`  :Can I ask a question. If the NPOV policy is interpreted as inflexibly as so many wikipedians want to (often when it suits their purposes - not making an accusation here), how can we basically say that Menzies' views are very much his own and not supported by anyone with historical authority? I'm not saying we have to say ``he is a crackpot``, but really you can't pretend to be ``neutral`` if there is clear evidence that something is wrong, flawed, unreliable, etc.  `