Talk:Adelaide Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the affiliates of the Adelaide institute insist on editing this article to insert their own POV I suggest they at least attempt to word it in such a way as to be;
1) non-offensive 2) Factually correct 3) non biased
Because if they don’t I’m happy to keep changing it back and each time I change it I will insert more and more material negative to the Adelaide institute.
Regards
Dave
- Thanks for keeping an eye on this article. It's good to know I'm not the only one. However. with regards to the following statement: "I will insert more and more material negative to the Adelaide institute". You will do nothing of the sort, or your edits will be deemed POV and rightly reverted. Please read our policy on the Neutral Point of View. The idea is to ensure the article remains objective and free of biased anecdotes. Thanks,--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
When I say that I will insert material negitive to the Adelaide Institute I am not implying that the infomation will breach POV. Facts about the court cases that the institute have been involved in can still be objective, regards Mutty
Thought I might rewrite the article, hope the two of you don’t mind. If you don’t like a bit please edit and say on here what you found objectionable. AdelaideRandel 04:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] specifics?
This article would benefit from some specifics - it's kind of vague in places. For example, "the activity of the Institute seems to have declined" - either it has it it has not; "seems" smells like one author's opinion. Also, this sentence:
- It has been noted by human rights organisations that the Institute has failed to fully comply with the order of the Federal Court of Australia and still publishes materials that it was ordered to rememove in the 2002 judgement.
Which human rights organizations have noted this? The article should name them and cite the statement specifically. CDC (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why those tactice?
The current article is basically smear.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.210.90.180 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 December 2005 (ACST).
