Can the Page be titled "The Bivings Group" as that is the company name and the other "The Bivings Group" redirect page deleted?
- I'd rather leave it the way it is. Even though they do this, if they were listed alphabetically in the phone book, their name would appear under "B" and not "T." The current solution isn't 100% optimum, but I think it's close enough. The main thing is that someone who visits SourceWatch will be able to find the article easily, whether they search for "Bivings Group" or "The Bivings Group." --Sheldon Rampton 13:59, 21 May 2004 (EDT)
As for removing that comment about the fact that they couldn't write their own letters, in general I would say try to avoid comments that sound like their taking a piss at someone. While you can cite OTHER people and their comments, all text that coems from SourceWatch contributors should be as impartial as possible.
Just so that it's clear why I think that the statement or something like it should be left in: it is the height of irony IMO, that, as the previous paragraph stated, GOP Teamleader was created "to give more than 90,000 Republican activists information on contacting local radio stations and newspapers to disseminate President Bush's and Republicans' views" - at a cost of $60,000 no less - yet Bivings had to write these letters themselves. Where was that grassroots support? Kinda reminds me of a recent election.
I agree its the height of irony, but thats not the point here. There's demopedia and dkosopedia that feature a liberal/progressive slant on many of the same topics that we cover (albeit that they're much, much smaller and personally I think of dubious writing). The difference between our articles and theres is the fact that we are almost completely impartial, simply stating connections and using quotes from other sources.
Not to put too fine a point on it but one can find subjective comments throughout Dininfopedia articles and at similar sites such as Lobby Watch. Sometimes it's unavoidable and helps in explanation, and if it's just a simple comment or two can convey meaning better than if not spoken. Sometimes taking a bland non-stand can confuse readers and removes the sence of the importance of a point. In the case of the comment discussed it is an obvious fact based on the context - therefore a charge of bias doesn't hold up. Just my opinion.
On balance I agree with SiberioS on this one. While SourceWatch hasn't adopted the "neutral point of view" approach of Wikipedia (preferring a 'fair and accurate' standard) there's a line (albeit subjective) between an article that has a point and one that is trying to push a point a little too hard. If the evidence is strong - as it seems to be in this instance - there is usually little need for editorialising. Readers will be able to get the significance of the point being made. And yes, there are plenty of articles in D that need some tidying up. cheers--Bob Burton 23:41, 22 Dec 2004 (EST)