Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/26/07, RLS <evendell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
...the "source it or don't say it"
component of BLP...
Pffffffffft. This is a "component" of basic verifiability policy.
Being about a particular warm body does not make an article special
in this regard. The same basic deficiency (of sources) is no more
grave an editorial error than if the topic were pokemon. In either
case, the problem should be corrected, either by finding a source, or
by removing the disputed and/or dubious information. Ideally, the
only difference for a "BLP" article is that the "grace period", for
allowing the author (of the disputed portions) to cite sources, is
much closer to zero.
I'm aware that sourcing is required for all articles, and that it is a
basic part of [[WP:V]]. Yes, ideally, we are sourcing or removing
unsourced statements from all articles after a "grace period," which is
shorter for BLPs than other types of articles.
By a quick informal count, there are just over 1400 articles in
[[Category:Articles needing sources from June 2006]], the oldest dated
category for the {{unreferenced}} tag. That certainly indicates to me
that there is effectively no enforcement in sourcing or removing
unsourced statements from articles not covered by BLP.
Whether or not "source it or don't say it" is a /de jure/ part of the
policies that cover every article, it's only enforced /de facto/ for BLP
articles in any regular fashion. That's why I phrased my original
statement the way I did.
(My count above is probably thrown off somewhat because people will add
{{unreferenced}} to an article with no sources even if all of the facts
in the article are of a "The sky is blue." nature. I wouldn't be
surprised to see "The sky is blue.{{fact}}" one day.)
--Darkwind