Changes

Thanks Andy.  One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem.  Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely?  As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment.  However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article.  As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example.  And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there?  [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy.  One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem.  Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely?  As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment.  However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article.  As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example.  And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there?  [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)