From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
JAY JG wrote:
From:
"Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
JAY JG wrote
Perhaps the [[Wikipedia:No original research]]
page needs to be
updated with
examples which make that point that if it really
is that simple,
someone
else will have done the work for you already, and
all you need to do
is
quote them.
Literally speaking, conversion of temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius
would fall foul of this. And numerous other things: such as conversion
of
dates out of one calendar system into another, metrication, currency
conversion, inverting family relationships from 'nephew' to 'uncle' ...
No, that's a strawman argument. "Deductive reasoning" becomes original
research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in
an article, not when used to do unit conversions. Now if you were to
assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles
were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would
be original research, and you'd have to find some source which supported
it.
That's certainly an extremist view.
Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.
It implies that a crackpot theory is acceptable as long
as it has
previously been published somewhere else.
Nothing of the sort. The "NPOV policy" indicates that extreme minority
views need not be presented in an article, so that issue is well covered.
However, if the public thought that the theory was so
ridiculous that they
felt it a waste of time to dispute it we would not be allowed to publish a
refutation on the grounds that it was original research.
You wouldn't need to refute it, since you wouldn't need to cite it in the
first place, as above.
You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
Jay.