`  :::Sources don't have any obligation to be NPOV. Just because a source says he has been ``disgraced`` or ``Discredited`` doesn't mean it's a POV word. Look at the Michael Richards article for example. You won't find the word ``racist`` there even though what he said was racist you simply see ``racial epithets`` which is neutral. It doesn't claim he's racist even though he may be and even though the sources may claim he is. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral even when citing non-neutral sources. Wikipedia can't for example cite a source that says Hitler was a 'very evil man`` simply because it's POV. Even if the source is right, It's still POV. ``Disputed`` isn't a ``weasle word``. It's a NPOV alternative to ``Discredited``.  `