Talk:Clint Curtis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: I rated this article as B class. IMHO, it needs the following: A "background" section to move the citations out of the introduction, Consolidation of the media reports section with the vote fraud allegations section, A review of the pre-2005 articles regarding Mr. Curtis, A check in a few weeks for any relevant election wrap-up coverage, A discussion of Mr. Curtis's role as a blog celebrity and of bradblog's role in publicizing Mr. Curtis, to the extent they can be verified by reliable sources, and A discussion of Mr. Curtis' role in testifying to the Democratic congresspeople, his affidavit, and other 2004-2005 notable events. Once those are done, I recommend: A thorough review for POV and BLP issues, probably with a WP:BLP note and a biography RFC, A peer review. TheronJ 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (edit)

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Clint Curtis, has edited Wikipedia as ClintCurtis (talk · contribs)

Contents 1 Polygraph 2 Deletions 3 Sources for claims 4 demopedia article on clint curtis 5 Logic? 6 Anonymous editor, let's talk 7 ONE MORE THING, TheronJ 8 Here is why Wired News is NOT a Credible Source of Journalism 9 Paragraph needs cites 10 Explanation of recent changes 11 Neutrality Violation 12 I think we're making progress 13 peekaboo 14 ANTI TANK MISSLE TECHNOLGOY.

[edit] Polygraph

"Truthful in all his responses" doesn't tell us much unless we know the subject of the questions. Is there a transcript? I can't see a source that elaborates on this. Bovlb 13:26, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

When I took the polygraph. The polygraphist was the recently retired head of the polygraph section for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The questions were centered on the validity of the all the statements made in the affidavit presented to Congress. That included the vote fraud, the over-billing, and the espionage. It also covered my final conversations with Ray Lemme. If you wrote the polygraphist (he can be found in a Google search) you could probably get the results from him. User:ClintCurtis 20:36, 3 October 2005

[edit] Deletions

I have made some tidy-ups to restore some NPOV, and clarify. In particular, I have deleted the following text.

... after reporting on espionage, overbilling, and vote fraud was fired due to political pressure.

This source can be found in the Daytona Beach New Journal in 2001. Political pressure was the motive according to the papers inside source, which worked in FDOT's IG's office. It has also been upheld in multiple court proceedings in Florida's Circuit courts. - User:ClintCurtis 20:59, 3 October 2005

I toned this down to the more provable, but still suggestive, "but was fired after he started making his allegations"

YEI gave a "going away" party for Clint Curtis with offer "to return when ever he liked" MsYang (the owner) and "Henry" Nee (the convicted Chinese Spy) signing "Goodbye Card"

Not really a whistleblower allegation, as such. What is the wrongdoing alleged?

YEI asks Clinton Curtis to "stay on" till replacement programmer can be found.

Not really a whistleblower allegation, as such. What is the wrongdoing alleged? And is Clinton Curtis his full name?

... until he produced a going away card from the company stating that he would be missed and he could come back anytime.

Not really a whistleblower allegation, as such. What is the wrongdoing alleged?

"This finding was only preliminary as Yang refused to allow the department access to either their books or their employees.

Unsourced. Please re-add with sources.

Tom Feeney has not offered to take a polygraph in order to defend against Curtis's accusations

Feeney and the Yangs have been challenged to take polygraph tests by multiple bloggers as well as by myself. - User:ClintCurtis 20:59, 3 October 2005

Did someone ask him to? I'm sure there are many things he hasn't offered to do.

Lemme's suicide parallels that of Danny Casolaro who was investigating the INSLAW case back in 1991.

Special Note :Police stated that no photo's of crime scene were available due to a fault with a flash memory CARD used in digital camera by Det.S.Floyd , only to have "crime scene" pictures showing up on the Internet. These photos showed multiple inconsistencies in the police report and other evidence. The case was re-opened last December after "internet based interest", although it was closed quickly thereafter. Police in charge of the re-opened "Lemme" case stated "We spoke to someone at the Florida Department of Transportation," he explained, "and then closed the case again. It was either late '04 or early '05." The "Someone at the Florida Department of Transportation" has yet to be identified!

