Talk:Amazing Facts/Archive 1

unknown editor comment
Edited to remove blatant advertising. Not appropriate even for a discussion page. - 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

=Anti-catholic views= Here is some text I just removed from the article. Anti-Catholic Issue:

Amazing Facts is also noted for it's extreme anti-Catholic perspective. Often their seminars are held away from Adventist churches and are given deceptive names. Unsuspecting visitors may not realize they are at an Adventist sponsored seminar. Their sources for information on the Catholic Church are often unofficial and questionable.

My reason for removing it is the bias inherent. I would be happy for somebody to attempt to clean it up. -Fermion 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't biased. It is absolutely true. Read their website. I will wait till you do before I replace it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cestusdei (talk • contribs).


 * If such a statement were true, it would still be biased. Words like "deceptive" and "unsuspecting" are examples of loaded language, with an inherent bias, just as Fermion said.  It isn't as if they would put things like that on their website in any case.  I have seen some of these presentations, and one of their sources is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Is that "unofficial and questionable"?  The reason their seminars are sometimes held in other locations (aside from capacity considerations) and choose names which do not specifically refer to the Adventist denomination is because some people have had bad experiences with Adventists (there are bad people in every denomination on earth, and it is not fair to judge an entire denomination by a few bad examples, BTW) or simply do not want to listen to a message presented by another church, so AF avoids mentioning it so that these people will give the message a fair chance and not be hindered by prejudice or presuppositions.  If the message is truth, what does it matter which denomination presents it?  If the message is not truth, the listeners will reject it anyway.  If someone asks, they will of course explain that the Adventist Church is behind it.  I should point out that this is a choice of AF, and is not an official policy of the Adventist Church.  AF is just trying to spread the gospel and avoid unfortunate prejudice.  I'm also going to change the article to be a little less POV.  --Cromwellt|Talk 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To invite someone to a religious seminar and not tell them what religion is deceptive. I had to push hard to make them admit they were sda. I have seen the misuse the catechism by not giving full quotes. I have seen quotes mutilated to mean the exact opposite of the authors intent. I looked them up, pointed them out, and demanded they correct it. They refused. I guess lying for the Lord is okay then. Amazing Facts is part of the sda church. If the church doesn't want them to do these things they they should tell them to stop.Cestusdei 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

POV
Stop altering the text unless you can show that it is false. (unsigned by 70.108.49.31
 * If you have a problem mention it here and we can debate it. 70.108.49.31
 * First off, you should sign your posts if you want to be responded to. Secondly, if you can't cite sources, they will be reverted. Thirdly, this is an encyclopedia and you are clearly (as pointed out above) adding loaded sentences that are purly POV. --User: (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, an sda shill, said he wants "proof". I am sure he will still try to protect this group, but here it is:

From the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: 5/31/94

Frederick, MD – Joe Crews, on a Seventh Day Adventist program, "Amazing Facts," telecast from Frederick, Maryland, preached that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, number 666, etc.. The program is regularly broadcast on over 100 stations nationwide.

June 2 In its newsletter, the Amazing Facts ministries, a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, accused the Catholic Church of doctrinal error and submission to papal authority. Of the funeral of Pope John Paul II, it said "It was very clear to anyone watching these events that all the world looks to the papacy as one of the planet's most powerful political and spiritual forces." The author claimed that he "kept hearing [an] echo of Revelation 13:3, 'And all the world wondered after the beast.'"

From the Catholic Civil Rights League in Canada:

Active CCRL members Patrick Hanlon and Caroline Barron recently succeeded in having anti-Catholic programming removed from Vision TV (Canada’s multi-faith religious network). In June they wrote to Vision TV president Bill Roberts about a program called “Amazing Facts.” This show propagated the absurd anti-Catholic accusations that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” spoken of in the Book of Revelations, and that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

Here is from the amazing "facts" website: "When Satan failed to destroy the church by violence, he resorted to a new strategy – he would join the church himself, and corrupt it from within. This prove to be a far more successful plan. By the fourth century A.D. the Roman Empire had invested the growing church with its own wealth and a large degree of political power, thinking to extend its own domain. Unfortunately for the world, this blend of religious and temporal power was an intoxicating mix that forever changed those who tasted it. No longer the meek and harmless body of Christ, the church devoured the hand that fed her, and in 538 A.D. Emperor Justinian decreed that the Roman Church now ruled the world. Henceforth, its reign would be known as the "Holy Roman Empire." The world staggered under the oppression of the Roman Church during the dark ages that followed. In her thirst for ever greater power and domination, she absorbed all other religions into herself and adulterated the pure doctrine of Christ with an amalgam of superstitions and heresies."

