that.
I agree, I said "in practice". Look how many disputes are over single words or phrases. If you use exacly the same words, then it isn't a paraphrase, if you use different words, it is a paraphrase, but it is banned by NOR, unless a cite can be provided where someone else has used those very same words in subject at hand.
-- Silverback
From: actionforum@comcast.net
In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow
paraphrases,
new words, or reason.
Why do you think so? I see nothing in the policy which indicates that.
I agree, I said "in practice". Look how many disputes are over single words or phrases. If you use exacly the same words, then it isn't a paraphrase, if you use different words, it is a paraphrase, but it is banned by NOR, unless a cite can be provided where someone else has used those very same words in subject at hand.
Word debates are usually about POV, not Original research. A paraphrase is typically a way of briefly summarizing something lengthy; if done correctly, it exactly reflects the original. Accurate summaries are not considered original research, either in theory or in practice.
Jay.
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases, new words, or reason.
Why do you think so? I see nothing in the policy which indicates that.
I agree, I said "in practice". Look how many disputes are over single words or phrases. If you use exacly the same words, then it isn't a paraphrase, if you use different words, it is a paraphrase, but it is banned by NOR, unless a cite can be provided where someone else has used those very same words in subject at hand.
In practice, this is sorted out with editorial judgement, which ultimately we have to apply. Are you thinking of cases you've been involved in?
- d.