QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 21st May 2008, 2:16pm)
More from
Moulton's talk page...
QUOTE(More Colloquy with Filll and Moulton)
Filll, you can find dogbiscuit's reply to you
here. —Moulton (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked. He sees the world in black and white, not even shades of grey, and certainly not in color I guess. And he just goes with what he thinks is some obvious reason, assuming things about my personal beliefs and those of others to force some interpretation of his own creation on the situation. What some people do not seem to get is, my personal beliefs in the matter are irrelevant here - everyone's are. We have a set of rules for WP. And we follow the rules, as best as we can.
Would you want to play basketball with someone who demonstrated by their deeds and actions they did not want to play by the rules? Suppose one of the opposing teams stated that they intended to allow 20 players on the floor at once, and to introduce 3 basetballs into play instead of just one? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they be allowed to pass the ball to the crowd and have the crowd pass it back to one of their players, without stopping the play? Suppose that one of the opposing teams demanded that they receive no penalty for intentionally tripping members of the other team? And so on? Do you think that the league would let them continue to play with their own made up rules? Do you think that everyone would give in to their demands? What if they were asked to read the rule book and follow the rules and they refused repeatedly? What do you think would happen?
I believe that it is quite likely that you will dismiss this as inaccurate, or an inapplicable analogy, or try to ignore it, or to find some loophole, or claim I am being unfair. Do you think that might be part of the reason you are in the situation you find yourself in? Interesting question, don't you think?--Filll (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Watcha think?
I think that I am very much a grey person. The point of the rules is that they are subject to interpretation. He seems to subscribe to a belief that he is not interpreting rules but simply applying them.
It is interesting that his analogy is just what I could use to describe the ID crowds actions - except they are waving the rule book at me and saying "Here are the rules, we are right" without actually bothering to look, because they've played for so long they just know they are.
I don't want to descend into trial by example, but my view was formed by assertions that using adverts from the Times was some kind of quality sourcing, the determination to apply a rule blindly - they've read the assertion that mainstream newspapers are good quality sources, the advert appeared in a mainstream newspaper therefore the contents of the advert must have had some sort of editorial approval. That source should never have been any part of the argument, it is simply a primary source. Clearly, the other element, the massive extrapolation of Picard's belief system based on the signature is an incredible use of synthesis. Go and read WP:NOR and you will find that someone spent some time trying to get wording that says: if you use any sort of analysis, you have to source that analysis, you cannot simply use a primary source and synthesise your own controversial analysis.
Put simply, where is the source that shows that Picard knowingly signed a petition that was sponsored by the DI and was intended to support Intelligent Design (Creationism) over Darwinism (Evolution) and is an ongoing supporter of the DI? There is no source that has that analysis, therefore there is not a valid source, by the rules, to put that analysis in place. It is not a case of you needing to find sources to rebut this assertion, so that there can be a to and fro debate. Yes, it may well be noteworthy that she signed this petition, but I would want more evidence than a mention in one single newspaper article before I would consider it noteworthy (there is even a policy that explicitly covers that somewhere too).
Filll's problem is that he knows you did your own OR to rebut the nonsense on the page and probably is thinking at cross-purposes, he is happily using the rules to reject YOUR argument. However, I get the impression he has never really examined the original sourcing to justify the ID Crowd line, where there was a massive reliance on one single article in the NYT and presumptions and interpretations layered upon it. It is just poor quality editing, full stop.