"

 Walking in on the middle of an argument 

Thanks for the message, however the analogy you've chosen is incorrect, when I walk in on an argument then I cannot have heard what has happened before, however on a talk page I can read the whole thing and trace any talk page discussion. When I posted my first question was intentionally dumbed down, as if I didn't know what was going on, then as the replies came in I could respond to them. In terms of NPOV in articles this is how I see it; for example, person A writes and article which contains the phrase ""Scientology is bad"", there is then an article written about Person A, Mr A was born in..., and on..., and live with..., et cetera. Then under his work it says ""He wrote an article saying 'Scientology is Bad'"". I could not in all conscience remove that statement from the article, because the bias is from the speaker not the editor. The gist of the talk page on WP:SCN was that any negative comments which had been quoted accurately but were negative should be ""balanced"" out. And that is not something I could let happen.  "