Talk:Criticism of EDO Corporation

Neutral Article?
I agree with the cite at the start of this article. Although the actions seem well-documented (newspaper articles, citations of government papers etc.), the writing itself seems biased toward those making the public protests against EDO. This doesn't strike me as "balanced journalism". Any thoughts from other readers?Raymondwinn 05:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, it needs a lot of work . I will merge it into the EDO Corporation article, we should not have unbalanced "Attack articles". Marokwitz (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Sourced and accurate
I will remove the cite because this page is for 'Criticism' of EDO Corporation' and therefore is the appropriate place for information that is critical.

This page was created after disputes about its content being on the main 'EDO Corporation' page and form one half of a two page solution to the dispute

For balance both pages need to be read as unfortunately EDO Corp editors went to great efforts to remove balance from the original single EDO Corp page.

```scr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statecorporateresearch (talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but unfortunately such a 'solution' is not really considered appropriate on Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:POVFORK; creating a new article, or splitting an article into two, for the main purpose of putting forward two different points of view violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This article and EDO Corporation should really be merged back into one page, if possible; at the moment, having a separate article for 'Criticism of EDO Corporation' just does not look neutral. (To me, it looks like an attempt to hide the criticism and get it off the main page, more than anything else.) Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Terraxos (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Smash EDO web site shouldn't be used as a reference for facts about EDO because of it's heavy bias. Doesn't mean what it says is untrue, simply it has too much of a vested interest to be a reliable source, just like the NSPCC web site was not allowed to be used as a reference for positive changes affected by NSPCC activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.12.253 (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at "Extremist and fringe sources" on Reliable_sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.12.253 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)