[WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards

Wed Mar 9 00:54:56 UTC 2005

JAY JG wrote:

>> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>> JAY JG wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>>>>
>>>> JAY JG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already 
>> presented.
>
> Easy to do in simple cases; quite complex when the issue is something 
> like politics or international law.  And, in the latter case, if done 
> by the editor themselves, generally (and wisely) forbidden as original 
> research as well, as per the No original research policy. 

But your reference was at least stated to be based in genetics.  The 
reference to editors is meaningless since we are all editors.  There's 
very little in the way of original research done here in politics; 
you're confusing original research with original speculation.

>> The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment pulled 
>> out of imagination.  It has no research attached to it at all, 
>> original or otherwise; your theory doesn't even define what you mean 
>> by "more closely related.  So before you complain about the strawmen 
>> of others you should stop using them yourself.
>
> Well, I could have used real examples from articles I've seen, but 
> that would have bogged the list down, when it could have been doing 
> more important things like arguing about whether or not 172's 
> contributions were "balanced" or "pro-communist screeds". 

"Bogged the list down" = "exposed your ideas to attack".  The POV that 
you push does not need a basis in reality.  As for 172, it's a question 
of his bringing balance to some points by removing the half-truths and 
innuendos promoted by the anti-communist wolf pack

>>>> You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
>>>
>>> I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
>>
>> That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon 
>> theories.
>
> Including those developed and presented by Wikipedia editors.  If a 
> particular argument hasn't been published somewhere reputable, then it 
> too is a "loose cannon theory".

Again the reference to Wikipedia editors is menaingless.  Are you  
suggesting yourself as the judge of what is reputable? :-D :-D :-D

Ec