|
[[Image:Mary-queen-of-scots full.jpg|thumb|200px|The Ridolfi plot was meant to put Mary Stewart on the throne of England.]]
Jeez, is this fair? Removing from article pending discussion here:
The '''Ridolfi plot''' was a [[Roman Catholic]] plot in [[1570]] to assassinate [[Elizabeth I of England|Queen Elizabeth I of England]] and replace her with [[Mary I of Scotland]]. The plot was hatched and planned by [[Roberto di Ridolfi]], who, an international banker, was able to travel between [[Brussels]], [[Rome]] and [[Madrid]] to gather support without attracting too much suspicion.
:In [[2002]], he publicly announced that he has [[Alzheimer's disease]]. There are critics who have voiced suspicion that this was meant as a public relations move to head off accusations of bigotry on the release of the [[Michael Moore]] documentary, ''[[Bowling for Columbine]]'', in which Heston blurted out in an interview his belief that American's "mixed ethncity" was the cause of America's alarming high death by firearm rate.
== Background ==
That sneaky Heston, coming down with Alzheimer's to thwart Michael Moore. Talk about taking one for the team. [[User:Ortolan88|Ortolan88]]
:Yikes. I'll put that bit above as one of the most cynical things I've ever read.... Does the author doubt that Heston has Alzheimer's? You must admit he seemed more than a little confused in the interview, and not in a sharp & perceptive way. Addled, I mean. [[User:Koyaanis Qatsi|KQ]]
The Duke of Norfolk, a cousin to the Queen and wealthiest landowner in the country, had been proposed as a possible husband for Mary ever since her imprisonment in 1568. This suited Norfolk who had greater ambitions and felt Elizabeth persistently undervalued him.<ref>Williams, Neville, ''The Life and Times of Elizabeth I'', (Book Club Associates, 1972), pg 91.</ref> In pursuit of this, he agreed to support the [[Northern Rebellion]], though quickly lost his nerve and tried to call it off. However, the rebellion was not under his control and went ahead anyway, with the Northern earls trying to foment rebellion among their Catholic subjects to prepare for a Catholic Spanish invasion by the [[Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba|Duke of Alba]], governor of the [[Netherlands]].<ref>Starkey, David, ''Elizabeth I: Apprenticeship'', (Vintage, 2001), pg 322.</ref>
After the rebellion failed, the leaders were executed and a purge of Catholic sympathisers in the priesthood carried out. Norfolk was imprisoned in the [[Tower of London]] for nine months and only freed under house arrest when he confessed all and begged for mercy.<ref>Williams, ''Life and Times'', pg 101-2.</ref> Pope [[Pius V]] issued [[Regnans in Excelsis]], a [[papal bull]] excommunicating Elizabeth, shortly afterwards, which commanded all faithful Catholics to do all they could to depose her, though the majority of Engish Catholics ignored the bull.<ref>Dures, Alan, ''English Catholicism, 1558-1642'', (Longman, 1983), pg 17.</ref> In response, Elizabeth became much harsher to Catholics and their sympathisers.<ref>Starkey, ''Elizabeth I'', pg 322.</ref>
we love you arsenal we do
== Plot ==
:Hcheney has repeatedly deleted edits made by other contributors. This editor repeatedly reverts to prose that contains multiple unsupported claims of fact. This is in direct conflict with the guidance presented "Under Tips for Editing Wikipedia Articles" which states: "Please use a neutral point of view, and please cite your sources so others can check and extend your work."
[[Roberto Ridolfi]], a Florentine banker and ardent Catholic, had been involved in the planning of the Northern rebellion, had been plotting to overthrow Elizabeth as early as 1569.<ref>Elton G.R., ''England under the Tudors'', (University Paperback, 1978), pg 297.</ref> Observing the failure of the rebellion, he came to the conclusion that only foreign intervention could restore Catholicism and bring Mary to the throne, and began to contact potential conspirators. Mary's advisor, [[John Lesley]], the [[Bishop of Ross]], gave his assent to the plot as the only way to free Mary.<ref>Williams, ''Life and Times'', pg 102-3.</ref> The plan was to have the Duke of Alba invade from the Netherlands with 10,000 men, foment a rebellion of the northern English nobility, murder Elizabeth, and marry Mary to [[Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk]]. Ridolfi optimistically estimated half of all English peers were Catholic, and could muster in excess of 39,000 men.<ref>Williams, ''Life and Times'', pg 102.</ref> Norfolk gave verbal assurances to Ridolfi that he was Catholic, though as a pupil of [[John Foxe]], he remained a Protestant all his life.<ref>Dures, ''English Catholicism'', pg 17.</ref><ref>Lockyer, Roger, ''Tudor and Stuart Britain, 1417-1714'', (Longman, 1964), pg 186.</ref> Both Mary and Norfolk, desperate to remedy their respective situations, agreed to the plot.<ref>Jenkins, Elizabeth, ''Elizabeth the Great'', (Phoenix Press, 1958), pg 176.</ref> With their blessing, Ridolfi set off to the continent to gain Alba, Pius V and King Philip II's support.
