On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:39 AM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 4/22/2009 5:27:47 PM Pacific
Daylight Time,
andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com writes:
What do we do about well-sourced information which turns out to be
incorrect? I don't think policies cover this area particularly well, but the
commonsense view is to word it something along the lines of:
"A national newspaper in 2007 reported that celebrity x had been arrested
for taking drugs<ref> </ref>; however this was later shown to be untrue
<ref> </ref>"
If it's not that important you can always include the details in a
footnote:
"Joe Blow (b. 15.1.74) <ref>Note the New York Times stated he was born on
January 14 - (ref). However, this source shows the actual date to be 14 Jan
</ref>
The added advantage is it means editors don't add the incorrect
information in again at a later date. >>
-----------------------------
I agree completely with the above.
As do I. Where it gets confusing is when you have stuff like:
<ref>However, this information is contested by someone who edited this
article and who claims to be the subject of the article.</ref>
At that point, it should be removed from the article and go to the
talk page (unless, in the more difficult cases, removal of the
contested information in itself imbalances the article and leaves it
violating some aspect of the BLP policy). In that latter case,
stubbing of the article, or other, less drastic surgery, is needed
until talk page discussions and possible off-wiki conformation of
subject identity has taken place.
Carcharoth