ESSuser1

Welcome!

Hello, ESSuser1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Ysangkok (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Puffery

I did not actually revert any of your contributions, yet. The links in the welcoming template are still relevant though. "World-leading" is just like "world-class", which is mentioned as an example of puffery. I also started a discussion on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, maybe you can comment on views on NPOV there. Thanks. --Ysangkok (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The phrases "world-leading" and "next-generation" are terms used in reference to the technological bases for the facility. As a one-of-a-kind facility in development for more than two decades through contributions by the leading lights in the high-power physics and neutron science communities across the globe, this characterisation is not, to my knowledge, in dispute (see the ESS Technical Design Report contributors list and bibliography for just a sampling of the diversity of contributions to the project). For instance, there is no "competing" facility under construction elsewhere in the world. The European community has come together to build ESS and only ESS. The US and Japan have built their own high-power spallation sources over the last decade, but it is well understood that ESS will go beyond their capabilities (see the citation for the sentence in dispute), and several of the designers of those facilities are now working on ESS. The terms here are not comparable to a term such as "world-class" as they are commonly used--neutrally, when accurate--to position the "generation" and state of development of a specific design or technology. In my opinion, the fact that the facility is considered "world-leading" and "next-generation" is elemental to a neutral description of it. The statement is, however, a bit redundant, and I can see where the tone may come off as promotional so I will revise. Though as a non-neutral contributor I will leave the discussion board open to the community and reserve my comments for this space. Thanks for the interest.--ESSuser1 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)