Hcheney's favored passage appears designed to offer explanations for Mr. Heston's statements and actions and to condemn Mr. Moore.
However, the Duke of Alba feared that if the plot should be successful, it would lead to Mary, Queen of Scots, a former Queen of France whose mother was a member of the prominent [[Guise]] family, occupying the throne of England. The consequence of this would be an England wedded to Mary's beloved France, an outcome which the Spanish feared.
The paragraph (reproduced in full below) is biased. At a minimum the bias should be disclosed.
==Discovery==
"In 2002 Michael Moore asked to do an interview with Heston for the movie Bowling for Columbine. Moore spoke through an intercom at Heston's gate and identified himself as a member of the NRA. When the interview started, Moore began bringing up controversial issues such as Heston's appearance at an NRA rally soon after the Columbine shootings. After explaining he was merely "defending the second amendment" and fielding similar questions from Moore, Heston excused himself from the interview. The movie also contains falsehoods about 2 NRA rallies Heston held where Moore withholds information and edits video first after Columbine (http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/hestonrally1.htm) and later after another school shooting (http://bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/hestonrally2.htm) (the first was an annual meeting Heston was required by law to hold and was preplanned to be held in Denver, Colorado and the second was actually a 'Get out to Vote' rally that Moore himself attended in support for Ralph Nader.)"
In 1571, Elizabeth's intelligence network was sending her information about a plot against her life. She was also sent a private warning by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who had learned of the plot against her. William Cecil Charles Baillie, Ridolfi's messenger, was arrested at [[Dover, England|Dover]] carrying compromising letters, and revealed the existence of the plot under [[torture]]. The Duke of Norfolk was arrested on [[September 7]], [[1571]] and sent to the tower.<ref>Weir, ''Mary, Queen of Scots'', pg 493.</ref> Guerau de Spes, the Spanish ambassador, was expelled from the country in [[January]], [[1571]].<ref>Jenkins, ''Elizabeth the Great'', pg 179.</ref> Ridolfi was still abroad at the time the plot was discovered, and never returned to England, becoming a Florentine senator in 1600.
A cursory review reveals obvious examples of bias, for example:
Mary, when questioned, admitted to having dealings with Ridolfi, but denied any involvement with the plot.<ref>Weir, ''Mary, Queen of Scots'', pg 493.</ref> She was clearly implicated by the evidence, but Elizabeth refused to have her executed and vetoed a bill by Parliament that condemned Mary and removed her from the succession.<ref>Smith, A. G. R., ''The Government of Elizabethan England'', (Edward Arnold, 1967), pg 28.</ref> She feared that by executing a [[Divine Right of Kings|divinely appointed]] monarch, she undermined her own position.<ref>Lockyer, ''Tudor and Stuart Britain'', pg 190.</ref> Instead, she had the Duke of Norfolk executed for treason in [[June]], [[1571]].<ref>T.A.Morris, ''Europe and England in the Sixteenth Century'', (Routledge 1998), p334</ref> However, Mary's status in England was transformed from honoured guest to treasonous pariah, and she was universally condemned by the governing elite:<ref>Morris, ''Europe and England'', p334</ref> her continued conspiring, especially in the [[Babington plot|Babington]] plot, eventually led to her execution on [[February 8]], [[1587]].<ref>Weir, Alison, ''Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley'', (Pimlico, 2004), pg 509.</ref>
1)Why would the writer use the phrase "began bringing up" in the passage below instead of a simple phrases such as "referred to" or "asked about"?
A very fictionalised version of the Ridolfi plot was featured in the movie ''[[Elizabeth (film)|Elizabeth (1998)]]'' which depicted Thomas Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, as the chief conspirator. However the film omitted the involvement of Ridolfi himself.
"In 2002 Michael Moore asked to do an interview with Heston for the movie Bowling for Columbine. Moore spoke through an intercom at Heston's gate and identified himself as a member of the NRA. When the interview started, Moore began bringing up controversial issues such as Heston's appearance at an NRA rally soon after the Columbine shootings. "
== See also ==
2) Assuming for arguments sake that the writer’s assertions are accurate, what would motivate the choice of the word "falsehoods" as opposed to the word "inaccuracies" in the passage below?
