Talk:The Lutheran Hour
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The Lutheran Hour is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] NPOV concerns
I added a NPOV tag to this article, which specifically concerns the additions made by anonymous user 192.91.147.34 at 01:52, 9 December 2006. The user took a brief, neutral discussion of the removal/firing of Wallace Schultz and added several very POV sentences, including: Following Peter Faur's game plan, the ILLL/LHM waged a massive, twisted PR battle that was capped off by presenting Schulz with a list of ultimatums that no pastor could agree to without denying his Ordination vows. When the ruling was announced, the league immediately began hearing from donors and listeners protesting this plainly political reaction to Schulz' responsible actions in the Benke case. This addition fails to dispassionately and fairly present the viewpoints of all the parties in question without taking sides. Just because this is written in an opinion piece on another website, and can thus be "cited" with a footnote, does not mean that it meets with Wikipedia NPOV standards. Formats that are more helpful for situating the viewpoints set forth in such disputes include formulations such as: "Opponents argued that..., while supporters made the case that..." Ropcat 23:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- NPOV is neither synonymous with denial or censorship as may be the case in so-called discussions that would omit such information. Perhaps this would be good overdue impetus for some real discussion and important dissemination of hushed information that many should want to know. The facts could be further backed with other citations and even by original research. However, prohibition against orginal research is a real Wikipedia standard. If there is information to the contrary, it may be forthright to simply provide it all and let readers decide, as opposed to hiding it.Ep9206 17:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Ep9206: I agree entirely that well-sourced discussions of controversial issues -- such as this issue -- are appropriate here. My NPOV concern stemmed from the one-sided nature of this account of the events. It also stems from the nature of the citations, which are all opinion pieces taken from the website of one particular caucus within the LCMS that has a distinct viewpoint on the issue. I will try to temper the language somewhat, and I invite you to comment on my tweaking of the section. Ropcat 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just made an effort to rewrite the section. Please feel free to let me know your reactions. As you'll note, the previous critiques of the ILLL remain in the article, but are situated as the views of Schulz's supporters; a statement by one of Schulz's opponents is also included, and in this case, too, is presented as an opinion from one of the partisans in the matter. I've also fleshed out the footnote references so that readers can tell WHERE the cited info and opinions are coming from (i.e. what publications or organizations) without having to click through to the links. Ropcat 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've removed the NPOV tag that I added, pending comments on the proposed revision that I mention in the post immediately above. Ropcat 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Ropcat. Good job. For the efforts of NPOV, nobody considers JF as moderate except its own supporters.Ep9206 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the NPOV tag that I added, pending comments on the proposed revision that I mention in the post immediately above. Ropcat 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LutheranHour logodown.png
Image:LutheranHour logodown.png 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 insure 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) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
