Talk:Larry Agran

POV needs to be fixed here...very biased in favor of Agran
Agreed? Ajw522 (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag as you did not follow with the required steps for its use as described at Template:POV, specifically "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Larry Agran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011155032/http://www.ci.irvine.ca.us/council/bios/larry_agran.asp to http://www.ci.irvine.ca.us/council/bios/larry_agran.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011155032/http://www.ci.irvine.ca.us/council/bios/larry_agran.asp to http://www.ci.irvine.ca.us/council/bios/larry_agran.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002211702/http://archives.cjr.org/year/92/2/opinion.asp to http://archives.cjr.org/year/92/2/opinion.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View need to be Reviewed
This article has seen a significant number of edits in a short timespan that coincides with the declaration of Candidacy of the article's subject. Many of these edits provide good references but use words and phrases that are not from a neutral standpoint and seek cast the subject in a light that is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Those sections referring the Irvine Great Park, in particular, seem to be intent on erasing the documented history of controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.230.103 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, what should be changed in the OC Great Park section, specifically? Chshmartutyun (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

For help with understanding maintenance templates please refer to WP:WTRMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rearete (talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

After reading the article the relevant policies seem to be (WP:ADVOCACY) and (WP:NPOV). Important suggestions and guidelines editors should review are: (WP:WORDS) with emphases on (WP:PUFF), (MOS:SCAREQUOTES), and (WP:EDITORIALIZING). Rearete (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of all of those guidelines. Please advise what should actually be modified, not general guidance. Otherwise remove the claim of lack of neutrality. Chshmartutyun (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed some of the verbiage and peacock terms. It still has a promotional feel to it, and I fear my work may have just hidden that a little better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC).

Anonymous Edits Have Changed Language to Exact Opposite of Sources
As of March 25, 2021, I noticed several changes that changed verbiage to be exact opposite of previous verbiage, changing the conclusions from the sources to the exact opposite. I have reverted to previous versions. Chshmartutyun (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)