>I* didn't put the NPOV header there, I was only restoring it after somebody had deleted it. The NPOV >discussion is on the Talk page.
Yes, marking article as NPOV is controversial because it's about the images after all. They're factual.
>And why are you signing postings as Eloquence? [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 21:31, 1 >May 2004 (UTC)
My mistake. Added quotation marks.
>Have you even read the discussion on the Talk page as to how NPOV the selection of the photos is? >And don't try to claim that you know my position on this article, because you're wrong. [[User:>RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 21:36, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's were i copied the quotation.
Hi GroundedZero, I have made some attempts at making the image descriptions for the photos from the Daily Mirror neutral. Before I changed them the descriptions made the assumption that the pictures were genuine (something yet to be proved, and of which I am not entirely convinced). -- [[User:Ams80|Ams80]] 22:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
