User talk:Thetruthexplainer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Doug Wead

The links I posted are all clearly related and link. The reversions are vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer (talk • contribs).

The problem is that I have searched through a number of newspaper databases indexing the Washington Times and I have been unable to find any articles about Wead on the date that you specify, or indeed on any similar dates. It may be that the article exists, but I am unable to find it with the information that you have provided. If you could provide the title of the article, that would allow me to verify the source. --bainer (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: What about this sentence?

Not only was the article archived on Washington Post website but the title article number was right there. How can this be an unbiased article with no mention of why he left the Whitehouse in the first place? The reasons why he was fired are well-documented and were well-covered in many media outlets in 1990. The same information was revisited by all the news organizations in 2005, when he released the tapes of President Bush.

Why is that bad, but then you let the following statement stay? "In 1995 he helped reopen Canyonville Christian Academy, [5] a private boarding school for teenagers in southern Oregon originally founded in 1924. For three years, Mr. Wead personally subsidized the school’s monthly budget." I checked with the school and they've said that Mr. Wead did NOT subsidize their budget and they were curious why he would make this claim. Where did you find it? As I could not find any reference to this at all. This is a double standard on your part and definitely biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42946 http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1992-06-10/news/the-tangled-roots-of-doug-wead/1 http://www.houstonvoice.com/print.cfm?cid=1919 http://www.sovo.com/print.cfm?content_id=3363 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20talk.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=a965408b4c9b3780&ex=1266555600&partner=rssuserland http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/conspiracy/amwaybush2.shtml http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0412/S00154.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/politics/24wead.html?ei=5090&en=9d51f213706023f3&ex=1266901200&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position= http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9113

Jim Bakker actually has a full chapter dedicated to Doug Wead in his book, "I Was Wrong."

If that's not enough to meet the requirements, then please let me know and I can find some more. I'm curious if the superintendent knows about Mr. Wead's arrest warrant for his shady business practices in France.

"After receiving numerous complaints about GEPM (Mr. Wead's business venture), French authorities moved in to shut it down, but this time it issued criminal arrest warrants, 13 for the company's distributors, and 2 for Godzich and Wead. Godzich took all the cash and fled the country and Wead never returned to France." http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0503/S00279.htm

All this information shows a dramatically different story than what's posted on Wikipedia now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thetruthexplainer (talk • contribs) 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I have no interest in Wead, I just have a general interest in making sure that all content in articles on living persons are adequately referenced and verifiable. I couldn't find the source that you mentioned in either the Washington Post archive, or in the LexisNexis newspaper database. I have subsequently found an article from that date in the Factiva database, however, which is presumably the one you are referring to: it's by John Elvin, and the article's title is "Weaded out". Was this the article you had?

You just need to make sure that, when you add material to an article, other people are able to check your sources. Information like the author and the title of the source is crucial because not everyone will have access to the sources in the same way that you do (I'm presuming you have a subscription to the Post's archive since you provided the number of the article). This page offers some instructions on ways to cite sources.

One last thing you might want to consider is the way you express statements in articles. Particularly with opinions, it's a good idea to attribute statements directly to the sources you are using. You do this here to some extent when you say that "The Times reported..." but you should take care not to come to conclusions yourself ("Mr. Wead was fired for his anti-gay agenda..."), instead simply neutrally state what the sources say. --bainer (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)