nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: + + + +
Talk:Roman Catholicism (view source)
Revision as of 18:32, October 24, 2008
, 18:32, October 24, 2008→Controversy?
I agree with Learn Together, plus there were controversies throughout its' existence. While a controversy section may be required, it does not have to dwell on just one bad instance.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 13:53, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
I agree with Learn Together, plus there were controversies throughout its' existence. While a controversy section may be required, it does not have to dwell on just one bad instance.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 13:53, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:From my personal point of view, we have an opportunity to present information in a form that it is not often found -- and that is certainly our goal versus removal. Anyone not living in a cave has heard about the scandal extensively so simply ignoring it only makes us look bad, but how many people are aware of the extra information that we have added that is commonly suppressed from press reports? Our readers need to see that extra balanced perspective. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:32, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:As another general rule, when are article has an extensive history from many editors to take its current form, including 9 sysops and the site owner, then it is best to work within the structure that has formed before resorting to complete section removal. Sometimes drastic measures are needed, but it is unlikely that would be true in this case. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:32, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
==Requirements==
==Requirements==