" 
 :::""a minority view among scholars in the field"" and this is completely relevant how? Given that no one in their right mind argues that some 90% of academics (i.e., ""scholars"") are strongly left-leaning, you've got a blatant universe of biased observations. The only way to accurately analyze that would be to do a study of reasonably evenly balanced scholars. It's amazing how it's somehow important to have equal representation across a vast array of cultural and social patterns... excepting political views. The hypocrisy it takes to have that viewpoint, that equality only matters where some people want it to matter  e.g., ""except for political views""  is nothing short of mind-boggling.   
 I specifically removed some explicit and irrelevant uses of the identifier ""conservative""  if you're not going to expressly identify expressions and people as ""liberal"" then it's hardly unbiased to expressly identify conservatives in most cases. I seem to recall a specific rule regarding overt bias in wiki entries... Identifying one without identifying the other, in places where the identification isn't relevant to the specific discussion of the instant (such as noting ""universal condemnation from scholars"", including ""many conservatives"", quietly ignoring the fact that most of the ""universal"" scholars in question are blatantly left-leaning, and then on top claiming far more support from known conservatives than is even called for by the evidence presented) is just so ridiculously biased it's pitiful, and is the sort of thing that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Either identify them all or don't identify them, and let the reader figure out where their politics dwell.  "