[WikiEN-l] Abusive editors

Wed Mar 9 19:21:32 UTC 2005

-------------- Original message -------------- 
> >In practice, the no original research clause, does not allow paraphrases, 
> >new words, or reason. 
> 
> This is plain wrong. Paraphrasing is not "research" so it cannot be 
> "original research." There is nothing in the NOR policy that requires this 
> position, and I am pretty confident that most editors do not consider 
> paraphrasing to violate NOR policy. 

People paraphrase  for a reason, the paraphrase most likely has some difference in meaning or more likely emphasis.  I agree with your solution of presenting both sides below.   But I have seen people insist that such nuances, compromises, disputes and caveats are not appropriate for introductions, which is probably the real estate most of the fights are over.    I do not agree with you that because one has taken a position it is not NPOV.  In the case at hand, it would be interesting to see which side in the dispute can best present the case for both sides and demonstrate that the position they take is an informed one.   I bet the text itself, would be a good compromise.
                              -- Silverback
 
> Either you really misunderstand the NOR policy, or you have some agenda for 
> misrepresenting it. I am not judging your motives because whatever they 
> are, I cannot understand them. But whatever your motives, this statement 
> is false, unnecessary, and unhelpful. 
> 
> This claim is also wrong: 
> >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 
> 
> Here you actually do violate NOR as well as NPOV. Articles are simply not 
> the place for advocating our own views. So it doesn't matter how the two 
> sides personally, subjectively, define their terms, and it is not for us to 
> invent an argument for why Australia is or is not a republic. Period. The 
> only way to handle this is to say something like this (consider this a 
> model, not a real proposal): 
> Australian nationals, politicians, and political theorists are divided over 
> the nature of the Australian state. 
> The dominant view, held by a, b, and c, is that Australia is an "X," 
> defining X as ... 
> A major competing view, held by d, e, and f, is that Australia is a "Y," 
> defining Y as ... 
> Some (such as g and h) argue that Australia is an "X" but they define X as ... 
> Some (such as i and j) argue that Australia is a "Y," but define Y as ... 
> And of course have verifiable sources for each claim ("Australia is X" and 
> "X is ...") 
> 
> Steve 
> 
> 
> Steve 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven L. Rubenstein 
> Associate Professor 
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology 
> Bentley Annex 
> Ohio University 
> Athens, Ohio 45701 
> _______________________________________________ 
> WikiEN-l mailing list 
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org 
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l