Talk:Amazing Facts/Archive 1

message: Edited to remove blatant advertising.  Not appropriate even for a discussion page. - 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unknown editor comment

message: Maniwar suggest I call for an RFC. I will do so. Maybe if we get some objective opinions this can be resolved.70.108.49.31 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: I have semiprotected this article for two weeks.  To the IP editor, please provide source references in a standard citation format per WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:V.  Bear in mind that article text must be in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.  To both sides, please assume good faith: perhaps this IP editor is unfamiliar with site standards, and Maniwar is not necessarily pushing a Seventh Day Adventism agenda.  Please tone things down a little, abide by site policies, and hope the RFC brings in fresh perspectives.  Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Maniwar, exactly what part of my following edit (you reverted) is not from a reliable or verifiable source?  Why do you think MinistryWatch.com is not a reliable source?  Do you have another charity watchdog group that you prefer?  Just give Amazing Facts a phone call to find out.  It seems like we have a consensus that Maniwar needs to be blocked from editing this article.  I suspect he's Seventh Day Adventist.  He should represent them a little better.
My reverted text:
MinistryWatch.com gives Amazing Facts an F grade in "transparency" for not divulging its financials and thereby "obstructing prudent donors in understanding". Out of 500 Christian organizations reviewed, only 27 received an F grade.http://www.ministrywatch.com/mw2.1/pdf/MWDA_Transparency_F.pdf For a detailed report see http://www.ministrywatch.com/mw2.1/F_SumRpt.asp?EIN=680389022
I also have some problems with this article. One editor claims POV and he seems to have a point. Others seem to agree with him. But Maniwar is dedicated to fighting any editing other then his own. I add my vote that this article should be NPOV. It is evident that the amazing facts organization does not like the catholic church and has other controversies. These should be in the article.64.21.238.49 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me set the record straight, you who seem bent on injecting non valuable information into an article be it this or another article. The information must be from a verifiable source, and it must lend value to the article. If you all would take the time to learn wikipedia instead of coming to insert your loaded POV, then the entire encyclopedia would be much better and we would not have to waste time fighting vandals such as you. Again, what value is this lending to the article? If you are so keen on inserting the info from ministry watch dot com, then why are you not inserting the information to all companies that they assess since this is such valuable information? This makes one wonder what your agenda is and what you are trying to accomplish. A controversy section is no issue, as a matter of fact I'm currently trying to rally for a controversy section in another article. If you all can add value to the article, then sure, I welcome it. But with the two issues being fought for, you editors are only concerned with the entries. Take a look at the history, I am not the only editor who has disagreed with the other entry it just so happens I am the newest one. Rather than accusing me, which has been done many times and falsely at that, follow protocol, show that there is value to be gained with the entry, register within the community to show you care about the overall encyclopedia, and edit positively to other articles showing you have no bias in trying to sour a single article. Help improve the article, be it positive, or controversial, yet show reliable sources, as I continually point out...drop the agendas. This hopefully answers the question to this and the below comments made. --Maniwar (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Disclosure of Income 

message: :Repeated from user talk:Maniwar
In discussing this with Maniwar on his talk page he posted this:
"I'm not sure if you're reading the talk page, but the disputed issue has been removed by numerous editors over the past year and a half. The supposed charge is not sourced, and it has been loaded. The three editors you refer to are in violation of WP:COI and therefore it does not warrant the entry be entered. Additionally, by consensus, see the talk page of the entire history of the discussion, staring well before I reverted it, by consensus has been removed because it voilates numerous policies on wikipedia. I don't want to rehash the entire conversation, so please take the time to read the entire talk page (including the history) to see how the final decision came about. The inclusion is not the issue, but lack of following policies. Please read the articles talk page, and ask any further questions on there. Lastly, I would encourage you to register with Wikipedia. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2007"
