Talk:Three Angels Broadcasting Network

message: Created a hopefully less egregious paraphrase of this network history on the temp page. Best of luck. Skybunny 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The "KNDO" low-power transmitter K21DO of Indio/Palm Springs, Cal. is widely known to have Asian-language programming about 8 hours a day, while they can air Spanish-language and Russian-language shows from time to time. The other 8 hours consists of "SafeTV" or family-oriented cartoons or shows. K21DO is owned by a smaller church the Palm Springs Seventh-day Adventist Church and Loma Linda Broadcasting out of Loma Linda, California. The television station services want to expand Spanish translated 3ABNLatino programs for the area's large Hispanic population, a great porportion of Adventist church members there are now Latino and has gained a huge following among local Asian Americans. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other programming on 3ABN 

message: The link is not suitable for the article because it does not satisfy the reliable sources guideline. Are any of its contributors notable? If so, they may have published their criticisms, which would in turn be reliable. Ansell 06:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Ansell on this this point. A link to a forum is not a WP reliable source and it does not belong here. Skybunny 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sdalink, there seems to be a consensus by at least two authors that linking to this forum is of dubious value and not a reliable source, and I happen to agree. The history of your talk page shows sequential blanking of this point made there  and may be construed by some authors as a sign of bad faith. I would also like to point out the following policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If biographical material about a person is going to be included, it must adhere to the NPOV policy and well sourced. Poorly sourced negative material is to be immediately removed from articles. On consideration, I will be doing some of that in this article now. Skybunny 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacksda.com forum link 

message: I removed the following:
  His remarriage to Brandy Lynn Elswick, 33, on March 8, 2006, occurred on the set of 3ABN Presents 
  in a non-broadcast ceremony.
Because it holds no relevance to the network. This is more suited for the Danny Shelton artilce if it exists. --Maniwar (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed irrelevant info.

message: I would like to see the infobox changed to one similar to SafeTV's box (will show up on left):
 
additionally, I would like to see:
#some of the controversy surrounding the divorce of Danny and Linda and the impact
#more info on the beginnings involving both Danny, Linda, and others (John Lomacang, Melodee Shelton)
#Affiliate stations (downlinks), both TV and Radio (Russia, Cayman Islands, Philippines, ?, etc.)
#Listing of stations domestically
#expand controversy of being removed from Sky Angel and Petition to be added to Dish Network
and any other pertinent information to improve this article. I have neither the time nor knowledge to add it. --Maniwar (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do

message: I removed in full the criticism section  which while tangentially involving 3ABN because Danny Shelton founded it, is primarly discussing this individual and claims and allegations around him. Danny Shelton is a living person. The Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons WP:LIVING says the following: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. When I arrived at this page, even the heading of the section itself stated poor sourcing. If it makes it easier to reach consensus, I might suggest stating Danny Shelton as the founder of this network, and leaving it at that.
Websites with a self stated agenda like save3abn.com, or a forum post to an open access forum are poor sources and should not be used as per Wikipedia. Please see WP:SOURCE#Sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Skybunny 23:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone restored the information without discussion, let alone a consensus to reinsert. I've removed it again. Please provide reliable sources (see WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS) and obtain a consensus to include the disputed material before reinserting. Thanks. Avb 12:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avb, I am reinserting, and per my insertion, (see here ) it is within the scope of wikipedia. I also stated, that before deleting, discuss at this talk page, which you did not. It is fact that there is controversy, and it is fact that there was a controversial divorce, it is fact that there are allegations at a website, and it is fact that Linda Shelton is saying that she was falsely accused. The tone is neutral and simply factful without any malice or assumptions. Discuss here before deleting! Like many of the other articles, Ellen White, Seventh-day Adventist, it is perfectly fine to point out controversies. The information was not restored, but carefully written. Work on the Responses to criticism section rather than just deleting what you don't like. --Maniwar (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am more concerned with following WP:BLP than following what you stated. Do you have a consensus to insert? I see you have added a reference for one of the assertions. Do you have sources for the rest of the disputed BLP content? Do you think Save3ABN dot org is a reliable source per WP:V/WP:RS?Avb 21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Please retract "deleting what you don't like". I came here in response to this report on WP:BLPN and couldn't care less about what other people may or may not want to swipe under the carpet here. This is a clear case of unsourced/poorly sourced contentious BLP content. Avb 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Reverted again. However, please feel free to add some content that you can source to http://www.atoday.com/email/2007/02/12 Avb 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avb, you again intentionally or by accident miss where I said Please discuss on this talk page before deleting or reverting. Several editors have inserted accusations, and in keeping with wikipedia (see comment also here ) it is perfectly fine to insert controversies. No call was made for consensus, thus consensus is not needed where there was no apparent issue. To avoid possible BLP, I wrote the new section rather than restoring it, since so many editors wanted it in there. You need to show how the article is a violation of BLP. The rewrite you did was opinionated, and POV, however this is not. There is no charge in the article, but there is mention that controversies have arisen. Save3ABN dot org is not being used as a source to support some charge, it is instead being used to say that the website exists and makes allegations, which again, is within keeping of the wikipedia community. See Cindy Sheehan or Neal Boortz or Rush Limbaugh, just to name a few, and you will see how controversies are handled over there. Clearly all of them, according to you, is in violation of BLP. Let's discuss how you feel it's in violation of BLP, and work from there. Your edit was by far move POV and loaded than the neutral tone I undertake. Lets discuss here before going to edit warring. --Maniwar (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Avb, you again intentionally or by accident miss where I said Please discuss on this talk page before deleting or reverting" --> You seem to have missed the entire line of argument brought here by Skybunny and me, and seem to thinki that you alone can determine consensus as well as reinstate unsourced material disputed per WP:BLP. That is not the case. "No call was made for consensus" --> no, although you, as the person who has (re)inserted the material, must obtain a consensus before reinserting. "You need to show how the article is a violation of BLP." --> No, you need to show it is not a violation of WP:BLP. "The rewrite you did was opinionated, and POV" --> I said "improve at will". What is now in the article is not supported by the sources. Apart from WP:BLP it also violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. Edit warring? You still seem to think I am interested in Seventh Day adventists and USA radio stations. I couldn't care less. I came here due to a BLPN report. Once again, I see no consensus to insert what you wrote. I don't see a consensus for what I wrote either, but I thought you might like it. Goodbye. Avb 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll take this point by point and no attacks or accusations. 1) I addressed the issue brought up by skybunny by rewriting the whole thing to introduce that there is controversy without the POV. Personally, I would not like to see it in there, however, I've been on the other end a few times of people wanting to add controversial sections. And after losing everyone of them, I finally came to see that there is value in allowing the controversial sections. I rewrote the entire thing making it NPOV, because the editors who continue to insert it, will continue to do so and do so with a biased angle. I wish you would take the time to read that it really is NPOV and is not attacking. By the way, it is not a biography of Danny Shelton, it is though article of the entity (no offense meant in that comment). 2) I am not trying to determine consensus, however, it's funny that I'm being accused of exactly what you all are violating. I pointed out that I first called for discussion before the new entry was reverted or deleted. Then when you (or whoever it was) reverted me then called for consensus, I interpret that you all are saying I'm the one unwilling to discuss, when that is really not an accurate picture. Again, I asked for a discussion. If the entry can be improved, I'm opened to it, but I honestly felt how you worded it made it seem a bit more in violation of BLP and POV. This is not an attack, but an interpretation and opinion. OK, I now realize you are not like some who seem to not want the mention in at all and I stand corrected and retract those statements. I do welcome your input, but again, how is it in violation of BLP? I must be missing something. 3) I fail to see how this is in violation of SYN. I have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with save3abn dot org, I've never posted, I do not know anyone of the people on there, and I've only gone on there to research for this article. To point out that there is a controversy, which by the way is large enough to cause the President and Chairman of the Board of 3ABN to address, with the website is not in violation of WP:SYN. I am not using it as a source to support charges, please read again to see how it is referenced. And I feel this is in keeping with the wikipedia community. When something large enough, within a community (in this instance the Seventh-day Adventist community) is large enough to gain international attention, the attention of the President of the Organization, the Board members in such that the chairman of the board has to address it, it is worthy of mentioning the entity/website. And Save3ABN dot org has done just that. No I am not subscribing to the charges, I'm simply rewriting what numerous editors have already inserted in a NPOV way. This issue is a large one within the community, and just because some don't want mention of it, does not mean it can be tossed out. Again, I am not trying to attack you, but I'm trying to figure out how this in violation of BLP and SYN. It makes me wonder, if you've (an interpretation, not an attack) read it. Just wondering. --Maniwar (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I was in the middle of editing and I think someone edited before me. I was not trying to revert, I was simply editing and had to save it twice. Sorry! --Maniwar (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a short note, in a hurry. I appreciate the improved atmosphere. Will review your edit re Skybunny's complaint. I posted some observations at WP:BLPN before reading the above response; I may have to adapt. Yes, I have read all the atoday sources in full and skimmed the various websites. Although WP:SYN sounds sinful ;-) it actually refers to combining the divorce and the GC actions/words into cause and effect without a source having done so first. (I reread the sources but could not find this there). As to reverting, WP:BLP is quite clear that we should remove first, talk later when in doubt.  Avb 10:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would be kind and state that at WLP I would appreciate it. Since it is a church issue, it will not be seen in the media because of difference of opperations. However, I've stuck to the main issues; 1) the divorce within the community was/is controversial and gained international attention 2) The website Save3ABN dot org has taken it to the next level and the attention of church leadership is aware that the site is causing ripples and thestation, the President, and Chairman of the Board has had to address it. 3) Because of the attention Save3ABN has gained, the world church leadership suspended the "Supportive Ministry status", though they don't do so admitting there is guilt, only that it needs to be cautiously investigated. Sometimes within a community, things are done so discretely, as this one is being done. None the less, it doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. I will go with what the community decides at this point. Thanks for reading and understanding. --Maniwar (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: One last point,the other party involved in the supposed affair with Linda Shelton posted his reply to the allegation on Save3ABN dot org, thus making it somewhat valid. However, I intentionally left it out, but if it adds value, it can be added. Just a thought. --Maniwar (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that was a bit confusing. I attempted to fix it, and hopefully it is better now. --Maniwar (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed criticism section about Danny Shelton 

message: As this article had become a mess with way too much detail, poorly structured with poor grammar and violating WP:NOT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:CRYSTAL and was tagged accordingly, I've emarked on a major cleanup.  Many sections are still not cited though. As a result, I've removed a lot of what I believe is extraneous information.  If you disagree, please don't revert the changes, rather please discuss what you think the issue is and why the info should be included here on the talk page.   Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup 

message: Substituted at 08:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: From the "About" page on the official website: 
*It seems 3 Angels explicitly disclaims Adventist support, so it is not clear to me why categories, portals, and other Adventist-related links should be here. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adventist