This is lovely, informative, succinct, and a fun read. I love the section about the options.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 01:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I like the bit about the subjectivity of "significance." That's a source of a lot of the disagreement about A7. But the word also contains a considerable amount of objective amgibuity; significance is all about context. What's a big deal in my village is peanuts on the national scale; a significant debate in 17th-century German literature (sorry, been reading John le Carre recently) is totally insignificant to the lives of most people. The word is almost meaningless without context. Would it be worth mentioning the subjectivity of "credible" too? What a user finds credible is down to their own credulity, which will vary from person to person and culture to culture. The more I think about this, the more I think the "credible claim of significance" language needs to go. How about this for a back-of-a-fag-packet rewrite:
GoldenRing ( talk) 11:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
This is lovely, informative, succinct, and a fun read. I love the section about the options.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 01:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I like the bit about the subjectivity of "significance." That's a source of a lot of the disagreement about A7. But the word also contains a considerable amount of objective amgibuity; significance is all about context. What's a big deal in my village is peanuts on the national scale; a significant debate in 17th-century German literature (sorry, been reading John le Carre recently) is totally insignificant to the lives of most people. The word is almost meaningless without context. Would it be worth mentioning the subjectivity of "credible" too? What a user finds credible is down to their own credulity, which will vary from person to person and culture to culture. The more I think about this, the more I think the "credible claim of significance" language needs to go. How about this for a back-of-a-fag-packet rewrite:
GoldenRing ( talk) 11:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)