While words like allegedly should be avoided it is even worse to word a proposition by it is Instead you should write like Whoandwho suggested that yck C Dorvaq thank you for the pointer where I see Newspapers for instance almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal  Agreed I use alleged whenever writing about someone where crimes have been charged but not yet proven in a court of law  Perhaps what Im trying to ask is more of a commonsense question to which the answer is so obvious that no one has thought to incorporate it in a policy or guideline here  Trying again Once an accused criminal is convicted in a court of law is it not both inappropriate and biased to insist on using the word alleged when writing about the charges of which hes been convicted  Maybe someone has a pointer to an old discussion or arbitration about this  It seems that it must have come up in the past   Im pretty sure there is no discussion involving the generic use of allege or any derivative thereof specific to beforeandafter trials  However there has been many discussions of this sort on individual article pages involving criminals But most of these discussions have been initiated by either anonymous users or users who contribute very little to Wikipedia besides the article in question  Perhaps your best bet would to start there unless someone else can provide you with something more informativeAnyhow I dont believe this needs to be incorporated into policyguideline beyond how the word has already been treated  In terms of law to allege is to present without proof or without first proving  Therefore to state the convicted crime of an offender as an allegation is inherently contradictory Wikipedia is dedicated to quality and integrity  anything contradictory fails on those two points but thats my opinion   talk Ah that last paragraph hits the nail on the head thanks  Nothing like logic to prove a point  I came upon the Megan Kanka article by chance and I remember the case quite well  It really irked me after removing all the allegeds and cleaning up the article to find an old entry on the Talk page stating He argues that he was wrongfully convicted if he admitted to the allegations they wouldnt be alleged but he hasnt so therefore theyre alleged and hes the alleged killer  Arrgh  Thanks again   

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
While words like allegedly should be avoided it is even worse to word a proposition by it is Instead you should write like Whoandwho suggested that yck C Dorvaq thank you for the pointer where I see Newspapers for instance almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal  Agreed I use alleged whenever writing about someone where crimes have been charged but not yet proven in a court of law  Perhaps what Im trying to ask is more of a commonsense question to which the answer is so obvious that no one has thought to incorporate it in a policy or guideline here  Trying again Once an accused criminal is convicted in a court of law is it not both inappropriate and biased to insist on using the word alleged when writing about the charges of which hes been convicted  Maybe someone has a pointer to an old discussion or arbitration about this  It seems that it must have come up in the past   Im pretty sure there is no discussion involving the generic use of allege or any derivative thereof specific to beforeandafter trials  However there has been many discussions of this sort on individual article pages involving criminals But most of these discussions have been initiated by either anonymous users or users who contribute very little to Wikipedia besides the article in question  Perhaps your best bet would to start there unless someone else can provide you with something more informativeAnyhow I dont believe this needs to be incorporated into policyguideline beyond how the word has already been treated  In terms of law to allege is to present without proof or without first proving  Therefore to state the convicted crime of an offender as an allegation is inherently contradictory Wikipedia is dedicated to quality and integrity  anything contradictory fails on those two points but thats my opinion   talk Ah that last paragraph hits the nail on the head thanks  Nothing like logic to prove a point  I came upon the Megan Kanka article by chance and I remember the case quite well  It really irked me after removing all the allegeds and cleaning up the article to find an old entry on the Talk page stating He argues that he was wrongfully convicted if he admitted to the allegations they wouldnt be alleged but he hasnt so therefore theyre alleged and hes the alleged killer  Arrgh  Thanks again   

