[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Thomas Dalton]

> > The text that Jimbo removed was OR. Using lots of different primary
> > sources to support what you are saying is generally OR.
>
> That is going to come as a bit of a shock to the authors of [[Biaxial nematic]].

It's generally OR, it's not always OR. Using a collection of
scientific papers isn't too bad - it's not great though, the
translation from the technical terminology the papers use to layman's
terms suitable for an encyclopedia is bordering on OR (I haven't read
the papers in this case - it's possible the introduction is written in
close enough to layman's terms and contains everything used in the
article, they aren't always, though). It would be better to find a
secondary source aimed at a more appropriate audience and use that.