And an easy way to even get around it is to make it an instance of reported speech.
"Joe wrote in his diary that he saw the ghost" -- let the reader parse out, if they want, whether he was just being silly or not. If Joe happens to be someone whose belief in spiritualism is important to state explicitly (i.e., Alfred Russel Wallace), then it is likely a secondary source has already commented on it.
FF
On 3/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
And point C seems like the hard one to determine. If it is not hard, it is at least contentious. For example, let's say there is a statement in a primary source that says: Joe said he saw the ghost.
The article then uses that as a source and changes it to state: Joe believes in ghosts.
It might be true, but it seems like an interpretation based on the possibility that Joe might have actually lied despite his belief in ghosts or not.
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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l