| Revision as of 23:35, 2 March 2009 editCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Warren: proposed compromise← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:43, 2 March 2009 edit undoKevin (talk | contribs)17,588 edits →Warren: answer to my question?Next edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| ::::::::Are you arguing that I am ignoring the careful use of reliable sources in BLPs, or that the alteration of the web site is an extraordinary claim? Regarding the attribution, we do not specifically connect Warren with the change, just state the facts (the website was changed near the time of the invocation) and let the reader make their own assumption on the level of control over the website that Warren has. ] (]) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | ::::::::Are you arguing that I am ignoring the careful use of reliable sources in BLPs, or that the alteration of the web site is an extraordinary claim? Regarding the attribution, we do not specifically connect Warren with the change, just state the facts (the website was changed near the time of the invocation) and let the reader make their own assumption on the level of control over the website that Warren has. ] (]) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| (outdent) did you see my proposal which allows the statement that the site was changed but does not contain the charges as to what was on the earlier page as it can not reasonably be sourced to Warren? The goal is compromise as I recall. ] (]) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | (outdent) did you see my proposal which allows the statement that the site was changed but does not contain the charges as to what was on the earlier page as it can not reasonably be sourced to Warren? The goal is compromise as I recall. ] (]) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Are you able to answer my question above? It does seem to me that you are avoiding answering anything directly. ] (]) 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:43, 2 March 2009
Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.
It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Warren
Note Proposal 3 specifically removes all the problematic material you are concerned about re: the church's position as not relevant to a BLP on Warren. Collect (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Note also the RfM just made for the article, which was not particlualry mentioned there. Collect (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that Prop 3 (this will shortly be confusing - we're up to 5 already) excludes this part, but I think that it does miss out important information. I may see if I can offer something today. Kevin (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The BLP/church position wasn't the point I was making, just that the source does not fully support the statement re previous contents of the web site, but I think only a slight rewording or better source is required. This is a separate issue from relevance/inclusion altogether. Kevin (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The proposed compromise (moving church stuff to the church article) using proposal 3 as modified as the basis seems to have some support from Firestorm. Two appear hopelessly against anything using the word "compromise" <g> Collect (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have to agree though that there are reliable sources connecting the invocation controversy with the alterations to the church web site. I will not be either supporting or opposing any of the proposals, in an effort to remain neutral. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- That was not where it looked from my keyboard -- Firestorm proffered a compromise with the specific contentious material left out as long as some of the other church material could be moved to the church article. Unless, of course, I have misunderstood his posts. The consept is, to me, separatin of church and pastor. Collect (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Firestorm's posts, just that the 2 sources connect the invocation controversy with the web site alterations. There is merit in the argument that if reputable media outlets have made the connection we should do the same. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sort of like if the NRA web site says something, that it should be attributed specifically to the president of the NRA? There is merit in the principle that extraordinary claims require extreme care in WP as well. Collect (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that I am ignoring the careful use of reliable sources in BLPs, or that the alteration of the web site is an extraordinary claim? Regarding the attribution, we do not specifically connect Warren with the change, just state the facts (the website was changed near the time of the invocation) and let the reader make their own assumption on the level of control over the website that Warren has. Kevin (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sort of like if the NRA web site says something, that it should be attributed specifically to the president of the NRA? There is merit in the principle that extraordinary claims require extreme care in WP as well. Collect (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Firestorm's posts, just that the 2 sources connect the invocation controversy with the web site alterations. There is merit in the argument that if reputable media outlets have made the connection we should do the same. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- That was not where it looked from my keyboard -- Firestorm proffered a compromise with the specific contentious material left out as long as some of the other church material could be moved to the church article. Unless, of course, I have misunderstood his posts. The consept is, to me, separatin of church and pastor. Collect (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have to agree though that there are reliable sources connecting the invocation controversy with the alterations to the church web site. I will not be either supporting or opposing any of the proposals, in an effort to remain neutral. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The proposed compromise (moving church stuff to the church article) using proposal 3 as modified as the basis seems to have some support from Firestorm. Two appear hopelessly against anything using the word "compromise" <g> Collect (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) did you see my proposal which allows the statement that the site was changed but does not contain the charges as to what was on the earlier page as it can not reasonably be sourced to Warren? The goal is compromise as I recall. Collect (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you able to answer my question above? It does seem to me that you are avoiding answering anything directly. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)