I classified firstly on the basis of language used. The article on the rock band uses the phase "lethal name like DDT" which indicates an anti-DDT bias on the part of the writer; there is no evidence to suggest that DDT is lethal to humans except in large doses. Without this comment I would have classified it as irrelevant.

You rejected the comment "However, if the media presentation of a particular issue is biased towards one side of that issue, he inevitably appears to be biased towards the other, and consequently attracts criticism from the supporters of that side of the issue." as being NPOV. I have shown that, where media presentation in the issue of DDT is biased towards one side of the issue he appears to be biased towards ther other. So as far as DDT is concerned this statement is NPOV, and you have no reason for removing it other than to try and make the paragraph appear more critical of him. In fact, in trying to characterise his view as being biased you are adding your own POV to the paragraph. And that in the face of a guideline on biographic articles of living people that says you should not do so.

Neigel, John suggested you act as a neutral party in judging this. Now that I have produced evidence to support what I have said he appears to be trying to back away from this. Will you offer your opinion please?