Talk:Peniel Pentecostal Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This article is currently being discussed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jorfer (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 March 2007.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peniel Pentecostal Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Speedy deletion 2 Michael Reid Miseries link 3 Removal of criticism 4 More information

[edit] Speedy deletion

The article mentioned has a significant amount of hits on its official webpage. If you look at the history you can see that it was originally good then it became slander and was erased. I fixed it so it should be reconsidered.--JEF 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Reid Miseries link

We need to at least try to keep this article along WP:NPOV guidelines so I am substracting this link. JEF 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, in order for there to be a balance you need to have an equal number of for and against sources on the page so that both points of view are presented. Having a link to a site which is against the subject of the page is part of that process. Are you suggesting we should not have any web sites opposed to the Chinese government listed on the pages about China?. Gordon 17:15, 23 January 2007

No, I am just saying we don't have enough sources that are for it to have more that are against it.--JEF 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

You are right there does need to be balance. There are currently seven links to sites opposed to Mr Reid and one to sites against him. Therefore to restore the balance I am going to put a link to www.michaelreidmiseries.org back in. We would still need to find a further five links to anti sites in order to balance it up. Gordon 16:17, 27 January 2007

[edit] Removal of criticism

Someone is habitually removing all links from this article from web sites that contain criticism of Michael Reid Ministries. This article should be marked as controversial. Gordon 14:42, 30 January 2007

[edit] More information

I have entered in some more information about this organisation, please feel free to add links that are both for and against. I don't think the entry itself needs to be changed... in my opinion that's neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tell The Thruth (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 February 2007.

Hi. The changes duplicated a lot of unnecessary information from the website - information like contact details is not considered encyclopedic. The article should not read like an advert, and controversial information (such as the severance of links with the Evangelical Alliance, the allegations that have been made in some quarters, and the links to negative websites) should not have been removed. The result was anything but neutral. Mauls 22:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had a look at the negative website links and I disagree, they are not factual at all. If they would be newspaper articles then fine, but an encyclopedia entry should be strictly factual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tell The Thruth (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 February 2007.

Comment via WP:COI. Agreed - and could people sign their edits here? A glance at Wikipedia:External links is in order. External links don't exist to be a battleground for spinning the article, and ought to be kept to a minimum. What the article mainly needs is referencing in material from reliable third-party sources such as newspapers. For instance, see The Guardian. Tearlach 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of spin going on here because I fixed the article after it was marked for speedy deletion do to the fact that much of the content was removed for being overly critical and now the opposite is true with all the critical links being removed and replaced with pro-Reid sites.--JEF 18:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I readded critical external links in them that were lost in the edit war because of the attempted whitewashing of someone from the church.--JEF 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, if there's a third-party source, we should link to that rather than a copy on a partisan site, whether pro-Peniel or somewhere like rickross.com. There's no requirement that material be online: a citation to a newspaper is fine (it's easily sourced via NewsBank or similar). All too often with controversial topics, these external links lists just lead into POV warringTearlach 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)