There is a little tag {{or}} for challenging original research. Fact is challenging source and there is no matter is the statement POV or not. If statement is like "That is like this" and the statement is POV, it should be removed or reformulated as "This person said that that is like this<ref>...</ref>". In general, POV is a problem at least on section level. In other cases, POV is not a problem because it may be easily removed or reformulated.
On 8/11/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I think the {{fact}} tag should be split into two tags - one for quotes, figures and potentially controversial material; and one for information which, although relatively uncontroversial, could do with a reference.
The former would be used to "challenge" material, and if no source is found within a reasonable period of time (for example, a week), the information would be removed. The latter would not be used to "challenge" material, but suggest that a reference would be useful, particularly when polishing potential GAs or FAs.
2007/8/11, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On 8/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Number 1 is clearly the best option. By marking the statement you show that you disagree with it, and are thus warning the reader to be careful. The absence of sources should absolutely '''not''' be the reason for deleting an article. Nor does it justify jumping to the conclusion that it is original research.
If I add {{fact}} tag, it simply means that it is a statement without a source. Yes, I will do that mostly in the cases where I saw some disputable statement, but it doesn't have to mean that. Readers should carefully read all articles and should be able to check all statements. Sometimes statements are trivial, sometimes are disputable, but sometimes statements seem to be trivial, but they are not.
I just made a gradation between possible actions: (1) it is the best to add a source; (2) if you don't have a time, please add a {{fact}} to mark that the statement should be referenced; (3) if both (part of article and another article as a whole) are very problematic, remove the part from the first article and mark the other for deletion.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l