13:2113:21, 10 June 2024diffhist+106
Richard Gadd
Obviously, NPOV is in the eye of the beholder. The addition of the information (documented in many sources, including the Guidelines article cited) is the most prominent part of this story; it is not an NPOV violation. Not mentioning it is an NPOV violation.Tags: UndoMobile editMobile web edit
9 June 2024
21:0621:06, 9 June 2024diffhist+397
Richard Gadd
more information on the accused aggressor’s denial of the accusations. Well documented in many sources. I have added (again) the Guardian’s article on the civil suit. Very authoritative. Viva NPOV!Tag: Visual edit
20:5420:54, 16 May 2024diffhist+47
Richard Gadd
Slight edit plus source. There are 2 sides to this story, for the time being. The future may shed light on how much truth is in each version. In the meantime, viva NPOV.Tag: Visual edit