Talk:Harold Cardinal

Propaganda piece
This article's pretty POV in the subject's favour. I'll get around to cleaning it up eventually, but if anybody else wants to get to it first, be my guest.

Reply
"Propaganda piece" is a little strong. If there is a slant in the subject's favour, it's pretty limited and innocuous. No sweeping claims have been made. It more or less reads like your standard obituary of a public figure. Writing one or two lines in this forum is an easy way to attempt to discredit someone - i.e. with the resulting tag on the article. Do you have a personal or institutional interest in undermining the credibility of Aboriginal people? What aspects do you find objectionable? What would you add or change?

207.216.241.232 22:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag
I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)