On 17/05/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/18/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
themselves. The most egregious example of this I've witnessed is the removal of the Cheney/Leahy exchange (Dick_cheney#Rebuilding_of_Iraq) on the grounds that it was temporarily unsourced. Does anyone seriously doubt that this happened? Of course it's simple enough to
It's because WP:V is very vague on this one basic point. It defines what should be the case. It is conspicuously tacit on what to do if it's not. Delete? Remove temporarily? Hide? {{fact}}? Allow for a while? Hence my suggestion to designate classes of articles with different rules for unsourced material. FA's should not tolerate any unsourced material, for instance.
For what it's worth, what I usually do in situations where there's unsourced and disputed material that I believe/know empirically is correct, but cannot prove at the time, is remove to talk, explicitly saying that "this is unsourced, and unsuitable for the article at the present time, but I plan to find references and reinsert it" or something along those lines. What are talk pages for, if not discussing and debating content?
-Sam