8,078
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
I believe your second revision was better than the original. I still believe the piece is inaccurate, however, with the latest changes I believe it more accurately portrays both sides than the original. I do not agree with the use of the term "Scandal"--this would give the appearance of something illegal or innappropriate. look to the unbiased sources to clear that up ( UWD Voyager article and/or NWFl daily news article ) Additionally, it is very widely known that Bergosh was critical of the PNJ's editorials slamming Educational Quality in Escambia County. I would suggest that you find and link Richard Schneider's editorial (as well as associated forum posts) from August 12, 2007. Also Mark O'brien's piece from September 30, 2007, (and associated forum posts). Both of these editorials and responses were prior to the erruption of the "controversy", and many feel these editorial responses were the impetus for the PNJ's expose on Bergosh. I would caution, particularly on this piece, against using too much of the PNJ's material to create an accurate page, as there has been extreme tension between the subject of this piece and the PNJ editor/editorial staff.
:I will agree on the word "scandal". It is not appropriate for the situation. I certainly feel that the situation was/is a "controversy", though, and have restored the "Godzilla controversy" heading. I would even go as far as to support an omission of the "Godzilla" phrase in the header (despite the fact that I feel it is a good identifier for the controversy)... something like "PNJ forum pseudonym controversy" perhaps...? As for your other edits, I don't care for the way you have phrased them, and am going to rewrite them, but I am going to try to work out something you will accept. '''[[User:Dcosson|dcosson]]''' ··· '''[[User talk:Dcosson|talk]]''' 14:19, 25 November 2007 (CST)
