User talk:Clarky65

removal of the controversies section
I understand if the controversy has been disproven, however it still should be there. if you can find a source that disproves the allegation, then provide it in the controversy section and mention how it was disproved. see reliable sources to see what sources are reliable.

thank you

sincerely, Gaismagorm (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * if however you really feel that the controversies section is unneeded, please obtain consensus to remove the section on the articles talk page. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I understand the importance of keeping the controversy section if it can be properly sourced and contextualized. However, after thorough research, I have not been able to find any reliable sources that provide direct rebuttals to the allegations mentioned. It appears that these allegations were never substantiated, and there is a lack of substantial evidence or official findings to support the claims regarding Pastor Ed Young's lifestyle and financial arrangements.
 * In light of this, I propose updating the controversy section to emphasize the lack of substantiation for these allegations. This would provide a more balanced and accurate representation of the situation, in line with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability.
 * I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this proposed approach and am open to any suggestions you may have. Clarky65 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In general I don't particularly know if this would be good. I reccomend asking on the articles talk page. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)