Garion96 wrote:
A counter example. I recently requested a source on
the fact that a
person
(living person) is blind. (Not Stevie Wonder). But it was deemed so
obvious
that it was ixnayed. Correct or wrong? My sentiment is that even if it
is so
obvious, why not source it anyway.
The fact that the person is blind may be common knowledge, but it's
inadequate information. A proper treatment would need to address whether
they were born blind, or how they became blind. That kind of detail
needs a source, and it follows that it also serves as a source for the
more general fact.
If all you've got is obvious information that doesn't require a source,
then you haven't got an encyclopedia article.
--Michael Snow