Speculation, and more appropriate to an article on Lemme. It seemed messy and irrelevant where it was.

No one has yet been able to find a single incident with which Curtis has not been completely truthful.

Considering that this information has been provided to a multitude of congressional members, the subject of a polygraph test, provided in sworn testimony before a Congressional Committee and placed under the microscope of the Internet community. No stone has been left unturned to look for any items that are untrue. As of this date, no one, not even the most ardent right wing bloggers have found a single item that has been untrue. I don’t think that could be called simply a point of view. If Feeney and Yang disagree they are certainly very quiet about it at this stage. If someone reported this type of activity by me and I were innocent I would quickly file suit. - User:ClintCurtis 20:59, 3 October 2005

Smacks of POV, and presumably Feeney and Yang would disagree.

I'm still not happy with the import of the polygraph results, but I let it stand.

Bovlb 01:05, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Regarding the "going away" party and similar snippets above, I suppose the point was to demonstrate that Curtis was considered a valuable employee until he raised complaints. So the wrongdoing is the apparently false claim that Curtis is simply a disgruntled employee (see also the section Response to Allegations in the article). Rl 08:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for claims

Can anyone provide a source for these claims?

• This included large NASA databases that were downloaded by the owner of the company and passed to Nee.
  • Documents can be obtained from FOI request sent to NASA.-User:ClintCurtis 20:42, 3 October 2005
• [Nee admitted] that he sent military secrets (missile guidance chips) to the capital of Communist China over 20 times.
  • Public Records can be obtained from Orange County (Orlando Fl) where Nee was convicted.-User:ClintCurtis 20:42, 3 October 2005
• the department was not allowed access to either the company's books or to interview their employees.
  • Another Public Records request to Florida Department of Law Enforcement.-User:ClintCurtis 20:42, 3 October 2005
• Curtis filed a legal action to force a full investigation of fraud against the state.
  • Cases are filed in Leon County Florida. -User:ClintCurtis 20:42, 3 October 2005
• [YEI] withdrew these charges after Curtis produced a going away card from a party thrown in his honor.
  • BradBlog maintains an ongoing history of Yang's responses and web site changes. - User:ClintCurtis 20:42, 3 October 2005

If not, they should be removed. Bovlb 03:36, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on NPOVing this article. I very much agree that having sources for all claims would be desirable, and even if all we could do was saying "Curtis alleges that...". I'd rather not remove more information from the article just because we don't have sources. Controversial information often attracts people who know better (cf. the example of a "brilliant stub" in Wikipedia:The perfect stub article "Salvador Allende was the President of Chile from 1970 until 1973. The CIA might have been involved in the coup that ousted him."). Rl 08:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

"an illegal Chinese national" - What does this mean? Presumably the man in question is not illegally holding chinese nationality. I guess that the author meant to say "a Chinese National staying in the US illegally" or "who immigrated illegally to the US", or something like that. I don't know enough about the story to be sure that is what's meant though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hegar (talk • contribs) 14:59, 31 August 2005

More clearly - "a spy" with Communist Chinese nationality, a military research background and no work Visa. - User:ClintCurtis 20:36, 3 October 2005

This is completely subjective Thizz 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"A common error" - Is this sarcasm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.61.213 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 24 August 2006

[edit] demopedia article on clint curtis

• [1] - some info. Kevin Baas^talk 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• also, is this interview video in the article? Kevin Baas^talk 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logic?

