User talk:Quaddriver
Book of Mormon
[edit]Hi Quaddriver - just wanted to respond to your email to me. I hope you don't mind.
Your message mentioned that the "mayans are thought to have actually exceeded the abilities of rest of the world mathematically by a couple thousand years"
I left in the comment that they were advanced, however, I qualified that not ALL of Mesoamerica was as advanced as portions of the Mayan empire. You wrote Mesoamerica. That is different than Mayan empire. OF all of mesoamerica, there is relatively little written history and very little archeaological data. Sorry for any confusion.
As you know only about 7 to 8 percent of biblical locations have been identified and less than ten percent of north American archaeological finds has been excavated (even less internationally in the central and southern portions of the americas, as they are destroyed by building, farming, climate change and more. See [1], [2], [3] [4], etc. Europe and the mid-east has much better preservation laws. [5]
In any case, the edits in question need to be cited and belong on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, not in the Book of Mormon page. Any lengthy discussion of archaeology should take place on the sub-page, as the article is long for a wikipedia article and has been split for a reason. I'm working with a non-LDS-related (neither pro or anti or ex) working on some archaeological stuff for the Arch. page. I'm suprised at how behind the current anti-mormon literature is (I'd say five to fifteen year back), compared with the current state of mormon research. However, the anti-mormon/exmormon literature is more prevelant on the web and more accessible. As someone who has spent a great deal of time in the field, I've finally decided to pull together the latest good and bad on the field of study. But it is taking time...
What is your background in? Do you have any training (formal or informal) in archaeology? I see you are a master's student - but I'm suprised you wrote: "To ignore such written history is criminally negligent" on your user page. Calling something criminal or law-breaking could be considered slander, if directed at an individual, and seems much more "set" and "absolute" than most masters-thesis candidates are (who are typcially stuck in theory). But perhaps your program doesn't deal much with theory, which is suprising. I'm also suprised that you've built scholarship at dispoving something. Isn't new discoveries and building history much more interesting than disproving it? I guess you had different training than me. Certainly you see lacking in all religious studies when it comes to the arguments you are putting forth, which is fine, I find it interesting that you've chosen Mormonism to work on, rather than mainstream christianity, islam, or judaism. Certainly the others have more impact on the current world. In any case, that is your study focus, not mine. And I'm sure you are good in your field of study.
Look forward to working with you. I prefer discussion on talk pages, rather than email, however I will answer email - particularly if you feel something is too sensitive to include on talk pages. By the way, I'm positive you are not "the only wiki contributor who is a direct descendant of Brigham Young." However, are you/or were you an LDS church member?
Look forward to collaboration with you to make articles better. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, to respond here, you just need to hit the edit button and edit/add to the end of the entry like a regular article. -Visorstuff 16:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok thats what I thought had to happen - email is a misnomer. Ok, this is going to be a LONG response, so go grab a coke now.
Ok first off, here is what I have noticed:
The section on mormonism, which I accidently came across a while back while doing research is for the most part - intellectually worthless. Pretty heady statement you say? Not at all. The stated purpose of wiki is npov articles - which - if you have ever delved into political science are nearly impossible to write.
However, any section on any religion should contain wording that indicates the tenets are CLAIMS. This is proper NPOV. However mormonism presents an unusual case - we know - not guess, not assume, not conclude things that JS and his merry band of men did. Items that are labelled as 'critical' and redacted are in fact, the FACTS! (and I talked to a colleague and have decided that the process of editing the wiki bom page will make the thesis 2nd edit to demonstrate what passes for intellectualism these days)
Consider if you will, this passage from the start of the article:
Organization
The format of The Book of Mormon is similar to the Bible, with separate books written by different authors who recorded the interactions of God with people. Generally the book is composed of the following books, though editorial divisions in different churches' editions vary:
This is so blatently unprovable I am surprised it survives. Unlike the books of the bible, where we have the EXACT output by the authors, we have additional output by other humans who SAW the authors, and we have additional output by other humans who SAW the same things the authors did; there is no proof, now or before that the 'authors' of the books of mormon ever existed other than the word of one man[1] who said they did, and his source - of course - is not available for inspection. While the absence of proof is not proof in itself, and while a critical element of faith is (surprise!) faith, the above quoted statement exceeds the bounds of rational human thought.
