[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of l...

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:39 AM,  <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 4/22/2009 5:27:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> andrewrturvey at 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