jayjg wrote:
No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
The problem with that, of course, is that, given sufficient time and sufficiently many people, _anything_ can and will be disputed, including the color of the sky on a clear day.
Or, let me quote the start of an actual argument from [[Talk:Elision]]:
"Oh, I deliberately used my version of showing speech because I dispute the IPA's. I deny the existence of the schwa, I object to r/R sounds as being difthongs, I refute its status of r and R as consonants but as vowels, I object to its fictive prescription of whether whichever words are aspirated or unaspirated, I object to its using lone or blended glyfs for clusters as careless overlooking of the intention of the key as showing a one-to-one relationship between sound and glyf, and as no part of speech was given to the words in my list. Do you wish to obscure my work from accuracy?"