Well, there comes a point where a fact is no longer
disputed by any significant number of people. I don't
know whether Harold Shipman still denies murder, but,
if he admits it, then surely calling him a murderer is
justified and NPOV. If he disputes it, then calling
him a 'convicted murderer, a charge that he still
denies' seems fair.
Mark
--- Pete/Pcb21 <pete_pcb21_wpmail(a)pcbartlett.com>
wrote:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
[Examples]
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
*The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to
fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
*Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud
*Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
I think is a solution that would nicely fit with
the rules of NPOV.
I thought that too. Interestingly though UK
broadcasting rules are more
relaxed about this.
For instance, programmes do not have to say "Harold
Shipman, convicted
of mass murder,...". They can, and do, say "Mass
murderer Harold
Shipman...". Once someone has been convicted of X,
that person doesn't
appear to have recourse if someone calls them an
Xer.
Is this a case where WP NPOV exacts a higher
standard than supposedly
neutral TV news programmes?
Pete
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org