Talk:Robin Camp

NPOV concerns
Previous versions of this article included scholarly opinion (cited in the Globe and Mail) which put his comments in context. An editor removed them completely I believe because they didn't present Camp in a purely negative light. Wikipedia is supposed to permit a neutral point of view which can include differing perspectives. I'd ask that editor to avoid wholesale removal of well cited, reliable source material just because they feel like it.198.23.5.72 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I wrote this, an editor had removed most of the detail that provides some context, only to add that the comments were providing by someone who was paid by Camp.  Absent of this content, there is NO context for his comments or even a counterpoint.  I've restore it.  This is a BLP and the editor has repeatedly suppressed this content citing weight, despite the article presenting paragraph after paragraph of criticism.  Before reverting again, please discuss.198.23.5.29 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What is your issue with adding that Cossman was paid by Camp and then testified on his behalf? Don't you think that's relevant information? Please also see WP:WEIGHT. A full paragraph in his defense from a single article is excessive detail, as no other source on the page provides that much detail. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no weight issue in my view. This is the ONLY content in the article that puts his comments in context.  I think you're too close to this, perhaps an example of WP:OWN  There should be two criteria 1) Is the content reliable, and 2) is it relevant.  Weight is irrelevant (not that it necessarily applies here anyway) if the information makes the article better and clearer as to what happened.  I also have seriously BLP concerns.  As written, the article presents only one point of view - that Robin Camp did a bad thing.  That violated NPOV despite well sourced content you continually remove.198.23.5.29 (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you removing that Cossman was paid by Camp? It's in the citation and it's relevant to the fact that she later defended him at the inquiry. Just so you know, using multiple IPs can be considered sock puppetry, which is against Wikipedia rules. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't suggested I'm more than one editor so that's pretty empty threat and not an example of good faith. I'll revert your edit but include that Camp paid for her views. That should be enough for a compromise unless you really feel that no context or dissenting views are permitted and then we can take it to BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.72 (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)