POV

Something I've seen happen quite a bit in Wikipedia is that people interpret any statement that can be perceived as "negative" as bias. In one version of the Michael Jackson article, it read:

"Michael Joseph Jackson'', also known as ''The King of Pop'' and ''Wacko Jacko''...

I changed it so that it read:

"Michael Joseph Jackson'', also known as ''The King of Pop'' and (disparagingly) as ''Wacko Jacko''...

Soon after that, someone changed it back, claiming that they "removed POV" (point of view).

Wikipedia aims at neutrality, and personal point of view does not belong in its articles. This is an admirable goal. But I don't think that the above counts as POV. "Wacko Jacko" is in fact a disparaging term. It is not positive, it is not neutral. His friends do not call him Wacko Jacko. "Hey, Wacko Jacko! Mary and I are going to the movie. Wanna come?" To simply say that he is "also known as Wacko Jacko" implies some degree of neutrality, I think. Compare the two items below:

1. George W. Bush, also known as "Dubya"...
2. George W. Bush, also known as "that asshole"...

The first example simply lists a nickname, neutral in every way. Not so in the second case. It would not show bias or POV to refer the words "that asshole" as "disparaging," even if he were in fact referred to that way by people. In fact, it is the people who refer to the president as "that asshole," and to Michael Jackson as "Wacko Jacko" who are showing bias.

This issue has arisen more recently with the "Straight Pride" article. It begins:

A controversial topic, Straight pride arose as a reaction to and in protest of the Gay Pride movement. Advocates of Straight Pride believe that the "Gay Pride" movement promotes inequality, animosity, and division in society by setting apart gay people as a "special" group. It manifests primarily as marches or rallies.

It goes on from there (and you should read it; it's short), and includes the paragraph:

"Straight pride" rejects the message that gays and lesbians are discriminated against by society or that they lack the same rights and opportunities that heterosexuals do. Most "Straight Pride" adovcates believe that homosexuality is inferior in some manner to heterosexuality. Because the Straight Pride has the appearance of promoting a group (heterosexuals) who do not lack civil rights and who are not discriminated against, one widely-held view is that Straight Pride is a discriminatory movement analagous to White Pride.

The article ends with a list of citations spanning 15 year supporting the notion that "Straight Pride" is in fact an anti-gay movement.

All of the above is true, but someone recently tagged the article with the POV-check template, which adds an official message at the top stating, "This article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy." and stated, "This article is clearly biased," on the Talk page. I ask you, why is it that describing a negative phenomenon in accurate terms shows a lack of neutrality?