User talk:Clarky65

removal of the controversies section

I understand if the controversy has been disproven, however it still should be there. if you can find a source that disproves the allegation, then provide it in the controversy section and mention how it was disproved. see wikipedia:reliable sources to see what sources are reliable.

thank you

sincerely, Gaismagorm (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if however you really feel that the controversies section is unneeded, please obtain consensus to remove the section on the articles talk page. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I understand the importance of keeping the controversy section if it can be properly sourced and contextualized. However, after thorough research, I have not been able to find any reliable sources that provide direct rebuttals to the allegations mentioned. It appears that these allegations were never substantiated, and there is a lack of substantial evidence or official findings to support the claims regarding Pastor Ed Young's lifestyle and financial arrangements.

In light of this, I propose updating the controversy section to emphasize the lack of substantiation for these allegations. This would provide a more balanced and accurate representation of the situation, in line with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this proposed approach and am open to any suggestions you may have. Clarky65 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general I don't particularly know if this would be good. I reccomend asking on the articles talk page. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]