* [[Throckmorton plot]]
"After explaining he was merely "defending the second amendment" and fielding similar questions from Moore, Heston excused himself from the interview. The movie also contains falsehoods about 2 NRA rallies Heston held where Moore withholds information and edits video first after Columbine"
* [[Babington plot]]
* [[Francis Walsingham]]
== References ==
3) The word "merely" outside the quote marks in the sentence below does not convey additional information but it does convey the writers opinion.
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
"After explaining he was merely "defending the second amendment" and fielding similar questions from Moore, Heston excused himself from the interview."
<references/></div>
== External links ==
* [http://www.marie-stuart.co.uk/England.htm Marie Stuart Society's account of the Ridolfi plot].
On June 28, 2004, Hcheney deleted the following independently verifiable quote of Mr. Heston:
* [http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/ridolfi.asp The Gunpowder Plot Society's account of the Ridolfi plot].
* [http://www.elizabethi.org/uk/chronology/two.html Timeline of Elizabeth's reign from 1570 to 1603].
[[Category:1570]]
"In an interview with Michael Moore when asked what he thought was the reason for the high rate of gun crimes in the United States versus other developed countries, Mr. Heston said that the reason was that “we have a more mixed ethnicity.”"
[[Category:Tudor rebellions]]
[[de:Ridolfi-Verschwörung]]
Mr. Heston is the subject of both sentences in the paragraph, yet Hcheney described his deletion of the paragraph as "removed paragraph on Michael Moore".
The quote is easily confirmed by viewing the publicly available video "Bowling for Columbine".
I added this paragraph after independently confirming a statement contributed by 24.150.24.106.
The statement by 24.150.24.106 was also deleted by Hcheney.
:Anonymous users and Michael Moore are not appropriate primary sources for Wikipedia articles. Please stop adding dubious material to this article. --[[User:Hcheney|"D<small>ICK</small>"]] [[User talk:Hcheney|C<small>HENEY</small>]] 00:34,29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::Neither Michael Moore nor Anonymous are my primary sources. My primary source is a publicly available on camera interview of Charlton Heston that appears on the video "Bowling for Columbine". This fact is verifiable by anyone who cares to do so.
I object to your attempts discredit me by referring to my 2 sentence, verifiable addition as "dubious material". I am disappointed in your persistent violation of Wikipedia guidelines by attempting to suppress verifiable, factual information.
Please see "Tips for Editing Wikipedia Articles" which states: "Please use a neutral point of view, and please cite your sources so others can check and extend your work." [[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 02:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:Any film that is a creation of Michael Moore is completely void of factual or academic content, and as such, is not an appropriate primary source for a Wikipedia article. --[[User:Hcheney|"D<small>ICK</small>"]] [[User talk:Hcheney|C<small>HENEY</small>]] 02:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::That may be YOUR POV, but I defy you to try using it as justification for editing articles. [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K]] 05:52, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
: If he's on film saying this then it is valid - regardless of Moore's motives. The footage is verifiable. 02:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::Footage can easily omit an expansion and explanation. Moore has been known to take footage out of context. --[[User:Hcheney|"D<small>ICK</small>"]] [[User talk:Hcheney|C<small>HENEY</small>]] 02:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::Not to mention being an answer to a completely different question. [[User:Architeuthis|Architeuthis]] 03:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:In reponse to the following message sent to me by Hcheney:
"Michael Moore, being an entertainer akin to Ann Coulter, is not a reliable primary source. Your additions to Charlton Heston are inappropriate. --"DICK" CHENEY 02:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)"
My response is as follows.
The attempt to discredit my efforts by linking them to Michael Moore and Ann Coulter and their credibility is transparent. Therefore I will ignore attempts to divert the issue under consideration into a discussion of Michael Moore. Michael Moore criticisms should probably be on the Michael Moore page.
Michael Moore is not my primary source. My primary source is a recorded interview. Since this is the second time you have accused me of using Michael Moore as a primary source it appears that we have different definitions of "primary" source. Mine is correct. I believe the difference between the two sources is clear.
The single factual sentence that has been repeatedly deleted is not about Mr. Moore it is a documented quote of Mr Heston.
The issue at hand is simple and clear - Mr. Heston made a statement recorded on camera. Individuals have repeatedly prevented an effort to accurately record the statement by deleting references to the statement.
Mr. Heston should be credited with the statement that he made. Denying, deleting or explaining his statement will not make it go away - he said it. If there is evidence that Mr. Heston was tricked into making the statement then the appropriate response would be to say so in the article and to present the evidence.
Interestingly, the article that has been repeatedly reposted by Hcheney contains assertions based on less evidence than Mr. Heston's on-camera interview.
