User talk:99.203.1.43

According to Wikipedias policy, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

This content "The reliability of William Branham's biographical material should be viewed with caution. This is because Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished, and sometimes contradictory. Other sources, written by his associates or followers, are apologetic and hagiographical in nature.[7][8]" violates that policy. It is clearly a biased statement.

Point 1. This statement tells the reader what attitude to take towards the material of unsaid number of books. The term "biographical material" could encompass every book ever written on the man and any future books to be written. This is a biased and unfair generalization.

Point 2. The statement "This is because Branham's autobiographical stories were often embellished, and sometimes contradictory" makes a unneccessary point with no citation to specifics. By saying "often embellished" are we to assume the author has omnipotent information of every autobiography ever written on the man or will ever be written on the man? How does he know? What does he mean by "often"? These are natural objections. Without specifics this opinion is not verifiable.

Point 3. The statement "Other sources, written by his associates or followers, are apologetic and hagiographical in nature.[7][8]" coupled with the prior opinion seems to indicate that because information is written by one who is "apologetic" it means that that somehow reduces the validity of argument of the authors. It also omits that there may be autobiographical books thats are written to be critical in nature. Because of the initial statement, this makes the assertion that unless a book has a critical bias, it ought not to be trusted.

The following example exposes the problem with this type of presentation. Saying "Those who read information about John Doe should be cautious of books written on him. Many of those who wrote autobiographies of him believe John Doe is the best baseball player, while other sources attempt to use local stories, and are not critical enough of him". This is clearly biased.

November 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Charlamagne tha God has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Charlamagne tha God was changed by 99.203.1.43 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.953798 on 2017-11-18T03:34:53+00:00.

September 2018
Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to I Am Frankie— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.