User talk:TruthwillRule

As I said, the information may be relevant, but you can present in non-POV way. See Neutral point of view - Skysmith (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC) stating a fact is in no way a commercial endorcement- that does not even make sense. I will find additional documentation though.--TruthwillRule (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided to edit the article a bit in order to show what I mean - Skysmith (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * since there is not other televangelist that had this amount of coverage it WAS the most most widespread mass communication of the gospel in history- this is documented- why is that biased?--TruthwillRule (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a value judgement. Just present the numerical facts and let the reader draw the other conclusions - Skysmith (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whose values? Yours? Basically even though its factual, we need to take it out because YOU think it should not be there? Is that correct?--TruthwillRule (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, since my comments are based on WP policy. I meant that the end of the sentence I removed resembled that of a commercial endorsement, which is against WP policy. If you can find a third-party source that agrees with that you could add, for example. "according to so-and-so, this means that" and so on. And, yes, it's nitpicking but unfortunately part of WP. Otherwise some other editor would have done something similar to what I did. - Skysmith (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)