You might agree with them, which would make you an ignorant bigot, but I think this is sufficient to prove they don't like Catholicism very much and that it is fair to note that in the article. (unsigned by 70.108.49.31)
 * One more personal attack and you will be blocked. Again, you state you want to discuss, but all you do is make accusations and attack. If you want to discuss, please learn how to and see your talk page. I've already posted this warning, but I'm also posting it here for your benefit. If you want to discuss this, there are a few things that must take place. 1) You must sign your name to your posts. 2) You must not attack me, or you will be banned. 3) Leave your POV out of it and cite sources to back up your statement(s). Rantings only show your POV stance and how you are stubborn and refuse to follow protocol. I see that you refuse to follow wikipedia thus far, which makes you more of a nuisance than a contributor. To have anyone consider that you have any sense or seriousness or concern, learn to follow wikipedia policy. --User: (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that Maniwar is likewise guilty of POV. The poster has provided evidence to back up his claim. It looks like Maniwar is hiding behind protocol to avoid the relevant issue. I think the article should state that Amazing Facts is accused of bias against the Catholic Church and other Churches. That seems reasonable. What say you Maniwar? 136.242.180.140 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)John —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.180.140 (talk • contribs).
 * I'm totally suspecting that user 136.242.180.140 and user 70.108.49.31 are the same person. Both user's don't sign their signatures and both users are not equated with Wikipedia, and both users only are interested in this article. --User: (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, I would appreciate you sticking to the issue. Why are you objecting to this addition? I did have a signature. Please show why this should not appear in the article. JOHN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.180.140 (talk • contribs)
 * As I suspected. You two are the same person. Another no no for Wikipedia. Perhaps you should go and learn how to sign your signature, how to WP:Cite sources, and how to use wikipedia before asking this question. Cheers! --User: (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, I don't see the same IP and I signed my name. It is JOHN, use it. You are making this up as an excuse to avoid the first posters assertion. You demanded sources and he gave them. Now you pay no attention to them and harass me. I want mediation on this article. I do not believe you are non-pov. Thank you. John136.242.180.140 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * John and everyone at The Catholic University of America, as I pointed out, to the original poster, and I shall now point out now to you, telling me your sources accomplishes nothing. If you all want to post something in wikipedia, it has to be NPOV and it has to have sources to back it up. I've posted the five pillars of Wikipedia on both of your (as I still suspect that you are the same person) IP address talk pages. Take a few moments to learn how to properly cite sources and how to add non attacking sentences. These additions were previously removed by other editors, and if you read the history of this page (above), you will quickly see that all the editors agreed that they were loaded sentences, and I have pointed out that they are improperly sourced. Cheers! --User: (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Were all the editors sda's? I bet that's a yes. I posted sources, why don't you refer to them? I even posted from amazing facts on website. They show anti-Catholic attitudes. I will be satisfied with one sentence that says that amazing facts has been accused of anti-catholic bias. I appreciate John agreeing with me. How about this sentence, "Amazing Facts has been accused of bias against the Catholic and other churches."70.108.49.31 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Nemesis

Maniwar, I requested mediation. Arbitration would be okay too. Why am I interested in this? Because my university was tracted by seventh day adventists a week ago. So I would appreciate mediation on this article. Thank you.136.242.180.140 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)John
 * What does tracted mean? Listen, this is an encyclopedia. The purpose of it is to provide information on various articles. You all apparently have a POV agenda, and since you are not willing to learn Wikipedia, I will no longer engage in this conversation. I've placed the five pillars of Wikipedia at both of your IP's to help you learn how to do things on here. If you are not willing to take the time to learn, I am no longer interested in discussing this topic. For the final time, your addition was POV, it was loaded, and it was not sourced. If you take the time to learn Wikipedia, then your additions may not be reverted. I've said that several times, and I don't know how else to state it. If you want to call for arbitration, by all means do so, however, without your willingness to learn wikipedia, the arbitration will go no where. Happy Posting. Cheers! --User: (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did put sources, including one from amazing facts website! They show how amazing facts feels about other churches. Maniwar knows this so he doesn't want to talk anymore, he will just do what he likes. Maniwar you are hiding behind your position to defend your own POV.70.108.49.31 03:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Nemesis

Tracting is where a group places unwanted literature on cars or homes without permission.136.242.228.218 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)John

Whatever happened to mediation? It is easy to see how Maniwar uses the system to silence others and maintain his own POV. Now there are additions that are not backed up by citations at all. I backed up what I said and used "amazing facts" own material. This is why sda's get no respect and deserve none.70.108.49.31 03:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Nemesis
 * Let it be noted that I strongly suspect that User:70.108.49.31, User:136.242.228.218, and user:136.242.180.140 is the same person. Now, having said that I will the issues above again, and for the final time.