Curtis, a lifelong Republican, is now running in the Democratic Primary

How can someone be a lifelong Republican if they're running as a Democrat? Just asking. Nathanm mn 14:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because he switched from a republican to a democrat after his experiences at yang enterprises. Kevin Baas^talk 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I got that, but shouldn't he be called a former Republican instead of a lifelong one? Nathanm mn 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No. In fact, the word "lifelong" is usually used to indicate when someone has spent their whole life living one way, but made an abrupt change. For instance "Bob, a lifelong Texan, recently pulled up stakes and moved to Istanbul". Luvcraft 23:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous editor, let's talk

131.94.55.64, can you please explain how (1) including Clint Curtis's allegations against Tom Feeney, but (2) deleting Tom Feeney's response to those allegations[2] makes this article "more neutral"? It seems pretty obvious to me that under WP:NPOV, we need to present both sides of the story, not only one. Thanks, TheronJ 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Sir TheronJ, let's talk.

1) Wired news is NOT a credible news agency. Whoever used that source used it in POOR TASTE.

2) Tom Feeney's response was NOT deleted. It looks as if Tom Feeney is VERY MUCH the FOCAL point of that ENTIRE SECTION.

3) Why is Tom Feeney so important to Clint Curtis's site? THIS is why the neutrality is disputed...when his negative attacks are centerpiece on Clint Curtis's profile, the legitamacy of the article is called into question. That's wrong. That violates Wikipedia's standards. We need to stand against that.

4) There are plenty of links to that explains Tom Feeney's responses in detail, complete with a biased view AGAINST Clint Curtis. That preserves the NETURALITY of the section. Biased content should not CREATE a profile...there should only be links that take one to it.

[edit] ONE MORE THING, TheronJ

Hi,

There is a section on Tom Feeney's web site entitled, "2006 campaign."

It seems that if we use your logic with that section, we need to add information about Clint Curtis's campaign with it. That is a CLEAR violation of neutrality.

Yes, Tom Feeney's profile will have campaign information...and Clint Curtis campaign quotes would respond...and it may SEEM that having Curtis's quotes dominate that profile in the way that Tom Feeney's did HERE will add to the neutrality of Feeney's profile...but in reality it VIOLATES neutrality.

I am not in favor of these kinds of violations for either profile. Neither, I hope, should you.

I deleted the talk page because I thought I made corrections to make the profile neutral. Instead, I think it is important to keep this discussion as I have learned a valuable lesson. Now I think the Tom Feeney profile neutrality must be disputed as well.

In reality, both sites have neutrality issues that must be called into question. I just don't know how to flag the other.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.55.64 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your input, 134 - I hope you enjoy editing wikipedia, and I'm glad to see that you're interested in discussing these problems.

• First, you can (and should) sign your posts by putting four tildes - ~~~~ at the end of each post. Thanks.
• Second, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of neutrality. Curtis's webpage has a specific allegation about Feeney - that Feeney asked Curtis to assist in election fraud. Wikipedia's policies (particularly neutral point of view and biographies of living persons require that if Curtis's webpage includes the accusation that Feeney is guilty of election fraud, the page also include Feeney's response. Feeney's page includes two specific allegations about Curtis -- that Curtis is crazy and that Curtis was endorsed by Larry Flynt -- and it has (appropriately) Curtis's response to each accusation.
• Third, I don't see why Wired News isn't a reliable source. I'll ask the reliable source gurus to chime in, and will be glad to follow any consensus that emerges.

Thanks again, TheronJ 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here is why Wired News is NOT a Credible Source of Journalism

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html?tw=wn_index_10

An excerpt: "By Gary Wolf 02:00 AM Oct, 23, 2006

My friends, I must ask you an important question today: Where do you stand on God?

It's a question you may prefer not to be asked. But I'm afraid I have no choice. We find ourselves, this very autumn, three-and-a-half centuries after the intellectual martyrdom of Galileo, caught up in a struggle of ultimate importance, when each one of us must make a commitment. It is time to declare our position.

This is the challenge posed by the New Atheists. We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth; we are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith."

This really makes wired.com as credible as the National Enquirer or Sun. 131.94.55.64 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree that an opinion column means that the news articles aren't reliable. I've asked the editors with a strong interest in the reliable source guideline to chime in -- if you'd like to, you can join the discussion here. Thanks again, TheronJ 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph needs cites

The article currently has the following text, in the Feeney's response to allegations section.

