User talk:Hoboken

Edits to Joseph Smith, Jr.

I have just reverted your edits on polygamy in this article. This is not because I have any issue with the fact that JS practiced polygamy, but is due to the current preferences of the LDS users group that works on these articles (see related talk pages). The current Polygamy article on Wikipedia has a history of being a messy contentious place, and not because of the LDS/FLDS practice of polygamy. There are modern Christian polygamists that keep that article in an uproar, with lots of reverts and changes. Until this situation is resolved, the LDS users group decided to first direct the reader to Polygyny which is a calm site dealing with the anthropological definition. Then we try and direct people to the LDS oriented plural marriage article, which the LDS project here designed as an introduction to the LDS practice. Then, we would hope they could go to Polygamy with a better understanding of the topic. So, please discuss this on the talk page before editing the topic in the article yet again. Welcome to Wikipedia, I look forward to working with you. WBardwin 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one owns anything here, no one person's opinion has dominance, no one person's edit can stand alone -- Wiki operates on the basis of concensus. And the use of these terms have been discussed, and rediscussed, and the concensus at present is that polygyny will be the first reference. This is not simply a religious viewpoint. The LDS project here is not solely made up of members of the churches of the Latter Day Saint movement. We have editors who are church members, non-members, former members and simply people who are interested in religious history and practice. The project uses the word polygamy when appropriate for the topic (see Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy), but the Polygamy article is really a mess and is a poor link for the reader. Once that article becomes stable, then that term will probably predominate. As I said, you are welcome to discuss the term on the relevant talk pages -- careful and open discussion hopefully leads to concensus. Best wishes. WBardwin 06:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it clearly that can't be the consensus, which is unanimity, as it keeps being changed back. Clearly there is no consensus if the only way it can be maintained is by a group assuming ownership and dictating what can be said in an article. There's no sense pretending that there's such a thing as a stable article or a final consensus, in any case. - Hoboken 06:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page is the place to talk to all the editors of Joseph Smith, Jr., -- so it is ineffective to just address your remarks to me. If you want to change the concensus of the editors on that page -- you will need to talk to them. Now, you can go down the history list and leave a message on each talk page or you can write a message on the article's talk page. Either way, the editors (individually and as a group) will make decisions on your edits. Not because they own the article, but because they have all agreed on certain conventions, terms and ideas which the article will present. I will not revert your edit again this evening, but I expect that other users will notice and at least make some comment. This is an old topic for the editors. WBardwin 07:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course you'd expect them, after you'd put out the call for them! I can't think of stronger evidence for "ownership" of an article than you're already providing! "Old topic" <> "settled question". - Hoboken 07:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to share from a page historial standpoint - see comments on Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Polygyny. -Visorstuff 16:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]