Talk:Asbestos bankruptcy trusts

Point of view issues
This article takes a clear point of view. The article should be revised for neutrality and balance, with the addition of sources for the claims presented.


 * Each and every word is properly sourced and accurately represents the facts as presented. The fact is that the reality around asbestos bankruptcy trusts is just really bad and is not the duty of Wikipedia to sugarcoat topics for readers. That said, give me some suggestions on new material to add that will make this less POV and I will give them careful consideration. Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I will work on finding more sources too.Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just the lack of sourcing that is an issue. This article has a clear editorial slant. See Neutral point of view. The bias is not supported by sources, but even if it were it would be inappropriate to present a biased article. Is it correct to infer that you have a connection to this issue, perhaps a professional connection? Arllaw (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I just want the article to reflect the facts as the reliable sources state them. I have no connection to the topic, professional or otherwise. My only interest is intellectual.Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, we should focus on concrete issues. That is the on,y way we can move forward productively.Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the POV tag per the appropriate policy. If you want to re-add it you are going to have to provide specifics. Thanks.Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And I will work with you on those specific objections in good faith. :-)Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from removing the tag until the serious POV issues are resolved. It's appropriately placed. Arllaw (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please explain your specific objections. Policy clearly states that merely asserting POV is not enough to add this tag and that it may be taken down if no other allegations belong not being NPOV are made.Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, state your specific objections and I will work with to fix them. I will do it in a friendly way too. But it has to be done according to policy.Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from inappropriate tag removals. Thanks. If I were to start tagging the problematic claims in the article, there would be a serious over-tagging issue in a relatively short article. Perhaps you could start by rendering neutral and supporting with references your various unsourced claims about plaintiffs' lawyers. Arllaw (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire article is properly sourced. What unsourced claims about trial lawyers are you talking about? Provide a specific example and I will fix it immediately.Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read this and this. It clearly says to remove POV tags when "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. You are trying to drive-by tag this article.Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You don’t need to tag the article for every NPOV problem you see. But you do need to explain your specific objections. You can do that here on the talk page and we can create a better article together.Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)