Zeno wrote:

They should instead devote more effort to reporting hard data about X ("X has been responsible for many attacks on civilians, including ... and ..."), then readers who like labels like "terrorism" will have no trouble attaching them. I think this shows respect for the intelligence of the reader.

No problem with having more info. But the info that a very large number of people think that person X is a terrorist is /highly/ relevant to have in an article about that person. This is oftentimes a distinguishing characteristic that can and should be in the lead section of the article. Not doing so is to discount this very important piece of information. This in my opinion is whitewashing and censorship.

The quip about George Bush and crooked teeth isn't very relevant to an article on him. Meaning his crooked teeth is not even a minor reason why he is famous and it may even be completely fine to leave that out of the article alltogether. On the other hand the fact that a great many people regard OBL to be a terrorist is one of the big reasons why he is famous. Thus a prominant statement indicating that information is needed in the lead section of an article about him.

Then we go into detail.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)