Feeney's responses to Curtis's allegations have hurt his campaign for reelection, once thought to be one of the safest Republican seats in the United States. This comes at a time when Republican scandals, including Feeney's, may signal a change of control for the House of Representatives. [For more information Congressional polls, see www.rasmussenreports.com]

– current article text

Under Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability and original research, the paragraph needs citations that directly support the following factual assertions:

1. Feeney's responses to Curtis's allegations have hurt his campaign;
2. Feeney's campaign was once thought to be one of the safest Republican seats in the US;
3. Republican scandals, including Feeney's, may signal a change in control for the House of Representatives. (In particular, what scandal is Feeney involved in, and is there current media coverage to suggest that the scandal is affecting voters?)

Thanks, TheronJ 20:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just added two links, one to Feeney's profile and another described below...I think that will best satisfy your request.

Here is at least one website with specific polling info via yahoonews. It cites a Zogby poll, which is credible...but I personally think Rasmussen's polls are better. (If you havn't heard of him, Rasmussen is a Republican who is one of the greatest pollsters in the country).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20061024/pl_usnw/zogby_poll__clint_curtis___tom_feeney_race_now_a_dead_heat_in_florida_congressional_race436_xml

I like Rasmussenreports because it is a renouned site...however in order to see the story specifically on FL District 24 and both Tom Feeney and Clint Curtis, one will need to pay for access. It does however offer excellent free general information on the house of representatives, which as you know is at stake in this election.

• • Now here is the thing: I don't think it is FAIR to LIST every one of Tom Feeney's scandals on Clint Curtis's profile.
    • For example, I think writing that Feeney has connections with Jack Abromoff is not a NETURAL idea. It isn't fair to Tom Feeney and isn't related to anything that Curtis has done (this IS a profile about Curtis). I'd like to not violate neturality by making this a profile about Feeney.

There really needs to be more of a biography about Curtis rather than a profile on Feeney's scandals with debates on neturality.131.94.55.64 20:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

More comments:

1. If there is a subscription only page on Rasmussen that specifically supports this paragraph, it would be very helpful (and is actually required) to include a citation that identifies the page by date, title, author (if identified), and link, and cites a sentence or two. Without identifying the specific page, there's no way for even people with subscriptions to verify the claim. Let me know if you need help putting together the citation -- I'd be happy to help.
2. The yahoo quote is a press release by "velvetrevolution.us", not independent news content produced by Yahoo. I don't agree that velvetrevolution.us is (1) a reliable source or, more importantly, that (2) velvetrevolution is sufficiently qualified to explain why the polls are tightening.
3. As written, the article alleges (1) Clint Curtis has accused Tom Feeney of attempting vote fraud in 2000, and (2) as a result of "Feeney's responses to Curtis's accusations", the polls have tightened. I agree that if the polls are tightening for some reason other than the Curtis vote fraud accusation, the paragraph about the polls doesn't belong in this article -- would you have any objection to deleting it?

Thanks again, TheronJ 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

..................................................................................

• • You are definatly right about velvetrovolution.us. It is not good journalism. However, the Zogby poll IS a good polling company. And I do believe that this quote is legitamate:

"According to the report from Zogby International of 402 likely voters in Florida's 24th district, when asked 'If the election for Congress were held today and the candidates were Democrat Clint Curtis and Republican Tom Feeney, for whom would you vote?', respondents replied as follows:

  Feeney - 45%
  Curtis - 43%
  Other - 2%
  Not sure - 10%

'The race for the U.S. House of Representatives in Florida’s 24th District is a virtual toss-up. Incumbent Tom Feeney holds the slimmest of leads over challenger Clint Curtis, 45% to 43%, with one in ten (10%) undecided,' noted Zogby."

• • • FURTHERMORE, you are both right and wrong about the polls tightening. They are tightening for a reason OTHER than Clint's allegations against Feeney. However, the reason they are tightening is because of the mailers sent by Feeney.

There just does not seem to be any justification to delete the paragraph. It could use some more credible citations...but the content that was written by someone who really seems to know the situation in that district. The evidence I've found backs that up.

