Talk:Regensburg lecture

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Regensburg lecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930225901/http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0609169368210934.htm to http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0609169368210934.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917041022/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913657839&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913657839&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.news.yahoo.com/17092006/5/le-ministre-suisse-de-l-interieur-defend-beno-t-xvi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190813/http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_258111544.html to http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_258111544.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2006%2F9%2F17%2Fworldupdates%2F2006-09-17T173738Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-267877-10&sec=Worldupdates
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920214536/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763593.html to http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763593.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929182055/http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq09162006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq09162006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070506120322/http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-16T125737Z_01_L16665781_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RELIGION-POPE-ISLAM-REACT.xml&archived=False
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070617001535/http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18817.php?index=18817&lang=en to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18817.php?index=18817&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027235856/http://www.cathnews.com/news/609/133.php to http://www.cathnews.com/news/609/133.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083225/http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7309 to http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=7309
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120100109/http://www.sis.gov.eg/PDF/En/Arts%26Culture/0726070000000000010001.pdf to http://www.sis.gov.eg/PDF/En/Arts%26Culture/0726070000000000010001.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913654774&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605052654/http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=36854 to http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=36854

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Why no one pays attention ?

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Greetings, Can I share some thing with you?

This article seems to have 122 page watchers, at least a dozen seems to visit the article regularly; I even notified admin notice board about Regensburg lecture#Key paragraphs is probably deliberately been changed and seems not to match original source, and no one pays attention here. I find it strange.

Bookku (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: Hello. I'm just passing by to replace unreliable sources. Are you saying there's original research in this article? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Some anon seems/likely to have mixed up Original research in speech extract in meticulous manner. But I am not topic expert so I did not touch it my self. Bookku (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: I am also not an expert in this topic. Try posting your concerns to WP:ORN. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Should this article be nominated for deletion?

I don't have expertise in Wikipedia rule quoting, but basic sense tells me is maintaining most probably incorrect Regensburg lecture#Key paragraphs for months together even after notifying on various notice boards defy spirit of BLP maintenance. And if Wikipedians would be unable to address perennially then why this article should not be nominated for deletion through AfD process?

@Bookku: I fixed everything. Few people care about Christian pages on WP, and I do not think it is sufficient reason to delete most pages on Christian subjects on WP. WP has 148,528 active users and 6 million articles; WP is severly "understaffed" in terms of active users (cf. Wikipedia:Statistics). A bigger problem of this kind plagued Two kingdoms doctrine for more than a year. To easily fight POV-pushing, I advise you to use Wikipedia:Twinkle. Veverve (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: . I had found this article not getting support ironic. Most wants honorifics to be honored for popes in Wikipedia title, they defend religion even in Covid Pandemic articles but did not have time where it deserved. Anyways thanks for your paying attention and proactive support and warm regards, Bookku (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bookku: Yes, I have been frustrated by the fact there is 2.382 billion Christians and apparently very few of them are willing or able to lend a hand to Wikipedia. Veverve (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)