Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 

WP:BLPCRIME should it discuss the legitimacy of the court in question?[edit]

(I added this to the talk page last month. A spambot removed it without anyone ever answering the question and deciding whether or not an edit was appropriate. I'm not sure of the protocol here, so I'm asking my question again.) The "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" standard is given in the {WP:BLPCRIME} article. I am curious if this paragraph should include some discussion about the legitimacy of the court of law. Current policy would say that unless the person confessed to the crime, instead of ever saying "John Doe murdered Jane Doe", it should always be "John Doe was convicted of murdering Jane Doe." I am suggesting that it might need to go further and say "John Doe was convicted of murdering Jane Doe by The Court Of Whatever." A whole lot of small town judges operate with very little oversight. Even national courts may be untrustworthy sources when politics gets involved, as seems likely in my opinion when considering cases like the Egypt's judgments on the Muslim Brotherhood. It is hard to say that a court conviction is a sufficient standard for guilt. Should this paragraph be expanded upon to somehow discuss these nuances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AristosM (talkcontribs) 03:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely we would need reliable sources to mention any suspicion of unreliability of a conviction or of unreliability of a court. And generally whether we say "is a murderer" or "was convicted as a murderer" should also be based on the reliable sources. I personally see no need for change to the policy here. The nuances are either in the reliable sources and this can be reflected or they are not in which case this should not be reflected, that would be original research. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 04:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
In some cases, yes. "George Gnarph was a traitor" (positing he lived in a country where some people might view such charges as "show trials" a la Stalin) is a far stronger claim in Wikipedia's voice than "George Gnarph was convicted of treason against Josef Stalin in a 1937 trial". On the other hand, we should also not use Wikipedia's voice to imply doubt just because the trial was in a small-town -- "George Gnarph was convicted of treason in a town of only 1500 population" would be improper IMO. Is there a simple solution to the dichotomy? I wish we could find one. Collect (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
As always, no policy can exclude us from making sound editorial judgements. The policy needs no changes, and if there is an issue in a specific article about weight, attribution, or wording, it can be worked out in talk with other editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)