Jay,
Conviction is the most verifiable form of evidence re crime there is. However, we can report doubts over a conviction reported in reputable sources as part of NPOV.
We shouldn't have editors playing amateur detective, however.
Regards
*Keith Old*
Keith Old
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Matt Brown morven@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.
Regards,
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l