Contributing to Wikipedia does not mean censoring matters of fact that do not fit your agenda and deleting them as quickly as they appear.
Mr. Heston's statement is verifiable fact. Bullying will not change this.
"In an interview with Michael Moore when asked what he thought was the reason for the high rate of gun crimes in the United States versus other developed countries, Mr. Heston said that the reason was that “we have a more mixed ethnicity.”"
Once again... "Tips for Editing Wikipedia Articles" which states: "Please use a neutral point of view, and please cite your sources so others can check and extend your work." [[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 05:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:I would agree to using the full, un-edited interview as a primary source. However, since it is not possible to obtain the full, un-edited interview, we would be forced to trust Michael Moore if we were to use the summary video as a primary source. Since Michael Moore is an entertainer with a strong agenda, we cannot in good judgement trust ''his'' summary of the interview because that would incorporate his agenda and POV into this article. How do we know what else Charlton Heston said to put this quote into context?
:This article needs work, I agree. However, I do not think adding dubious material will help this article evolve into a neutral, factual, balanced masterpiece. --[[User:Hcheney|"D<small>ICK</small>"]] [[User talk:Hcheney|C<small>HENEY</small>]] 13:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::I must respectfully disagree.
Your argument implies that a person with the requisite power could delete reference to any audio, video or transcribed record at odds with his or her agenda under a justifying claim of incompleteness.
I believe that it is undesirable to allow anyone (this applies to me) to prevent others from seeing information related to an event based on possible incompleteness of the record or based on bias of the recorder. Evidence impeaching the accuracy of the record should be presented along with the record.
I sought out and viewed the recording, and while your distrust of Moore, entertainers and people with strong agendas is duly noted, I found no support for your veiled accusations against Moore as regards this specific sequence of video. Repeated use of the phrase "dubious material" does not change this. I mention in passing that Mr. Heston himself is an entertainer with a strong agenda.
I am comfortable with my defense of unbiased recording of fact; it is an approach that I apply consistently. I presume your approach to this article is consistent with your approach to editing other articles. Bias, credibility and the honesty of the Wikipedia process are touchstone issues here.
Under "Tips for Editing Wikipedia Articles": "Please use a neutral point of view, and please cite your sources so others can check and extend your work." [[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 14:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:: Speech made by Mr. Heston to Harvard on the basis of POV has been deleted. POV refers to "point of view" of the editor of the document. Mr. Heston's speech was widely recorded, widely distibuted and Mr. Heston was proud of his speech. I believe transcripts of the speech are available from his office. I must strongly object once again to this censorship of Mr. Heston.[[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 15:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:I would question the relevance of one interview, given late in life. I would also question the editorializing as to the validity of Michael Moore. Therefore, I thought it best to remove the section entirely. The information belongs in ''[[Bowling for Columbine]]'', not here. [[User:Meelar|[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]]]] 15:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::Actually, check the history--I never removed the Harvard law speech (nor do I plan to). [[User:Meelar|[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]]]] 15:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My apologies to Meelar for mistakenly accusing him of censorship. [[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 15:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't see that this information is irrelevant. It gives insight into Mr Heston's viewpoint. If he had given the interview to the ''New York Times'' would you have suggested we move the information to that article? Howver you are right that it is only one interview - maybe we can find more examples. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 15:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:It simply seemed to me that presenting that one interview--and no other quotes, save for one short sentence--seemed POV. I agree, more and better examples would be the best thing. For example, the Harvard Law speech. [[User:Meelar|[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]]]] 15:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My apologies to Meelar for mistakenly accusing him of censorship. [[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 15:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
: The arguments here do not stand up to scrutiny.
You are within your rights to question the relevance of one interview given late in life. In that case your reservations should be noted. The fact that the inerview took place should not be concealed.
A review of the record will show that I have said repeatedly that this is not Mr. Moore's page, and I have offered no opinion of Mr Moore. The use of the term "editorializing" does not change this.
If Mr. Heston's quote belongs under "Bowling for Columbine. Does that mean that reference to the "cold dead hands" statement belongs only under the NRA? Does that also mean that Mr. Heston's satement about alzheimers should only be on a medical page? Does that mean that references to his movies should only be on entertainement pages? I disagree with this position. [[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 15:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:Actually, the editorializing I was referring to was done by [[User:Hcheney]]. Also, read Viajero's suggestion; he speaks sensibly. Alliteratively, [[User:Meelar|[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]]]] 15:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:FactsOnly, I think part of the problem is a stylistic one. One simply doesn't insert a quote or two in the middle of an article without any kind of editorial framework. Quotes should be used to butress some some kind of argument, to represent a point of view that is under discussion. Inserting them in such a way as this is is simply making an implicit editorial judgment. Personally, I am not categorically opposed to the Harvard Law School quote, but as it currently stands it is not satisfactory; I think it needs to be introduced in some way. Please look at some of the other biographies we have here on controversial individuals for some ideas on how to handle such problems. -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 15:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Viajero I understand your point about style. Here is some background.
Originally, I added a paragragh about Mr. Heston's ideas. The addition mentioned ideas Mr. Heston included in his speech at Harvard. The addition was deleted, and I recieved a message ordering me to cease vandalizing the page. I was surprised at this and wary that I was being set up.
In response I (1)registered a username (2)used as little as possible of my own words (3)relied primarily on Mr. Heston's own words.
I minimize my own stylistic contribution because my integrity has been challenged in order to justify deleting independently verifiable information that I contributed.[[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 15:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Viajero, the issue here is quite simple despite efforts to make it complicated. Here it is.
Mr. Heston like most people is a complicated man. Some editors of this page wish to conceal some of his opinions by deleting Mr. Heston's own words.
One can dress this up and make it about indicting Michael Moore, about my own lack of style, about how late in life Mr Heston is, about how many interviews Mr. Heston did, about the injection of "point of view", or any other line of reasoning. The undeniable fact is that Mr. Heston has ideas and he has proudly expressed them - publicly.
To conceal these ideas does a disservice to Mr. Heston, to scholarship and to Wikipedia.[[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 16:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Meelar and Viajero, I think you have done a good job of improving the article.[[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 17:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:Thank you! [[User:Meelar|[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]]]] 17:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Spelling on Alzheimers?[[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 17:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::The following sentence was changed to once again attribute Mr. Heston's statements to Michael Moore's film editing:
"Moore's interview, which was not completely shown in the movie, is considered controversial in its treatment of Heston, who by then was suffering from Alzheimer's."
The fact is that many interviews that appear in films are not aired in their entirety.
:I have to agree on this point. -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 21:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Some Wikipedia editors are going to great lengths to distance Mr. Heston from his own words. This violation of objectivity is not egregious enough for me to embark on another "who can out-edit whom" competition, and the editorial bias against Mr. Moore is clear.
For myself, I am simply satisfied that (1) the facts are recorded despite the tortuous qualification that has been attached (2) the attempt to label me a vandalizing follower of Michael Moore (I am neither) has failed.[[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 20:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I also recieved this message from Hcheney; I include it for anyone who may make the mistake of complaining about censorship after an unjustified deletion of a contribution. The message follows:
"Saying that other user's edits are "censorship" is a violation of the no personal attacks policy. Since you are a new user, I am going to assume good faith that you did not know about our policies. --"DICK" CHENEY 20:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)"
Thank you for your message Hcheney, and for upholding the policies of Wikipedia, I am quite willing to abide by this policy; my only request is that you point me to the ___location of the rule prohibiting the use of the word censored so I can confirm it for myself. Thank you in advance [[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 20:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
----
Hcheney, if you don't believe the quote from the Moore documentary belongs in this article, ok, say so. But larding it with those kinds of qualifications isn't the best solution. -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 21:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:The latest edit regarding Mr. Heston's gun crime statement.
"This interview and Moore's other interviews in the documentary are considered controversial, even deceptive by critics. At the time of the interview Heston was suffering from Alzheimer's."
I find it biased; however, I shall refrain from editing.[[User:FactsOnly|FactsOnly]] 22:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe the quote belongs in the article, but considering the fact I was accused of "censorship" and immediately reverted when I did remove the quote. In the interest of wiki-harmony, I don't have that big of a problem with the quote. However, I feel it is necessary to put the quote into context. As for my "biased" edit I think we can all agree that:
#Michael Moore's interviews in Bowling for Columbine are controversial, as in they are subject to significant criticism.
#Michael Moore's critics find his interviews in the movie to be deceptive.
#Charlton Heston was suffering from Alzheimer's at the time of the interview.
My expansion merely reflects the reality of these 3 points. If you wish to question if these points are factual, fine. I feel my expansion puts the quote into a factual context. --[[User:Hcheney|"D<small>ICK</small>"]] [[User talk:Hcheney|C<small>HENEY</small>]] 22:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hcheney, the quote belongs in the article because it happened.
The addition of the "interview was deceptive" comment is biased and should be removed.
Yes, some critics claim the interview was deceptive. In addition, some supporters argue that the interview was an accurate reflection of Mr. Heston's opinions.
You have chosen to ignore the opinions of supporters while highlighting opinions of the crtics.22:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
| 