• I don't know how much you keep up with the House of Representatives, or politics, but both Republican and Democratic pollsters are saying that the Democrats are going to take the House. This is in large part because of Republican scandals, including Mark Foley, Jack Abromoff, and mis-information on the War in Iraq, to name a few (none of that belings on the Curtis page. It is only important to note that these are factoring in on the statistical tie between the two campaigns).

• • The main factor for the tie are the mailers sent by Feeney's campaign. They are backfiring against him. I don't think it would really be fair or neutral to write this, even with proper sources.

Deleting the paragraph would take away from the article and is the same as VANDALISM.

[edit] Explanation of recent changes

I've made three changes to the article. Before anyone changes them back, I would ask that they address the following points.

1. My first change was to include Feeney's responses to Curtis's accusations that Feeney committed vote fraud in the Feeney's response to allegations section. I wouldn't normally think that it would be controversial that a "Feeney's response to allegations" section should contain Feeney's response to the allegations, and it shouldn't. Per WP:BLP, it is absolute Wikipedia policy that this page can't accuse Feeney of conspiring to commit vote fraud without including Feeney's response. The response in question is cited to a verifiable, reliable source, a statement from Feeney to the St. Petersburg Times;
2. I reinserted a Wired News analysis of Curtis's allegations. Yesterday, there was some dispute regarding whether Wired News is a reliable source, but the firm consensus on the reliable source page (see here) is that Wired News is unquestionably a reliable source. Please, before deleting as unreliable, go here and discuss the issue.
3. I moved a discussion of the poll numbers to the section dealing with the campaign. I still question whether the discussion is reliably sourced, but if we're going to keep it, it makes more sense there.

Thanks! TheronJ 18:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What an interesting page!! What and interesting person, TheronJ!! I'd like my two cents:

• 1) No wonder this article is disputed...fine quote choice...what, there must be MILLIONS of quotes...you pick one of the most controversial!!
  • haha...fine reference!! You said, "it is absolute Wikipedia policy that this page can't accuse Feeney of conspiring to commit vote fraud without including Feeney's response," but the problem is...when you check out that page...it talks nothing of "vote fraud," "Feeney" OR any "absolute" policy. In fact...do a word search on the page...and you will find that TheronJ made up this ENTIRE argument...because none of his arguments are supported by what is on the page. It isn't absolute policy that is being taught. It is absolutly misunderstood policy.
• 2) Your "firm consensus" is a WOPPING TWO PEOPLE!!! LOLOLOL. (look..I'm a nerd that reads wired news regularly and I like it...that poster above seems pretty dense if he doesn't like it...but at LEAST post a logical argument in response)
• 3) You might be right about the placement...but every event has a cause and effect. You seemed to have deleted the "cause" and left the "effect" when you edited it. The paragraph should retain its original diction.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.94.253.70 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Neutrality Violation

~Tom Feeney's response to Curtis's allegations is twice as big as the allegations against Feeney. Is that a smear campaign?

• It looks like a Wikipedia manager is responsible for it.
• If you look at Clint's opponet's site, the same Wiki manager seems to be doing the same thing there too.
• The House of Representatives IP address is also vandalizing that site but doesn't appear to touch this one.

• Interesting debate. Floridians have waayyy too much time on their hands.

131.94.55.94 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user - are all the edits coming from Florida International University (I.e., 131.94...) from the same person? It's fine either way, but it would make things simpler if I knew whether I was having conversation with one person or with several. In any case . . .

• I can see that we still have a dispute, and I respect your opinion, but disagree for the reasons stated above. I will take a look at the dispute resolution procedures and see what I can come up with in an effort to see if we can come to a constructive resolution of our disagreement.
• In response to your question about the relative length of Curtis's accusations that Feeney conspired to commit vote fraud and Feeney's defense; WP:BLP requires that Feeney's response be included accurately. If you know of other reliable sources (generally newspapers or other sources that involve fact checking) that lay out Curtis's side of the story in more detail, I'll be glad to include those too.