I have gone over the talk page here. At least one editor did provide sources including from the organization in question. Recently the consensus seems to be in the direction of including controversies in the article. My understanding is that anyone can edit and no one person should be the arbiter of an article. Maniwar, I have to be honest and say that you do not seem objective. I don't think policies are the issue. I suggest there be a section to this article, like in other articles, for controversies. Let people see it and make up their own minds. This doesn't have to be a big fight. I also think someone other then Maniwar should be involved. That is not to say he can't be, but that someone who is not a Seventh Day Adventist or a Catholic should be a part of the dialogue.64.21.238.30 16:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded to you above. --Maniwar (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to caution you. 1)Please read and be familiar with the entire discussion on this talk page. A controversy section is not the issue. The issue is that the entry must have cite reliable sources that are verifiable. 2)Additionally, the history of this talk page shows that the majority of editors (minus anonymous editors) do not feel the entry warrants being added and so by consensus it can be reverted. 3)Next, you still have to address how this is lending value to the article? Is there a large controversy stating that they are anti-Catholic? And by the way, you cannot add a quote and then ask a reader to interpret which seems to be the case. If you have proof, and it's, as pointed out above, verifiable then it can be added. However, do not just slap up a quote and expect that a reader can interpret its meaning. The quote must support what you're saying...giving proof, aid, etc. I hope this gives you understanding. If the entry is not supported, it will be removed and you may receive warning(s) since this discussion has been overly explained numerous times therefore justifying that you be issued a warning if you do not follow policy. Again, read this entire talk page and it will point out what the issues involved with the disputed quote is/are. It will teach you how to properly source, and how to properly add controversial sections. Happy editing. --Maniwar (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I again want to caution you. I suggest you first read and learn the policies I cited above. Also I'm not sure if you're missing the point or refusing to see it. The consensus is to leave it out, and since you fail to see it, I'll spell it out. For - Cestusdei, 64.21.238.30, and (70.108.49.31, 136.242.180.140, 136.242.228.218 - which are the same person) = 3. Note, that two editors are anonymous (including you) and one of them is charged with COI which is a violation. Those opposed are Fermion, Cromwellt, Maniwar, Durova = 4. And frustratingly, for the 30th time, a controversy section is not an issue, what is the issue is lack of following protocol, policies, loaded sentences, and your expectations of the reader to interpret your meaning. For example, the source you are citing, I as a reader am supposed to speculate/interpret what you mean. One person may read one thing, and another will read another. Additionally, it is not proving anti-catholics, it is a history lesson from a book of a deceased author. You need verifiable, reputable, and reliable sources clearly showing your charge...rather than this speculative and interpretive link you are providing. Last point, refrain from attacking me. You are making all sort of speculative charges, which is not the issue. Stick to the issue at hand, defend it, prove it, and you're more than welcomed to insert it, leave me out of it. Now, I've said all I care to about this. You have a history of discussion above to teach you how to properly cite, and what sort of sources are needed to cite. Lastly, adding a criticism section, I again say, is not an issue, but if you do it improperly, you will be reverted and given a warning on your talk page. One last point, if you so deeply care about wikipedia and building a good article, why are you hiding behind an anonymous user account, and why are you only concerned with one issue? It makes me wonder, though I'm not saying you are, if you are another employee of the Catholic University of America, a Catholic sporting an agenda, or an employee of the Catholic Church. Nuff said, good luck on your quest, I hope you find the sources you so desire, and happy editing. --Maniwar (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect that user:64.21.238.49 and user:64.21.238.30 are the same person and possibly may be in violation of multiple accounts and coi. However, I will give them the benefit of doubt and again caution him/her to learn how to post a controversy section. I suggest they learn WP:Consensus, WP:COI, WP:MOS, cite reliable sources verifiable, Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:FAQ, and lastly Wikipedia:Article development. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not been watching this controversial article. However I think that a brief mention of criticism, if well cited from (relatively) neutral sources, is justified. Many other Adventist-related articles include criticism. Surely it is true that Amazing Facts is at least anti-papal; although I am confident it would not be anti- every individual Catholic Christian. Colin MacLaurin 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colin, there is no issue with including a controversial section and there never has been! The issue(s) is that the editors have been adding the same ole sentence that many editors have reverted (see ). The editors have also obviously, been guilty of COI and WPA. Durova, a moderator, has commented that the entries are not valid and gave very good suggestions on how to post criticisms. Like any editor, I cannot allow POV entries with no sources. --Maniwar (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: Amazing Facts has been accused of having a negative view of the Catholic Church. Catholics believe their Church is portrayed unfairly by Amazing Facts. On it's website it states, "...in 538 A.D. Emperor Justinian decreed that the Roman Church now ruled the world. Henceforth, its reign would be known as the "Holy Roman Empire." The world staggered under the oppression of the Roman Church during the dark ages that followed. In her thirst for ever greater power and domination, she absorbed all other religions into herself and adulterated the pure doctrine of Christ with an amalgam of superstitions and heresies."
