Talk:Reverse stratigraphy

Discussion on removed source
, I restored the removed reference as it is a reliable source for the subject at hand. Just because you 'don't like it' is not a reason to exclude it. Indeed, Wikipedia is not censored. Also must be invoked is No original research. We talk about it straight from the source, which happens to be this. I've reverted due to this. I'm curious of your argument for omitting it. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary, I restored my modification. If the reference has been published in a reliable journal, it has been criticized in this same journal. Anyone who has a bit of knowledge in archaeology and sedimentology and has read the description of the published Tam Pa Ling site would immediatly understand that the stratigraphy in undisturbed. According to the critic published against the authors of the referenced article, it seems that they have mistaken the published dates for the site. I hope that those arguments will help. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indi750 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)