[WikiEN-l] David Hager is listed as convicted rapist

Mon Dec 5 04:59:40 UTC 2005

JAY JG wrote:

>> From: Matt Brown <morven at 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.

I think that any list that requires charactterizations needs to be 
approached with caution and sensitivity.  Unless we abide by a strict 
definition of what we mean by the term the [[List of Criminals]] has too 
much room to become POV, or at worst, libellous.  Other criteria than 
conviction in a court of law are possible, but they too must be strictly 
defined.  We are not in a position to provide the original research that 
some of these situations may need.

Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of murder, and conspiracy theories 
around JFK's assisination continue to this day.  In many minds there is 
reasonable doubt.  Who knows what a jury would have done?

Hurricane Carter was convicted of murder, and it took him nearly 20 
years to prove his innocence.

If we are going to keep this characterization at all, the benefit of the 
doubt should go to the person whose name is being considered for the list.

Ec