Talk:Richard Sorabji

npov
Hi Malymac: Reading over this page, it looks like some of the assertions you've added recently (diff: ) express opinions that are not neutral about the subject, and don't cite sources (e.g. "He even used one introduction, that to 'Themistius on Physics 4', to attack a deceased dedicatee and promote the work of one of his own students", "often stronger in anecdote than analysis"). I don't want to get involved in editing the page directly, as I have collaborated with Prof. Sorabji on an academic project in the past, and I feel that I have a personal conflict of interest here. But could I draw your attention to Wikipedia policies on Neutral Point of View and Biographies of Living persons, and encourage you to cite sources for these assertions and revise them to write from a neutral point of view? Note in particular from WP:NPOV that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", and from the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Thanks in advance. Olympiodorus (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the quick response (here: ), Malymac – I'm removing the NPOV flag I added to the main page. Olympiodorus (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I need to re-voice my neutrality concern here. Recent changes since previous comments (see diff: ) contain assertions about S.'s work that are either editorializing, unsourced, or appear to imply original research ("woefully inadequate" editions, for example, without citation of a source (has this view been expressed in the critical literature?), and "cavalier attitude to ancient history", which seems like editorializing.) I'd like to encourage Malymac, in continuing work on the article, to avoid commentary without verifiable sources and editorial remarks, and I'd encourage M. also to consider that Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Olympiodorus (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)