charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
Steve Block wrote
Anyway, what I think you are saying, to me, goes
against the grain of
the verifiability policy. We aren't supposed to sift the truth from the
puff, are we? We simply present information as it is presented in the
source.
Nothing (except NPOV, I guess) ranks higher than some sort of good taste about what to
include. We're always selective in quoting.
That's not the point I was making, sorry but you've taken me out of
context. I was attempting to point out that we can't edit articles
because the information may not be true. We edit the articles because
the sources don't reflect it. If source a actually alleges b did c, we
cite it even if it isn't true, unless some other reason prevents it. My
understanding was that we didn't remove it based on the fact we didn't
believe it to be true.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.1/527 - Release Date: 09/11/06