Talk:See You at the Pole

I see major NPOV issues here. Reports of how SYATP activities are characterized ought be sourced. It looks like the editor is expressing his own opinion throught the device of attributing it to authorities unknown. I bet there's even a Wikipedia policy on such content, and how to avoid/correct it. Someone who knows how maybe ought put an NPOV tag on this -- and remove the stub tag. This editor has at least remedied its stubbiness.

Agreed. I've added on independent reference on participation stats...I suspect that there will be a host of citable material in the next few days, and will make it a point to cite and format to maintain NPOV. Akradecki 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find sourcing for the international 2004 participation statement, so I've removed that and added a sourced statement about 2005 participation. Also added additional sourcing, and added a 2006 legal incident and its resolution, along with sourcing. Akradecki 21:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Tool for humiliation"?

I've reworded a statement that had been inserted which said, "Some critics allege that the event is a tool for humiliation of non-Christians." The statement includes a reference to a web article that is critical of SYATP. I have no problem with a critical reference, but no where in the referenced article does it say that SYATP is being used as a tool to humiliate non-believers. In fact, the word humiliate doesn't even occur in the ref article. Thus to insert it into the WP article is to insert the editor's POV. The referenced article, while critical of the practice, does not attempt to include the balance of a statement of the participants as to why they did that, therefore to presume a malicious intent, and to use WP to state that opinion in inappropriate. I have therefore edited the statement so that it still reports that there is criticism to the SYATP practices, but does not stray into presumptious statements. Akradecki 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)