I read the link you indicated. I'm a newbie here (obviously), + it's perplexing. I added 2 links, one to Oates+his last words, and one to another Dr.Who episode where someone else had noted the same thing, to cite 2 proofs that it was indeed a quote, and Dr. Who had done this quote before. The other article had had a note that it needed a citation, which was dated Feb., so someone else was able to make this observation WITHOUT having it removed. Things w/o citations are left alone when OTHER people do it, why not make the same kind of note in my case,+ hope someone sharp can provide the citation? Since the episode was just re-shown after many years, the chances that someone WOULD go to the article+do that seem high to me. That you would class an observation that seems blindingly obvious as "original research" blindsided me. I did zero research--I simply recognized a quote--the words of which are in a WP article which should stand as proof. I'm not trying to be disruptive, replacing again+again, but there seems to be something wrong here, and as I've said, someone else did the same thing w/o being treated the same way. I have no idea how I would scare up a Notable Source. My recognition WAS reliable even though you don't acknowledge it as such, + to me, research is a much more difficult+weighty thing.Anonnymos (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But in Wikipedia terms, original research is doing exactly what you describe above - watching a DW episode and recognising a quote made decades earlier by a historic figure. We do not report on what we have observed - we report on what others have already observed and reported upon. The places where such reports were made are the sources, see WP:RS and WP:V.
