Todd Allen wrote:
In that case, the subject would do better by both
himself and us by
-having the sources correct themselves-. Reputable sources will be
willing to publish corrections if you can show them they're wrong.
The case that amuses and frustrates me most along these lines is the
[[Angela Beesley]] article. Initially, it had her date of birth sourced
from her own statements - she explicitly posted it herself on a list of
Wikipedians by birthday. That got taken out as an unreliable
"autobiographical" reference. So someone went and actually checked the
birth records of a hospital in her home town to confirm it. That got
taken out as "original research", with one person even commenting that
going to such lengths was something a crazed stalker might do. Damned if
you do, damned if you don't. :)