On 17/08/07, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
I'm only willing to go with your statement if you also allow for 'negative sources' to be counted as sources - that is, sourcing of the type "if this were true and considered important, then one would expect this-and-that source to discuss it, but they don't".
That is a very important point. Thank you for making it Andre. :)
It's an interesting issue. Right now, we don't use it in article space - at least, not routinely, though you do get some articles with little discursive essays on their sources* where this sort of thing comes out - but it gets used plenty in the editorial side of things, deciding whether or not to include discussion in a topic.
Which I think is probably appropriate; it gets a bit silly to say "A quotes a fringe theory, but reliable sources B, D, and F through Q don't give it the time of day", and we should avoid duelling citations in articlespace except when actually necessary...