On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I am not the only one who thinks that "if not one then the other" applies here, and we should not include the list in its entirety.
As I've said, "if not one then the other" ignores the fact that Wikipedia's definition of "original research" is not the same as any legal definition related to copyright. It does *not* follow that if not one then the other.
But my fundamental reason for removing it is copyright, and if the BBC says it is not copyright then I will add it back. I have asked them.
Why? You claim that either it's copyright, or it's OR. If you truly believed this, surely if the BBC says it is not copyright, you would conclude it's OR and still leave it out for that reason.
(And what are we doing using British copyright laws in a Wikipedia run in the US anyway? Surely the BBC won't tell you if it's copyright under *American* law.)