I see people are saying it's obvious, but they're saying it about each of the incompatible alternatives.
I think we have a clear rule about this, which is to wait for a confirming source. If it's talked about so widely, someone will do it in print. In essence, I agree with Matthew. This is one of the things provided for in the BLP compromise. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/9/21 Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net>: >> >>> The distinction to be made is between information about a person, and >>> popularly reported claims about the person. It needs to be made clear >>> that reporting about a controversy is not identical to reporting about >>> the person. It's disingenuous to pretend that a very public controversy >>> doesn't exist. Rather than suppressing anything about the controversy we >>> would do better to find the appropriate language for discussing it >>> neutrally. >>> >>> It's much easier to permeate a community with a series of doctrinaire >>> rules than with a grasp of the underlying principles. >>> >> >> The key point with that, in general, is "undue weight" - it is easy to >> give too much weight to a controversy. In this case, though, the >> controversy is so high profile and it is pretty much the only thing >> the public know about this person that the due weight is very high. >> > But if the only substance to the controversy is rumour, and speculative > discussion of rumours, we don't need either BLP or NPOV to work to > exclude it or cut it back to a bare statement. So I agree with geni. I > have never heard of this idea of giving weight to public conceptions or > misconceptions. (Time to check up on how many urban myths we have. I'm > glad to see that [[tulip mania]], a topic constantly referenced in the > newspapers at the present, does sound the cautious note: "Many modern > scholars believe that the mania was not as extraordinary as Mackay > described, with some arguing that the price changes may not have > constituted a bubble." That one has been running since the 1840s. > Pretty much the only thing the public know about tulips in the 17th > century is that it was a bubble.) > > Charles > > > > Charles > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania#cite_note-5> > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l