Talk:Preying from the Pulpit

This article was nominated for deletion on 30th April 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

It is beyond silly that we should have an article about a miniseries that appeared on a news show, when we don't even know the date the series aired, what channel, who the reporters were, or any other relevent details. Not enough information for an article. Vivaldi (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though the only place this particular news show is ever mentioned is in two articles in the newspaper that are over 13 years old. I suggest that this means that this topic is not notable at all. Vivaldi (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Some mentions from around the US include:

• A conversation with the Rev. Jack Hyles Northwest Indiana Times. May 30, 1993
• Hyles: I'm no dictator. First Baptist leader defends Northwest Indiana Times. May 28, 1993
• "Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union San Diego, Calif.: May 17, 1993. p. A.7
• "Springs drive-by baptisms immersed in controversy." Bruce Finley, Denver Post Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Aug 22, 1993. pg. 7.C
• "7 accused of abuse linked to preacher." The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Mich.: May 17, 1993. pg. B.2
• "Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5"

Plus the two articles mentioned in the article. Arbusto 00:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I have proposed that we delete this article from Wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Take it to AFD, and argue your case there. I want to hear arguements on both sides, before deletion.. --Rob 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I did. I just wanted to make sure that I tried the proposed deletion process first. Vivaldi (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable Source of News

How could you call an MP3 copy of a TV network news broadcast that is hosted on a personal Website a reliable source? I already know the answer is, "You can't," and I know that many Wikipedia editors don't know that. However, you could contact someone with high credentials in document reliability--at least a high school English teacher--and find out the answer. Please, go ask the Dean of your local college's English Department how reliable a source those MP3s are. I would love to hear about the University that would accept such material for its own courses. Pooua 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue

I'm concerned about the copyright status of the audio material we are linking to. If it was hosted by Fox or the TV station that broadcast the report then I would be OK with it. However, the material is hosted by an obscure website, jeriwho.net, which doesn't indicate if they have any permission to host the material. Since they have put up audio for the entire series, they can not claim "fair use". As such, they have probably violated copyright by putting the audio copies on their website. We are not allowed to link to copyright material under these conditions, as per WP:Copyrights, which is official policy. The applicable section is the following:

Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is OK.

I am therefore removing the links from the article given the likely copyright infringement. -- JJay 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JJay thanks for your concern, but regarding your statement 1) It is not the full program. Note these a few minute clips from a 1/2 hour news program. A) There are five out of the seven nights of the program partially reproduced. B) From the half hour news program" six minutes of a half hour, six minutes of a 30 minutes, seven minutes of a half hour, thirteen minutes of a half hour, and lastly seven minutes of a half hour are reproduced. C) It is also partially reproduced in the sense of it is only audio not video of a newsreport. 2) There is no restrictions that calls into question reproducing minutes of video a half hour news reports in audio format at Wikipedia:Fair use.

This is no different than political blogs that make certain newsclips available. Well, except the people who seem concerned about the copyright law voted delete in the AfD and this is simply audio reproduced.

In contrast, to the copyright concerns of three people who have resorted to name calling with me, at Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner there is eight full reproductions of audio than includes video[1], which is being sold by C-SPAN here[2]. Pay attention to the note at the bottom of that page, which says "Note: This is a copyrighted duplication of the program as it aired on C-SPAN." Arbusto 09:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright law forbids people from distributing other people's material without permission. C-SPAN has the authority to distribute its own material, which is what it is doing on that page to which you linked. In contrast, Jeri Massi has not given notice of copyright ownership for the MP3 files she is distributing, and we have no indication that she has permission to distribute it.

Re-read the above section, wikipedia has linked 8 different non-CSPAN downloads of the program. Arbusto 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If true then those editors are likely violating the same policy. Policy can't be ignored just because you find a few examples that you think are similar. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally, to meet fair use, the excerpted material must be limited to specific material, that is, the copied material must be no longer than is necessary to meet a specific point. But, the Web page offers no specific point to the Jeri Massi links; it simply says, in effect, "Here are some links to criticism in MP3 format." No indication of origin, no indication of copyright, no indication of what specific point the linker hoped to make in each link. Copyright law does not permit shotgun copying for fair use.

