[WikiEN-l] Primary sources

[Jonathan]

Steve Bennett wrote:

>This kind of interpretation is perfectly acceptable imho. If there's
>no particular reason to think that Joe lied (ie, he didn't say so the
>next day), then using words like "believes" or "thinks" is not
>contentious. Occasionally a little unclear, particularly if the
>person's current beliefs are unclear, but that's more a question of
>style than an application of NOR. Similar kind of deal if you say
>"Joe, angry about the lack of consultation, believed he had been
>misled", when your source says something like "Joe said yesterday,
>"Those bastards told me they weren't going to do anything without
>asking me, but they screwed me over".
>
>My example isn't very well worded, but I'm trying to show that you can
>deduce "angry" from the colourful language, and "believed" as a
>convention for "said that he thought".
>
>Steve
>
I agree with the notion that logic inferences can be made. However, the 
use of "belief" signals a firm distinction from just "thought." I don't 
think it is generally acceptable to use "belief" based on what someone 
says unless there is more firm evidence to back up that belief. There 
are logical interpretations for the use of "belief." "We believe Joe saw 
a ghost," or "Joe thought he believed in ghosts." (The later "thought" 
changes the whole meaning of "belief.")

These notions are evident, and they make some Wikipedia articles gravely 
useless. When I have to go and verify the sources themselves to find out 
why it was so strongly stated "so and so believed..." by convention 
alone, I might as well just skip the text of the article and read 
through the reference lists. The article itself gave me absolutely no 
knowledge to the reason why such beliefs exist.

Jonathan