Talk:U.S. Postal Service cycling team

Untitled
As a huge fan of the Wiki, I am really dissapointed at how biased this article is regarding the issue of US Postal sponsorhip of European sporting events. The article should say "there was controversy" and leave it at that. There is no reason to say that the other side's arguements are "easily refuted" -- especially when many may agree with that side. Postal watch has a good point:

"They raised domestic monopoly rates three times while forcing captive ratepayers to pay more than $50 million to sponsor a European sporting event and then, adding insult to injury, they achieved a negative result."

Just note the controversy and leave it at that. No one cares what your political opinion is.

I removed some of the anti-postalwatch text. This material seemed very non-NPOV, and in fact the article attacked postal watch without even linking it in the external links so readers could take a look for themselves. 12.203.37.90 09:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

merge
I think this page should be merged with the Discovery Channel Pro Cycling team page because they are the same team, just with different sponsors. Aussie King Pin 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the cycling team pages history section gets much more interesting if you keep all the different sponsor names in the same article. Just look at Team CSC for an example of how it can be done.--Per Abrahamsen 08:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, merge it, I hate it when two articles get made just because of a name change.


 * The team is the same, the sponsor changed. My vote is to maintain the two sections with a clear indication in the USPS page that the team history continues to the Discovery channel. A complete history must include the time as the Motorola cycling team as well as the 7-Eleven cycling team prior to 1991.


 * I would have to disagree with the lineage. Motorola and 7-Eleven were separate teams; Postal bore out of Subaru-Montgomery and then Montgomery-Bell, which competed against those teams.  Granted many riders moved between the teams but they're not the same family of teams. Djharrity 13:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, combine the articles. Columns can be added to the chart easily and the riders can be grouped vertically with the associated teams.  The point of Wikipedia is to easily discover the history or knowledge about thing you want to know about.  Frankly, I think there is no clearer way to portray these two, or even four teams.