User talk:65.39.80.105

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the third time this author has typed in slanted and non-objective material in this article. Note: The above comment refers to reverts of the deletion of several paragraphs of referenced material from the article Farmers Branch, Texas. -- Lawikitejana 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You better believe it..

Reposted from User talk:Lawikitejana: I am tired of your biased slant regarding the immigration measures in Farmers Branch, Texas. I can keep this up as long as you can and I will keep deleting it until you can type something with an objective viewpoint.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.80.105 (talk • contribs) 5 June 2007

The problem is that you refuse to recognize objective text if you don't care for it. As an example, the word "overwhelmingly" is redundant in a sentence that says it passed two to one. Anyone capable of doing the math can see that the measure passed handily. A non-objective statement would make an evaluative judgment such as "sadly," or "absurdly," and no one is doing that. We have written up the controversy as fairly as it can; it's POV editing and non-encyclopedic writing to report it as if it didn't stir up several months of debate. That debate is what made the whole thing notable to begin with.
Also, you may not have stopped to consider that an objective writeup of the controversy — such as the one you keep deleting — can serve to further the point that a sizable contingent of the community favors these measures, by showing how hard they fight to keep them. Most sources I've seen online that favor the measures spend various paragraphs talking about how desperate all these delaying tactics look. So let's just keep an objective reporting of that and let people draw their own conclusions. That's what Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is all about. Lawikitejana 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's more like it

I'll go back and reinstate one change you just made, the substitution of "challenging" for "threatening" and will move the part about the opposition to after the numbers on the vote. That (the word change) is an example of improving the article and removing bias, because "threatening" — not my word, by the way — is very non-neutral. That's all I was looking for. Lawikitejana 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)