Apparently Cambridge is with the less worthy wiki people on the definition of "novel". Holy..
I won't even get into this argument honestly, saying something like "Wikipedia can be edited by anyone."
You started this, don't pretend like you're the "better" person here.
But regardless as for my education, pretty sure the first rule of research papers is "do not quote wikipedia".
I don't get what your point is since you would nonchalantly post a wikipedia definition to my reply.
But let's end this once and for all, because you have this need to defend yourself.
Let's take Webster for example: (oxford gives a similar definition as well)
Now notice here this definition is more open, because lets admit it theirs a lot of leeway in the English language for interpretation.
Let's zoom in a bit on what part I'm looking at
Yep.
Now I won't be replying here anymore, and this post will end up getting reported, but there ya go.
Wikipedia is a good source for general information, but to go as far as quoting it, don't think so.
