User talk:Buiphubinh

July 2024

Hello, I'm Based5290. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Based5290 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted some of your edits on Incest because they were very poorly edited and generally excessively detailed for the introduction. Most of the information added is already covered in Legality of incest and not in the main Incest article.

Based5290 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my opinion is not neutral I just quote from evidence.In the article there are many opinions that clearly support LGBT, it is difficult to say it is 'neutral' about LGBT.in your second edit in lawrence v teass about me you said 'not related to the article' which is in fact wrong when it is clearly relevant in the next cases section Buiphubinh (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citation you pulled only mentions Lawrence v. Texas once, and it is only to introduce Scalia's dissent and segue into a discussion about incestuous marriages and how they relate to same-sex marriages (which is not what Lawrence is even about). Even more importantly, the header is called "Subsequent Cases": the citation is someone's opinion, not a case from a court interpreting Lawrence.

"I just quote from evidence.In the article there are many opinions that clearly support LGBT, it is difficult to say it is 'neutral' about LGBT."

Those opinions do not violate WP:NPOV because:

They are simple statements of fact. In the case of the majority's opinion, while it is called an opinion, it is the law of the land, and unless Lawrence is overturned, it will be a fact: the government cannot criminalize same-sex sex between consenting adults.
They are attributed opinions (see the entire Reactions section i.e. "Linda Greenhouse, writing in The New York Times, commented: 'In fact, the decision today ... took what had been a state-by-state matter and pronounced a binding national constitutional principle.'")

Your edit has no such attribution and it is written as fact i.e. there is a right to incestuous marriages, which is contested by the court case mentioned right before your edit. Based5290 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]