Joshuacohen1
Australian Christian Lobby edit
Hi Joshuacohen1, and welcome to wikipedia. Regarding your comments at the Australian Christian Lobby article - sources with an obvious POV can be used in certain circumstances. In this case, the general issue has also been reported on by the mainstream media, so information about the event as reported by POV sources may be used. Care as always must be taken to make sure POV sources are not given Undue weight, however, I believe the amount of information from those sources is fair. If you disagree, please start a debate on the article talk page.
As you will notice, the article also uses many POV sources in favour of the ACL. The article cites the pro-Christian source 'Christian Today' seven times. Yet this is acceptable if Christian sources are also only used to add additional comments on issues the mainstream media has reported, or for adding non-controversial factual information. I think it is very biased of you to try to remove POV sources against the ACL yet not remove any POV sources that are in favour of the ACL. Freikorp (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Very happy to review any further POV sources from faith based organisations. The star observer is a free publication run by volunteer staff which should not be used in controversial sub topics. Happy to review them all one by one, starting with the removal of this bias and quite frankly amateur indulgence.
It does ideologues no favors to include it because it will cause many to identify and turn away from further reading.
Joshuacohen1 (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Joshuacohen1, you are invited to the Teahouse edit
|
Hi Joshuacohen1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |