actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
Steven I. Rubinstein wrote:
Michael Snow suggested (at this point) that Adam
Carr is giving a
reasonable paraphrase of the constitution; Skyring repeats that the
Australian constitution does not say what Adam Carr says it says. So there
are two ways to understand Skyring's position: either evidence does not
matter, or paraphrasing is impermissible. I believe that either one of
these positions does damage to the quality of Wikipedia articles. Skyring
won't budge, though.
In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases, new words, or
reason. Yes, we have a lot of these on wikipedia, but it required a community that was
tolerant. I am currently in a dispute with an editor, who wants to include a quite
logical (and I think arguably correct) refutation of a statement that an outside authority
has made. I don't think it belongs in there because it refutes a minor peripheral
point, so it is making more of a credibility attack upon the outside source, than
contributing to the substance of the article. Frankly, I think I can easily
"win" this editing conflict, by insisting on the NOR standards, but I have not
pressed this point, because that is not my actual objection to text.
If the alleged original research policy allows no paraphrase, and
copyright policy does not allow the actual material, and the cite your
sources policy requires that we must say where things come from there's
not much left that we can say. If we believe you we're not even allowed
to reason. That madness strongly suggests that some aspects of policy
need serious rethinking. Even intimating that you can "win" an argument
by invoking questionable standards leads one to conclude that winning is
more important to you than achieving NPOV, but I'm afraid that you may
question my argument because it involves the application of reason.
In the case at hand, there is no excuse for the
personal attacks. However, the source of their problem is that they have not agreed to a
definition of terms and then applied them to the situation. A possible reason for that,
is that the NOR clause would preclude them from applying their agreed upon definitions and
including them in the article. Probably both sides are quite right as long as they keep
their own definitions in mind, and they know this for a fact, so why should they give an
inch, because it becomes a matter of principle. Austrailia is a "republic", to
the extent that American overtones of republic have some validity in Austrailia, and is
NOT a republic in the predominate (but not exclusive) non-technical sense in which it is
used in Austrailia. Of course in an encyclopedia, where one is trying to be precise, it
is natural to prefer the more technical sense, because words are being chosen for the
information or distinctions they provide.
This is the Alice in Wonderland argument where the words mean exactly
what you intend them to mean - nothing more, nothing less. This has
nothing to do with the fact that others use words to communicate. So
now that it is clear that your proposition that Australia is a republic
was meant to be a joke I would do just as well to continue laughing
about it like everyone else.
Ec