[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information

[Sam Pointon]

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