 * 1) You are assuming just because a person reverts you they are an SDA, and so you have been calling them names. You have been given a warning at your talk page(s), and that is the final warning. So, if anyone of the above three IP's name call, the IP's at the Catholic University of America will be reported and most likely blocked/banned. That, as you obviously can see, is not the preference and therefore you are again being asked to stop, cease, and desist all personal attacks.
 * 2) Your addition has for the 100th time (obviously this number is to express a point and to add emphasis to this point) has been reverted. This addition has been on discussion Since February 2006 and several editors have reverted it. The reasons as pointed out above (several times), is because you are adding loaded, unsubstantiated, and unsourced sentences to the article. Adding why you believe it to be true on the talk page is not adding a source. You have been given links here at this talk page, and at all three of your IP talk pages to go and learn how Wikipedia wants you to source. Since you are unwilling to learn how to edit, it is obvious that you have no interest in contributing positively to wikipedia. I again, encourage you to go and learn how to contribute to articles, how to source, and how to edit in Wikipedia.
 * 3) Your ludicrous accusation that I made a contribution to the article without any sources, is exactly that. Were you to take time and learn wikipedia, you would have quickly seen that, the last contribution I made, I inserted three sources to back it up. This is why you need to learn how to contribute to wikipedia; a) so you can do it yourself, and b) so you don't baselessly (is that a word?) and wrongly accuse someone for doing exactly what you say they didn't do.
 * 4) In wikipedia, sometimes editors have been asked to step back from an article because of conflict of interest, and I feel your case is a very good example to that. As pointed out above, you don't want to learn wikipedia, yet you want to vandalize articles. Since you have strong distaste for this entity, you will not contribute anything to improve it, so it may be to your best interest to avoid this article altogether. If not, you may, unfortunately, find yourself from being able to contribute to wikipedia.
 * I trust your questions have been addressed, and if not, please feel free to ask, without attacking or without inserting a sentence that will get you blocked. Any editor who wishes to add to this is more than welcomed and encouraged to. Cheers! --User: (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT vandalize the article. I DID put the source and the link. Did you bother to read it? You have given no reason as to why you have vandalized the article by continuing to revert a sourced statement. Why are you so interested? What are your reasons for reverting it? Do you have contrary evidence that you can offer? Also you have made an unsubstantiated claim that I am actually 3 people. Evidence for that please? You complain I wrongly accuse you and yet you do the same thing to me. I really want to know why you are doing this. If you are not and sda then say so. Also why is this not in mediation as John requested?70.108.49.31 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Nemesis
 * 1) Let it be noted that I strongly suspect that... is not wrongly accusing you. I suspect, though I may be wrong, yet I still suspect you are one person. Definition - To surmise to be true or probable; imagine: I suspect they are very disappointed. (definition). To suspect is not accusing nor is it wrong, it is an opinion. 2) You did vandalize the article because, as pointed out numerous times by numerous editors, you are adding a loaded sentence with no merit or source. The source you are listing simply says:

