Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Kent Hovind/archive1
Reiteration of NPOV Dispute
[edit]Thank you for opening this review. I wanted to reiterate here, what I have stated on the Kent Hovind Talk page. Specifically, the general "tone" violates in my estimation the WP policy to that effect here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone -
"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." (emphasis mine)