Talk:Parents' Rights Coalition

NPOV
Doesn't this article seem a bit biased towards the coalition itself? One (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag for the following reason: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." See WP:DRIVEBY.


 * Therefore, should anyone wish to tag the article again, consideration should be given to the above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Except I addressed the issue I tagged it for. One (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where? Where did you "point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"?  Nowhere.  Therefore I am removing the tag again, per wiki policy stated above.  Simply comply with the policy and tag can stay up. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did, by stating that I put up the disputed-neutrality tag due to the article being seemingly biased towards the Coalition's viewpoint. One (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted this page to the slightly more neutral version as of 17:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC) and removed some unsourced content. While basic details about the organisation are alright, the previous text made contentious and slanderous accusations and presented them as established fact. This is totally inappropriate for a Wikipedia article unless they're adequately supported with multiple, reliable, independent sources. There are plenty of policies and guidelines on this. – Steel 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice work. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Camenker's vandalism and got rid of the sentence, "The primary mission of the Parents Rights Coalition is removing any and all support for homosexuals by Massachusetts residents," which seemed NPOV to me. That may actually be their mission though, so if someone can cite that you can add it back in. --Alexc3 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, all, I just reworked it. I believe I have removed all POV.  And I also believe it just plain reads a lot better. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)