User talk:Univhoulawctr

Please state how the Keel edits are tenditious. The original article was primarily a string of statements from Keel's personal website and press releases. The edits are balanced and rely on MSM reporting. Samtrayburn (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Samrayburn" entries are Austin-based from a contributor quoting exclusively and selectively (including some more than a decade old) from an Austin weekly that identifies itself as partisan left (though the contributor does not acknowledge this) and they are thus tendentious under Wikipedia guidelines. Other blanket assertions, e.g., "served developer interests", etc are unattributed and violate Wikipedia guidelines. The original article by Hawthorn cites a balance of sources and is not favorable or unfavorable to the subject and written with detachment unlike the new tendentious entries. Univhoulawctr (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Keel has been a public official for 25 years, and the articles are used to illustrate fully Keel's career. The Austin weekly, regardless of orientation, provides direct quotes from event participants. The original article was not written with detachment but parroted sources noted above, such as Keel's personal website. If there was time to really edit this, rather than engaging in a revert war, the article should refer to the Brandon Baugh case that occurred during Keel's tenure as sheriff, and which is referenced in legal ethics casebooks because of the actions of both Keel and Nona Byington. Wiki guidelines state that if you diagree with edits, the proper course is to improve upon those edits, not simply engage in a revert war.Samtrayburn (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)