Maynard, I did a major rewrite along the lines of (a) a brief bio statement of what he does now b) the key articles that have prompted some of the criticism grouped by topic with links to response specific to that topic and c) the general critique on all three topic areas plus add in a list of his books and key article references. I tried to make it a little more descriptive and neutral will retaining the key points and providing the links.--Bob Burton 21:00, 25 Jan 2005 (EST)
Bob, it really isn't necessary for me that you or anybody else explain their enhancements to articles which I seed with bare components. Each of us has our roles, our services which we can properly perform; and polishing articles is not mine; nor am I presently striving to master that artistic science. So please, don't feel obliged on my account to record explainations of typical and appropriate contribution to the project.
With regard specifically to the Corn article and your comment about "make it a little more ... neutral", I'll submit my perspective that I started this article only becauase of its neutrality, and with a real curiosity about whether or not David Corn would respond to Kargar's (and Madsen's) assertion  that "Corn ... had not spent a single hour of research on the subject, attacked Gary’s report ..."
It was that challenge which triggered me to think that Corn is "on topic" for Disinfopedia/SourceWatch. After all, the progressive roots of this project are not challenged; the notion of a mole in the progressive movement is worthy of note; more worthy than relegation to the obscurity of a long (biased?) list of external references.
It seems to me that you may have reduced, rather than enhanced, the "neutrality" of this article; and possibly just evidenced the point which Madsen and Kargar were making about "conformity". Anyway, I thought that neutrality had been assigned to the Wikipedia ;-}
I don't really expect a response from Corn, any more than I expect one from Bush. Is only ONE of them in denial?
--Maynard 22:26, 25 Jan 2005 (EST)
Hi Maynard, trying to be good penning brief notes on changes so thet people can follow the basic reasons for the changes (plus judge whether it acheived what I was trying to do); just to clarify I have no problem with their being a profile on Corn or referring to the criticisms of his articles (while I wouldn't claim to have read his articles closely it seems to me that his "attacks" are somewhat milder than that - at least on the Coulter scale of polemic). cheers --Bob Burton 22:57, 25 Jan 2005 (EST)