Talk:Hobart Freeman

message: After watching the recent series of edits and the comments on this talk page, I have made some changes to the article as follows:
* I removed the references to "anointed" and to Freeman's recovery because he was healed directly by God. Being healed directly by God may or may not be true but it is unencyclopedic because it states as fact something that must be taken on faith. This is in line with WP:NPOV which indicates that articles must be written in a style free from bias for or against any particular relgion , belief or faith. This includes articles on religious subjects such as this one;
* I shortened the 'controversy' section by removing some unnecessary detail and the 'rumour has it' statements. This is not to imply that these things are unimportant or inaccurate, but the length of the section is out of proportion to the overall article. WP:WEIGHT is relevant here. Freeman has his supporters and opponents and the controversy section should be in proportion to the rest of the article.
Three other important points:
* Please sign your posts on this page, and please use edit sumamries when making edits on the article; 
* As this article excites strong views on both sides, could I suggest that any major changes (like the ones I just did) get discussed here so the reasoning behind them can be explained? 
* User:71.243.21.111  - please do not edit other's talk page posts like you did here. This is vandalism. If repeated will get you blocked from editing.  Euryalus 11:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing point-of-view statements 

message: I have to say that I'm amazed by the amount of work that's been done on the article this past week...202.55.158.136 's meticulous sourcing and Euryalus's encyclopedic eye have (hopefully) given the article a new chance at escaping 'B' status. Thanks for the hard work guys...
72.86.96.17 22:00-ish, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
: Thank you but all I have done is copyedit. The really valuable job is the referencing, which is essential for a good article but generally long and tedious work. So, congratulations to the anon IP who added all the external links.
: On a related point, can anyone find a photo of Hobart Freeman which is not "Fair Use"? I am concerned that the day will come when the one we have in the article gets removed because fair use photos cannot be used for illustration and must be a subject of discussion in the text. Euryalus 10:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Additional photos of Hobart Freeman are available from the article [Freeman: Mystic, Monk or Minister] by John J. Davis, Times-Union Warsaw IN 1983. However I am not sure whether their usage is acceptable to Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.158.136 (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Recent edits 

message: An anonymous IP has removed a number of references to an individual from this talk page. This is probably appropriate as they appear to have been personal attacks. 
However they also removed a warning not to edit other people's posts, following an earlier modification of a comment so that it said the opposite of what its author intended. I have restored this warning, as no individual is named in it and editing other's posts in this manner is vandalism.  Euryalus 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page comments 

message: An anon IP recently made three changes to the article. After some consideration I have removed two of them as follows:
* Removing a link overcomersonline from the "sources" section. The link is to a web forum. It was clearly not used as a source for the article text as it is newly established and the article was written prior to its inception. Also, a web forum is not a reliable source (see WP:RS for details of acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles)
* Removing a rewording of the sentence referring to the fire at the Glory Barn. The rewording made it sound as if the fire brigades were subsequently investigated by law enforcement rather than the fire itself. I'm sure this was unintentional but I have restored the earlier wording which was clearer.
Any comments welcome. However please do not simply reinsert the removed material without discussion.   Euryalus (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of two recent edits 

message: :Image:HobartFreeman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HobartFreeman.jpg

message: Links broken - I couldn't figure out how to edit them so I will leave it to you tehnophiles.
The last line under Publications about the books to read on line should be http://faithmandp.com/
The first link under Sources should be removed as Faith Assembly has no direct contact with Faith Ministries any longer
The second link under sources should be  http://faithmandp.com/
Hardbones (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links Broken 

message: I restored the links to the 2 discussion forums. I don't see a problem with having a link to forums that discuss Hobart Freeman and issues relating to his life and ministry. If you have a problem with that the proper thing to do is put your reasons here so they can be discussed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardbones (talk • contribs) 00:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored Links