User talk:Cyberg

August 2009
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Natalie Maines, you will be blocked from editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This page uses language that is blatantly biased against Natalie Maines. The adjectives and adverbs are anything but neutral, and the characterizations of the "public's" response to her is completely, utterly one-sided. There were many LIBERAL people who found her actions heroic. This is not mentioned in this piece at all, therefore leaving the impression that there was NOBODY in the world who congratulated her on her outspoken words about Bush and his invasion of Iraq. I personally sent her several emails of congratulations and appreciation during that period. This article also portrays her critics in a positive light while never portraying her in anything but a neutral light. The subtle contrast of positive to neutral makes the neutral into a negative in the gullible (i.e. most) reader's eyes. This article is not about Toby Keith. The section about Toby Keith makes the article suddenly seem as though its focus is Toby Keith. Toby comes out smelling like roses and winning some public argument. This is completely biased, once again, portraying ONLY those people and/or fans who approve of Toby Keith and NEVER ONCE mentioning what Maines FANS thought about all her statements. So, I think you definitely need to GET RID of the subjectivity of this article. Simply because there are media quotes does not make it an appropriate portrayal of information, since there are many media sources (i.e. most) that have a conservative bias. This woman is very talented and courageous, yet there is zero positive commentary about her QUOTED in this article. This was obviously heavily edited by a hater. I added some statements that you removed but you told me zero reason for that. I understand why I should not delete whole sections, now, apologies. HOwever, I also added some valuable information, that you have deleted. Why have you chosen to include many biased statements and portrayals of this woman, and yet edited out a balancing statement?? This article is anything but neutral. It appears that you have abdicated your responsibilities and allowed "fake neutrality" --by which I mean, opinions are reported as facts -- to override true neutrality of portrayal and CHOICE of facts that have been EXCLUDED from this profile. If you have a rebuttal, I'd appreciate a point by point, rather than a pick-and-choose, as I feel these are things that need addressing. You are not supposed to include conjectural stuff - there is plenty in this article that is based on writers' FOCUS - i.e. the whole focus is on the negative reactions to her music and zero quotes from people who had positive reactions.Cyberg (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)