Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 February 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Center for Inquiry. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Center for Inquiry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/program-areas.html. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material Under the
GNU Free Documentation License. Because this permission was received prior to 1 November 2008, you may use the material under either that license or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2005090210000998. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
Permission to use copyright has been given.
I added a little material to the article and added a lot of Wiki links and italics. Does it still need improvement? Bubba73 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
There is a NPOV problem evident here passim in the article. To begin to edge toward some semblance of reasonable balance, it needs a critical section discussing the Center for Inquiry's lack of tolerance for pluralism and diversity (see, e.g., the phrase "to oppose and supplant" those who might beg to differ here: www.centerforinquiry.net/about). The organization is clearly more than pseudo-religiously evangelistic: its tone is obstinately one-sided, dogmatically militant, even cult-like in its anti-religious, self-defensive frenzy. It's sad to see this organization slip into the very inhumanity it wants to oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.235.99 ( talk) 11:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
An "importance" tag has been put on the article. The criteria for importance is:
An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:
- 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
- 2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
- 3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.
I believe that this article meets both #1 and #2. Also, there are at least ten articles that link to it, not counting talk pages, redirects, and WikiProject pages. Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Should be merged with Center_for_Inquiry_-_On_Campus as on campus is a minor affiliated org, does not have enough info or notability for own article. - THB 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto for committee on religion. Articles appear to be an attempt to inflate importance of organization. Committees and sub-comittees of even notable organizations do not normally meet standards of notability to have a separate article. - THB 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merger of CFI and CSER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.247.81 ( talk • contribs)
And ditto again for Center for Inquiry Libraries. Interestingly enough, it has not had any genuine contributions since creation and only link to it is Center for Inquiry. - THB 07:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added the section, CFI Organizations and Programs, with subsections for each of the CFI organizations and links to the pages in question. I oppose the mergers but a directory is needed in any case.
Also this section should be combined with the CFI Divisions section. --- George100 10:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As chair of CSER, I find this whole discussion preposterous. CSER actually pre-dates the foudning of Cdenter for Inquiry and in in no weay co-terminous. Are you able to merge the JFK School of government with Harvard. Same principle. Please remove this tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.16.76 ( talk • contribs)
Oppose. CSER is a distinguished research organization of some 100 scholars worldwide. No reason for the merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.16.76 ( talk • contribs)
Unclear how this discussion originated. The Center for Inquiry is a consortium. CSER, CSICOP and CSER are autonomous divisions with specialized functions. This flag should be removed because it reflects complete unfamiliarity with our organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.16.76 ( talk • contribs)
This article has been thoroughly rewritten since January, and I don't think it reads like an advertisement at all. I think the advert tag should be removed. - George100 12:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Merged Center for Inquiry - On Campus and Center for Inquiry Libraries but not Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. - THB 05:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
(Moved from User:THB's talk page)
Why did you merge Center for Inquiry - On Campus into Center for Inquiry? There was no consensus for that on the talk page. -- George100 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Centerforinquiry.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"Religion, ethics, and society The Center promotes, through its connection with Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, critical inquiry into the foundations and social effects of the world religions. Since 1983 it has focused on such issues as fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam, humanistic alternatives to religious ethics, and religious sources of political violence. It is also the home of its affiliated organization, the Council for Secular Humanism, publisher of Free Inquiry magazine, a bi-monthly journal of secular humanist thought and discussion."
This refers to a date before CFI was started. Also, there's no citation for this. What's up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofurson ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Center for Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Center for Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I just posted this in the article: "In 2016, the atheist Sikivu Hutchinson criticized the merger of the secular organizations Center for Inquiry and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science which gave Richard Dawkins a seat on the board of directors on the Center for Inquiry. Her criticism was that both organizations had all white board of directors." [1]
I cited the Huffington Post.
This is what Wikipedia says about the Huffington Post: "In July 2012, The Huffington Post was ranked No. 1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, which bases its list on each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[14] In 2012, The Huffington Post became the first commercially run United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize."
So I believe I met Wikipedia's requirements for the material to be added. Knox490 ( talk) 15:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Harizotoh9: You deleted the material referenced above without discussion and with an erroneous claim that no national media was cited. (Huff Post was!) The material I added last month about another incident in this category was also deleted. I added it as it seemed pertinent. It is also mentioned here [2] We need to discuss. RobP ( talk) 01:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This looks like internal CFI drama being traded between blogs which does not belong here. Huffpost is an online blog and it's an opinion piece no less. The No third party news source took any notice of this events, which is recorded in rather breathless detail and seems borderline promotional. Literally everything boils down to sourcing and the section lacks any third party sourcing at all, meaning the debate never reached importance enough by be noted by outside sources and thus be enshrined for all eternity on Wikipedia. Compare that to the section in regards to Paul Kurtz where news stations picked up on this. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that wasn't the CFI page but the Silverman and Hutchinson pages. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Soooo let's include some links here in case anyone is interested - Knox seemed to badly want to make some edit stick on Silverman's Wikipedia page - but it was reverted for not being relevant - conversation here under "removal of material on Atheist Alliance International hiring controversy" Sgerbic ( talk) 21:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Knox490: The ball is in your court - if I revert the last of the Hutchinson Huffpost mention currently on the CFI article, are you going to edit war with me? Sgerbic ( talk) 00:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There has been no discussion regarding the current tags on this page. They are being removed pending justification and discussion. Drobertpowell ( talk) 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:STATUSQUO, I just restored the last stable version from before the recent edit war (27 March 2020 version, but there are only minor differences from the 27 February 2020 version). The edit warring has to stop. Leave the status quo version up while you discuss any proposed changes on the article talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Please note that restoring the Status Quo version after an edit war does not in any way imply that I support that version. It is just a standard way to handle edit wars; go back to the version before the edit war. It may be that one of the edit warriors has a better version; finding out if this us true in this case is what talk page discussions are for. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
When I look at a page that has editors edit warring, one of the first things I do is look at the sources. Many times the content dispute disapears after I remove material that is unsourced or sourced to an unreliable source.
Looking at this page, I see some serious sourcing problems:
See WP:PRIMARY.
Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Religion News and Christian Post
I think that we should remove all unsourced and poorly sourced claims and remove most of claims sourced to CFI per WP:PRIMARY. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I have started my complete rewrite. Lead is done. Far too many things are sourced to CFI itself and will have to be removed. If anyone has suggestions with reliable secondary sources, post them here and I will add them. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The controversy section does not paint a more realistic and neutral viewpoint of the organization. Achmad Rachmani ( talk) 03:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Recently, I added a fact-based, source-backed "Controversies" section to the CFI page. Some users have reverted the edits. I would like to hear why you advocate for the exclusion of the section. Please provide detailed arguments. Thank you. VegitotheKnightmare ( talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Recently I have had the following (brief) exchange on my Talk page. As I explained (see below) I have now moved it here so the discussion can be centralized.
Hello, @ BlueWren0123, I hope you're having a great day.
I am here to ask about your recent comment == CFI == on the Teahouse:
"It may be useful for editors to look at the edit history that VegitotheKnightmare has mentioned to form your own view about the neutrality of recent edits. Just a suggestion."
What exactly was meant by this?
Thank you.
- VegitotheKnightmare ( talk) 22:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
End of section from my Talk page BlueWren0123 ( talk) 01:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I haven't heard back from objectors after posting my counterarguments. I understand that you may be busy, but this usually means (from my experience) that there is nothing to say. I will continue my edits to the page and publish them shortly. I'll make sure to take into account all your viewpoints. If you disagree with my plan, please let me know ahead of time. @ Gronk Oz @ Mramoeba @ Achmad Rachmani VegitotheKnightmare ( talk) 07:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 February 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Center for Inquiry. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Center for Inquiry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/about/program-areas.html. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material Under the
GNU Free Documentation License. Because this permission was received prior to 1 November 2008, you may use the material under either that license or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by
VRT volunteers, under ticket number
2005090210000998. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
Permission to use copyright has been given.
I added a little material to the article and added a lot of Wiki links and italics. Does it still need improvement? Bubba73 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
There is a NPOV problem evident here passim in the article. To begin to edge toward some semblance of reasonable balance, it needs a critical section discussing the Center for Inquiry's lack of tolerance for pluralism and diversity (see, e.g., the phrase "to oppose and supplant" those who might beg to differ here: www.centerforinquiry.net/about). The organization is clearly more than pseudo-religiously evangelistic: its tone is obstinately one-sided, dogmatically militant, even cult-like in its anti-religious, self-defensive frenzy. It's sad to see this organization slip into the very inhumanity it wants to oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.235.99 ( talk) 11:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
An "importance" tag has been put on the article. The criteria for importance is:
An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:
- 1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
- 2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
- 3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.
I believe that this article meets both #1 and #2. Also, there are at least ten articles that link to it, not counting talk pages, redirects, and WikiProject pages. Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Should be merged with Center_for_Inquiry_-_On_Campus as on campus is a minor affiliated org, does not have enough info or notability for own article. - THB 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto for committee on religion. Articles appear to be an attempt to inflate importance of organization. Committees and sub-comittees of even notable organizations do not normally meet standards of notability to have a separate article. - THB 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose merger of CFI and CSER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.247.81 ( talk • contribs)
And ditto again for Center for Inquiry Libraries. Interestingly enough, it has not had any genuine contributions since creation and only link to it is Center for Inquiry. - THB 07:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added the section, CFI Organizations and Programs, with subsections for each of the CFI organizations and links to the pages in question. I oppose the mergers but a directory is needed in any case.
Also this section should be combined with the CFI Divisions section. --- George100 10:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As chair of CSER, I find this whole discussion preposterous. CSER actually pre-dates the foudning of Cdenter for Inquiry and in in no weay co-terminous. Are you able to merge the JFK School of government with Harvard. Same principle. Please remove this tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.16.76 ( talk • contribs)
Oppose. CSER is a distinguished research organization of some 100 scholars worldwide. No reason for the merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.16.76 ( talk • contribs)
Unclear how this discussion originated. The Center for Inquiry is a consortium. CSER, CSICOP and CSER are autonomous divisions with specialized functions. This flag should be removed because it reflects complete unfamiliarity with our organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.16.76 ( talk • contribs)
This article has been thoroughly rewritten since January, and I don't think it reads like an advertisement at all. I think the advert tag should be removed. - George100 12:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Merged Center for Inquiry - On Campus and Center for Inquiry Libraries but not Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. - THB 05:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
(Moved from User:THB's talk page)
Why did you merge Center for Inquiry - On Campus into Center for Inquiry? There was no consensus for that on the talk page. -- George100 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Centerforinquiry.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"Religion, ethics, and society The Center promotes, through its connection with Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, critical inquiry into the foundations and social effects of the world religions. Since 1983 it has focused on such issues as fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam, humanistic alternatives to religious ethics, and religious sources of political violence. It is also the home of its affiliated organization, the Council for Secular Humanism, publisher of Free Inquiry magazine, a bi-monthly journal of secular humanist thought and discussion."
This refers to a date before CFI was started. Also, there's no citation for this. What's up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofurson ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infoboxes of individuals that have no religion.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Center for Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Center for Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I just posted this in the article: "In 2016, the atheist Sikivu Hutchinson criticized the merger of the secular organizations Center for Inquiry and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science which gave Richard Dawkins a seat on the board of directors on the Center for Inquiry. Her criticism was that both organizations had all white board of directors." [1]
I cited the Huffington Post.
This is what Wikipedia says about the Huffington Post: "In July 2012, The Huffington Post was ranked No. 1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank, which bases its list on each site's Alexa Global Traffic Rank and U.S. Traffic Rank from both Compete and Quantcast.[14] In 2012, The Huffington Post became the first commercially run United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize."
So I believe I met Wikipedia's requirements for the material to be added. Knox490 ( talk) 15:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Harizotoh9: You deleted the material referenced above without discussion and with an erroneous claim that no national media was cited. (Huff Post was!) The material I added last month about another incident in this category was also deleted. I added it as it seemed pertinent. It is also mentioned here [2] We need to discuss. RobP ( talk) 01:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This looks like internal CFI drama being traded between blogs which does not belong here. Huffpost is an online blog and it's an opinion piece no less. The No third party news source took any notice of this events, which is recorded in rather breathless detail and seems borderline promotional. Literally everything boils down to sourcing and the section lacks any third party sourcing at all, meaning the debate never reached importance enough by be noted by outside sources and thus be enshrined for all eternity on Wikipedia. Compare that to the section in regards to Paul Kurtz where news stations picked up on this. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 07:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that wasn't the CFI page but the Silverman and Hutchinson pages. Sgerbic ( talk) 21:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Soooo let's include some links here in case anyone is interested - Knox seemed to badly want to make some edit stick on Silverman's Wikipedia page - but it was reverted for not being relevant - conversation here under "removal of material on Atheist Alliance International hiring controversy" Sgerbic ( talk) 21:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Knox490: The ball is in your court - if I revert the last of the Hutchinson Huffpost mention currently on the CFI article, are you going to edit war with me? Sgerbic ( talk) 00:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There has been no discussion regarding the current tags on this page. They are being removed pending justification and discussion. Drobertpowell ( talk) 15:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:STATUSQUO, I just restored the last stable version from before the recent edit war (27 March 2020 version, but there are only minor differences from the 27 February 2020 version). The edit warring has to stop. Leave the status quo version up while you discuss any proposed changes on the article talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Please note that restoring the Status Quo version after an edit war does not in any way imply that I support that version. It is just a standard way to handle edit wars; go back to the version before the edit war. It may be that one of the edit warriors has a better version; finding out if this us true in this case is what talk page discussions are for. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
When I look at a page that has editors edit warring, one of the first things I do is look at the sources. Many times the content dispute disapears after I remove material that is unsourced or sourced to an unreliable source.
Looking at this page, I see some serious sourcing problems:
See WP:PRIMARY.
Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Religion News and Christian Post
I think that we should remove all unsourced and poorly sourced claims and remove most of claims sourced to CFI per WP:PRIMARY. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I have started my complete rewrite. Lead is done. Far too many things are sourced to CFI itself and will have to be removed. If anyone has suggestions with reliable secondary sources, post them here and I will add them. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The controversy section does not paint a more realistic and neutral viewpoint of the organization. Achmad Rachmani ( talk) 03:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Recently, I added a fact-based, source-backed "Controversies" section to the CFI page. Some users have reverted the edits. I would like to hear why you advocate for the exclusion of the section. Please provide detailed arguments. Thank you. VegitotheKnightmare ( talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Recently I have had the following (brief) exchange on my Talk page. As I explained (see below) I have now moved it here so the discussion can be centralized.
Hello, @ BlueWren0123, I hope you're having a great day.
I am here to ask about your recent comment == CFI == on the Teahouse:
"It may be useful for editors to look at the edit history that VegitotheKnightmare has mentioned to form your own view about the neutrality of recent edits. Just a suggestion."
What exactly was meant by this?
Thank you.
- VegitotheKnightmare ( talk) 22:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
End of section from my Talk page BlueWren0123 ( talk) 01:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I haven't heard back from objectors after posting my counterarguments. I understand that you may be busy, but this usually means (from my experience) that there is nothing to say. I will continue my edits to the page and publish them shortly. I'll make sure to take into account all your viewpoints. If you disagree with my plan, please let me know ahead of time. @ Gronk Oz @ Mramoeba @ Achmad Rachmani VegitotheKnightmare ( talk) 07:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)