On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: Absolutely correct, especially if the newspaper has in itself reported on why such is accurate, such as interviewing the arresting officer or prosecutor, and such reports are corroborated by other sources. If the person denies the allegations, it is critical that we note that in the article, and if they are later found not guilty or the charges are dropped, it is critical that we note that as well, but for many biographies (see [[O.J. Simpson]]), an arrest and trial for a crime is a noteworthy and verifiable part of a person's life, even if the person was later acquitted or the charges dropped, and even if they deny that they committed the crime. As to things only one newspaper reported on in passing, and nothing else has even commented on it, I would agree we should be very wary of including such things in BLPs. Such cases are often more of tabloid than encyclopedic interest, and we may well be placing undue weight on such minor events by their inclusion. However, if several sources -have- corroborated the story, and it is major enough to be of encyclopedic interest, we should refer the person to those who reported it if an error has been made. That person's interests will ultimately be better served by having the original source of erroneous information correct it. Until then, the same applies-"Source X, Y, and Z report that John Example.... Example denies this, stating that..." -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.