In its newsletter, the Amazing Facts ministries, a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, accused the Catholic Church of doctrinal error and submission to papal authority. Of the funeral of Pope John Paul II, it said "It was very clear to anyone watching these events that all the world looks to the  papacy as one of the planet's most powerful political and spiritual forces." The author claimed that he "kept hearing [an] echo of Revelation 13:3, 'And all the world wondered after the beast.'"
 * No where is it insinuating, alluding to, calling, proving, or stating that Amazing Facts (AF) is anti-Catholic? Additionally, there are no sources on that site for the supposed statement. I'm not saying that AF did not say it, I'm simply saying that your source is not a good source and I suggest you read up on how to properly source in wikipedia...again. So, because you have been asked numerous times by numerous editors, you are therefore vandalizing the article. 3) If you want mediation, here is the link to learn how to ask for it, however I suggest that you at least have some stronger support or source before requesting it. Oh, and again, learn wikipedia policies. I may even suggest you call for an RFC before calling for mediation. Though, yet again, you will need more support. Actually let me be helpful and say do things in this order since you did not request mediation: call for consensus on this page; if that doesn't appeal to your bias, then call for RFC; and again if that doesn't appease you, then call for mediation. Had you cared enough to learn wikipedia, then you would know to follow that order. Anyway, happy editing, just be warned that one more addition to the article will result in a request to ban you. If you truly want to set aside your conflict of interest and you POV, you would go and learn how to positively contribute to wikipedia and stop wasting everyone's time. Please note, that I have pointed you in that direction numerous times, yet I don't know what else to offer you. I will not comment on this topic again as you obviously are not willing to set aside your POV nor are you, apparently, willing to contribute positively or learn wikipedia. I actually encourage you to call for consensus and for RFC. However, again, do not add the sentence as you will be submitted for a block. This is not what I want, hence my warning you these many times. Happy editing and good luck with learning wikipedia. --User: (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My source quoted AF. They don't mind being considered anti-Catholic. They are open about it. I quoted AF as a source above and even that isn't enough for you. No source will be good enough for you no matter what. You have not answered about whether you are an sda. I SUSPECT you are. Gee, how useful to "suspect" someone and then act as if all is proven. Basically you are defending your bias and pov. You are using wikipedia as a shield to ensure that nothing you don't like gets in an sda article. Am I wrong? Do I suspect you wrongly? I bet not, we both know I am right. This is why wikipedia is not accepted as a valid source. People know this kind of thing goes on. Here is what I am going to do. I am going to ask AF if they oppose the Catholic Church. I will then post their reply if any. If they say yes then I will post it in the article. How can you argue with AF if they in fact agree with me? Oh I bet you will though won't you? But let's try it and see. You don't want to post on this argument because you know you are wrong and are unwilling to set aside your pov. I am not the problem here. Posting positively means posting the whole truth, even if that makes you unhappy and contradicts your pov. Be honest, we both know what you are doing and why you are doing it. Doesn't it make you the least bit uncomfortable? Would the sda church approve?70.108.49.31 03:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Nemesis

I just graduated on Saturday, so I have better things to do. Nemesis may be angry, but he is right. Maniwar is using the system to defend his POV. No one can deny that calling the catholic church the beast is considered anti-catholic. Amazing facts has said that. Maniwar will not even accept amazing facts as a valid source. There is irony for you. Thank you Maniwar for showing me how duplicitous SDA's can be. I have read the things they left on my car and there is absolutely no doubt that the sda church and amazing facts are anti-catholic bigots. It was like reading racist literature. It is disgusting. Maniwar you might win this battle, but the cost will be pretty high for you. Lying about other religions is no way to defend your own.136.242.180.140 17:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)John

RFC
Maniwar suggest I call for an RFC. I will do so. Maybe if we get some objective opinions this can be resolved.70.108.49.31 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Nemesis

Semi-protection
I have semiprotected this article for two weeks. To the IP editor, please provide source references in a standard citation format per WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:V. Bear in mind that article text must be in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. To both sides, please assume good faith: perhaps this IP editor is unfamiliar with site standards, and Maniwar is not necessarily pushing a Seventh Day Adventism agenda. Please tone things down a little, abide by site policies, and hope the RFC brings in fresh perspectives. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am relieved that someone else has taken an interest. Hopefully RFC will make a difference.70.108.103.178 23:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Nemesis

Request For Comments
The result was inconclusive --User: (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC) As I understand it we are to open a discussion for RFC. This is it.

The issue is whether or not there should be a mention in the article that Amazing Facts has been accused of anti-Catholicism. Several sources have been provided to show this to be true. In addition Amazing Facts itself has been quoted and the statements are undeniably anti-Catholic. As of yet those opposed to having this in the article have not stated why they believe this is untrue.

