On 6/6/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
A open invitation to original research would be a bad thing... but at the same time the prohibition against it denies the ability to print common sense to those in a field... Despite the handwaving claims to the contrary, it can be quite difficult (measured against the value of including the text) to find a citation for something that is common sense in a given field but not necessarily outside it. Fortunately, at least on en, we look the other way on original research unless there is a dispute.
The main "handwaving claims" have been that this is in fact a real problem. Whenever the topic's come up, I've asked for an example where this has been a problem, including in response to your emails to the list claiming it. Neither you nor anyone else have provided one.
Are you asking where it's a problem finding citeable material? It's not currently a problem because no one complains unless there is controversy.
I'm not handwaving, but I also not eager to go pointing out example for fear that people will go 'fix' perfectly good text. Go load almost any article on a piece of music or a composer, you might find that is says the work contains "lush harmonies" or "thick chords".. No see the groves citation at the bottom and look it up and you likely wont find that description... but there is nothing wrong there, the description is accurate, undisputed, and would be obvious to anyone skilled in the subject.
So of course the counter claim is that isn't original research because it's common sense, but that's not the case, it's only obvious to someone versed in the field. ... and everything known is obvious to someone, so if we are expansive in our interpretation of common sense we will eventually include everything.