Talk:Satanic ritual abuse: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→"Some observers": new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== "Some observers" == | |||
It really isn't very helpful to add two consecutive footnotes to "some observers", with only references to apparently hard-copy books from non-academic sources, to a verifiable online press release. The additional citations, with no description of the authors or their credentials, does not add information or substantiation to the press release. | |||
At the very least, explain who these people may be, and why they are qualified as independent supporters of the online press release, accusing Wikipedia of pedophilia. I had not explicitly said the press release was from Neil Brick's organization, to avoid the appearance of "persecution". Nevertheless, is there now a conflict of interest/Topic Informant situation here when the author of a press release, without adding his connection, starts adding sources, not easily verifiable, to support his position? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:19, 21 March 2009
"Some observers"
It really isn't very helpful to add two consecutive footnotes to "some observers", with only references to apparently hard-copy books from non-academic sources, to a verifiable online press release. The additional citations, with no description of the authors or their credentials, does not add information or substantiation to the press release.
At the very least, explain who these people may be, and why they are qualified as independent supporters of the online press release, accusing Wikipedia of pedophilia. I had not explicitly said the press release was from Neil Brick's organization, to avoid the appearance of "persecution". Nevertheless, is there now a conflict of interest/Topic Informant situation here when the author of a press release, without adding his connection, starts adding sources, not easily verifiable, to support his position? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Religion Category Check
- Law Category Check
- Psychology Category Check
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Religion Developing Articles
- Religion Nonstub Articles
- Religion Internal Articles
- Law Developing Articles
- Law Nonstub Articles
- Law Internal Articles
- Psychology Developing Articles
- Psychology Nonstub Articles
- Psychology Internal Articles