" 

  
 ::I don't want to substitute my opinion for Arthur's, but I do have something to say on the subject. Some ""professional journalists"" are ""well-known"" for their capacity to produce hoaxes rather than debunk them. And even people who are professional in one capacity, may well be unprofessionaland outright kookyin another. This is not a reason to dismiss all their writing, but it is a good reason to be skeptical. Even if Wiki generally allows writing by ""well-known professional journalists"", this does not absolve them of responsibility to provide accurate information. Perpetuating known hoaxes and conspiracy theories falls well outside that realm. Consider, for example James Watson, who is a well-known professional researchera Nobel Prize winner, in fact. When it comes to matters of history of biologyor perhaps even some modern issues in biologyhe can be trusted to provide an account that's worth consideration. But when he switches to racial theory, there is a problemhis occasional racist statements are well documented and indicate propensity toward racial bias. In any case, ""may be acceptable"" is a very low-pass criterion, simply indicating that some degree of original research is allowed for some people, but is by no means automatically acceptable. Even these ""professionals"" are not above review and revision. I am a professional researcher, with a background very similar to Arthur's. And occasionally I find myself going back to materials that I posted and asking, ""How could this go up without documentation??"" Arthur and I have clashed over issues of original research and bias on several occasions, but I would not take what he says lightly. IMO, on this issue, he's on the ball.    

  
 "