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