Much of the content of this article looks as though it was written to present Grisez in as favorable a light as possible - it's material that in effect states that Grisez's views are correct and that his work is wonderful. Perhaps they are and perhaps it is, but a neutral encyclopedia shouldn't be implying that even if it happens to be true. Note that I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately introducing bias here - only stating that frankly it comes across as strongly biased. I'm therefore reducing this article down to a bare minimum of content, which seems the best option in terms of both BLP and NPOV. Hopefully in future the article can be rebuilt, using proper secondary sources. UserVOBO (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I am leaving Wikipedia for good, but I'd like to note (in this, my final edit ever) that I am glad that I reverted UserVOBO's vandalism. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- UserVOBO's edits were done according to WP policies - they removed non-WP:RSed and WP:PEACOCK material (and were thus not WP:VANDALISM). AV3000 (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
