The material removed constituted "original research". It was not corroborated by any of the sources listed by Wikipedia as acceptable. The removed claims came from white papers by Philip J. Klass, George Hansen, Joseph Stefula and Richard Butler.
Please discuss your removal on the talk page: talk:Budd Hopkins per wp:BRD. The original content should stay until wp:consensus is reached. Jim1138 (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Elizabeth Loftus' claims of identifying subtle cues were not corroborated by subsequent research. Her work constituted "original research". "Original research" is not allowed to be used on Wikipedia, whatever its source.
- Please read the comment more carefully. You are being advised that, if you want your changes to persist, you should discuss them on the article's Talk page first. If you do not do this, the most likely outcome is that you will be blocked and the article locked down. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the comment you left on my Talk page: In the first place, you're wrong. Loftus's claims constitute published research. Original research is when you, Mr. or Ms. 202.159.166.64, come by and make a claim without having a reliable source to back it up. In the second place, don't complain to me. I'm trying to explain to you the realities of how Wikipedia operates. If you want your claims taken seriously, go to the article's Talk page. If you want to be ignored, keep doing what you're doing. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are also now in clear violation of Wikipedia's Three-revert rule. If you stop now, you still have a chance. If you don't, the next thing will be an incident report and you are almost certain to be blocked. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Being blocked by a puppet of the Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia movement is hardly surprising. It would seem you can't abide by Wikipedia's rules when it necessitates the removal of the biased information you peddle here.