User talk:Jim2345

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Stephan Schulz 09:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Move of Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Hi Jim. The current name of this article has been long (and recently) discussed. See Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment_of global warming and in particular Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Please do not unilatery move pages with a long and contentious history. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 09:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Jame Cone
The controversy section did provide citations, but there was no source to show that there actually was a controversy over those statements. Without that, it's clearly just original research and completely unacceptable on a WP:BLP.

The citations you provided for the other quote are from opinion pieces or blogs associated with those papers and both reference the Asia Times opinion piece. I could see it possibly being part of a Controversy section, but not as currently presented, where it is taken to be Cone's typical description of black theology. - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am saying the quotes in the controversy section should not be in the article at all unless there is source to show that there is a controversy. This article has information on what Original research is and why it's not allowed: No original research. Note that what you're doing is providing only primary sources. This is not allowed. You must provide secondary sources to show that there is a controversy. As far as the other quote, you should probably just use that citation given in the Asia Times editorial as a separate source. That establishes that the quote is for real. And the other sources establish the controversy. I wouldn't have any further objection to that particular quote in that case. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)