[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:50:28 -0600, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com>
wrote:

>At WP:ATT he has said the the issue was not the use of primary sources, but
>the generation of novel conclusions based on the sources.  Of course, that
>totally contradicts his original posting, where he says that the material
>should not be reintroduced unless it is supported by secondary sources.  In
>addition, as far as I can tell, the material fairly reflects the sources in
>the article, and no attempt was made to explain how it is that the material
>did not.

Um.  What I see here is a statement that selectively reporting
directly from primary sources is Bad, whereas reporting what the
secondary sources report as the balance of opinion is fine; I don't
see it as a prohibition on sourcing quotes from the primary source,
only on distilling the article /directly/ from that source without the
filter of independent discussions.

This is precisely the kind of problem that led to the recent Barrett
v. Rosenthal arbitration case, in fact.

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