The simple solution to someone edit warring demanding that a statement be sourced is to add a reference at the bottom of the article. If the statement really is obvious then it should be simple to find a source. Yes, someone gaming the system by removing something which they know to be true rather than just adding the source themselves should be reprimanded. But at the same time, a better solution than edit warring with that person would be to just add the source. I don't think anyone's claiming that you have to cite sources for every fact within the main body of the article. I don't think [1] that articles [2] should look [3] anything like [4] this. [5] Rather for something "obvious", it should be enough to cite the source at the bottom of the page. I'm saying all this as though it's a proposal, but it's really already policy. See [[Wikipedia:Verifiable]], especially #Checking content. Anthony

actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote: Not at all. The deletionists tend to argue on the basis of notability. I prefer to avoid the question of whether a statement is reasonable; that's just too subjective. While a person could put in "obvious common knowledge statements" without initially showing a source they could and should still be open to challenge. There is nothing wrong with having one or two "standard works" as reference to cover the essentials of the subject. Thus an article about physics could, through the category page show references to the standard works. The individuals who make unreasonable demands should be dealt with separately. Major policy directions should not be held at the mercy of a handful of extremists. The responsibility of an editor to search for sources could then be limited to those standard sources. Ec