Those are the undisputed facts. I welcome comments from other parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by user name or IP70.108.103.178 (talk • contribs)
 * Leave Out - Any editor reading this, I suspect that these users from the Catholic University of America (all from same IP address) may be the same person. These users only care and are concerned with one sentence (be it unverified, unsourced, loaded, and POV -> see conversation above). This sentence has been challenged over a years period by multiple editors and it has continually been removed. Thus by consensus, the entry will fail. The editor(s) who insists on inserting the sentence are in violation of many things and have continually refused to learn policy and how to post properly in Wikipedia. I charge that this entry is in violation of COI, Pov, WP:RS, and WP:V. The editor(s) want(s) to insert a statement and then have the reader interpret how it is true. No WP:RS or WP:V have been provided in the article itself or even properly cited to provide support. I therefore along with the other editors, say to leave it out. --User: (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue that Maniwar avoids, thus showing his own pov bias, is whether or not the sentence is accurate. It is and I have cited sources that include amazing facts itself. Even amazing facts says that it opposes the Catholic Church. How can it be biased when they themselves admit it? After you cut through Maniwars baseless and unproven attacks against me there is nothing there but pov. Maniwar also wants to interpret what other editors have thought in the past. Mind reading is certainly unproven. The sentence is verified, sourced, and completely true. Only Maniwar disagrees. Amazing facts does not.70.108.103.178 02:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that someone is adding graphics to the article. I thought it was supposed to be left as is until we get more comments. Also why is there an advertisement for a 7th day adventist church listed. Is that an "unbiased" source and if so for what? Tell us maniwar. Another sly shot at proslytizing?
 * The article can be edited any time. Regarding your rfc, you really did not do it completely. If you want more people to comment, go ahead and list it here and ask others comment. --User: (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So far it is 1 in favor and 1 against adding the true statement that amazing facts has been accused of anti-Catholicism. Others are free to weigh in.70.108.103.178 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the external link to an sda church. It had nothing to do with amazing facts or the article in question.70.108.103.178 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * restored link because Doug Bachelor, Speaker of Amazing Facts, is also the pastor of that church. Look at the bio on both sites...so it is relevant. --User: (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet when I post something from the amazing facts website you delete it as irrelevant. Even though it backs up the fact that they are anti-Catholic. Do you honestly believe that amazing facts loves the Catholic Church, supports it, and praises it? Anyone else reading here think so?70.108.103.178 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Next step needs to be one of:
 * Open a New and proper RFC
 * Find verifiable sources to support and bring back to talk page
 * Call for WP:Consensus

I think that there should be some mention of Amazing Facts history of anti-Catholicism. They were here and I went to a few of their sessions. They had very negative ideas about the catholic church. So I vote to put that in the article.70.91.213.234 20:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So my vote doesn't count?70.91.213.234 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Disclosure of Income
Maniwar, exactly what part of my following edit (you reverted) is not from a reliable or verifiable source? Why do you think MinistryWatch.com is not a reliable source? Do you have another charity watchdog group that you prefer? Just give Amazing Facts a phone call to find out. It seems like we have a consensus that Maniwar needs to be blocked from editing this article. I suspect he's Seventh Day Adventist. He should represent them a little better.

My reverted text: MinistryWatch.com gives Amazing Facts an F grade in "transparency" for not divulging its financials and thereby "obstructing prudent donors in understanding". Out of 500 Christian organizations reviewed, only 27 received an F grade. For a detailed report see http://www.ministrywatch.com/mw2.1/F_SumRpt.asp?EIN=680389022

I also have some problems with this article. One editor claims POV and he seems to have a point. Others seem to agree with him. But Maniwar is dedicated to fighting any editing other then his own. I add my vote that this article should be NPOV. It is evident that the amazing facts organization does not like the catholic church and has other controversies. These should be in the article.64.21.238.49 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me set the record straight, you who seem bent on injecting non valuable information into an article be it this or another article. The information must be from a verifiable source, and it must lend value to the article. If you all would take the time to learn wikipedia instead of coming to insert your loaded POV, then the entire encyclopedia would be much better and we would not have to waste time fighting vandals such as you. Again, what value is this lending to the article? If you are so keen on inserting the info from ministry watch dot com, then why are you not inserting the information to all companies that they assess since this is such valuable information? This makes one wonder what your agenda is and what you are trying to accomplish. A controversy section is no issue, as a matter of fact I'm currently trying to rally for a controversy section in another article. If you all can add value to the article, then sure, I welcome it. But with the two issues being fought for, you editors are only concerned with the entries. Take a look at the history, I am not the only editor who has disagreed with the other entry it just so happens I am the newest one. Rather than accusing me, which has been done many times and falsely at that, follow protocol, show that there is value to be gained with the entry, register within the community to show you care about the overall encyclopedia, and edit positively to other articles showing you have no bias in trying to sour a single article. Help improve the article, be it positive, or controversial, yet show reliable sources, as I continually point out...drop the agendas. This hopefully answers the question to this and the below comments made. --User: (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

 * Repeated from user talk:Maniwar

In discussing this with Maniwar on his talk page he posted this: "I'm not sure if you're reading the talk page, but the disputed issue has been removed by numerous editors over the past year and a half. The supposed charge is not sourced, and it has been loaded. The three editors you refer to are in violation of WP:COI and therefore it does not warrant the entry be entered. Additionally, by consensus, see the talk page of the entire history of the discussion, staring well before I reverted it, by consensus has been removed because it voilates numerous policies on wikipedia. I don't want to rehash the entire conversation, so please take the time to read the entire talk page (including the history) to see how the final decision came about. The inclusion is not the issue, but lack of following policies. Please read the articles talk page, and ask any further questions on there. Lastly, I would encourage you to register with Wikipedia. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2007"

