| Revision as of 09:02, 26 June 2006 editSte4k (talk | contribs)3,630 edits rv. van← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:23, 26 June 2006 edit undo207.200.116.68 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| |<div class="plainlinks"> | |<div class="plainlinks"> | ||
| ⚫ | :'''RfC'''- The matter here is that ] does not belong in the encyclopedia. | ||
| ⚫ | What is stated in the first sentence is NOT what it says in those sources. We can either delete the sentence and three of the cited sources or edit the statement to reflect what the sources state. | ||
| ⚫ | <center>This dispute is '''not''' about topic matter content. It doesn't matter if the topic is true or not.</center> | ||
| ⚫ | :It only matters: | ||
| ⚫ | ::'''1.''' that what is put in the article matches the sources. | ||
| ⚫ | ::'''2.''' that those sources are reliable. | ||
| ⚫ | |} | ||
| Line 39: | Line 29: | ||
| Should be a cross-link to the Urantia Book lawsuit, which was argued on similar grounds. ] | Should be a cross-link to the Urantia Book lawsuit, which was argued on similar grounds. ] | ||
| :<sup> ] ] 19:46 </sup> ] '''wrote''':Go ahead and add it then, I will put in the contradict reason, and removed the 'inuse' tag when I saw your note. | :<sup> ] ] 19:46 </sup> ] '''wrote''':Go ahead and add it then, I will put in the contradict reason, and removed the 'inuse' tag when I saw your note. | ||
| ⚫ | :'''RfC'''- The matter here is that ] does not belong in the encyclopedia. | ||
| ⚫ | What is stated in the first sentence is NOT what it says in those sources. We can either delete the sentence and three of the cited sources or edit the statement to reflect what the sources state. | ||
| ⚫ | <center>This dispute is '''not''' about topic matter content. It doesn't matter if the topic is true or not.</center> | ||
| ⚫ | :It only matters: | ||
| ⚫ | ::'''1.''' that what is put in the article matches the sources. | ||
| ⚫ | ::'''2.''' that those sources are reliable. | ||
| ⚫ | |} | ||
Revision as of 09:23, 26 June 2006
|
ImportanceSte4k wrote: Can anyone tell me the importance of this article? Please leave a message here, and I will be happy to remove the tag that I applied. Thanks! Ste4k wrote: My questions about importance have not been satisfied. In fact they haven't even been discussed. Please use this dicussion page to come to a mutually agreeable understanding on what basis this article claims to have any importance. This article was up for debate today, and appears to have been rushed through without allowing for an adequate number of people to have the opportunity to review it. You may have had discussions about this article before, but Misplaced Pages has many new users join the effort each day and they should have the opportunity to discuss the fundemental reasons for having an article in the first place. I have read the additions since I originally applied the tag, and they are insufficient as well as unilaterally addressed. I don't see any reason to make a big issue out of this, however. Please respectfully and mutually discuss this issue before removing the importance tag. I am sure if someone can answer my concerns, that there will be ample reason for me to remove it, myself. Thanks! Importance " Widely debated, source of a lawsuit "
Ste4k wrote: I appreciate your help, TheEditrix. Are you calling my use of the Importance tag nonsense? Or are you saying that "Importance" is nonsense? Please leave maintenance tags until we can establish a consensus on such things. Ok? Thanks. :) Could you tell me if I am understanding you correctly, please? Are you saying that the lawsuit is being widely debated? or are you saying "widely debated" and "source of a lawsuit" are two different reasons why this is important? Also, do you believe that there is a reason to be removing tags without discussing them first? Is there a hurry I am unaware of? I placed the maintenance tag on the article to indicate that the matter is unresolved. Should I have placed a WP:OR tag instead? You probably have more experience than I do at these sorts of things and your opinion would be appreciated, Thank you! :) Original ResearchSte4k wrote: During verification of the citings of this article several were found to be unverifiable. Contradiction Ste4k wrote:The court case referencend supports the statement that the 'ACIM' is in the public domain. However, one of the sources cited in reference (notes) clearly shows a registered trademark ( Wapnick,Gloria and Wapnick, Kenneth Ph.D. "FACIM Publication: The Most Commonly Asked Questions about ACIM®".
UrantiaShould be a cross-link to the Urantia Book lawsuit, which was argued on similar grounds. AnonMoos
What is stated in the first sentence is NOT what it says in those sources. We can either delete the sentence and three of the cited sources or edit the statement to reflect what the sources state.
|