the sciences. It's fairly easy to check the
atomic weight of silver,
but much harder to refute an assertion that Count
Leonard III was a
pivotal figure in British tactics used in the 100
years war. He's not,
I just made that up, now what do you suppose it
would take to refute
that?
But you don't have to refute it. It isn't necessary to prove a negative in order to remove something. All that you have to do is say something like, in your own delightful wording, "moving unsourced material to talk pages". And then put a note on the talk page saying something like "This is interesting about Count Leonard III, however I was unable to confirm it. Can someone post a source before we put it back in the article?"
I'm sure that would carry plenty of weight. -- Jimbo
That would carry a lot of weight? That's the most baseless argument I've heard so far, that it's unsourced. Almost all of Wikipedia is unsourced! If you have a question about the source, just ask whoever wrote it. That way, they will be a lot quicker to respond. I almost never watch articles I write, and if someone took off some of my content because it's "unsourced", there's little chance I'd go back and find it and write the source. If we say that all of wikipedia must be sourced, it would be very detrimental to the project. A Google search will almost always find some reference supporting any fact in Wikipedia, so long as it isn't made up (if they're "wrong" or it's a minority view or something, then it should still be preserved). The only time this doesn't work is for obscure historical or local stuff. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com