Talk:Henry Gravrand

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Neutrality of lead

I am very concerned about the neutrality of the lead. It gives the impression that Gravrand is not credible enough which I am sure several scholars would disagree with. I was also going through the edit history until I came across one dedicated editor by the name of Dougweller who keeps removing reliable sources and replacing them with his POV. A good example is this. Just because he can't find the source does not give him the right to remove it and replace it with his POV. Nobody cares what this dedicated individual thinks. I can see a snippet of the source (JSTOR review) cited by the IP which agrees pretty much with what they wrote. If anyone has a copy of this review I think it be useful to include it for the purposes of neutrality. I am more interested in Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, reliable and verifiable sources than the POV of one dedicated editor. I am going to place the neutrality template on the lead because I don't think it is neutral.178.239.109.146 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It first lists scholars who rely upon Gravrand in their own works. It then mentions some criticisms. I'm not sure how it would help to add more on either side. And of course Peter Mark is not "of Jstor", which suggests to me that whoever added that didn't understand what they were adding, but that's a minor point. If you really think adding one name would make NPOV then so so, but not by reverting me but by citing properly to the original journal. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you seem to be the same editor that I reverted in the link above, just with a different IP address. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]