Talk:Fish Heads and Tails

Infobox citation

Andrzejbanas, from your edit summary: WP:PRESERVE is only for content that follows WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. These are not cited so they fails the first two rules I stated. - you misconstrue what WP:PRESERVE is saying, which is why I cited it in the first place. It is stating:

Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Either clean up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tag it as necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but preserve any reasonable content on the article's talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage

The genres included might currently fall under original research, so that can be removed for the time being, however the rest of the text falls under NPOV, it is Verfiiable, and does not constitute original research as it is searchable facts (dates, record information, etc). Therefore, per Wiki guidelines you are expected to preserve reasonable content and look for the information to give proper citation as opposed to automatically removing it. --Lpdte77 (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lapadite77:, Information such as the producer, and who played on the album is currently unverifiable. I remind you of WP:BURDEN, it's not up to me to find sources for other people's edits. If they had left something vague to work with, than I would've completed it. As WP:UNSOURCED states, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". That's how verifiability works, not because it's googleable.

To quote Jimbo,

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information...

–Jimmy Wales

Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)