I have gone over the talk page here. At least one editor did provide sources including from the organization in question. Recently the consensus seems to be in the direction of including controversies in the article. My understanding is that anyone can edit and no one person should be the arbiter of an article. Maniwar, I have to be honest and say that you do not seem objective. I don't think policies are the issue. I suggest there be a section to this article, like in other articles, for controversies. Let people see it and make up their own minds. This doesn't have to be a big fight. I also think someone other then Maniwar should be involved. That is not to say he can't be, but that someone who is not a Seventh Day Adventist or a Catholic should be a part of the dialogue.64.21.238.30 16:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded to you above. --User: (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I object to being called a vandal. My understanding is that anyone can edit wikipedia. Maniwar, you have added to the article. If I erased your additions would you object? Of course you would. My belief is that we all have POV, including you. No one should pretend otherwise. But there is controversy here and the article should reflect that. One editor quoted amazing facts. I would think that is a good source for what they believe. I wish the mediation had born better fruit. I am going to try and come up with a controversy section. Maniwar, I hope that you will be willing to accept that not everyone agrees with you and that the article should be open to other editors. It is not only they who bear the burden of proof, but those who feel they are incorrect. I will post my idea here first and allow for comments. I think this is fair to all concerned. Thank you.64.21.238.30 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose a section for "controversies." It would state that there are claims that amazing facts is anti-Catholic. It would contain a quote from the amazing facts website and perhaps the one from the catholic league. If Maniwar wishes he could post a refutation in that or another section. This seems fair to me. I will wait a day or so before posting it. I hope Maniwar will be open as there is controversy and there are a fair number of editors who feel it should be included. Thank you.64.21.238.30 18:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to caution you. 1)Please read and be familiar with the entire discussion on this talk page. A controversy section is not the issue. The issue is that the entry must have cite reliable sources that are verifiable. 2)Additionally, the history of this talk page shows that the majority of editors (minus anonymous editors) do not feel the entry warrants being added and so by consensus it can be reverted. 3)Next, you still have to address how this is lending value to the article? Is there a large controversy stating that they are anti-Catholic? And by the way, you cannot add a quote and then ask a reader to interpret which seems to be the case. If you have proof, and it's, as pointed out above, verifiable then it can be added. However, do not just slap up a quote and expect that a reader can interpret its meaning. The quote must support what you're saying...giving proof, aid, etc. I hope this gives you understanding. If the entry is not supported, it will be removed and you may receive warning(s) since this discussion has been overly explained numerous times therefore justifying that you be issued a warning if you do not follow policy. Again, read this entire talk page and it will point out what the issues involved with the disputed quote is/are. It will teach you how to properly source, and how to properly add controversial sections. Happy editing. --User: (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, it seems to me that the majority of editors feel there should be such a section. The only one against it is you. Whether they are anonymous or not makes no difference. I think it lends value because upon viewing their website they do seem biased against the Catholic Church. I think there is room for truth even if it is uncomfortable. I read the quote from their website and little interpretation is needed. They don't like the Catholic Church and don't hide that fact. If you don't agree then you can give an answer in the article. I have no objection to that at all. Maniwar, I am deeply concerned that you are not being objective. It looks more like you are determined to protect this article and organization from anything that reflects on it negatively. Another editor accused you of hiding behind the rules and your position to make it impossible to add to the article. That reflects poorly on your church. Don't prove him or her right. Be willing to accept that the majority do not agree with you and that there is a controversy here that should be in the article. I will make it a very brief edit and say no more then the facts allow. Instead of reverting it and threatening me I would appreciate that you post comments on how to improve the section.64.21.238.30 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I again want to caution you. I suggest you first read and learn the policies I cited above. Also I'm not sure if you're missing the point or refusing to see it. The consensus is to leave it out, and since you fail to see it, I'll spell it out. For - Cestusdei, 64.21.238.30, and (70.108.49.31, 136.242.180.140, 136.242.228.218 - which are the same person) = 3. Note, that two editors are anonymous (including you) and one of them is charged with COI which is a violation. Those opposed are Fermion, Cromwellt, Maniwar, Durova = 4. And frustratingly, for the 30th time, a controversy section is not an issue, what is the issue is lack of following protocol, policies, loaded sentences, and your expectations of the reader to interpret your meaning. For example, the source you are citing, I as a reader am supposed to speculate/interpret what you mean. One person may read one thing, and another will read another. Additionally, it is not proving anti-catholics, it is a history lesson from a book of a deceased author. You need verifiable, reputable, and reliable sources clearly showing your charge...rather than this speculative and interpretive link you are providing. Last point, refrain from attacking me. You are making all sort of speculative charges, which is not the issue. Stick to the issue at hand, defend it, prove it, and you're more than welcomed to insert it, leave me out of it. Now, I've said all I care to about this. You have a history of discussion above to teach you how to properly cite, and what sort of sources are needed to cite. Lastly, adding a criticism section, I again say, is not an issue, but if you do it improperly, you will be reverted and given a warning on your talk page. One last point, if you so deeply care about wikipedia and building a good article, why are you hiding behind an anonymous user account, and why are you only concerned with one issue? It makes me wonder, though I'm not saying you are, if you are another employee of the Catholic University of America, a Catholic sporting an agenda, or an employee of the Catholic Church. Nuff said, good luck on your quest, I hope you find the sources you so desire, and happy editing. --User: (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, you have insulted me and threatened me. I don't know about the others, but I don't see any evidence that they are the same person other then your accusation. Are you Fermion and Cromwell also, it could be. I read it as 4 to 4 and the others you cite on your side have not said anything about the current controversy. Now you say that I am from the same place. I live over 1000 miles away from Catholic University. I am a Catholic, I do not hide it, and you are a Seventh Day Adventist. Why do you hide it? I suggest it is you who are sporting an agenda. I posted from the Amazing Facts page a quote from one of their own publications. It is clearly anti-Catholic. It is also verifiable and the source is Amazing Facts itself! If I said that your church had adultered pure doctrine and was superstitious you would not have any difficulty understanding it in a negative way. It is simply amazing that you don't understand the quote, which is from Amazing Facts, as being negative. If you read an article and it said that Jews were subhuman would that be evidence of prejudice and constitute proof?

