Jim2345
Welcome!
Hello, Jim2345, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
--Stephan Schulz 09:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jim. The current name of this article has been long (and recently) discussed. See Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment_of global warming#New_Title_-_Better and in particular Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Title_Discussion. Please do not unilatery move pages with a long and contentious history. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 09:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Jame Cone
editThe controversy section did provide citations, but there was no source to show that there actually was a controversy over those statements. Without that, it's clearly just original research and completely unacceptable on a WP:BLP.
The citations you provided for the other quote are from opinion pieces or blogs associated with those papers and both reference the Asia Times opinion piece. I could see it possibly being part of a Controversy section, but not as currently presented, where it is taken to be Cone's typical description of black theology. - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I am saying the quotes in the controversy section should not be in the article at all unless there is source to show that there is a controversy. This article has information on what Original research is and why it's not allowed: Wikipedia:No original research. Note that what you're doing is providing only primary sources. This is not allowed. You must provide secondary sources to show that there is a controversy. As far as the other quote, you should probably just use that citation given in the Asia Times editorial as a separate source. That establishes that the quote is for real. And the other sources establish the controversy. I wouldn't have any further objection to that particular quote in that case. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)