Talk:Joseph Lowery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] suit?
Looks like something got deleted as it jumps into talking about a lawsuit? don't have time to figure it out and revert
Deleted a few lines that were overtly political. It seems odd to be writing about the public reaction to Lowery's comments when they are only a few hours old. Ambiguous phrases such as "Some say" and "others have commented" are the tools of choice for rumormongers, but in an encylopedia one should at least cite an actual source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.6.155 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
- re: "Some have commented that by abusing the grand opportunity to comment on the life of Coretta King, he demeaned himself and Mrs. King by bringing into his speech a classless political attack."
- The above is still in this article. What is this right-wing horsesh*t? Has Wikipedia now become Fox News? As long as we're using that approach, here goes: "Some have said that Wikipedia has now become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the NeoCon Nazis that rule America."
- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.35.134 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
Just trying to keep it politically unbiased, that's all. Remarks like "Bush supporters were outraged" are irrelevent and juvenile at best. Which Bush supporters are you talking about? Or are you simply generalizing? And how do you know the real reason for their outrage? Can you read minds?
Not only is it slanted, it's poorly written, i.e. "which was directed at helping and America's poor regardless of race." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.6.155 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC).
- If the criticism is included it needs to be more specifically sourced than the weasel phrase "Some conservatives..." It should be very easy at this point to find a reference to a specific right-wing commentator or politician. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 05:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the most current edit. Good work.
I agree. It's refreshing to see an objective point of view result from all the editing.--TrustTruth 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

