Blacktrance
June 2012
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Classical liberalism appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. In particular, your deletion of elements of content from a reliable source, while casually ignoring other elements of content from that same source. cf: WP:RS Fifelfoo (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- The content I deleted does not abide by neutral point of view.
- You might want to learn to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~ like so. NPOV specifies that articles follow the preponderance of scholarly views on scholarly matters. The paragraphs you deleted were sourced to a scholarly source that provided information for paragraphs you didn't delete. How can a scholar's text provide the preponderance view point in some paragraphs, but not in other paragraphs? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the difficulty with a scholarly text providing some mainstream and some heterodox viewpoints. It's not uncommon. In any case, large portions of the source are very much not NPOV and misrepresent classical liberalism. Blacktrance (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- The correct way to proceed here is to start a section on the talk page of the article, cite your references for what the orthodox view of the research subject is (field reviews and literature reviews are preferred here), and make the case. If the discussion with other editors stalls, or reaches a point where a third opinion is necessary on a source or evaluation, take the discussion to a content noticeboard. But start with discussion, and note the sources you rely upon for your argument. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the difficulty with a scholarly text providing some mainstream and some heterodox viewpoints. It's not uncommon. In any case, large portions of the source are very much not NPOV and misrepresent classical liberalism. Blacktrance (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to learn to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~ like so. NPOV specifies that articles follow the preponderance of scholarly views on scholarly matters. The paragraphs you deleted were sourced to a scholarly source that provided information for paragraphs you didn't delete. How can a scholar's text provide the preponderance view point in some paragraphs, but not in other paragraphs? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted your edit on Ronald Bailey but when I checked the sources I found you were correct and libertarian is supported so I self reverted my revert, apologies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)