Talk:$1,000 reward offered for answer from US President

NPOV
The articles seems biased, without all sides of the story, some gop or unbiased sources would really help it out.--Ryan524 06:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I put in scott mclellan, the spokesman for the president. that's the best i could find.


 * the problem is no one in the administration is addressing this. that's what this is all about: people are trying to ask them what their pov is. Kevin Baastalk 06:43, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)


 * Don't you think Scott Mc's quote is sufficient to balance it out? - Borofkin 06:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Borofkin. The content is pretty balanced now. I feel, however, that the inclusion of the article itself is a form of editorial bias. Its selective attention. I suppose this is unavoidable.
 * Remember, the article is not about how the Administration is not answering questions. It is about how Democrats.com has offered $1000 for anyone who can get the Administration to answer the question. Democrats.com is clearly POV, but the article isn't. - Borofkin 06:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty simple story to me. Democrats.com is saying that the Administration is not responding to this question. The administration spokesman is quoted explaining why the Administration feels that it doesn't need to respond. More viewpoints wouldn't hurt the article, but I don't think it is POV as it stands. I support removal of the NPOV tag. - Borofkin 06:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well i removed it the first time and got reverted, so i think someone else should be the next to remove it. Kevin Baastalk 06:53, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Suggest removal of 'simple' under question - this makes it sound less sarcastic, more neutral. Also, can someone with power possibly put 'US president' in the headline? ClareWhite 16:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You have the power, Clare :-). Just click the link "move" at the top of the page and enter the new title (mind the capitalization -- only US President should probably be capitalized).--Eloquence 16:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Woohoo! Well, look at that! Oh, there's no stopping me now... Thanks :) ClareWhite 08:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)