On 6/30/06, Jon Awbrey jawbrey@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