It has been claimed that your burden of proof is insurmountable and that is true. Why are you the final decision maker on this article? Who decided that? I have concluded that you have absolutely no intention, no matter what, of allowing anything in this article that you haven't written yourself. This is unconcionable and stands against wikipedia policy. I have some questions for you: how many wikipedia names do you use, are you a Seventh Day Adventist, do you work for their church, and do you work with Amazing Facts? Why are you so interested in this article? I find your behavior so unprofessional, unethical, and deceitful that I am tempted to report you to wikipedia. I have tried to be a voice of moderation and fashion a compromise that satisfies all parties. In return I got nothing but insults, threats, and innuendo. How you ever got the power to control editing is beyond me. Whether Amazing Facts is bigoted or not, it is certain that you are.64.21.238.49 20:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the edit:

Controversies
Amazing Facts has been accused of having a negative view of the Catholic Church. Catholics believe their Church is portrayed unfairly by Amazing Facts. On it's website it states, "...in 538 A.D. Emperor Justinian decreed that the Roman Church now ruled the world. Henceforth, its reign would be known as the "Holy Roman Empire." The world staggered under the oppression of the Roman Church during the dark ages that followed. In her thirst for ever greater power and domination, she absorbed all other religions into herself and adulterated the pure doctrine of Christ with an amalgam of superstitions and heresies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.238.30 (talk • contribs) on 1 Aug 2007


 * I suspect that user:64.21.238.49 and user:64.21.238.30 are the same person and possibly may be in violation of multiple accounts and coi. However, I will give them the benefit of doubt and again caution him/her to learn how to post a controversy section. I suggest they learn WP:Consensus, WP:COI, WP:MOS, cite reliable sources verifiable, Tutorial, Five pillars, New contributors' help page, Attribution, FAQ, and lastly Article development. Cheers! --User: (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, I am done here. If you are an example of Seventh Day Adventism then I feel sorry for you.64.21.238.49 21:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not been watching this controversial article. However I think that a brief mention of criticism, if well cited from (relatively) neutral sources, is justified. Many other Adventist-related articles include criticism. Surely it is true that Amazing Facts is at least anti-papal; although I am confident it would not be anti- every individual Catholic Christian. Colin MacLaurin 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Colin, there is no issue with including a controversial section and there never has been! The issue(s) is that the editors have been adding the same ole sentence that many editors have reverted (see ). The editors have also obviously, been guilty of COI and WPA. Durova, a moderator, has commented that the entries are not valid and gave very good suggestions on how to post criticisms. Like any editor, I cannot allow POV entries with no sources. --User: (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Looks like this has been slow brewing for months. I've protected the version I saw that appeared on the page when I loaded it. Would've protected either version, this one just happened to be up.

