Some people are morons. You can't say that outright, but leave the third party (non-OR) data in there to imply it.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
However, the negative reviews should adhere to WP:UNDUE; the article shouldn't exist solely to document the negative side of his work. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If negative reviews are well-sourced (in the sense of WP:V and WP:RS) and reflect the mainstream scientific view, there is absolutely no problem with including references to them and quotations from them. WP:UNDUE would be more of a concern if the reviews, while passing WP:RS, reflect fringe or marginal views. Nsk92 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Negative reviews themselves are not a BLP violation, as they are a critique of a writer's works. The reviews however should adhere to WP:UNDUE as stated above just to have the review there to criticize the subject. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, reviews are one of the things that prevent pages becoming ads. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Include it. The guy is wrong, since the reviews are WP:RSs, it doesn't violate BLP. Pie is good(Apple is the best) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
BLP is not here to prevent reliable sources from stating their opinion and we can present any such negativity in a NPOV manner. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Disagreement is not the same as defamation. If reliable sources disagree with this person's views, they should be included. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
There's BLP and there's NPOV. Eman235/talk 04:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
