This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
I removed the "sourced" hype from the article because such stuff does not belong in an encyclopedia article. This is just a cunning way of misusing the article for advertising purposes. Articles are not promotional pamphlets. Anglicanus (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that articles should not become ads. You will notice that I was the one who initially tagged this article for notability, etc. But with your rephrasing, the article properly notes what the Washington Post said about the group, and nothing in the articles I have read calls that into question. The two quotes are there to help establish notability. If this becomes a good or featured article, the quotes would almost certainly not appear as prominently (because the article would be substantially longer). Your rewording to note that the quotes were the opinion of the journalist are less objectionable (if awkward and failing to acknowledge the process the journalist used to arrive at that conclusion) than your removal of the Washington Post article as a source. I have left that change and reverted the others. There is only one two unsourced sentences in the article, and while it they should have a source and ultimately will, I am sure, it is hardly objectionable material (but remove it if you want it out until cited). If you think the article needs balance, feel free to add sourced material yourself. Your edit summary claiming this article is "is at risk of being deleted" is unsuppoted by WP:DEL#REASON. But if you think it should be deleted, send it to AfD. Novaseminary (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Anglicanus has again removed two quotes and the Washington Post source in which they appear with this edit. Whatever one thinks of the quotes, there is no excuse for removing the source which is cealry an RS and the removal of which has now broken a reference supporting the fact that the group is nonsectarian. That is hardly yellow journalism. What is the justification for removing a perfectly good source supporting a perfectly neutral, uncontested fact? Novaseminary (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources were removed for perfectly valid reasons. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it is appropriate to include in an encyclopedioa article. Information about the association being nonsectariam is perfectly acceptable - the use of a journalist's extremely flattering opinion of the association without any adequate context for them is not acceptable. But put them back if you insist - it's already obvious from your comments on my talk page that you are too fond of bullying other editors into having things your way. Life is too short to waste my time and energy with people like you. Anglicanus (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a bot already reinserted the source Anglicanus removed. My biggest objection was just that (that a clearly RS removed even though it supported a clearly non-POV, relevant fact). And I hardly think this comment on Anglicanus's talk page was bullying. I would hope Anglicanus would work with those of us who have edited and will edit this page rather than taking the ball and going home. There is no need for sour grapes or edit warring on an article about a professional organization that deals with pastoral couseling, of all topics. Novaseminary (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
