Guettarda wrote:
Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is better than providing a source. Recently there was a discussion at [[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to source that statement. It's very easy to find someone who has said that, but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the source. If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea. Just sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
Scientific papers manage this by citing common textbooks or well-known survey-type monographs or articles, maybe even several of them to emphasize the commonness of the knowledge; I don't think we can go much wrong by following their example.
Stan