Sources dont have any obligation to be NPOV Just because a source says he has been disgraced or Discredited doesnt mean its a POV word Look at the Michael Richards article for example You wont find the word racist there even though what he said was racist you simply see racial epithets which is neutral It doesnt claim hes racist even though he may be and even though the sources may claim he is Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral even when citing nonneutral sources Wikipedia cant for example cite a source that says Hitler was a very evil man simply because its POV Even if the source is right Its still POV Disputed isnt a weasle word Its a NPOV alternative to Discredited