User talk:Anton Hein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. You can sign your name with ~~~~. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

Have fun! --Jiang 07:33, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anton, thanks for the link at FLDS article! Hope to see more of your work in the future. Hawstom 22:35, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why I have modified your links to the Religion News Blog

Hello, Mr. Hein. You have probably noticed that I have changed all your links to your Religion News Blog by substituting the phrase "Apologetics Index weblog." My reason for doing so is that your blog, like your main Apologetics Index, has a POV, that of evangelical Christianity, and a signal to that effect needs to be accompany the link. Your sites also contain material from other points of view, and that is commendable, but it would still be misleading to simply place your link on the Wikipedia page without notating in some way that you have a "dog in the fight," so to speak. I think simply announcing that this material is from the Apologetics Index is probably sufficient as a signal to POV, as readers may then look up the Wikipedia article on your organization if they are interested in learning more about the leanings you may bring to the subject. I think this solution is better than commenting excessively about your organization in the link itself, and it certainly beats removing your link altogether, as you should have the opportunity to say something about these topics. I have also moved these links back into the "External links" section, as there is no Wikipedia convention for a "News" section. --Gary D 00:55, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Gary,
On a number of occassions you have changed links to Religion News Blog (RNB) into "Apologetics Index Weblog." You mention that you have done so because "your blog, like your main Apologetics Index, has a POV, that of evangelical Christianity, and a signal to that effect needs to be accompany the link."
I have no problem with such a 'signal.' I do have a problem with your changing the name of the blog. For one thing, we are planning to introduce an 'Apologetics Index weblog' medio 2005. We do not want it to be confused with Religion News Blog.
Incidentally, the news blog consists of news items culled from - for the most part - secular newspapers.
Regards,
Anton Hein 16:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How about either, "Apologetics Index's Religion News Blog" -or- "Religion News Blog - from Apologetics Index"? --Gary D 18:58, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
That would be fine. Thanks for the suggestion.
Anton Hein 21:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anton, are you behaving badly, or have you checked your recent actions with Gary D? Tom - Talk 21:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I imagine it'll be alright; sometimes a little revert-around-the-rosie is acceptable on the way to an accommodation, and it sounds like we have a consensus here. Anton sounds like he's okay with my main "signal" point, and I don't see a need for more than a notation that it's from AI. I'm happy to have his POV in the mix. --Gary D 21:38, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

If you are behaving well, you should probably talk to User:OneGuy about reverting your edits. Tom - Talk 21:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not 'behaving badly.' I objected to the fact that someone re-named a website I own. I explained why the link to Religion News Blog should not be renamed to Apologetics Index weblog. I have no problem with Gary's suggestions intended to make clear that Religion News Blog is operated by Apologetics Index. That said, what do you mean by talking to User:OneGuy about reverting edits?

The guy is promoting his personal web page (a blog)!) by inserting it in several dozen articles. If everyone was to insert a link to his own blog in these articles, the external links section would grow 20 times bigger, and thus would make it useless as a source. I consider this guy, Anton Hein, a spamer who insists on spaming every article by inserting a link to his blog. OneGuy 05:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting a bit ridiculous. Don't advertise your own page. If it's germane, let users of the internet in general find it on their own. Wikipedia isn't about vanity and inserting links to a blog of all things. If it's an authoratative source (worthy of encyclopedia source material/additional material) then it would be recognized as such instead of perceived as a blog and argued about. Don't put these links in any more religious articles, please. --ABQCat 07:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mea Culpa. I did not realize that adding external links to relevant research resources was considered 'spamming.' Indeed, the problem - per Gary D - appeared to be with the naming of the link; not with its presence. It's too bad OneGuy felt he had to remove the links altogether, but I understand his contention that that the links section would grow too large... Anton Hein 11:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I personally, as I believe does GaryD, support Anton's putting his links up. Yes, they could be classified as vanity links, but they seem to be uniquely relevant, at least for the FLDS article. But maybe my POV is clouding my judgement. I am LDS. Is there room for compromise on this issue? Tom - Talk 17:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think (and the irony of this is not lost on me) that Anton's links may have a place in articles of this type. The linked sites aren't commercial or advertisements, and the various individual entries linked to are reasonably specific to the various groups involved. As Anton points out, my main concern was that these links clearly point out that Anton's sites are not neutral feeds of information but rather come from an evangelical Christian POV, and so are likely to be explictly or implicitly critical of these other religions and spirtual paths. Ironically, it is just this critical orientation that makes the links more likely to be noteworthy, as in, "and now, here is what people who don't like the people or ideas you've just read about have to say about them." I can't say I strongly support these links, but if they are to be removed, it is important we verify that the removals are occurring because the links are truly duplicative or non-informative, and not just as a quiet ploy to silence a critical view or a strongly negative POV. --Gary D 00:31, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
A few weeks ago someone cleared the external link section of Islam. It had grown too large (with many duplicate links). That's the problem. If everyone can insert links (as long as they are relevant), the external link section would become useless clutter. The links should be to very specific academic/authrotive sites, and to a directory (like yahoo section on Islam). This would avoid the problem of people spaming the articles (at least a main articles like Islam) with links. OneGuy 01:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Apologetics Index is considered an academic/authoritative directory. See, for example: Academic Info: [New Religious Movements Gateway - Directory of Online Resources], Wabash Center Guide to Internet Resources for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion. Religion News Blog is an integral part of the site that provides a unique service to researchers: the archiving of news articles related to topics covered in Apologetics Index (religions, cults, sects, ethical issues). Feedback shows that RNB is used by - among others - scholars, authors, reporters, legal professionals, government officials and so on. As for the contention that external link sections would grow too large, I have not seen that. (Besides, the Internet is not full yet... :) If, as you state, a particular entry has "many duplicate links," than those should be dealt with. But to remove links to a site that provides a service not even covered by the other sites listed is counter-productive. Also, I disagree with the contention that such links should be called "spam." We are strongly opposed to spamming of any kind and for any reason. But placing a link to an on-topic research resource is, in my opinion, not spamming. Finally, though it is no secret that our sites are operated from an evangelical Christian point of view, both Apologetics Index and Religion News Blog are used - and linked to - by a high percentage of non-Christians. In large part that is due to the fact that Apologetics Index links to research resources from a variety of perspectives (including those we certainly do not agree with), and that Religion News Blog highlights articles from - for the most part - secular news sources.

Anton Hein 09:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, fine. But the link to Apologetic Index is already there. Can't people just find the link to the blog from the main site? Why there is a need for two links? By the way, I saw your section on Robert Morey. This is the guy who came up with moon god stuff (quoted everywhere on the net). He claims he got his degree from Theological Seminary Gujranwala, Pakistan. I would like to point you to an article published in Pakistan Christian Post on Robert Morey and his fake degree here.
You should consider linking to that too from your site :) OneGuy 09:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Though they are integrated, Apologetics Index (AI) and Religion News Blog (RNB) are two different sites (running on different servers and with different IP numbers). While AI links to a variety of research resources, RNB's only resource is current and archived news. Many people use both sites, but a good many folks are interested only in the news items. Sure, people can find RNB by first going to AI. However, those who would specifically be interested in current and archived news would not know this can be found via AI unless it is mentioned in the link description. And that would, in my opinion, make link descriptions to AI unneccesarily lengthy (which would indeed make it sound like an 'ad' rather than a simple link to a resource. As for Morey, yes I also include info on his Moon-God theory. The entry does not to be updated... Thanks for the link to the Pakistan Christian Post article! It will be added soon.
Anton Hein 13:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/User_talk%7EAnton_Hein_8ce3.html"