Jay,
Conviction is the most verifiable form of evidence re crime there is.
However, we can report doubts over a conviction reported in reputable
sources as part of NPOV.
We shouldn't have editors playing amateur detective, however.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old
On 12/5/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
I responded to this user previously on the helpdesk. The issue is
that David Hager was accused of marital rape by his former wife, who
got an article published in The Nation about this, among other places.
Thus the allegations, true or not, are documented and citable, and
thus cannot be removed as unsourced attacks.
However, he should NOT be listed in any categories that imply he has
been convicted of a crime, because he has not.
I've been have a months-long debate with another editor on this
topic. I've
been stating that we include people in "Criminals" categories if they have
been convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. The other editor
insists that we have to decide (by some means) whether or not they have
actually committed a crime, conviction is not enough a good enough
yardstick. I'd be interested in other thoughts here.
Regards,
Jay.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l