Talk:Gerald Hannon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

The section on the conflict between Hannon, Steed and Bird clerly takes Hannon's POV. It needs to be made NPOV. Homey 21:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It does no such thing. I wrote almost everything in the article, and I have no way whatsoever of knowing Hannon's POV on the matter. Bearcat 11:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon reversions

1. According to all existing sources, Claire Hoy's reports on the Body Politic controversy were published in the Toronto Sun, not the Toronto Star. If you're sure he was with the Star, then show some proof that all of the other sources are wrong. Wikipedia's goal is verifiability; even if something is factually wrong we have to back up the change with sources, and at this point all the sources on the Hannon controversy say Hoy was with the Sun at the time.
2. Not a single one of the arrested men in Project Guardian was found guilty on the child pornography charges. Several were found guilty of other offenses such as prostitution or drug possession, but there was no child pornography. You will not conflate the guilty verdicts with the non-existent child pornography by falsely implying that only 30 of the men were acquitted on the pornography charges; they were all acquitted on the porn charges and 12 were found guilty of other things that had nothing to do with porn. Wikipedia is required to be accurate and these are two separate issues. The existing description is to stand as written.
3. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV rule requires that we describe Hannon's work as what it is, and not as what some people think of him even if they've been factually and verifiably proven wrong. The article will not describe him as an endorser of pedophilia or even as a person "widely perceived" as one; it's a verifiable fact that he isn't one, and it constitutes libel to even imply otherwise.

NPOV does not mean we have to give all subjective opinions equal credibility; it means we report the actual known facts. Bearcat 00:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)