Talk:Eneados

Original research
"That Douglas undertook this work and that he makes a plea for more accurate scholarship in the translation have been the basis of a prevalent notion that he is a Humanist in spirit and the first exponent of Renaissance doctrine in Scottish literature. Careful study of the text will not support this view. Douglas is in all important respects even more of a medievalist than his contemporaries; and, like Robert Henryson and William Dunbar, strictly a member of the allegorical school and a follower, in the most generous way, of Chaucer's art."

This is not only vague and not very informative, it also has every appearance of being Original Research, and as such I would like to hear why I shouldn't cut it. Lexo (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to your cutting it, as I'm planning on revising and expanding the article when I get a chance, and would have replaced it with reworded content in any event. You should be aware, however, that the text in question is from the public-domain 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, so it's not, strictly speaking, OR. (After someone else created this article, I merged most of the Eneados content in Gavin Douglas here. That article began as a copy of the Britannica 11 article on Douglas, and I probably should have added a 1911 template to this article when I moved the text.) Deor (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

‘Wow’
Apologies if I’m not doing this correctly; I can find pages and pages of guidelines on talk pages on Wikipedia, but something comprehensible explaining how you query edits is eluding me. I had a small edit about the Eneados containing the OED's first recorded use of ‘wow’ reverted, and I'm not convinced about the reasons: “source is a comedy routine; factoid is trivial”. The source was not “a comedy routine”; it was a fact-based podcast in which the presenters laugh. If this isn't a satisfactory reference, in any case, reference to the OED itself – rather than peremptory elimination – would represent a simple solution. If we take the original definition of factoid, “an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact” I would simply submit that it isn’t and can in fact easily be checked, so why not check rather than cut. If instead ‘factoid’ is meant in the sense of a trivial item of information, I’d appreciate a reference as to the policy that justifies the reversion: all I could find about trivia: when looking I found a Style Manual section about Trivia sections which says “Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate” so there evidently isn’t a complete ban. 213.209.221.66 (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)