In this case, the material is only a fraction of the full program. For example link one is 6 minutes the broadcast is a half hour news program. 6/30= 5, thus the audio is 1/5 of the broadcast. It is also only the audio. Arbusto 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is 39 minutes of a complete program called "Preying from the Pulpit". The other news segments weren't part of this story and can't be included in your calculations. Otherwise you might as well calculate the 6am, 7am, 12pm, 5pm, and 6pm newsbroadcasts from that day too. Or maybe you can say its only 39 minutes out of 1 year of programming! A 1/2 hour broadcast of news has 15 minutes of news. The rest is commercials. Only the audio is still a copyright violation. Transcripts, translations, or deriviative works are all protected by the same copyright protection. "Fair use" for educational purposes would require much smaller individual bits taken out and then analyzed in an educational manner. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if your Stephen Colbert example were the same situation as "Preying from the Pulpit," that does not necessarily mean that either usage is appropriate or legal. Pooua 10:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1) The Colbert example is a full reproduction. 2) This case is a segments reproduced. 3) This shows that the people discussing copyrights are only "worried" about it in one article. I wonder why that is... Arbusto 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't have time to edit all the articles Arbustoo. We all have interests. I had no particular at all in Jack Hyles, and in fact never even heard of him until I accidentally stumbled upon your horribly biased and intentially deceptive edits to the article. If you have free time you should try to tell other people to follow the policies when you see them being violated elsewhere on Wikipedia. You will be far more respected as an editor if you follow the policies and try to get others to follow them. Trying to use other people's violation of policy to justify your own is wrong. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the links that Arbusto reverted, because 1) these are not Jeri Massi's property 2) the links are not attributed to the owner 3) the links are to unreliable source material. Pooua 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to the original: 1) Mintues-fractions of the audio program of a half hour news service partially reproduced for non-commerical, educational purposes, is fair use. Arbusto 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A half-hour news program typically has only a few minutes on each story and almost all have a total of 13-16 minutes of news. I thought these audio extracts were the complete program? You mean that the owner of the personal website has edited the audio files so that they do not contain the full unedited audio from the original source? What parts of the newsstory did she find convenient to delete? Vivaldi (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

From the article: Preying from the Pulpit aired as a multi part segement of the 10:00 news. The MP3s contain the full segment of Preying from the Pulpit and not the other news aired, so there are no local sports highlights or anything of that nature. They are "unedited" in the sense of the Preying from the Pulpit segement, but clips in relation to the full night's broadcast. Arbusto 23:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then, if they are the entire "mini-series" that is called "Preying from the Pulpit", then that is what it is judged on. It is like a chapter of a book. A single chapter in a thirty chapter book still has copyright protection and nobody can ever just copy the chapter and put it online without the owners permission. And what segments of the audio program are unavailable? Is it possible that the two segments she left off are mainly retractions or clarifications of prior statements they made? Are the missing segments comments from Hyles? Do you know? Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That is the problem. The audio clips are not snippets. They are the complete audio for the entire segments. They infringe the copyright for these segments since they are obviously being hosted on an unauthorized site. It doesn't matter that the entire newscast has not been posted, or for that matter, the entire day's programming. It is identical to making an MP3 of just one song off an album. The song is copyright protected as is the entire album. "Fair Use" would allow a small portion to be used, such as 10% of a song. However, Jeriwho has posted the entire audio from "Preying to the Pulpit", which is not "fair use", regardless of whether use is for commercial, educational, or entertainment purposes. -- JJay 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The fair-use of 10% would have to be for a specific purpose. You couldn't even use 3 notes from a song if you didn't follow the rules of fair-use. There must be a purpose for the fair-use. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A MP3, which is a song SOLD for download on the internet is much different that the audio portion of a publicly aired TV report. The song is strictly for commerical interests the other is not. Once again this portion is merely 1/5 of the entire broadcast on the 10:00 news and is only the audio of it.Arbusto 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The TV news is put on the air to make money. TV news brings in money for stations and the stations have explicit copyright notices on their broadcasts. Also, many TV newsstations do sell their video, audio, and written transcripts. Many even specifically mention how to get those transcripts at the end of their shows. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong about this. All commercial TV broadcasts are copyright protected including the news and both the Audio and video portions. TV is commercial, via advertising. That is why it is illegal to tape and then redistribute the broadcasts. If Fox wants to make the broadcasts available over the internet that would be fine with me. However, the policy is clear that we should not link to sites that have "stolen" the material. Alternatively, if jeriwho can assert that they have permission to use the broadcasts, then I think we can and should link to their page. However, I searched their site and could find no claim that they were authorized to distribute the material. You should also bear in mind that the audio covers the entire "preying from the pulpit" segments. That is not "fair use" and it is irrelevant what the station broadcast before or after the segments. 60 minutes, which broadcasts three or four segments per show, is a good comparison. Can I tape and then distribute one segment claiming "fair use" because I haven't distributed the entire show? The answer is no. The segment is copyright protected, as is the entire show. -- JJay 00:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I tape and then distribute one segment claiming "fair use" because I haven't distributed the entire show? The answer is no. The segment is copyright protected, as is the entire show. My response: That is exactly correct. One chapter in a 30 chapter book is still copyrighted. Even 5 notes out of a one hour album are copyrighted and can't be duplicated unless a specific fair-use provision is cited. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Segments (in this case 6 minutes) of a broadcast (in this case 30 minutes) are allowed to be quoted under fair use. Interesting... removing something that you have voted to delete and get in an argument with someone you have a history of being uncivil to.Arbusto 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Broadcasts are not 30 minutes. You are counting the 15 minutes of commercials. The commercials are not even included in the copyrighted portion of a news broadcast. The copyright of the commercials is owned by someone else entirely. And even a 30 second commercial cannot be copied in total under fair-use. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... removing something that you have voted to delete Do you find it odd that people that would vote to delete something would also want to remove it? Only one person besides yourself voted to keep this article.. Read the AfD. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would stick to the matter at hand: (i) The article was not deleted; (ii) I have no interest in arguing with anyone; (iii) any past history we may have had does not play any role in the fact that these links look very clearly to be violating the Fox affiliate's copyright. As such, it seems obvious that it violates our policy to link to the complete audio of "preying from the pulpit" (i.e. the subject of this article). -- JJay 00:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Segments (in this case 6 minutes) of a broadcast (in this case 30 minutes) are allowed to be quoted under fair use. Arbusto 01:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are right about this. The use of the audio here is substantial since it is the entire audio portions of the segments. They are not short excerpts or citations, which might be permitted under the fair use doctrine. This page gives some good examples of court decisions regarding fair use of copyright material

