I am editing a biography on a living person: Eric Lerner, whose work
is controversial, but I feel that a number of editors are trying to
discredit him (they claim NPOV).
For example, editors have remove his writing awards, replaced
positive reviews with negative reviews, and labelled his work as
"pseudoscience" (with no verifiable source whatsoever).
I have based all my information on many sources, including the
subject, the subject's Web site, his company biography, article
biographies, press releases, etc.
A number of editors reject some of the information as unreliable, or
reword it in a way which, which I feel tends to discredit the
subject. I need help finding a balance.
EXAMPLE
I've labelled Eric Lerner a "plasma physicist", yet others write "he
has been described as a plasma physicist", or remove the label
altogether. I feel this implies he is not really a plasma physicist.
*I have presented three sources labelling him as a plasma physicist.
*He works in a company which describes itself as plasma physics company
*He is the author of several peer-reviewed articles on plasma physics.
Other editors argued that because he has only a B.A. in physics
(rather than a doctorate), in their minds, he does not count as a
physicist. Or they do no consider his work meaningful. No sources
have been presented.
Any advice?
Regards,
Ian Tresman