Talk:Harry Carmean

Untitled
I have no doubt that someone with interest in Carmean created this informational page, otherwise it probably wouldn't have been created. As far as "neutrality" is concerned, the page consists of a concise biographical summation of Carmean's history as an artist. I don't pick up on any persuasive language in the text. It seems to be fairly dry, if overtly descriptive, and suggests a cultivated reading of the artist's work. There are, perhaps, a few adjectives that suggest a sympathetic and non-critical reading of Carmean's work, but I would be more inclined to bring into question a biographical text that is unnecessarily critical. A biography is intrinsically a sympathetic and, frankly, non-neutral text. Writing a biography requires invested interest of some sort. "Neutrality" is an extremely subjective critique since all language is fundamentally non-neutral. There don't seem to be an overwhelming agendas presented within the Carmean Wiki page. Arthistoryguy (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, folks, someone really did argue above that the article is neutral because neutrality is unattainable. A perfect example of stringing together words for persuasive effect, with disregard for logic. —66.87.130.182 (talk)

WP:NPOV / WP:COI
This article presently fails to present its subject neutrally. And, I rather suspect that it was written with a conflict of interest, by a dealer in Carmean's work. (There is an eBay deal, who sells Carmean's stuff and that of Miriam Slater, and the creator of this article is working on an article about Slater.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 17:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)