I did enter into a particular dispute about calling someone a
"conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence of their BLP article, but
after doing so, I mentioned it to my partner, and they pointed out other
examples of neutrality being disregarded under the excuse of
verifiability. This missive
Are you talking about anything concrete or specific? Otherwise, it seems
like you are recognizing openly known tensions that all editors of good
faith (which is pretty much all editors) try to negotiate with a spirit of
openness and collegiality. Though sometimes we don't live up to that ideal.
(I
Reading the neutral point of view policy page it's plain to see that we
should never, in wikivoice, call subjects of articles disparaging names.
Even if it has been repeatedly used to describe the subject of the
article, even if the sources are reliable sources, Wikipedia must remain
neutral.
