User talk:47.146.39.81

January 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, you may be blocked from editing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * How is stating that the content/source cited violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy a violation of Wikipedias neutral point of view policy? The entire section is biased, and a personal analysis of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.146.39.81 (talk • contribs) 20:58, January 7, 2019 (UTC)


 * It does not violate WP:NPOV. Multiple reliable sources discuss this element, so it is not "a personal analysis". That would mean an editor writing their own thoughts about the movie. Topics like this will sometimes have retrospective critiques. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I am confused how these sources can be considered reliable. The first two are listed under "Literary Criticism", and the last source is a New York Times opinion article. This would seemingly break the "Avoid stating opinions as facts" principle, under WP:NPOV. Secondly, I would argue it is in violation of the "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" principle as well.