slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
Jay, it would be original research to claim that
someone is a
"criminal" even though they haven't been convicted. Committing a crime
is not just the apparent performance of a prohibited act, but is also
(usually) connected to the actor's state of mind at the time,
something a court rules on based on the available evidence. Wikipedia
editors are not in a position to judge what a court would have ruled,
no matter how obvious the case might seem (e.g. a public figure
admitting they once stole something from a store).
We're not in a position to make the judgment ourselves, but we *are* in
a position to summarize judgments other people have made. Courts are
one obvious source, but there is no reason they must be the only
one---if it were, in fact, widespread consensus that someone who was
acquitted was actually guilty (perhaps they were acquitted on a
technicality, and everyone agrees they actually committed the crime), we
can cite a published source claiming that, which would not be original
research.
-Mark