[WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:43:59 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Generally, "being right" is not a defense to NOR. NOR helps to
>>> preserve relevance and importance of information as well as
>>> correctness of it. If no one else has seen fit to investigate this
>>> matter or publish that conclusion, why should we be the first? If the
>>> guy's that concerned, tell him to suggest the story to a  
>>> newspaper. If
>>> the paper decides it's correct and important enough to publish,
>>> there's the source!

>> I completely agree.

>I completely disagree.
>Straightforward interpretation of primary sources is not original  
>research. It never has been, and it needs to remain that way because  
>of the number of notable articles about which there are not good or  
>usable comprehensive secondary sources.

So: the user looks at the logo, states that it's a shield, *therefore*
it is a shield of arms, *therefore* it requires to be approved, it is
not on the list, *therefore* it is not approved, *therefore* it is not
pukka.  There are enough links in the chain of logic there from source
to conclusion that it's reasonable in this case to require some
secondary sources.

Look up a fact?  No problem.  Join the dots from a series of facts you
looked up?  Original research, in my book.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG