On 6/30/06, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey(a)att.net> wrote:
It is of course the knee-jerk response of WP editors
who are novices
in a given subject area to declare anything they haven't heard of to
be "Original Research". Normal practice is to ask for citations of
things that you may have doubts about. All of this stuff has been
in print for 100 to 130 years. If setting some of this stuff into
the form of Wiki Tables constitutes "originality", then I worry
about the wrath of the gods for all our sakes.
Am I right in saying you're unhappy because people keep removing text
on the grounds that it goes over the heads of Wikipedia's editors?
What else should they do with it? Leave it, taking on good faith the
fact that it is indeed substantiated by some uncited sources?
I don't see that we can, in good faith, leave material we can't
comprehend, which we suspect of being totally original research.
Moving it to the talk page with a detailed explanation of why is
exactly the right thing to do.
Steve