Would a few people who have a better feel for libel of living persons please take a look at [[Michael Somare]] and the edits made by [[User:Masalai]]. Take a look at the discussion at [[User talk:Masalai]] with one comment also on my talk page. When these were added earlier I reverted them, but they now have sources and a claim that Somare has not taken legal action in PNG. They seem to me to be making a claim that Somare has behaved in an inproper way. Is this acceptable with the sources.
This article is missing sources but the main new claim is sourced so that it a separate issue.
This sentence, "Sir Michael and his family have have not discouraged this misapprehension." does not appear to be sourced, and as such, could be libelous. Without actually finding a copy of the newspapers and verifying exactly what they say, I can't really judge if the rest is libel - if the sources are valid, then it probably isn't.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
This sentence, "Sir Michael and his family have have not discouraged this misapprehension." does not appear to be sourced, and as such, could be libelous. Without actually finding a copy of the newspapers and verifying exactly what they say, I can't really judge if the rest is libel - if the sources are valid, then it probably isn't.
You'll want to remove the duplicate "have", either way :)
-Gurch