On 11/05/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I {{fact}}-tagged a statement which I believed to
be true but for
> which I couldn't find a citation - in a BLP, as it happens - and found
> it reverted with the edit summary "(x) not being related to (y) does
> not need a citation!"!!! I despair...
Put it back. I think the standard guideline is that
only statements
which nobody would question can be uncited ("the sky is blue" being
the standard, although not very good, example) - and quite a few
people would like citations for those anyway. The fact that you've
added a {{fact}} tag shows that it is questioned, so does need a
citation. {{fact}} tags should only be removed if you are removing the
statement, adding a citation or if there is already a citation given.
BTW - we've had more than a few living bio issues where things that
look like innocuous factual statements (suburb they live in, name of
children) aren't, and the subjects have been very concerned. So a
little living bio paranoia is not excessive.
(Of course, we later had an editor darkly hinting Wikipedia would be
sued off the face of the planet if we asserted that [[Neil Gaiman]]
was [[David Gaiman]]'s son, and never mind forty years of press
sources on the subject, 'cos none had a photo, or something ...)
- d.