User talk:69.152.107.247

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Kenneth Copeland article[edit]

We can:

  • continue this duet of your deleting an external link in the Kenneth Copeland and my putting it back, or
  • you can post something in the talk/discussion page of that article (or even in the Edit summary) why you think the link should be deleted, and I can consider the merits of that, and even possibly agree with you.

Your choice. John Broughton 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The link violates the "neutral point of view policy".
  • Do all articles contain links that are negitive about the subject of the article?
  • Doesn't seem fair...
You misunderstand "Neutral Point of View". That doesn't mean that negative links are unacceptable. The criteria is whether a link is USEFUL in understanding the subject of the article.
So the answer to your question is: Most articles about controversial subjects DO contain negative links.
Wikipedia isn't a press room, where only positive things are said about people and organizations.
If an article lacks balance, then the way to correct that is to add positive information and to add links that show where the (positive) information came from. [Note the wikipedia policy that information must be verificable - for example, "X is a devoted husband and loving parent" isn't really veriable, so it's unacceptable for a wikipedia article. Similary, "Y is a lying scoundrel and cheat" isn't verifiable - but something like "Y was convicted of fraud and bigamy" is, so it's okay to put into an article.]
And thanks for replying. John Broughton 21:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll just keep coming by to delete this link on a regular basis.
  • I notice topics that you like don't have links saying your topic is full of crap, because that accusation cannot be verified...by the same token, this negative website cannot be verified either.
  • Everybody knows that all religion boils down to opinion, therefore the link does not belong!
I'm not sure how you've figured out which topics I like, since that isn't a criteria I use for deciding what to edit. And I don't delete links if they are "negative" - I delete them when they are junk - like a blog, or an letter to the editor by a local group, attacking a national party office holder. (In both of those cases, the person being attacked was someone I would never support, but I deleted the links anyway.)
And I don't follow your argument about verification and opinions. You seem to be saying that religions get a "free pass" because they are just "opinion". But religious individuals can be stupid, bigoted, inconsistent, hypocritical, self-promoting, corrupt, etc., and these things can be made clear by facts, not assertions. Further, religious arguments can be illogical, or can make claims about facts that are demonstrably false. For any of those reasons, links to well-reasoned and factual information, as "negative" as it may be, is quite appropriate. John Broughton 01:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)