Talk:Decision Earth

NPOV
Tag up because I think this article is entirely one-sided. 119 00:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with 119. This article seems biased, especially in its wording. -- RegainTheTruth

I'm curious how exactly is this one-sided? If the article is correct and Decision Earth is pseudoscience used by Proctor & Gamble for propaganda, then stating those facts is just being accurate, not one sided.

Re tagged again
Many of the comments may be true, but since they are unsourced they appear to be original research or, worse, biased editorials. I changed one sentence from saying that toxic substances are released when burning waste to "may" because it depends both on the material being burned and in certain cases the type of burning and control of emissions. While the COI of Proctor and Gamble - even unsourced - is evident, so is the bias of the previous editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)