Ilmari Karonen wrote:
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?"
My first observations are the ten uses in one short paragraph of the words "I" or "my", and the eccentric spellings "difthongs" and "glyf". If I were to read nothing else about the subject, I would at least be prepared for an idiosyncratic and personal treatment. These are far stronger indicators of original research than a complete lack of references.
Ec