--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu> wrote:
Maveric149 (Daniel Mayer) wrote in part:
Of course more info is needed! Refining that we
could say that they are both
widely regarded as terrorist in the West and by nearly all national
governments in the Arab world. That is attributing a POV to its adherents. It
is also in line with NPOV.
Taking that out would be expressing the minority
POV that they are not
terrorist.
You've said this a couple times now, but I must disagree strongly.
/Failing/ to state X is *not* equivalent to /denying/ X!!!
So you and Ec may disagree over whether the statement
"Many people consider Osama Bin Laden to be a terrorist.",
in the absence of additional facts, is sufficiently NPOV;
but his position (to remove it in the absence of such facts)
does not advocate the opposite POV.
A lie of omission is still a lie. So to take out the word 'terrorist' from [[Osama
Bin Laden]] is
dishonest and gives the impression that Wikipedia is saying that, in direct opposition to
what
most of the western world thinks, that OBL is not a terrorist. And when I say that
something will
not be tolerated, I mean that that behavior will be countered and negated. So in this case
the
correct NPOV sentence about what many in the West feel is going to be continuously put
back into
that article one way or the other.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus