Garion96 wrote:
A counter example. I recently requested a source on the fact that a person (living person) is blind. (Not Stevie Wonder). But it was deemed so obvious that it was ixnayed. Correct or wrong? My sentiment is that even if it is so obvious, why not source it anyway.
The fact that the person is blind may be common knowledge, but it's inadequate information. A proper treatment would need to address whether they were born blind, or how they became blind. That kind of detail needs a source, and it follows that it also serves as a source for the more general fact.
If all you've got is obvious information that doesn't require a source, then you haven't got an encyclopedia article.
--Michael Snow
On 7/20/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Garion96 wrote:
A counter example. I recently requested a source on the fact that a person (living person) is blind. (Not Stevie Wonder). But it was deemed so obvious that it was ixnayed. Correct or wrong? My sentiment is that even if it is so obvious, why not source it anyway.
The fact that the person is blind may be common knowledge, but it's inadequate information. A proper treatment would need to address whether they were born blind, or how they became blind. That kind of detail needs a source, and it follows that it also serves as a source for the more general fact.
If all you've got is obvious information that doesn't require a source, then you haven't got an encyclopedia article.
--Michael Snow
Almost the whole article is unsourced. But I think I will leave it alone for now. A couple of editors are having too much unsourced and NOR fun. I will look it up in a month or so when they are finished and try to clean it up. And who knows, they might have done a good job by then.
Garion