Jonathan Walther wrote:
I wasn't obstructing NPOV, but I was obstructing peoples attempts to make sure that the POV shared by myself and countless others was eliminated from the article.
This discussion should probably proceed primarily on the Talk page for the article.
However, it's worth noting that you wrote "Social workers are the foot soldiers of the ivory tower social engineers that governments and big businesses hire to keep people under control."
This is a controversial view, and therefore under NPOV, should have been attributed to someone, as well as worded in a less contentious fashion. Absent attribution, it was perfectly appropriate for people to simply delete it. The Wikipdia itself should make no controversial claims.
In other words, there was no lack of accomodation, just protest that people tried to eliminate what I wrote entirely. If you look at the beginning of the edit war, someone summarily reverted my addition to the article, instead of incorporation my information.
They were right to do so. If you write non-NPOV material, it can and should be deleted on the spot. If someone happens to feel that they can adapt it to be NPOV, that's fine, too. But it is poor judgment to add clearly non-NPOV material and demand that others clean it up.
If warnings are in order, I think they should be directed at those who want to silence any view other than their own.
Well, when I see anyone like that, I'll warn them. But that's not what happened here.
NPOV is a virtue for all of us. The process is not to post competing viewpoints. One test of good Wikipedia writing is that other readers can not guess what your POV is from what you have written.
Our process should not be a competitive process of posting POV claims and daring others to fix them. Our process should be that *each of us* works to present NPOV discussions of all views.
--Jimbo