From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
JAY JG wrote:
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
JAY JG wrote
Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]] page needs to be
updated with
examples which make that point that if it really is that simple,
someone
else will have done the work for you already, and all you need to do
is
quote them.
Literally speaking, conversion of temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius would fall foul of this. And numerous other things: such as conversion of dates out of one calendar system into another, metrication, currency conversion, inverting family relationships from 'nephew' to 'uncle' ...
No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it.
That's certainly an extremist view.
Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.
It implies that a crackpot theory is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere else.
Nothing of the sort. The "NPOV policy" indicates that extreme minority views need not be presented in an article, so that issue is well covered.
However, if the public thought that the theory was so ridiculous that they felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed to publish a refutation on the grounds that it was original research.
You wouldn't need to refute it, since you wouldn't need to cite it in the first place, as above.
You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
Jay.