Michael Snow wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
The problem is BLP being used as a bludgeon to get rid of well-sourced, verifiable, NPOV information because the neutral point of view is negative.
How can the neutral point of view be negative? That's a contradiction in terms.
No, a neutral point of view simply presents the facts in a neutral way without value judgements. Thus, it doesn't try and overcompensate in either direction.
An article may contain negative information, but the presentation must still be neutral.
Right, as I said.
The notion that if only negative information is available, this excuses making the "neutral" point of view negative, is at the root of many of these problems.
No, that's a misunderstanding. Maybe it's a mistake in my clarity, but that's a misunderstanding. See above.
It seems that very few of our contributors have the skill and judgment needed to translate highly unfavorable source material into neutral prose.
This is certainly true. But we also have few administrators, it appears, who can tell the difference between unfavorable source material and point of view issues. It works both ways.
-Jeff