Notes from above paragraph: [1] - JS spent a good part of his life engaged is what we would politely call 'underhanded behaviour'. (I will leave the googling up to you, but you can find in a few hundred places "State of NY v Joseph Smith" 1826 Glass Looker Trial. Of course the LDS church pooh poohs this trial, but for all I care they can pooh pooh the fact that the world revolves around the sun. Or anyone can simply read it here ) Suffice to say, proof of being a scoundrel does not prove that he did not xlate the bom, but it does send a giant torpedo in the side of the boat called "JS was a true prophet and man of god"
Answering this from your opening letter: In any case, the edits in question need to be cited and belong on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, not in the Book of Mormon page.
I disagree. If the section is in fact entitled 'critics views on the historicity', then mentioning the churchs' efforts to prove same is required. Especially given that the one man and his colleague(s) who were paid to do such explicitly repudiated the mission is critical - in no good conscience could any scholar omit that work. 50 pages of expansion into the arch. pages might not be a bad idea.
You asked: What is your background in? Do you have any training (formal or informal) in archaeology?
ans1: see my 'personal page',
ans2: no. I do not dig up stuff without my backhoe. However, that is not to say I fly blind. As mentioned, I continuously learn and history is a fav of mine. Given my poli-sci endeavors, its a perfect match - when it comes to history people are generally stupid - and I allude to that in a not so nice way on my personal page. Furthermore, I have an inside connection to UT-austin (univ texas) (ex gf in her PHD program) whose archeology dept is the foremost leader in central america. Consider this statement from the section on archeology:
There are virtually no groups involved in primary research on Book of Mormon archaeology outside of the Mormon academic community
Gee thats only half true. (sighs) Try, outside of the NWAF/BYU arch, there are NO groups involved. If you recall from your reading, when Thomas Ferguson set out to prove the archeology of the BoM he was instructed by Brown and McKay to NOT publicize the purpose so they could appear independent. Other groups, be it universities, NGS whatever do not research BoM arch. simply because they as one voice consider it complete rubbish. (to borrow a phrase from our UK friends) Please note, I have yet to meet a member of the LDS church who even knows who Ferguson was. And that is a crime.....perfect segue to:
"To ignore such written history is criminally negligent" on your user page. Calling something criminal or law-breaking could be considered slander, if directed at an individual,... (rest omited from original)
In any endeavor we can undertake - except apparently writing for wiki - ignoring stored fact (aka history) could result in claims of criminal negligence. (witness: airplanes, carmakers, cigarette makers)
Are LDS members as humans that fragile that they must absolutely utterly ignore the well documented history of the church and the investigations into the BoM? (acutally, the answer is yes, they must if they are to remain faithful members - but I wanted to elicit in you critical thought) But I stand on that position even more now, given the events of the past few days.
Consider the situation: we have an article on the BoM (as well as other linked topics) where due to the structure of the website, proponents are pretty much allowed to type whatever they wish, with no cites other than the document itself and the word of its author and the words of people who just so happen to blindly agree with the author.
They are allowed to word the article as if it is fact (consider the cite above and more I will be giving soon) and have you noticed, if you read the revisions (I do) the people who could be classified as 'opponents' rarely vandalize the proponents claims but rather add text LATER. If a non-proponent (Ill get to that in a moment) enters something considered outside of wiki as historical fact, it is immediately redacted by the previous proponents!
If there is anyone who will ever read this 'talk' who can sit in front of me and not see a MAJOR problem with this scenario then I state will full confidence: I never want to meet this person because it is unlikely they will have anything useful to say or worth listening to. What we have here has exactly no difference from letting a defendant in a court case write the judgement against him and his own press release following. Intellectual fraud. (I admit the previous conclusion is not entirely my own and has been echoed in print numerous times - I just happen to agree strongly with it)
Pretty good segue to: However, are you/or were you an LDS church member?
No, not now nor ever, but that is not for lack of trying on their part! I guess getting one of Uncle Brighams descendants in the fold would be considered coup.
To which you also said: "By the way, I'm positive you are not "the only wiki contributor who is a direct descendant of Brigham Young."
To which I answer: oh yeah? who? I am always interested in meeting kin. As part of a 10th grade project my family tree was researched all the way back to entry into this country - including the cherokee nation part (grandmother of mothers father) but they (cherokee) were already here ;-)
I did find out, last week, by haphazard chance, that I am cousin to Sarah Tanner. Thats cool. The stuff they can sell you, give on the website is well researched, despite the defacement by LDS adherents. More intellectual dishonesty this time. I noticed tho that you are --><--- this close in the edits you have done (more on THOSE later) to declaring lighthouse anti-mormon. Perhaps it is your training, but have you actually counted the items they list on the site that are non-mormon vs mormon? I dont have the exact count, but I did look at them when I wrote 'multi-denominational'.
Now the question you REALLY wanted to ask when you wrote (ooops, I forgot to mention, I also have 24 credits in psychology, reading what people mean is actually childs play): I find it interesting that you've chosen Mormonism to work on, rather than mainstream christianity, islam, or judaism.
No, I do not 'have it in' for mormons. I have no problem with them existing, worshipping, performing rituals - whatev. During the last round of attempted conversion the Stake pres challenged me to prove to him what he is was saying was false. That was the wrong thing to do. I guide my intellectual process by one simple phrase: "1 thess 5:21 - prove all things, hold fast that which is good" Take a moment to digest that and realize that it is purty good advice for any endeavor, even if you are not religious (I am, christian, non denominational, think the earth took 5Bn years to get here and dinosaurs did walk, and that constantine really screwed the pooch on our calendar) If a Mormon is going to burn in hell or get 72 virgins or whatev...the simple fact is I dont care. I am not mean, I really just dont care about anyone elses spirituality. I was challenged. I responded. When I take the time to research something and the petitioner does not - well, we have a conflict.
Anyways, I am sure the stake president expected me to tell him about Smiths arrest in IL, polygamy, tithing - whatev. Boy was he surprised - and for good reason - the missionarys as you are aware are captured so young BEFORE they can gain life experiences and critical thinking abilities. They have to be taught early 'close off consideration of any opposing thought and do not dwell on it' - just look at the edits done over the years on the BoM page. This is the time where I discovered that LDS members, for all the favorable feelings they harbor for Jews, know absolutely nothing about them. Which is why the LDS members try to talk to me outside the home - 18+ years ago I married a Jew, a Levite no less. (making our son a levite and also of all of us reading this, probably the only one with any claim to ascending to the Aaronic priesthood - but that is another topic for another day) If the latest missionaries come a knocking, she just identifies herself as a Jew and its a levite residence at that and off they go at a much quicker pace than when they arrived. Which in retrospect I find funny. Whats the deal? Are jewish women (who are totally cute to boot) expected to have lightning bolts come out of their arse?
Suffice to say - we arrive my thesis. Now, there is some confusion on your part. In my bio I list that I started a MS Poli-sci program - and I did, but I was not kidding about current lack of interest. I abandoned that a few years ago - I still write thesis' for various political organizations to stay sharp but Im too old for 8am classes, paying too much for books and looking at college girls. Well ok, maybe not the latter. When I come across a topic I research, I dont just read it to 'prove all things', I also write a thesis and freely distribute. As I will this one. Reserve your copy today!
At any rate, the last few edits you and someone else have asked for 'more cites'. There are cites in there. Giving names, dates, titles, links are in fact called cites. You and others seem to fall into a fallacy that if it does not exist on wiki, or on the web, it does not exist. wiki, as I have stated, is of questionable value (worthless is the term I think I used) because it does not protect data and allows redaction. When I come up with an online link, I will use it (since I have discovered how yesterday) so be real careful what you wish for, or in other words: dont mess with the big dog. Why? (big dog is never wrong is the good answer but:....)
I have learned from the ole polisci days that the best way to defeat a position, is to use its own data against it. ("hoisted from their own petards" is the proper phrase) When I write that an item is available in the LDS church, people should see that as proper warning and go elsewhere...do they REALLY want damning evidence against the churchs' position posted that comes FROM the church? (intellectually the answer is yes, duh....but we both know that should I post the links, they would be redacted)
Take for example a recent edit where an anon IP address took out a link from lighthouse? and called it link spamming. What does that tell us? The source section is deemed to contain ONLY links from LDS sources, and not other sources. Intellectual fraud.
Now, the tricky part, I am not accusing you of anything underhanded, but the spate of edits you did over lunch (my time) today were nothing but thrashing. They themselves were imposing a narrow POV on independant information. The spirit if wiki is simple (although not adhered to consistently in this topic) - no POV, list the source. An edit for grammar is fine. An edit for a difficult sentence is also fine (in fact I often list mine as such) Edit(s) such as some that you did that caused my restoration of the section subject are not proper. Joseph smiths 'translations' are the reason for the article in the first place. Unfortunately this is 2005 and we know what he did, how he did it and who he did it with. Much to the chagrin of the LDS church this IS the age of information. If LDS members want to use this section as their personal playground then fine, but I am sure you have followed the world opinion of wiki over the last few weeks - this aint helping. It is not up to anyone to edit wiki to steer what facts belong where, but rather make sure they are verifiable. Can you look a person in the eye and state with certainty about the ones you just made in 'assumption of translation' follow that creed?
If the article(s) are to REALLY be a useful source of information, then the finished product MUST by nature be: 'Claims' - worded as such about the religion and spiritual source of the religion. Tempered with critical reduction based on what we know given from research done previously. Or put in a not so delicately way, if you are up to the pepsi challenge, go read the history of the book of abraham, the REAL history. And if at the end you are not incensed with anger and feel like slapping someone with the initials JS then...well write your own ending. (btw - the article on it is wrong, Nibley was NOT tasked by the LDS to prove the papyri were authentic, It was Ferguson who did this on his own and the 4 egyptologists were Prof Klaus Baer of Univ. of Chicago, Prof Lutz of U.C. (Berkeley), Prof. Lesko (U.C. Berkeley) and Egyptologist Dee Jay Nelson. Nibley was tasked to defend the BoA and his output is not regarded by ANYONE (and I am not being facetious) outside of the LDS church as being even remotely factual.)
Let us view a few other statements that absolutely should not be in there:
Cowdery never denied his testimony of having seen the golden plates and a decade later returned to the church - Is most blatantly false. He most certainly did, more than once, and all versions of his following testimony conflict with the one he signed in the preface. How is it that THIS goes unchanged and when a change is made, it is redacted?
And this one that you made: Most Mormon and non-Mormon scholars believe that other groups of people lived in the ancient Americas
Is at best a half truth. The link on Native Americans gives more information and I note with satisfaction, has not been redacted by our LDS colleagues. And a true scholar would add the phrase 'contrary to what the introduction in the BoM states' (which I note WAS in there, but was redacted.) Whole truth. Not fragments.
And this: one would have to accept that a culture and its descendants lost knowledge and ability, or accept they and their culture was destroyed by the Lamanites as stated by the Book of Mormon
Is clear POV. Sorry. The section is views of the critics. In ALL historical cases, as you MUST be aware, when a culture has been overrun or assimilated, the best of its parts are assimilated. The travellers had the wheel and as stated in the BoM chariots and swords. Whomever would do the the destroying would have taken these as their own, not abandoned what was so evident in its effectiveness.
There are more but this is long enough. So, I make this offer, if you are sincere in what you wrote, then yes, I look forward to incorporating a lot of history into areas of wiki (and you may have noticed I have started claiming dabbling in other areas that bore most people.) and btw - I am betting that you are an LDS member. Too much personal POV in the edits. Fess up, I guess right?
Response
[edit]Let me take point by point. First of all, I am not an apologist of Mormonism, nor am I going to debate all of Mormonism, that Is not my purpose on the Wikipedia. I do have training in archaeology. I do go on digs. I do research Mormonism, and you have brought up nothing new to me (different spins on some arguments - such as the torah).
Second, as for the criminally negligent comment, I am curious if you will be reporting me and others for breaking a law. I am not a lawyer, but have taken some law classes, and don't think that would last long in the court system. You crack me up.
I'm surprised you think that the Mormonism portion of the site is "intellectually worthless." I think Mormon authors have bent over backward to make sure different POVs are included - such examples include Early Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. (which was a featured article yesterday, praised for its balance and scholarship - and included his work as a "treasure seeker" etc.). We've nothing to hide, and every religion has its oddities. American Baptist groups for example - few know that the founder left his own church after it was organized. Gee, that would make me feel confident in the sect, if I were Baptist, but this is not about baptists. Another example is the section on LDS temples, many of the articles discuss the changes in ceremonies, etc. - even if in general, and the LDS editors bend over backward to revert people removing links to anti-mormon sites detailing the ceremony. Not something that happens in scientology or catholic articles for sure. (See the fighting that has occured over the past four years at Mother Terresa for example, and her death-bed, non-requested baptism instructions and more.)
Third, Islam, Scientology, JW, and the rest of christianity and other religious pages on Wikipedia do not have to have qualifiers, as anyone with common sense on the wikipedia would know that a page about a religion is going to have a certain amount of faith-based belief in it. It was decided many years ago (I've been around a while) that faith-based articles should start from the point of view of a believer, and then allow for detractors. That is the Wikipedia model that has prevailed. So mormonism does not "presents an unusual case" but follows the standards that have prevailed on the wiki.
All pages allow for detraction, as long as they are on topic. There are more than 800 Mormonism-related articles on the wiki, and discussion about Mormon views of the JST belong on a page about mormon view of the JST, not in the book of Mormon - which should discuss the book of Mormon. Again, this is common mode of operations on the wikipedia.
The opening of the Book of Mormon page states: "The book's self-declared purpose is to testify of Jesus, through the writings of alleged ancient prophets of the Western Hemisphere, who might have traveled there from ancient Israel, most between 600-650 BC. It asserts that it was abridged and compiled by the prophet/historian Mormon, and his son Moroni in the 4th century, for "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God." Joseph Smith said he translated the record by divine inspiration with assistance from the Urim and Thummim." Everything after that the reader should know, if he has common sense, that the belief on the book as religious myth or historicity is based on faith. This happens before your "organization" quote above, so a reader should know that this is faith based. Or do I overestimate people?
If we have to put "claims" and "alleges" every five words, it kinda hurts readability, no? And if we have to with all of christian books - "well, 2 Timothy and Galatians were probably not written by paul after all" or, according to what some scholars believe moses gave as teh ten commandments, and others don't, the ten commandments state" when discussing the ten commandments, it hurts read ability. There is just as much problem with the bible, Qu'an and other books as the book of mormon. the difference is taht more people generally accept those books as opposed to the BOM becuase Mormonism is much younger. I reckon the BOM will be around in 1000 years and still have adherents, just as the bible will.
You wrote: "where we have the EXACT output by the authors" of the bible. We do not. We have copies of books that are alleged to have been written by those authors. Again, the dueteronomists are a good example, as are the greek ester exerpts, psalms, matthew, luke, the espistles of paul, songs of solomon, Daniel exerpts, and more. let alone the apocrypha. The authenticity of biblical authors is very much in dispute. Teh article Epistles_of_Paul gives a cursory overview of authenticity there, but doesn't even go into the detail available. Yet, you want to go into even more detail on the BoM, and not follow the pauline epistles model. Which is fine, we'll bend over backward for your views, but realize that it is not the norm.
Incidentally, the church has funded much more archeaological research than your one citation. i'm suprised you didn't include more.
You wrote: "UT-austin (univ texas)...whose archeology dept is the foremost leader in central america."
Umm, I have to disagree. i'd say Duke, NC and UC are the foremost leaders ahead of UT Austin. I'm not saying they are not good, but I'd say they are better at North American archeology than central america. In any case, I'm sure you read archeaological journals on a regular basis, as do I, so you know there are others that are just as good. but nice claim.
You say there are no groups outside of "NWAF/BYU" that are invovled in BoM archeaology. This is not true. There are at least two dozen independent groups I know of and at least one UC group that has been involved in BOM-specific archeaology (no new world findings end of program). Let alone BYU funded groups that are independant of the college.
You wrote: do "all LDS...ignore the well documented history of the church and the investigations into the BoM" No. See Richard Bushman's (active and going strong) biography on Joseph Smith. It leaves no stone unturned from the Egyptian grammar to what devices were used/not used in BOM translation.
I have no problem with including historical fact, or even primary sources (such as your left alone NWAF quote) as long as they are referenced and ON TOPIC, and I try to do the same. I often do not add in large chunks as you've noticed, as i don't have the time to find citations all the time.
On the BY descendant thing. I believe Vegasbright was, Dr U (a udall), and I've had discussions in the past with others. i'm related by marriage, etc.
I think you mean Sandra Tanner (not sarah tanner). I've met her a few times and have run into her at the LDS Church historical office last time I was there. Yes, they do go there for documents, as have I. Interesting to read who is there on the sign-in book. Regarless, mormonism is their focus. It is part of their mission statement. The vast majority of their site is geared at mormonism. i'm sure you've been there. I have not problem saying they are anti-mormon, however, they have preserved in public some key documents for research, and they won't touch certain topics that other anti's do (some that you have), as they are more skeptical than most on some anti-claims. They have even recanted some of their research, which shows integrity in their rsearch. They generally disagree with mormonism, but they fight against it (which is the definition of anti-mormon activism), but they also do some good. Anyway, blah blah...
I'd encourage you to use your research to balance out some of the other religous toipcs, as stated before.
You wrote: "Unfortunately this is 2005 and we know what he did, how he did it and who he did it with" in regard to the translation. Unfortunately, we don't. We were not there. We guess. We suppose, we piece together based on the research. We don't know which of the 70+ books he supposedly plagerized from had more influence, or even if they were all available to him during the years leading up. We don't know why there are some interesting "coincidences" with nag hammadi texts and other gnostic texts that were not available until the 1900s such as an account of Jesus blessing children and angels administering to them, as told in either the gospel of philip or the gospel of the twelve apostles - which is similar to the Nephi texts. The abraham legends. The Melchizedek legends. The tree of life legends. and the list goes on. Interesting coincidences. Not saying they couldn't happen. But for me, so many coincidences adds up to be evidence after a while. Yes there are problems. Things we don't know. That is the point of faith. Same with my study of the bible. No difference in my mind. Lotsa questions, some answers. Much we don't know for certain. I don't have to know now. But I do study everything I can get my hands on and nothing you've said has been new, YET.
I have to run, gotta finish christmas eve events, however one last thing: I do have a great deal of connection to the book of Abraham papyrus, and you are wrong. You were not there, nor involved. I have the original photographs that were taken of the papyrus when they were re-discovered. Nibley was given access before anyone else was allowed to see them. He enlisted the help of others. My father was one. the three others were also involved when the fragments were made public. DeeJay Nelson is not an egyptologist, nor are his credentials valid. I'm sure you've read why he suddenly dropped off the world in BOA research, but if not, you may wnat to research him.
I'll get to the rest later. Some true, and I'd love ot discuss the cowdery denial with you. More later -Visorstuff 16:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
well merry christmass and all that ruck, I cannot guarantee I will be on much until Tuesday, In fact in about an hour and a half I have 17 people sitting down to dinner. I read up on DJ. Ok, Punt him. I will still consider the others, especially since PRof Baer was used to impeach Nelson.
we will have wondrous talks about bodys of evidence, preponderances of evidence, even orgys of evidence, impeachable witnesses, un-{the same}, logic constructs etc.
As a present I leave you with this, it is nothing new, it is over 500 years old and I recently used it. IF you study it and understand it, you will understand why one of your recent edits cannot be valid:
A is a set containing at least X, Y, and Z B is a set containing at least X, Y, and Z I have both A and B, but I do not have X, Y or Z
The third statement is false.
And you are right, Sandra, not Sarah, and to think we recently exchanged emails. That is what I get for not proof reading when I am in maximum output mode. You might have also noticed that when I put stuff out quickly I am the master of the split infinitive. Drives my editors crazy.
12/25/05 I have a few moments before I travel. I am a little confused at the tangent on 'criminal negligence', almost to the point where I need to ask if you know what a euphemism is. As I pointed out previously, in many other endeavors ignoring past data *is* in fact a crime. Just because it is not in this case, does not mean I cant point out its significance. Surely you must admit, when it comes to intellectual endeavors *all data* must be considered. Not choice cuts.
As for my evaluation of the wiki articles. About two hours after I asked if you were LDS I found that I could read anyones discussion page. So I read yours and found that yes, my guess was correct. I was not saying you were an apologist, I was stating that your writing clearly defined you as a believer, not as an objective reviewer - remember when I said it looked like you were thrashing? The material I posted would and SHOULD be disturbing to a faithful mormon. Who likes dirty laundry hung on the line? Your response followed the guidelines I would have instituted to observe the reaction I did. Do you see now how you, and Val, and others are EXACTLY the wrong people to be editing the pages of the critics? Your (royal) tendency is to redact and minimize the impact by self imposed standards. I am not trying to be rude or insult, just pointing out my observations, recall, I do have training along the lines of evaluating humans...I am also not saying I should be (or a person like me) a reviewer. But recall, I simply dont care the only person I need to convince on the viability is myself - remember in my into the statement where I said "I reserve the right to....."? My entire involvement in this 'project' stems from an ill-conceived challenge. Therefore we arrive at the next point.
All work must be peer reviewed. At least it is in my endeavors. Anything I have ever submitted for publication, patent or presentation has been scoured. Completeness and correctness are key, as you can view by reading my other contributions. In the scientific/scholastic community, a work is devalued when its author is also the reviewer. A work is also devalued when the reviewer is also a supporter - neutriality is the target (though I admit not easy to obtain) In the case of religion, if the adherents are also the editors (as we have here) we have a problem. I note you are an official 'editor' (whatever that means) on wiki. I read in an into to wiki where a section on religious topics was created seemingly with mormonism in mind. It said they wanted to avoid a topic where the entire body was an image of what the proponents wanted to provide and indeed, we have this here. The edits are in the opposing view sections and material is redacted. IF you dispute the claim of 'intellectual fraud' - then fine, approach ANY university sans BYU and speak to a department head and explain exactly what we have here - a supposed encylopedia on religion where the editors are strong adherents to that religion. You may be right in that the same exists in the judaism section, the christianity section &c and my comments remain the same. However, I am here, you are here, we all live together (Im sorta plagarising lennon ;-) If this was perfect the only people with edit authority would NOT be proponents (in fact I would prefer they were athiests since an adherent to any religion would be suspect)
Anyways, if you get online, chew on this for a while. God willing in 3 hours my life will be filled with the flashes of a welder and the noises of heavy drilling.
-quad, aka Ed. I do not know your name.
my image
[edit]Hello, I noticed your edits on the Chevy small block image and thought you might be able to lend a hand and vote to keep the image I uploaded. Hopefully you feel it's warranted. I think it helps show the history of aftermarket car parts and it involved dozens of hours of research, scanning, photo editing, etc. Thanks for your time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_September_7#Image:Edelbrock-catalogs-1946-2008.png MiracleMat (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
