Anthony wrote:
And how precisely do you propose to simultaneously take care of both of these things? Wikipedia is not in a position to determine truth, only to report on what others have said. It's possible that some parts of physics may be incorrect, and you may be absolutely sure of it, but Wikipedia isn't the place to publish that research. I don't think it's the place to publish novel historical, biographical, mathematical, or any other research either, regardless of how sure you are that you have "the truth" that every published source is missing.
I think I'm capable of determining the difference between a complicated new physics theory that I've just come up with, and which hasn't been peer reviewed, and a blatant falsity propagated by a misquote or other misinformation in a newspaper which can be trivially misproven by the subject of the article. At the very least I think an encyclopedia article should note the fact that the subject disputes the claim. Perhaps I could interview the person and stick the interview in Wikinews, would that qualify as a published source outside of Wikipedia? Alternatively, the claim shouldn't be there in the first place. If neither of those two are legitimate under the rules, then I'd say it's time to break the rules.
I don't recall having said anything about a "complicated" theory. Even if your change to physics is simple, and you think it's blatantly obvious that it's true, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish it.
I do think people are reliable sources for their own views, but editors personally interviewing them is problematic because it's not well documented. A Wikinews article or a reference to their own personal website or something like that would be fine with me, though.
-Mark