XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: jcb@inf.ed.ac.uk   
      
   On 2022-02-07, Paul S Person  wrote:   
   > That is all very well but, as Louis Epstein points out in his reply,   
   > both the book and the film are public works, and comparing two public   
   > works which millions of people have experienced is not a form of   
   > crackpottery.   
      
   But it is the word of a random on the internet, which can only be   
   checked by re-doing the research oneself.   
   Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia thinks that material published by real   
   publishers is more likely to be accurate than randoms on the net.   
      
   > Not to mention the possibility that such comparisons have been   
   > published. Or that anyone who has experienced both can point them out.   
      
   If they have been published, there's a source.   
      
   > Which gets us to another of his points: take the prohibition to   
   > extremes and stating "grass is green" would be prohibited because it   
   > is "original research". Common knowledge is, well, /common/.   
      
   It is not hard to find a published reference for the greenness of   
   grass.   
      
   There's nothing specific to Wikipedia about this policy - all   
   reputable encyclopaedias do the same. Any article considered by   
   Britannica must have a full list of sources so that the research   
   editor can check the accuracy of the article.   
      
   Is Britannica a "pile of vomit" too, because it doesn't commission   
   original research?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)