[3]. You will see that courts have ruled that using as little as 30 seconds of copyright material in news broadcasts have violated fair use. -- JJay 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that case is at all similar in the case in question the total video was only 4 minutes and " took the heart of the work and affected the copyright owner's ability to market the video." I'm not convinced one way or another that the segments are fair use. May I suggest posting a note on the village pump for people who are more copyright savy to give their opinions? JoshuaZ 01:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ: this is 5/7th of the entire Preying from a Pulpit series including a full 39 minutes of directly copied audio. It is not fair-use to do this. Even taking out single chapters of long books is a violation of copyright. The "fair-use" must be for a specific purpose. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many cases listed on that page. The optimal problem here is that we are linking to the entire audio portion of the 6 part "preying from the pulpit" news segments, hosted on a site that does not indicate any permission to use the material. -- JJay 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If the copyright owner doesn't want this shared and believes the blog to violate fair use then it goes between the blog owner and copyright holder. At that point in time, once a claim is made by the copyright holder that it is not fair use then the links should be taken down.

As of right now, wikipedia is not the only party to link to these mp3s [4]Arbusto 02:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You are making up your own policy now. Wikipedia says that we should not link to works that are likely to be violations of copyright. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What you are asserting is not wikipedia policy regarding links. The policy has already been quoted here, but please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. It is also not particularly relevant if other sites link to jeriwho. That is not our concern here and does not address the underlying copyright issue. -- JJay 02:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What I am asserting is that this under fair use. You claim is it not. You do not own the copyright in question nor do you have a citation that the copyright owner believes this is not fair use. Also you have dubious reasons for wanting to take this off as well. Arbusto 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What I am asserting is that this under fair use. You claim is it not. You do not own the copyright in question nor do you have a citation that the copyright owner believes this is not fair use. Can you show us some court cases that have shown similar copies that were ruled to be fair use? What is your basis for claiming fair-use? Do you even know the requirements for fair use? Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Also you have dubious reasons for wanting to take this off as well. The "dubious reason" is that we want Wikipedia policy to be followed. I could care less about Jack Hyles personally. I'm not a Baptist, or even a Christian for that matter. The only reason I am here at all is because I stumbled upon your gross and repulsive edits that demonstrate your complete lack of willingness to maintain a neutral tone in the articles about Hyles. When left to your own devices, these articles are 90% criticism of Hyles. Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going by wikipedia's copyright policy. Regarding fair use, it would be very difficult to make the claim given that the use encompasses all the audio from broadcast segments. It is even more difficult to make the claim when the material is being distributed to anyone with an internet connection, rather than in a more limited setting, such as the classroom. I also don't see any reason for your continued insinuations regarding my "motives". My "motives" are that I like to see articles adhere to the policies and guidelines here. I would appreciate, again, if you would refrain from making personal accusations and stick to the issues involved with editing this article. -- JJay 02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1) Segments (in this case 6 minutes) of a broadcast (in this case 30 minutes) are allowed to be quoted under fair use. 2) A few examples of your past incivility to me, from your talk page "Have you always been this much of a troll or is this a recent problem you've developed" JJay 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Then you followed up with "maybe your intelligence is absent tonight" and concluded with "If you are asking for a date the answer is no." 3) Thus, given your past interest in the articles I work on and the chance to argue with me, I believe this is no different than the time you prevented my redirect[5]. Instead of just letting the redirect happen, you cried vandalism, the article went through AfD with one keep vote-You, and it was redirected. Arbusto 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1) its a total of 39 minutes of the program called "Preying from the Pulpit". The 30 minute news broadcast is filled with 15 minutes of commercials that aren't even copyrighted by the newschannel at all. 2) Your past examples of violation of policy are also numerous. Listing them all out in every thread is silly. Lets stick to the main issue. 