Thread:Pluto2/@comment-258494-20160205202213/@comment-258494-20160205211356

Actually, you do raise a good point: it's NOT appropriate to go around removing Mathew Beard when that is original research. But Ozcaro simply reverted a mass of edits you made, and it's not clear that he intentionally reverted your edits due to the Beard case. In any case, the Beard case is in the "official" list, and the "alternate" list has been removed as original research.

It's also not appropriate to remove the Lucy Hannah case until the investigation has been concluded.

You need to think of this as more like a legal process. The goal here is "verifiability", not "TRUTH." Science tells us that "truth" is tentative. New evidence may overturn long-standing theory. However, we also have to respect the process. The Gerontology Wiki is not the place for "original research". It is a place where the Wikipedia "General Notability Guideline" has been replaced with notability guidelines specific to the topic area of "gerontology."Ryoung122 (talk) 21:13, February 5, 2016 (UTC)