Abigail Brady wrote:
On 12/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Since there are only two such occasions it should not be difficult to identify the two episodes.
Ah, but how do you source the fact that it isn't seen in any other episodes? This is not a facetious question by the way.
Good point. One possibility is to source every episode which *doesn't* show this happening, which is somewhat burdonsome. Another is to say that it *did* occur twice (and source the episodes); discovery and proof of other occurences is left as an exercise the reader. The third option is to find a secondary source which claims this, and (again) let the reader determine if it's valid or not; after all, we don't present The Truth, only what is verifiable; and the fourth option is to just remove the bloody thing as being too much of a pain in the proverbial.
Do we have something against academic fraud: such as, say, adding something as a "Source", apparently without having read it, or even having a good idea of its contents from other sources,
As in, a comeback against editors who do it? I think it's called "blocked for subtle vandalism" :)