On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:20 PM, &lt;WJhonson(a)aol.com&gt; wrote: And that part is exactly -why- we require sources, including to change something at a subject's request. If reliable sources indicate something, and the subject says "It isn't so" but we've got nothing to verify that, we can't simply say "Oh, alright," and change the article. One thing we -can- do in such a case, as stated earlier, is to change that particular part of the article to a quoted form, e.g. "The New York Times reported in 2006 that foo did bar", rather than "Foo did bar <ref name="nyt">". In that case, our statement -cannot- be inaccurate, provided that the New York Times really did make such a report-we're simply in that case asserting that such a report was made. If the subject -does- disagree, it's then his or her responsibility to talk to the NYT and look at having a correction printed (in which case, that correction is a reliable source to change what we've got!) This is better for the subject anyway, as now the original source is corrected and future inaccuracies from anything that relies on it (not just us) can be prevented. And if there is no inaccuracy and the subject is lying or genuinely mistaken, we don't end up removing or changing information which is both verifiable -and- truthful. It is just beyond our means to determine if, firstly, the person claiming to be the subject really is, and secondly, even if that can be confirmed (through OTRS or the subject posting to his/her own site, for example), that the claims (s)he makes are true and the sources are genuinely wrong. Of course, if the subject is willing to post their side somewhere, such as on his or her own site, we can certainly add that "Doe denies this and states that...", citing that source and telling both sides of the story. BLP is a good policy in general, in saying that "Potentially negative or controversial information about a living person that is -unsourced or badly sourced- should be removed posthaste, and such information when well-sourced should not be given undue weight." That's really just saying that our normal content policies (verifiability, NPOV, NOR) should be enforced with exceptional speed and vigor when concerning a BLP. Removing or sourcing questionable unsourced information and properly weighting are things we should aspire to with every article anyway. On the other hand, BLP shouldn't generally enter into the equation when information is well-sourced and duly weighted. That's an issue to be resolved through normal content mechanisms, not the sledgehammer of BLP. It might be needed, but it's got to be kept reined in. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.