Talk:Eternity (newspaper)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Article creation edit
I created this article to split off the content from Eternity (magazine), which is about a different publication. I also expanded the material, however it needs more reliable secondary sources. I have no doubts it is notable, but such sources do need to be demonstrated. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Conservative? edit
User:ShootingStar2000, please discuss here why you think the article should say Eternity is "conservative". StAnselm (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/sydneys-conservative-christians-are-not-fundamentalist/ ShootingStar2000 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- But in this article Sandeman doesn't claim to be conservative himself, nor does the newspaper make that claim. StAnselm (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing content to suit a more comfortable/palatable narrative to the Subject. ShootingStar2000 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Conservative edit
https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/sydneys-conservative-christians-are-not-fundamentalist/ ShootingStar2000 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Undid revision 1050023972 by ShootingStar2000 (talk) This is relevant information and every addition is sourced. edit
I have reverted the edits made by ShootingStar2000, of significant work I did today to add additional references to Eternity in the media – all of which are clearly sourced. Given that this is the same editor who added their own reference to Eternity in the media – a 60 minutes entry – I can not understand how anyone can justify deleting additional, similar references. I really hope the reason is not because the editor is using a roundabout way of asserting your own analysis and editing this article to have a negative bias? However, I note that this editor has attempted to achieve a similar effect through edits elsewhere in this article. If so, this is considered vandalism and is against the spirit of Wikipedia's open-source, neutral perspective and it will be reported.