User talk:76.214.204.207

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Removal of summaries of political positions

I have several responses to your assertion that my addition of policy summaries to the "political position" leads of the articles of three political candidates was arbitrary and in violation of WP:NPOV. From WP:LEAD: "The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points,..." Not only is a 1-2 sentence lead too short, but the current leads of these articles did no summarizing at all! The lead guidelines allow some editorial discretion as to defining "the most important points" without violating NPOV. As for my selections being arbitrary, I attempted in all three cases to hit on the policies that the candidates themselves reference most and those that reliable sources reference most. In addition to conforming to policy, this gives readers the ability to get a quick summary of the "major issues" without having to skim through relatively minor ones like net neutrality and medical marijuana, for example. What I did is perfectly allowable from an NPOV point of view, but if you think I chose bad summary positions I invite you to change them. If you'd like to reply, you can do so here or on my talk page. I'd rather this not spill over into the individual articles' talk pages because I don't want to have the discussion three times, but we can if you'd like. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)