Talk:David Petraeus/POV issues on talk page

message: (This topic has been moved to its own subpage. It is a current topic and is being moved due to its great length.)--JoeFriday (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Becksguy, this is an RFC for this article itself. If you have a personal disagreement with JoeFriday's past edits, then please post a seperate RFC. Revolutionaryluddite 03:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for pointing that out. I fixed it by creating a separate section. I don't wish to start a RfC as I don't think the issue has risen to that level, however, I felt it needed to be mentioned as it stood out to fresh eyes. As to the personal disagreement:  It's neither personal nor a disagreement with JoeFriday. I simply observed what I believe to be POV issues and commented on them as an otherwise uninvolved editor.  Reliable sources are those with a structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight, but where a source is positioned on the political spectrum is not one of the criteria. A source from the left or right can be a reliable source, or not, depending. But to use semantically loaded terms for a source has a tendency to create assumptions in the readers mind that may have nothing to do with it's reliability. I understand that it can be hard to lay aside one's POV when editing here, especially in contentious subjects/articles, but we all have to do our best to observe NPOV. And sometimes an independent observation can be helpful in doing that. Thank you.  — Becksguy 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it is appropriate to note that some comments have veered away from the topic at hand into a more general expression of POV. --Marvin Diode 14:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Becksguy, JoeFriday's comments seem- to me, at least- to be pointing out that the Press Service has a extremely strong ideological bias, a history of sensationalism, and a history of factual issues. Revolutionaryluddite 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you consider, in the same vein as this debate,  or  or  to be reilable sources for the Barbara Boxer or Harry Reid articles? Revolutionaryluddite 20:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please remain civil. Revolutionaryluddite 02:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain why you are mentioning  the page on civility. Do you object to something I said? What do you object to, and why? Thanks in advance. Dlabtot 02:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pejoratively labeling another user's comments "verbiage" and "a smokescreen" is not civil. Revolutionaryluddite 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word verbiage is not pejorative; it's about as neutral as a term can get.  I do stand by my opinion that it is difficult to get a sense of the RfC consensus because of excessive and repetitive commentary from a couple of editors. I certainly do not mean to inflame passions or hurt feelings by saying so, but simply to work towards a better discussion.  Dlabtot 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mean to assume bad faith on your part. And there's no point in starting a meta-arguement over what the definition of 'civilty' is. Revolutionaryluddite 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I just think that this whole 'POV issues on talk page' section has gotten off topic. Revolutionaryluddite 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't know that that'll help; and I'm not too comfortable moving stuff around on talk pages.  I'd really like to just sit back and see how the RfC turns out. Dlabtot 03:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)