Talk:Casey Atwood

Controversy
Unless anyone objects, I am going to remove the "Controversy" section from this article. It's way too POV. -- D -Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 14:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll remain neutral on this. Casey14 18:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the controversy is needed for this to be a useful article. As written, it tends to be rather nitpicky; perhaps it could be more of a summary of the two points of view.  —EncMstr 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Controversy should be removed. It has no place in an encyclopedia article.  It reads to me to be only fan-talk of no real relevance or importance.  Almost all of the drivers in all of Nascar history would have performed better had they been given better equipment or more chances.  It is a part of the sport.  What happens happens.  If Casey acctually were as good as this section of the article implys I'm sure at least one Nascar owner would have noticed.  Besides the article as a whole gives him the due credit for his accomplishments.Andrew Grigg 01:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote to remove the controversy section, per Andrew Grigg's argument. Way too POV, and sounds like a fan's excuse. --Royalbroil 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the section could be rewritten or something similar. There is some good information in the section. Casey14 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Material Sources
Here is just one source I've found: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_10_227/ai_98541174/pg_2 Since the new biography of living persons wants controversial material poorly sourced to be deleted, I will be looking for sources when I get time. Please help source the link I just posted, into the article. Casey14 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)