It depends. I used a different set of things in an example of a set, than was used in the example in the text I was working from. This seems rather trivial. Obviously one could use Stalin as an example of a totalitarian ruler, but that could be sourced. I suppose a problematic example could be found on the borderland and discussed, but I think it is best to solve the problem when it arises rather than to make policy based on hypothetical examples. Perhaps this is just my common law heritage speaking here... Fred On Jul 23, 2005, at 4:25 AM, <disclist(a)dapyx-soft.com> wrote:

Impressive responses. One point: OR is often used as a an excuse to squash certain debated points, without allowing them to devlop (including citing sources). A silly example might be something like "go find some source for your notion that the world is round, and come back when you do so." Such source can then be debated for a while. So, while NOR is policy, consensus means that common sense prevails, and that merely adding a point of debate in appropriate section, with good language, is often just a good way to get there without being excessive. *Sources are a requirement : but they arent a prerequisite.* To say so would mean that articles can't grow in the wiki way, but instead are crafted with notions of finished product. Sources can be added by any editor, not just by ones adding material. And one "side's" removal of material on the basis of an NOR claim often winds up just being an expression of easy exclusionism rather than hard sourcing for a view one might be disagreeable with. Good process is simply putting the debatable part in context, under a separate section. (Tip: I often <!-- comment // hide material --> in the article itself when Im not sure, when there's likely to be some debate, or when the section needs to be rewritten in a way Im not sure how to do.) SV --- David Gerard &lt;fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au&gt; wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

disclist(a)dapyx-soft.com wrote: There seems to be a perennial confusion between "original research" and "original content" - we want people to string words together in new and different ways, just not to introduce new facts in the process. An example is just a particular form of content, and doesn't need to be sourced, just as one doesn't add citations(1) to(2) the(3) dictionary(4) after(5) every(6) word(7),(8) as well as citations to the rules of grammar after every phrase (45, 92, 132 but see 89, p. 1045). :-) Stan

It's worth trying, at least; in my experience that can work sometimes, but other times it's still viewed as a deletion. Jay.