User talk:Pasteur1967

David
Greetings,

I saw your recent edits to the page David. The lead section in the article is getting quite long.

I think a sentence such as this one:

He is depicted as a righteous king, although not without fault, as well as an acclaimed warrior, musician and poet (he is traditionally credited with the authorship of many of the Psalms).

is sufficient enough to recap how the Bible depicts David's characteristics.ReaverFlash (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for visiting my talk page to discuss this. On the one hand, I do not entirely disagree with you.  On the other hand, another editor has insisted on adding statements to the lead section that violate NPOV, are unsourced, and greatly distort the actual narrative.  My contributions are a more neutral and properly sourced alternative to the unsourced material claiming David wrestled with "ruthless ambition and lust" throughout his life and merely struggled to be pleasing to God (whereas the narrative depicts him as successful with respect to pleasing God.)  With other editors determined to add length to the lead section, it is better to have accuratre and properly sourced additional length than unsourced material that violated NPOV.  The article is 47 kilobytes long, and the lead section is two paragraphs of 3-4 sentences each.  This is well-within lead length guidelines in the manual of style.Pasteur1967 (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. although another editor is determined to add non-NPOV stuff, I don't think that's a reason to include text that could potentially really bog down the lead section. Back and forward discussion of whether he is righteous or not should really only be recapped in one sentence.ReaverFlash (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Pasteur, Quite true, I confused the editor that started the page with the editor that made the edits, with you. My apologize. I regret the error. Now, as to the "unsourced material" in question, did you noticed that the SOURCE ITSELF also had been deleted?  Did you noticed when I mentioned this the 1st time (on the talk page)? Did you notice that I mentioned this the 2nd time on the talk page? No? Well let mention it again: the source for the statement had ALSO been deleted!! Get it?  I could repeat it a 4th time if that would help. Or is the problem that you don't see the relevence.  That must be it.  I'll break it down for you. You see, when one complains that I've made a statement that is un-sourced, and yet that very person is responcable for DELETING the source, it makes me think that their critism is motivated by something else.  Dissingenous is a name for this.  Is that more clear?  I can repeat this in as many ways as needed to make the point. Also, I must say, I think the point is plain.  Steve kap (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, so the problem was there was no inline citation? So the thing to do was to delete both the link AND the statement? Instead of kindly adding the citation? Is that the WIKI way to do it? Whatever hever happen to "no time limit"? Now, does this responce so a bit familair? Maybe thats because you made the claim before on the talk page, and I responded to it. Doesn't make for a very interesting debate, does it?
 * Now, you DID make a claim (by inuendo) thats new, that I'd like to address. You implied that the Freedom From Religon Foundation, and there link, is a source "not up to wiki standards" or some such.  We, the FFRF are a very proment group. They are behind many of the lawsuit to remove the 10c fro public court house in the USA.  They sued the US fed gov over "Faith Based Initiatives".  So, a strong and NOTEABLE voice in the secular community. And that's the wiki standard, noteable. I've had this arguement before, believe me, I'll win.  But you can pursue it if you whish.  If so, tell me why you DON't think they are a notable source.


 * But please, please, lets not tred old ground again. Come up withsomething new. Answer by responces, don't just repeat your. Very boring. Steve kap (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)