On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:43:59 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner(a)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