[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Thomas Dalton]

The text that Jimbo removed was OR. Using lots of different primary
sources to support what you are saying is generally OR. Primary
sources should only be used to state simple facts. While each
individual sentence of that text may have been a simple fact, when you
put them together like that it becomes more than just a collection of
uncontroversial facts (as Jimbo says: "by drawing selectively on
sources, the section gave an impression that is significantly at odds
with the views of relevant parties to the dispute").

Using primary sources makes it difficult to ensure that you haven't
missed something. When using secondary sources you simply have to
determine what bias exists in the source, and if there is no
significant bias (for example, it's an independent newspaper article
about the case), you can trust that nothing significant has been
missed out. In this particular example there was something very
serious missed out - it made no mention of what the other side in the
dispute had said in their defence. That clearly violated NPOV.