doug to doug you'll find on a second reading that the edit is not an essay but disproves the original research as portrayed in the article attempting to masquerade as fact the source texts are peer reviewed external third party books if you'd care to re check thus the disputation stands the test of wikipedia edit requirements as it not original research but the required rebuttal of original research in order for an article which does not meet any criteria of pov neutrality and research that diverges from academic mainstream discourse additionally the links i use add to wikipedia in the framework of cross linking to related articles frankly if more articles were written as thoroughly as the disputation alone wikipedia would not be a steaming pile of politicised horse manure and would not be ridiculed a d banned from even primary and secondary school referencing as per uk australia and indonesia school curriculau