Post subject: Re: "Slight" factual error from Reuters
Posted: Thu 05-03-2007 8:30AM
Colonel
Joined: Wed 08-20-2003 9:47AM Posts: 570
Source: Off Campus
I love how his "source" for all things fact and fiction is wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big wikipedia fan, but you can't take everything you read there (or on any internet web page for that matter) at face value. I think it's more appropriate to use wikipedia as a starting point, and branch out from there in one's research efforts and especially take a look at the sources that the wiki article is based on.
Of course, that goes for other news sources as well (ie. Reuters )...
Then perhaps I'm missing where he provided his source to support his viewpoint, if not wikipedia? If he's going to refute Reuter's facts, I think he would need some of his own to back it up. Surely he doesn't consider himself an expert and authoritarian on the matter.
I didn't say they weren't. I would just never quote or cite wikipedia as a source. I would go directly to the original source. First-hand accounts are always better than second-hand.
I didn't say they weren't. I would just never quote or cite wikipedia as a source. I would go directly to the original source. First-hand accounts are always better than second-hand.
Agreed. I try to do the same. He's a law professor, so I'm guessing he just doesn't have the time to track down primary sources all the time. Also, this is such a basic fact that it almost doesn't need citing. I don't cite the source for the acceleration of gravity or the number of members in the US Congress. These are just well-known, or can be found with the slightest of effort. The fact that the US Senate voted against Kyoto 95-0 is a fact like that. Very simple, can be found in mere minutes, and an error that a high school reporter would get fired for.
_________________ The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.
Agreed. I try to do the same. He's a law professor, so I'm guessing he just doesn't have the time to track down primary sources all the time. Also, this is such a basic fact that it almost doesn't need citing. I don't cite the source for the acceleration of gravity or the number of members in the US Congress. These are just well-known, or can be found with the slightest of effort. The fact that the US Senate voted against Kyoto 95-0 is a fact like that. Very simple, can be found in mere minutes, and an error that a high school reporter would get fired for.
Ah, perhaps he is an authoritarian then. I could see how such information would be common knowledge to a law professor. Common knowledge for your average internet reader? Not so sure, but eh well... I was just going off on a tangent based on his apparent use of wiki as a source.
Regardless how George Bush feels about the Kyoto Protocol, is it not the Senate that decides the laws? The President only puts his rubber stamp on the bill, or he does not (veto). Also, the US didn't "pull out" of Kyoto, they refused to ratify it until developing nations (China) fall under its restrictions as well. I think I go along with Bush on this issue- why should we penalize ourselves if China gets to do whatever they want?
A President (or a designee) may sign a treaty, but it carries no force unless ratified by the Senate, which requires a 2/3rds majority vote. Once ratified, a treaty carries the same force as the Constitution itself ("...the supreme law of the land...").
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum