Talk:Securing Adolescents from Exploitation-Online Act of 2007

NPOV tag
User:Jamesontai tagged the article for NPOV a few minutes after it was created, arguing that "although it is factual, it seems as this article's creation had a political agenda". However, a neutral point of view doesn't have to do with assumed intent, but with the content. I will thus remove the tag. Terjen (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You generally want to ask the user who tagged the article before removing it. I'm putting the article back up and I stand by my comment.  Through your numerous edits I find NPOV issues still and I still believe that the article's creation may be politically driven, so unless you can prove otherwise...  - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs   22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You ask me to prove a negative, regarding my political intent no less. Let's stick to the factual content. Terjen (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously it is politically driven, as are most edits related to political articles. Had Ron Paul voted for it, this probably would have remained a red link for longer. That doesn't mean we can't forget about how the article started and focus on improving it. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-12-07 14:42Z


 * What is meant by "no moving of the page will get rid of that NPOV tag that easily"? I thought the key NPOV problem was the implication that anyone and everyone hosting a wifi needs to monitor activity, when there is no such requirement. Regardless of the reasons why the article was created, it no longer appears to be biased toward one point of view. It's more of a dictionary definition than a substantial article. I don't think the NPOV tag is necessary. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-12-07 17:44Z

Room for Improvement
 - Jameson L. Tai  talk  ♦  contribs   22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting the bill's text into the article.
 * Placing arguments for and against the bill while keeping WP:NPOV
 * Reasons why the two reps voted against the bill.

&mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2007-12-07 14:39Z
 * Reasons why the 409 reps voted for the bill.