" 

 == Alleged Original Research == 

 I have added back a load of content that was removed supposedly under the reasoning that it was ""original research"". First, there was reliably sourced content that was removed. The ""Changes in direction"" section was already reliably sourced as were the quotes. How that falls under original research I'll never know. The show underwent some major changes and to omit that one of the main characters was killed off makes no sense whatsoever. The fact that two of the main stars, John Amos and Esther Rolle, publicly complained about the series and ultimately left because of it also doesn't fall under OR. This was covered by the media as evidenced by the sources that were present. If someone had a problem with Ebony and The LA Times being reliable sources, they should have dropped a note here instead of removing a shit ton of content that someone took the time to write (not me) and another person (me) took the time to source. Original research isn't including details about the work, it's drawing your own conclusions based on your own research. In television show articles, we can use the work itself as a source for the actual details of the show. Once the writing start veering off into overly detailed garbage, that's when the OR police can come out. Works of fiction should have some details about production, ratings, show changes, etc. If not, all we have is an article that say a show aired and some people were in it. It took me all of 20 minutes to find sources for the majority of the removed content - none of it was contentious nor was it OR which means it should not have been removed. Ironically, actual original research about the stupid opening titles was left in.  "