http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/Read_Book.asp?SelLang=en&ID=59&x=59&y=6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.238.30 (talk • contribs) on 1 Aug 2007
:I suspect that user:64.21.238.49 and user:64.21.238.30 are the same person and possibly may be in violation of multiple accounts and coi. However, I will give them the benefit of doubt and again caution him/her to learn how to post a controversy section. I suggest they learn WP:Consensus, WP:COI, WP:MOS, cite reliable sources verifiable, Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:FAQ, and lastly Wikipedia:Article development. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been watching this controversial article. However I think that a brief mention of criticism, if well cited from (relatively) neutral sources, is justified. Many other Adventist-related articles include criticism. Surely it is true that Amazing Facts is at least anti-papal; although I am confident it would not be anti- every individual Catholic Christian. Colin MacLaurin 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colin, there is no issue with including a controversial section and there never has been! The issue(s) is that the editors have been adding the same ole sentence that many editors have reverted (see ). The editors have also obviously, been guilty of COI and WPA. Durova, a moderator, has commented that the entries are not valid and gave very good suggestions on how to post criticisms. Like any editor, I cannot allow POV entries with no sources. --Maniwar (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: Looks like this has been slow brewing for months.  I've protected the version I saw that appeared on the page when I loaded it.  Would've protected either version, this one just happened to be up.
Here's my take: there's nothing inherently wrong with having something in the article about the Amazing Facts view of the Catholic Church, if it's neutrally presented and adequately sourced to verifiable opinions of notable experts.
It's inadequate for Wikipedia's purposes to do a little original research from the organization's website: that's not describing a controversy; it's an attempt to create one.  If the IP addresses who wish to make this point want their edits to become durable, and if these people originate from a Catholic university, then the solution is simple: approach a professor of religion and ask him or her to publish such a criticism.  You might earn independent study credits for performing supportive research.  Once the paper comes out in a reliable source, cite it here.  Or find something along those lines that's already published and cite it here.
Without such backing, editors are stuck.  I don't think the attempted edit violates all five pillars etc. as Maniwar describes.  It's quite possibly the seed of something that could take a legitimate place in the article.  Yet site policy places the burden for inclusion on editors who wish to add material...any material.  So go out there, if you think real controversy exists, and find something more substantial than Catholics and Protestants don't quite agree with each other and are sometimes blunt about their opinions.  I'm sure there are also Catholic histories that could offend the average Seventh Day Adventist, but the challenge would be (in either case) to demonstrate that things went beyond mundane levels and notable people took offense. 
Try to work that out during a week of protection.  I think you're all bright enough to reach an intelligent solution. DurovaCharge! 21:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This truly amazes me. Though I'm sorry that user:64.21.238.49 feels this way, I can't help but think that he/she may have been looking for some excuses to bash something or someone regardless. Now, this is purely speculation and I may be called anything but a child of God because of that speculation, but it still makes me wonder. What also amazes me is how user:64.21.238.49 chose to totally ignore everything that was said and shared and chose only to pick up one one comment and misconstrue it. user:64.21.238.49 You continued to attack me, to inject your surmises and opinions as to who, how, what, and why I am, yet when I throw in a "I suspect that user:64.21.238.49 and user:64.21.238.30 are the same person" and a "it makes me wonder, though I'm not saying you are, if you are another employee of the Catholic University of America, [or] a Catholic sporting an agenda, or an employee of the Catholic Church", the very same thing you were doing to me, you become offended?? Anyway, I tried to explain to you many times, and how you continually miss this also amazes me, that I am in no way opposed to a controversy section, though from this page and history of reverts on the history page, clearly shows a consensus against the addition; I am however opposed to people adding bad, poorly sourced, and loaded sentences to any article. I've challenged it in many articles and will continue to do so. Yet, you miss all of this?? Anyway, you can do what you want to do. I think Durova gave some very good suggestions and if you came back with what she or I have clearly and overly stated above, that good source(s) showing your accusation will be allowed. Had you brought the addition to the talk page, we could have worked through it, yet you chose to ignore the many cautions issued and posted anyway. I do hope you find your sources, and I do hope you find this alleged criticism. Anyway, chose what you wish. Life is what you make of it...sour or sweet. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection