Plagiarism from Wikipedia
"The ministries can be seen and heard weekly in 99 million homes. John Hagee Ministries is in Canada on the Miracle Channel and CTS and can be seen in Africa, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and is in most developing nations."
The above is taken directly from the "John Hagee" page on Wikipedia with some minor insertions and changes. I'm not sure what the policy here is on plagiarism or on posting Wikipedia's content, so I won't edit it myself. --Timf 14:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
It seemed like the Controversy section was detailed and referenced - why should it be replaced by a simple statement that there's controversy. Frankly, the controversy about his finances is pretty cut and dry compared to the controversy over his statements about Catholicism, and the ones about the Nazis doing God's work that have caused John McCain to disavow Hagee and his endorsement today. --DinsdaleP 21:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
- As much as possible we try to keep balance. The amount of information about John Hagee was dwarfed by the controversy section. Reading the article you would think the main aspect of John Hagee's life is controversy, and that would be misleading. What we try to have contributors do is expand the totality of the article. If the contributor knows enough that they've followed a controversy thread, then they probably know enough or know where to check up information that they could add additional content on Hagee's life, theology, accomplishments, etc. Learn together 10:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- I guess this comes down to what "balance" means from the conservative perspective. The article on Obama is incredibly biased against the man, and dismissive of anything positive about him. The article on George W. Bush doesn't mention anything negative about the man, including his track record running companies, the state of the economy and the national deficit as of 2008, his response to Katrina, and so on. I has added a recent quote from Ben Stein to his page that one sysop considered accurate and added in good faith, but another sysop censored it because he considered it unflattering despite its validity. A trustworthy encyclopedia should publish the maximum number of accurate, properly-sourced facts as a reference, as long as it's done in a fair and honest manner, and leave the interpretation to the reader. As Fox news would say, it should be "We report, you decide", and more & more, this site is about "We decide what to report". --DinsdaleP 11:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
- For the record, we won't be publishing the "maximum number of accurate, properly-sourced facts as a reference". If one really looked that could easily be 50 of so quotes for Hagee alone, not including books. Our key is to help our readers get a feel for the person. Who is John Hagee? What does he believe? Why is he important? What has happened in his life? I don't know a lot about Hagee, but I am aware he hasn't exactly been a Fred Phelps. If the controversy section is most of the article, then the article is not being presented properly. We still have the reference that anyone can check up (the other reference didn't work -- I left the one that did), but we aren't going to make that the article highlight. Learn together 12:58, 23 May 2008 (EDT)