On 17/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/18/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)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