To say all food served should be edible is begging the question. Food by definition is things suitable to be eaten. To say something needs to be verifiable without saying what it means is not much help in practice. Just like "notable" or "encyclopedic"
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:47:33 -0800, "jossi fresco" jossif@gmail.com wrote:
I spy a dangerous fallacy. It may be that you can't _define_ Verifiability without defining "reliable source". But we can certainly _agree_ to Veriability without defining "reliable source". And in fact we have.
(One can agree that food served in a restaurant should be edible, without defining "edible".)