--- On Fri, 13/5/11, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
I actually think it's malice, rather than a
failure to
think through what
verification means. And it's malice in most
cases
where editors insist
that some tabloid claim should stay in a
biography,
based on "verifiability,
not truth." They don't like the subject,
and enjoy
taking pot shots at them.
Not consistent with actual use
You don't seem to have followed the discussion. We are not talking about the whole
universe of tabloid references in Wikipedia. They do report news as well, and are
sometimes cited for that.
We are talking about poorly sourced gossip in BLPs that's in some way embarrassing to
the
subject. Like someone having -- allegedly -- cheated on his wife, allegedly not being
able to read properly, allegedly having been a Scientologist, etc.
If you believe that people's sympathies or antipathies vis-a-vis the subject and
their
activities do not play any role in their decision to add such content, you have led a
sheltered life in Wikipedia.