3) This article had exactly one person besides you that voted to keep it. And 8 times as many people that voted to get rid of it. Can you stick to the issue? Vivaldi (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the fair use issue, there is a discussion on the WP AN/I that may be informative. Otherwise, I think my views on these links are fairly clear and I believe closely alligned with wikipedia policy and standard practice concerning linking to copyright violations. Finally, for the third time, I need to ask that you stick to the issues involved with editing this article. If there are examples of incivility on this page please point them out (or remove them). Besides that, I have no interest in discussing these unrelated articles or discussions you keep trying to bring up. If you have a personal complaint to make, then make it in the proper forum. However, this talk page should be used to discuss editing this article. -- JJay 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

While JJay should stop making personal attacks, his attacks, do not change the underlying issue of whether or not it is acceptable to link to them. Based on the discussion at WP:ANI, I now think that under the policy it is best not to link to them. JoshuaZ 15:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks???? Please point out personal attacks on this page, or related to this article, or even related to the copyright issue we have been discussing here. Your comment, frankly, seems unnecessary to me. As an admin, I would hope you would seek to reduce tensions, rather than increase them. -- JJay 16:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't look at the timestamps on Arbusto's above quotes. JoshuaZ 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate your efforts to arbitrate here. Having said that, I would perhaps encourage you to read the entire discussion here before intervening. My interest in removing the links was strictly policy based. It makes no difference to me who else is editing the article (and nor will I be goaded into revisiting an unrelated dispute). As I stated above, if the copyright issue is clarified, or if the copyright holder makes the material available, then we should possibly link. Barring that, we should be cautious with links as with any edit, because our reputation is on the line. Our sources should be beyond reproach (which to my mind mostly eliminates blogs due to the lack of accountability), partly owing to NPOV concerns. Our readers are intelligent enough to use google, find the MP3s, and make up their own minds. However, we should not put our rep on the line by steering them to possibly dodgy sources-- JJay 16:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This not considered a settled matter because two out of four people at the adminstrators board sides with JJay. Arbusto 18:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no one sided with me. Despite your continued attempts to personalize the issue, it is about wikipedia policy. If the policy changes regarding linking to sites that infringe copyright, or if the copyright holder releases the material, then we can link. Until then, the jeriwho mp3s should not be linked from this article. -- JJay 18:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WP Policy about external links to copyrighted material

From the Wikipedia policy about external links to copyrighted material:

External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Vivaldi (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern and your nomination for deleting this page, but regarding your "worries:" 1) It is not the full program. Note these are a few minute clips from a 1/2 hour news program. A) There are five out of the seven nights of the program partially reproduced. B) From the half hour news program" six minutes of a half hour, six minutes of a 30 minutes, seven minutes of a half hour, thirteen minutes of a half hour, and lastly seven minutes of a half hour are reproduced. C) It is also partially reproduced in the sense of it is only audio not video of a newsreport. 2) There is no restriction that calls into question reproducing minutes of video a half hour news reports in audio format at Wikipedia:Fair use.

