Talk:Eminent Victorians

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV issues[edit]

Without any citations at all, this article declares things like "Although Arnold was revered at the time, in retrospect his approach can only be seen as very damaging." and "tried to cast Florence Nightingale as a villain who ruined people with her domination and industry, but her outstanding achievements and humility shine through". Words like fascinating, "particularly poignant", humanizing, etc. aren't appropriate outside of citations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article should be rewritten so that it only provides a précis of the book, and excludes any opinions on Strachey. 222.154.167.208 (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this more as an issue of not enough sources, as opposed to neutrality. But, sources would be good. --RossF18 (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary is an accurate reflection of Strachey's work. All the POV comes from Strachey as anyone who reads the book and the (now) referenced reviews will see. Motmit (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the changes. However there are most certainly still problems: for example "Strachey tried to cast Florence Nightingale as a villain who ruined people with her domination and industry, but her outstanding achievements and humility shine through". This kind of thing definitely needs sourcing. Tameamseo (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no response, I intend to go ahead with removing this kind of problematic material. Tameamseo (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the work? If so please apply your critical insight to improve the wording rather than remove what limited summarisation there is.Motmit (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motmit. It would not be appropriate for me to "apply my critical insight" and interpretations on / of the work. They are unimportant in this article, as indeed are yours or any other Wikipedia user's: what matters is what reliable third-party sources say. Subjective material such as "Strachey tried to cast Florence Nightingale as a villain who ruined people with her domination and industry, but her outstanding achievements and humility shine through" need to be referenced to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and to follow WP:V and WP:NPOV. This kind of thing is not at all suitable for a Wikipedia article unless references can be found and it can be made NPOV. Tameamseo (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]