 POV Tag Vandalism David Starr has reposted the POV alert tag on this page I do not feel he ever fully addressed my questions He is asserting that the page shows overwhelming bias in some way  according to him there are only two specific single line instances that he cites of bias on the page both in the bio This does not a biased page makeI have clearly refuted both of these claims at length with no response despite repeated requests from Starr 1 The garbage passage is balanced with an explanation from a Da spokesperson The source is quoted phrase is neutral and source scholar Georg Feuerstein is not in dispute by Starr The mention is crucial because it explains the controversial aspect in first line of lead and period is alluded to in Adidam apologies for controversial earlier behavior and in the numbers of lawsuits news articles and analysis by authorities linked to and discussed in Da page Also further explained by Da himself in Crazy Wisdom section in teaching2 Mention of 1986 breakdownDivine Emergence This is a significant event as attested by Adi Da press Source is not biased all mentions of events are phrased neutrally within basic journalistic standards Balanced with Adi Da selfassessment as personally significant event about which an entire book was written3Undue weight was shown to be unreasonable as each line is short without subjective exposition On balance throughout page all potentially controversial material in every case sourced cited and neutrally phrased is far outweighed by neutral info and Da selfassessment Every potentially controversial mention is carefully contextualized and phrased to reflect source and balanced with an alternate explanation In every case Source disputes1 Gurdjieff Journal no specific instances of bias are alleged by Starr from this source Starr is simply questioning the source without saying why it is an issue Did not address my point that source is only used because it summarizes bio info from Da Rudi and Siddha Yoga accounts No bias is reflected in WP entry no has any been revealed And Starr has failed to show how magazine is biased or selfpublished simply making assertion that it is a competing religious organization which is simply unproven there is no Gurdjieff church or organization2 Lake County News source has been used for other articles Starr only questions it for single mention that he subjectively finds to his dislike the Divine Emergence passage He has not worked to find alternative source that would allow the material about a significant event to remain Source has been found acceptable to all other editors in past months as demonstrated by its repeated use Starr cannot singly enter now and discount source when not showing WP guideline that effectively discounts it only his own subjective analysis of the quality of the contact page on their websiteAll other editors including myself have been involved in give an take on this page making allowances and corrections for each other  even yesterday I made changes to accommodate other editors including Starr I do not feel that Starr is meeting this standard and in particular completely failed to address my repeated specific requests Because of this I am removing the POV tag as vandalism and an attempt to discount page I have requested third party review and perhaps further dispute resolution   

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
 POV Tag Vandalism David Starr has reposted the POV alert tag on this page I do not feel he ever fully addressed my questions He is asserting that the page shows overwhelming bias in some way  according to him there are only two specific single line instances that he cites of bias on the page both in the bio This does not a biased page makeI have clearly refuted both of these claims at length with no response despite repeated requests from Starr 1 The garbage passage is balanced with an explanation from a Da spokesperson The source is quoted phrase is neutral and source scholar Georg Feuerstein is not in dispute by Starr The mention is crucial because it explains the controversial aspect in first line of lead and period is alluded to in Adidam apologies for controversial earlier behavior and in the numbers of lawsuits news articles and analysis by authorities linked to and discussed in Da page Also further explained by Da himself in Crazy Wisdom section in teaching2 Mention of 1986 breakdownDivine Emergence This is a significant event as attested by Adi Da press Source is not biased all mentions of events are phrased neutrally within basic journalistic standards Balanced with Adi Da selfassessment as personally significant event about which an entire book was written3Undue weight was shown to be unreasonable as each line is short without subjective exposition On balance throughout page all potentially controversial material in every case sourced cited and neutrally phrased is far outweighed by neutral info and Da selfassessment Every potentially controversial mention is carefully contextualized and phrased to reflect source and balanced with an alternate explanation In every case Source disputes1 Gurdjieff Journal no specific instances of bias are alleged by Starr from this source Starr is simply questioning the source without saying why it is an issue Did not address my point that source is only used because it summarizes bio info from Da Rudi and Siddha Yoga accounts No bias is reflected in WP entry no has any been revealed And Starr has failed to show how magazine is biased or selfpublished simply making assertion that it is a competing religious organization which is simply unproven there is no Gurdjieff church or organization2 Lake County News source has been used for other articles Starr only questions it for single mention that he subjectively finds to his dislike the Divine Emergence passage He has not worked to find alternative source that would allow the material about a significant event to remain Source has been found acceptable to all other editors in past months as demonstrated by its repeated use Starr cannot singly enter now and discount source when not showing WP guideline that effectively discounts it only his own subjective analysis of the quality of the contact page on their websiteAll other editors including myself have been involved in give an take on this page making allowances and corrections for each other  even yesterday I made changes to accommodate other editors including Starr I do not feel that Starr is meeting this standard and in particular completely failed to address my repeated specific requests Because of this I am removing the POV tag as vandalism and an attempt to discount page I have requested third party review and perhaps further dispute resolution   

