Here's the note I left on the talk page of the article. If you live in the UK, take this warning very seriously.
"Attribution
It is recommended that all additions to the article itself of a controversial nature be specifically attributed to their source, for example, "in an article in The Guardian dated July 3, 2001 blah blah blah". Editors based in the UK are strongly discouraged from editing this article. Familiarity with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is recommended, especially the provisions which permit libel liability. The main problem with the use of references is that while the sources themselves have probably avoided liability by cleverly implying, rather than stating false or misleading information, our editors have not been so clever. Nor would we want them to be. If you think a practicing attorney is a felon, that somehow slipped through the cracks, find a source. Likewise, if you think a European lawyer is not qualified or permitted to practice in the UK, find a source, don't just quote some report that hints around that he's not. Fred Bauder 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)"
Fred
Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano) - and a sticking point in article work.
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the article subject.
This presents problems.
BADSOURCES anyone?
<runs immediately for cover, and means every word. Please use the world 'Clown' instead of 'Troll' when responding to this post, and 'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l