[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee
<arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

>I do not agree that stating that A sued B, when you have a court document
>stating that A sued B, is a "matter of interpretation involving original
>research."  In fact, I find this to be quite strange.

Probably because you are thinking about it the "wrong" way.  Wrong in
the context of a project which is explicitly conceived as a tertiary
source verifiable from reliable secondary sources, that is.  How hard
will it be to find a newspaper report and cite that?  If you can't,
then it probably *is* trivial.

Further down we have a discussion of a subject for which *no*
secondary sources yet exist, and which is compiled explicitly and with
due acknowledgement from primary sources alone.  I find that a problem
as well.  How do we know what the reaction of the relevant academic
community is if they have not yet published a single review paper?

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