I am editing a biography on a living person: Eric Lerner, whose work is controversial, but I feel that a number of editors are trying to discredit him (they claim NPOV).

For example, editors have remove his writing awards, replaced positive reviews with negative reviews, and labelled his work as "pseudoscience" (with no verifiable source whatsoever).

I have based all my information on many sources, including the subject, the subject's Web site, his company biography, article biographies, press releases, etc.

A number of editors reject some of the information as unreliable, or reword it in a way which, which I feel tends to discredit the subject. I need help finding a balance.

EXAMPLE

I've labelled Eric Lerner a "plasma physicist", yet others write "he has been described as a plasma physicist", or remove the label altogether. I feel this implies he is not really a plasma physicist.

*I have presented three sources labelling him as a plasma physicist. *He works in a company which describes itself as plasma physics company *He is the author of several peer-reviewed articles on plasma physics.

Other editors argued that because he has only a B.A. in physics (rather than a doctorate), in their minds, he does not count as a physicist. Or they do no consider his work meaningful. No sources have been presented.

Any advice?

Regards, Ian Tresman