[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary

[Ray Saintonge]

Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:

> We *have* a good article on [[olive]]s, for example: is there any good 
> reason to
> toss in the bible concordance at the bottom? 

Probably not.  When this sort of thing shows up all we can do is see if 
it adds anything to the article, integrate the valuable information (if 
any) and dump the rest.

For [[olive]]s, as for [[tax]]es where I did a little work to integrate 
Easton, the biblical references are only incidental to the main subject. 
 As much as I may believe that references are valuable, I don't think we 
need them for every minor point in an article.  If we find biblical 
references useful there's an established way to cite them without the 
secondary reference to Easton.

Eclecticology