Here's my take: there's nothing inherently wrong with having something in the article about the Amazing Facts view of the Catholic Church, if it's neutrally presented and adequately sourced to verifiable opinions of notable experts.

It's inadequate for Wikipedia's purposes to do a little original research from the organization's website: that's not describing a controversy; it's an attempt to create one. If the IP addresses who wish to make this point want their edits to become durable, and if these people originate from a Catholic university, then the solution is simple: approach a professor of religion and ask him or her to publish such a criticism. You might earn independent study credits for performing supportive research. Once the paper comes out in a reliable source, cite it here. Or find something along those lines that's already published and cite it here.

Without such backing, editors are stuck. I don't think the attempted edit violates all five pillars etc. as Maniwar describes. It's quite possibly the seed of something that could take a legitimate place in the article. Yet site policy places the burden for inclusion on editors who wish to add material...any material. So go out there, if you think real controversy exists, and find something more substantial than Catholics and Protestants don't quite agree with each other and are sometimes blunt about their opinions. I'm sure there are also Catholic histories that could offend the average Seventh Day Adventist, but the challenge would be (in either case) to demonstrate that things went beyond mundane levels and notable people took offense.

Try to work that out during a week of protection. I think you're all bright enough to reach an intelligent solution. Durova Charge! 21:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your help Durova, I am finished with this. I live a very long way from any Catholic university. Maybe the original editor will decide to do something. This has left me very angry at wikipedia and at the Seventh Day Adventists. I believe Maniwar is a shill for this Amazing Facts group. This whole thing is disgusting. So I am done here.64.21.238.49 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This truly amazes me. Though I'm sorry that user:64.21.238.49 feels this way, I can't help but think that he/she may have been looking for some excuses to bash something or someone regardless. Now, this is purely speculation and I may be called anything but a child of God because of that speculation, but it still makes me wonder. What also amazes me is how user:64.21.238.49 chose to totally ignore everything that was said and shared and chose only to pick up one one comment and misconstrue it. user:64.21.238.49 You continued to attack me, to inject your surmises and opinions as to who, how, what, and why I am, yet when I throw in a "I suspect that user:64.21.238.49 and user:64.21.238.30 are the same person" and a " it makes me wonder, though I'm not saying you are , if you are another employee of the Catholic University of America, [or] a Catholic sporting an agenda, or an employee of the Catholic Church", the very same thing you were doing to me, you become offended?? Anyway, I tried to explain to you many times, and how you continually miss this also amazes me, that I am in no way opposed to a controversy section, though from this page and history of reverts on the history page, clearly shows a consensus against the addition; I am however opposed to people adding bad, poorly sourced, and loaded sentences to any article. I've challenged it in many articles and will continue to do so. Yet, you miss all of this?? Anyway, you can do what you want to do. I think Durova gave some very good suggestions and if you came back with what she or I have clearly and overly stated above, that good source(s) showing your accusation will be allowed. Had you brought the addition to the talk page, we could have worked through it, yet you chose to ignore the many cautions issued and posted anyway. I do hope you find your sources, and I do hope you find this alleged criticism. Anyway, chose what you wish. Life is what you make of it...sour or sweet. Cheers! --User: (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Maniwar should be so happy. He has not covered the SDA church with glory in this. He just proved the other editors were right. SDA's are bigots. Why do they think it is okay to lie about other religions? Do they imagine this really will work in the long run? He never did answer the questions put to him about his own affiliation with Amazing Facts or the SDA church. Instead he accused every editor of being the same person. Looks paranoid and delusional to me. A perfect fit for Amazing Facts.70.91.213.234 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I came back to see what has happened since I left. Looks like Maniwar has been successful in keeping the article POV in his favor. He has also managed to insult a wide range of editors. I think he is a bit paranoid. He thinks everyone is me. I guess I should be flattered. They are right, he is a seventh day adventist and probably works for amazing falsehoods. I have done all I could to keep wikipedia honest, but sometimes the bad guys win. Maniwar, I promise you that I will do all I can to expose and counter the seventh day adventist cult. You have given me the motivation to oppose that evil "church". If anyone reads this article I encourage them to discover the truth about seventh day adventism and its lies. Do not accept "amazing facts" at face value. It is a deceptive organization. I hope someone can call Maniwar to account and make this article NPOV. Good luck.70.108.48.56 03:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)