Talk:Bush administration drastically cuts penalties sought for in tobacco trial from $130 billion to $10 billion

I'm marking this as NPOV. Title and content need to be modified before it is published. --Mrmiscellanious 15:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * agreed, although subject matter is important. I will work on it. Paulrevere2005 17:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok; how's it look now? I suppose the last paragraph could be taken out, but I think since the NYTimes story mentions the skull thing that it's acceptable and even adds a bit of depth to the story,imo. Paulrevere2005 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! :) NGerda 17:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good enough to me, removing NPOV tag. --Mrmiscellanious 20:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't NPOV
This isn't even remotely neutral. There are specifically five items from the source articles that should be included or expanded upon. If reading these five items leaves you squirming over how drastically the voice of the article changes, then we can consider the case closed, and reappend the NPOV until a more honest solution can be found. I'm holding off on edits for awhile, to encourage discussion and consensus.

-"The department has vigorously defended the decision, denying political motives and saying the $10 billion reflected an effort to arrive at a figure that would comply with an adverse decision from an appellate court this year that some officials said sharply limited the types of sanctions the department could seek. [NYT]"

-"In light of the appellate court ruling, he said, 'a decision was made by the department that the best argument for the government to make was one that would preserve credibility in the government's case with the trial judge, would result in a favorable decision from the trial judge and would result in a trial court decision sustainable upon appeal.' [NYT]"

-"One of the government's own witnesses had proposed a 25-year nationwide cessation program that would have cost the industry $130 billion. [Yahoo]"

-"Justice Department spokesman Kevin Madden would not comment on the report. "The government made a decision to offer an argument that was based on the merits of the case and that would be sustainable on appeal," he said. [Yahoo]"

-"Justice Department officials said the revised penalty was necessary to meet the standards of the civil racketeering law under which the case was filed in 1999. [Yahoo]"

---24.5.202.234 17:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)