SonOfYoungwood@aol.com wrote:
Actually, in looking at Jimbo's statement, it doesn't look like he's making an extremely generalized statement. I think he's referring to controversial claims or those that can easily suffer from POV issues. If that's the case, then this shouldn't be extended to all primary sources.
Right, I was making no unusual claim at all.
We have here an alleged controversy that has been written up and interpreted as being important and meaningful without any external verification of that at all, in a BLP situation.
The portion of the article that I removed referred to events that have been covered by no news outlet, no magazine, no book. (At least, so far as the references show.) The very existence of the section is what is at stake. The section consists of what appears to be meticulously referenced one-sided statements about a dispute that this fellow was in, giving the impression of importance and leading the reader to a conclusion that is not contained elsewhere.
Additionally, the section in question is quite controversial, with 4 editors having objected to it, as well as the subject of the biography, who wrote a rather long rebuttal on the talk page.
This is not a novel interpretation of NOR, but a very mainstream one.
--Jimbo