Thanks, TheronJ 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think we're making progress

Anonymous editor(s?), I think we're making progress, and I appreciate your working with me. A couple things:

• IMHO, most of your recent edits to the Wired News section are fair, or at least do a better job in highlighting Curtis's side of the story. I'm going to add in a couple more things that I think are verifiable and important, but I'm leaving your edits and quotebox in. I will try to shorten the whole section down to a summary, including Wired's statement that Curtis's charges are "somewhat corroborated", which I missed on my first read-through. Let me know what you think.

Thanks,TheronJ 17:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Also, since we seem to be approaching some common ground, I'm not going to move to any of the dispute resolution steps at this time, but if you think they would be helpful (for example, if you have concerns about my behavior or you would like to see if other experienced editors agree with one of us), let me know and I'll be happy to explain some of the options. Thanks again, TheronJ 17:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] peekaboo

Just took a peek, and felt the need to say that testimony was very clear and allegations very real. From my perspective article looks like a political pamphlet... There are other sources then referenced, and I believe that Senate report on Election fraud in Ohio is available online? And what's with this huge "wired" section? What is that? Are you sure that Wired News are proper source to cite, or to point as reliable? It is as reliable as Wiki is these days… Anyway there is a whole wealth of information about this topic elsewhere and it is far less biased… Well, I've read some of your thoughts above, it seem like an interesting talk.., till later… Lovelight 16:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Perhaps we should cite Steve Wozniak somewhere? He said: "Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window.";)… Lovelight 16:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 131.*.*.* and I are glad for the company.  :-)

• My understanding is that although Curtis testified to a group of Senate Democrats, their report didn't mention him at all. If you've got a cite though, we can certainly look at it.
• I ran Wired past the editors at reliable sources for a second opinion -- the ones who responded were very confident that it's reliable. If you're really concerns about Wired, would you mind posting a note about it at the talk page here - that's really the page where you'll get the best feedback on reliable sources.
• What are your "political pamphlet" concerns? I was worried about the wholesale copying of Curtis's platform from his campaign site, which is very unusual for a political candidate, but haven't quite sorted it out yet. Any thoughts?

Thanks, TheronJ 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy TheronJ,

I've edited the page before..but I'm not the only one.

I recently changed the citation you've been talking about to a better one.

Here is another one I have not put on the website: "http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-locdeadheat26102606oct26,0,4187551.story?track=rss"

Florida International University is not in District 24 and is not even in the same region (one is in Miami and the other is in the Orlando area).

That should really end the debate on that one paragraph, I think.

Remember, use the ~~~~ thing if you talk on the page, thanks :)

131.94.88.215 16:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S.-I also agree that it is unusual to devote so much space to a Wired News article. I really think just a link should do.

Shall we remove it? Does Wiki really like regurgatating news articles when a simple link usually will suffice??

Finally, Curtis testified before a House commitee in Washington, D.C., which is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. He was a Republican at the time of the testimony.

I'm sure he's testified before many Democrats as well...so you are not wrong. Just missing a few facts. Should his testimony to the House commitee be on this site??

Thanks 131. Several responses:

• The Orlando Sentinel citation is great, and also serves as a good example of why it wasn't a good idea to rely on the velvetrevolution citation -- the newspaper went and got both sides of the story. Thanks for the tip, and I'll try to include it when I have time.
• I oppose taking out Wired. I think it makes sense, though to have a fair summary that combines all three of the news articles, and will work on it. Thanks, TheronJ 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's fine. You know, so much thought and effort has been put into the Wired story...and by a lot of people...I think it is fine keep it.

I guess if we are to keep summaries of news articles on the site, it is best to have multiple news articles, especially recent ones.

• Perhaps we should avoid putting additional "old" news onto the "Media Coverage" section?

131.94.88.215 17:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANTI TANK MISSLE TECHNOLGOY.

Changed that to lowercase and removed the ONLY which is not NPOV in my opinion (does not look professional either) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.212.70 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)