figures, this is too overt for wikipedians. you'd have to add a section "Marxist uses" under the relevant page and then you could spew hinduvata stuff there
Any historian or theorist or really anyone who pretends to be neutral and not have a bias is either an ignorant fool who doesn't understand the position from which they are speaking, or they're lying to you by trying to sell the idea that their ideological position is natural and neutral. Even when you present "Just the facts" you have to curate your sources and decide which sources you consider legitimate, what parts of those sources you present, and what context you present them in. It's bias all the way down.
is this on a talk page? it isn't NPOV
IDK what npov means but this section got removed you can check the edit history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
figures, this is too overt for wikipedians. you'd have to add a section "Marxist uses" under the relevant page and then you could spew hinduvata stuff there
the page actually does have a section on Marxist historiography and it was fine lol
deleted by creator
Any historian or theorist or really anyone who pretends to be neutral and not have a bias is either an ignorant fool who doesn't understand the position from which they are speaking, or they're lying to you by trying to sell the idea that their ideological position is natural and neutral. Even when you present "Just the facts" you have to curate your sources and decide which sources you consider legitimate, what parts of those sources you present, and what context you present them in. It's bias all the way down.