On 8/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/06, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I think it would be jawdroppingly stupid (to use those
terms)
to remove a potentially libellous accusation from the article and put
it on
the talk page where people could still see it
IANAL, but to me there is a difference between stating the claim *as fact* in an *encyclopaedic article* (which most people, bless their souls, will take to *be* fact), and discussing the claim *as a dubious supposition* on a *discussion page*, where its validity is being questioned. I agree that simply repeating a claim can still be damaging, but by phrasing it in those terms "Is this true? Can anyone back this up?" might be less so?
I strongly feel that if we can't discuss the claim openly on talk pages, then our chances of getting a good source for *that specific claim* are greatly reduced.
If you put a message on the talk page to say that the article previously contained unsourced or poorly sourced negative comments about the person contrary to our policies and asking for such claims to have strong
sources
if they are made, most people would have enough brains to realise that
that
included claims about consorting with prostitutes.
"Guys, I have removed a potentially defamatory claim. Can someone find a good source for it?"
???
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Folks,
If the claim has a strong basis in fact, it shouldn't be hard to find a source/
If it doesn't, it shouldn't be on the article or on the talk page. We shouldn't have potentially defamatory material where it can be publicly accessed unless we can be fairly certain that it stands up to close scrutiny.
Regards
Keith Old