[WikiEN-l] insist on sources

[Steve Bennett]

On 7/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> A point I have made more than once.  But this seems to single
> Armstrong out.  The section is gradually getting bigger and bigger,
> with special pleading and guilt by association creeping back in.  I do
> not see how it can be considered neutral to give the strong impression
> that he is a doper who has not been caught, which is what one or two
> editors are determinedly trying to do, when the legal position is that
> he is clean, despite being quite possibly the most tested athlete in
> history.

I suppose it depends how you word it. If we could cite some
respectable opinion pieces that said he was probably a doper, you
could throw in some weasly "he remains under a cloud of suspicion"
type sentences.

Steve