"But Derrida is a primary source, so no claims requiring specialist knowledge are allowed.
Which effectively rules out all uses of Derrida in the Derrida article." this is dealt with the same way as in politics or religion: we cite someone for their own viewpoint. for whether it is a complete statement, or a sophisticated one, or the verdict of history---that's another matter. Derrida is an authority on what Derrida says--he is not necessarily an authority on what he ultimately means. On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Phil Sandifer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 3:47 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> <<In a message dated 12/17/2008 12:45:37 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> >> that nobody who has actually >> read the novel would dispute is true, even if it is not on the level >> of obvious description>> >> >> Well then there you go. >> You have just recited policy, so go and do it. >> If nobody with an understanding of it, would dispute it, then make >> it so! > > You seem to be ignoring the fact that people are perfectly happy to > remove claims they agree with because some hypothetical, imagined > person might find them non-obvious. The current interpretation of NOR > - which you will find frequently stated on the talk page in the > version of this debate going on there is... well, let me find you a > quote. > > "What you are saying is that some novels require some degree of > interpretation in order to discuss their plot. I have no problm with > that. However, in those circumstances, we need to cite a reliable > secondary source for that interpretation, and not interject our own > interpretation. That is the heart of WP:NOR." > > "ll that we should be focused on in presenting a work of fiction is > the "facts" - the fundamental plot, characters, and those aspects" > > And "Keeping with your earlier example, you stated it is widely known > in this particular work, the narrator was being deceptive. My response > to you would be if the content has some truly encyclopedic value to > it, it should not be entirely that difficult in obtaining a reliable > secondary source that supports it." > > Clearly, as it stands, NOR either supports this approach, or is so > badly written as to lead people to believe that this approach is > acceptable. Much of this stems from the language in question. I remind > you, as it stands, the policy reads: > > "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable > secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, > a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the > accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated > person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a > novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any > interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." > > The phrases that lead against the Stilson situation being described > accurately are "Any interpretation," and "used only to make > descriptive claims." The claim that it is slowly made clear to both > the reader and Ender that Ender killed Stilson is an interpretation, > and it is not "only descriptive." But, on the other hand, it is also > brain-searingly obvious. > > And this is the problem. "Not an interpretation but a description" and > "brain-searingly obvious" are not actually equivalent sets. > > -Phil > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
