On 8/18/06, Keith Old <keithold(a)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