User talk:65.219.253.17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would you please stop adding links to http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v20n1/clarkson_battle.html in National Council of Churches? An article from a POV source like this should not be used to source statements of fact any more than articles from, say, National Review or The American Conservative should be. It is entirely legitimate to use such sources as sources of opinion, which is not the same thing. And please come discuss any problems with the article over at the article's talk page. Thanks. :) Lewis Collard 17:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that references which refute your point of view are not acceptable, but those that reinforce your view are repeatedly added to the page and defended as "objective". The article from publiceye.org which you find insufficiently "authoritative" was written by Frederick Clarkson, a journalist, author and lecturer who has written about politics and religion for twenty five years. His work has appeared in such distinguished publications as Christianity & Crisis, Church & State, The Houston Chronicle and The Christian Science Monitor. He is often cited by major newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. His national radio appearances include NPR's Fresh Air, Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Talk of the Nation; television interviews include PBS, Fox News, CNN, ABC's 20/20, and the CBS Evening News as well as the BBC and the CBC. But he is not acceptable to you as a source for information on the very topics on which he is expert.

And, by the way, what credentials do YOU bring to your role as protector of the truth?

Ahem. My issue is that it's a POV source, not one of credentials. Read what I said again. That the IRD has consistently attacked the NCC does not need backing up from a source like The Public Eye. Having such a source as a source of opinion on the matter is okay, and that's just what my next edit will present it as.
That you accuse me of removing references that "refute [my] point of view" is entertaining. Not being an American, I don't have much personal interest in the NCC. I do care that the article about it should be balanced. That's why I've removed all the material about the NCC funding Communists, for example.
I'll decline your offer of the "protector of the truth" title. "Dispassionate representer of opinions many and diverse" suits me just fine when I have my WP hat on.
Interestingly, the claim in the article (which you added) that it was founded by "a group of conservative Roman Catholics" is not at all what Clarkson says (he says a group of conservative Democrats). Lewis Collard 12:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)