Thanks for your concern and your nomination for deleting this page My response: 8 out of 10 people think this page should not be here. That was the result of the vote on AfD. You had one person that agreed with you Arbustoo. Vivaldi (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1) It is not the full program. Note these are a few minute clips from a 1/2 hour news program A) There are five out of the seven nights of the program partially reproduced. B) From the half hour news program six minutes of a half hour, six minutes of a 30 minutes, seven minutes of a half hour, thirteen minutes of a half hour, and lastly seven minutes of a half hour are reproduced. C) It is also partially reproduced in the sense of it is only audio not video of a newsreport. My response: 1A) 5/7th is not fair use 1B) A half-hour news-program is only 13-16 minutes long typically. The rest are commercials. These clips amount to nearly half or more than half of the entire news broadcast. Also, they amount to stealing an entire 39 minute story. Whether or not they broke it up into 5 or 7 chapters does nothing to give you fair use. The personal website has taken 5/7th of the body of work called "Preying on the Pulpit", a body of work for whom they do not appear to even acknowledge the copyright holder. Nor do they have a statement of authorization to duplicate and distribute from the copyright holder. 1C) The audio portion is protected by the same copyright. What you are suggesting is that you could have one link to the audio and another to the video and make it fair-use. Your argument is hog-wash. Even people that publish transcripts or translations of copyrighted material are violating the owners copyrights. Vivaldi (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Also there was little need to copy and paste to create a new section for this; it is copy and pasted above. Arbusto 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I missed it until after I hit save page. Sorry about any confusion that it caused you. Vivaldi (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a "Tie"?

all with ties to Jack Hyles, it said - What constitutes a tie? Financial support? Shared property? An occassional handshake? The reader really needs to know. Pooua 00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the tie is they followed "teachings and philosophy' of Hyles." Arbusto 09:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather vague, don't you think? How would they know? Do they say? Pooua 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It talks about the case of a Hammond Baptist sponsered event, ran by a Hyles graduate/pastor at another church who was convicted for molesting a child at the Hammond event for example. Arbusto 18:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Rather vague, don't you think? How would they know? Do they say?" --Pooua My Response: That is why articles in professional encyclopedias do not typically get filled with references to newpaper articles. Historians realize that biographies should not be a collection of newsclippings. (And actually Wikipedia mentions this same idea in its guidelines). Vivaldi (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Historians also don't add full paragraphs and bold sections that support their bias while down playing and deleting others. In this case the newspaper articles are added because there is a mission to white wash criticism of Hyles. Allegations need to be supported to keep them in the article. And if need be I will add more if this drive continues. Arbusto 05:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't believe that the statement of the police chief that contradicts his underling from 4 days prior is the most important comment that should be considered when judging if there was an ongoing investigation? The guy's boss said THERE IS NO INVESTIGATION. That means the other guy's opinion is not the prevailing opinion of the police department. This entire article should be deleted. All the comments should go. But if you are going to include such worthless comments as the ignorant comments of a police underling that is directly contradicted by his boss who is speaking on behalf of the entire police department a few days later -- then by goodness -- we are going to point out that his boss clearly and unmistakenably said "there is no investigation". When the FBI is quoted as saying they aren't investigating....that is the important quote. That is actual FBI saying "there is no investigation". When the police chief speaking on behalf of the police department says, "there is no investigation", that means there is no investigation, even if one of his underlings got it wrong a few days beforehand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivaldi (talk • contribs)

That's a judgement wikipedia shouldn't make... the article you included didn't say "correct" or "underling" that is your POV. Also criticisms don't go in the body of the articles subject they go in a criticism section. Arbusto 18:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism

The childish games by Vivaldi (talk · contribs) are out of line. Ignoring the removal of unaccredited and the POV of the investigation, this user has added in full quotes of paragraphs from a bias sourced in the middle of the main text.[6] This violates wikipedia policy. Criticism can be added throughout the article if "criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow." Certainly adding in a 5 sentence diatribe Hyles on a one sentence description disrupts the flow and then adding another 5 sentence claim to another sentence makes the article very point of view. Also all this comes from one article, which would be better to mentioned and linked to. If need be add a criticism section. Arbusto 00:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)