On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:06 -0400, "The Cunctator"
<cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Then it
shouldn't be any problem to source it...?
Exactly. Shouldn't that be
preferable to deleting it?
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort
of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to
be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed,
aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all
information, but it is particularly true of negative information about
living persons." - Jimmy Wales.
Sure, adequately sourcing it is preferable, but if it's a choice
between waiting for a source or removing it, removing is a better
option. Even if you put it back in with a source ten minutes later.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG