Talk:Political correctness/Featured article removal candidates results
There is an ongoing neutrality dispute. Emsworth 23:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not saying this article should be here, but I will say that the substance of the dispute seems to be "the article is too long for such a silly topic" which isn't a very convincing objection IMO. I've asked a couple of times for a dialogue relating to the dispute, and there doesn't seem top be much interest. Sam Spade 19:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- There is now some interest and new folks on the page, so maybe the header will get removed in time at least. Sam Spade 06:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- There is no longer an ongoing neutrality dispute, you still want the page removed? Sam Spade 03:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I believe the old NPOV dispute was regarding whether the article represented the concept fairly, or mockingly. After significant rewrites, the NPOV dispute header has been removed, and the page has reached a stable form. Keep. --zandperl 00:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I myself did not dispute the neutrality: I merely indicated that disputed articles should not be featured. Since the dispute has ended, it seems, the objections are withdrawn. -- Emsworth 01:11, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Terminally vague. Probably impossible to rescue. A valiant failed attempt to write an NPOV article on an ill-defined and inherently POV topic. Remove. Tannin 10:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The above editor is no longer with us. I assume this makes his objection (the only one remaining) invalid? Sam Spade 19:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)