From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jay Converse
I just went and looked over the article and I do not see any flagrant Neutral Point of View violations. What the article does is present controversy regarding the subject of the article, and there are links at the bottom, which you keep removing, that corroborate and expand on that.
I echo Jay's words. The first thing I noticed was that the article's talk page was red-linked, meaning it was empty. Usually if there is some controversy surrounding an article, it is debated on the talk page, allowing other editors to provide their input and to get a feel for the history of the debate.
The article itself is doing no more than summarising the sources given as external links. As we cannot (or rather, should not) conduct Original Research, all statements in an article should be sourced, and the article as it stands does that. If you wish to counter what you believe to be falsehoods, you should find some source and quote that.
However, I should note that NPOV doesn't mean that we find one definitive and factual version, it means that we provide different viewpoints within the same article depending on how widely and how validly the differing views are supported.
Rather than blindly reverting to and fro, open a discussion on the talk page and try to come to some compromise wording, or failing that, agree on wording that puts forward both points of view and provides sources to back them up. It would also be helpful if you avoid making allegations of lies and dishonesty - so far as I can see, the article accurately reflects what is stated in the quoted sources.
It might also be wise to seek help from a more experienced editor before continuing.
Peter (Skyring)