I don't quite understand who will be reading this, but i hope someone from the wikipedia establishement reads it. i find your caution, below, as prejudice against an oral based culture, prejudiced against text drafted as an initial stage to encourage more input, and potentially able to be misused.

 Wikipedia states:

"any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons must include an inline citation to a source that directly supports the material."

spare me your arguments about truth, factually correct, integrity etc. and consider that some knowledge needs to be coaxed out of a community.

I am referring today to the article on Madras plaid, although i have seen several similar situations in Wikipedia today. I have been researching and hunting for true Madras plaid, usually made in Indian homes, and occasionally available through a local guild for 40 years. This sort of fragile and oral tradition needs support not suppression because somebody has deemed it is "contentious material" that is "neutral", whatever that is.

Yes, i am old enough to have actually worn authentic Madras plain in the 1960's. i have carefully read the text of the entry on Wikipedia and i find it to be entirely correct. I find it interesting that verification that would be accepted in a court of law in most nations is somehow given no weight in your scheme because it is oral and not written. given the huge number of factually incorrect books out there, i don't know how you sustain such a position. Don't screw up a good thing.

if someone challenges a statement in the oral tradition, let them bring their evidence to refute it. You should consider that even if they have a reference to written text, it should take more than that to usurp an assertion. Both sides can have their truth. What have got against conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunninglizard (talkcontribs) 02:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply