--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Maveric149 (Daniel Mayer) wrote in part:
Of course more info is needed! Refining that we could say that they are both widely regarded as terrorist in the West and by nearly all national governments in the Arab world. That is attributing a POV to its adherents. It is also in line with NPOV.
Taking that out would be expressing the minority POV that they are not terrorist.
You've said this a couple times now, but I must disagree strongly.
/Failing/ to state X is *not* equivalent to /denying/ X!!!
So you and Ec may disagree over whether the statement "Many people consider Osama Bin Laden to be a terrorist.", in the absence of additional facts, is sufficiently NPOV; but his position (to remove it in the absence of such facts) does not advocate the opposite POV.
A lie of omission is still a lie. So to take out the word 'terrorist' from [[Osama Bin Laden]] is dishonest and gives the impression that Wikipedia is saying that, in direct opposition to what most of the western world thinks, that OBL is not a terrorist. And when I say that something will not be tolerated, I mean that that behavior will be countered and negated. So in this case the correct NPOV sentence about what many in the West feel is going to be continuously put back into that article one way or the other.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus