Re You seem to be assuming that my previous message here was written after CMummert s recent rewrite Nonsense I also wrote my comment before CMummert s recent rewrite As I m not clairvoyant I can assure you that I did not think the then future preceded the then already past Re I think that Ruakh is saying that The fact that adding an axiom to an inconsistent theory can t make it consistent follows immediately from the definition of an inconsistent theory is Original Research even though it is obviously true You think wrong I m not saying that at all The original research isn t in that fact but in the conclusion that such and such books are wrong You can t go around Wikipedia claiming sources are wrong without citing any sort of reference to support your claims even if you provide a convincing logical argument to support them