User talk:24.57.157.81

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please do not put links in section headings, that is not good style, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Intelligent Design

Please don't revert reversions of blatantly POV or nonsense content. FeloniousMonk 04:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Dispute

Anytime someone asks for help with dispute and fails to actually mention the article in dispute will draw some suspicion. You also failedto log in, (assuming youre also Benapgar -this is crossposted See WP:SIG for why to login.), etc, and write in generalities about policy rather than the issues present in the debate. You also have a talk page (assuming youre Ben) thats loaded with comments about your behaviour. I dont care about the talk comments at this point, but all of this adds up to "low interest" - the debate itself is not a problem for me. Please correct the above and I can help you out. As a general rule, and this is really just a basic aspect of NPOV (read it, learn it, love it) is that you dont make separate articles based on a separate POV. While a scientist may claim that for example ID is a POV fork of the whole concept of science, we can at least treat the subject objectively. In that context, all articles must be written objectively (yes this is a contstant battle) and all sides must be represented in balance, in terms which the reader can understand. In the ID context, just for example, its perfectly fair to report the characterizations that ID makes of mainstream science, as well as the vice versae, as long as its framed as opinion. The framework allows for us to deal with POV in an NPOV way. Regards, St|eve 03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Benapgar

This anonymous user 24.57.157.81 (talk • contribs) generally contributes to Wikipedia as Benapgar (talk • contribs). FeloniousMonk 19:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from User:24.57.157.81

Given that the title of the article is Mormonism and that you are attempting to claim Mormons believe, you would have to have a reference from a Mormon source to support the claim. Though I am not completely familiar with all the sects of Mormonism, I find that a very difficult proposition given this situation and the odd allegation. More importantly, given the title, all sects of Mormonism would have to believe your proposition. Given my personal expertise in the area, I know that to be an impossiblity.

I suspect that what you would prefer to quote are people who are not Mormons, but have interpreted what Mormons believe. That is a very different animal. Interpreting what others believe, rather than just quoting what they believe falls in the realm of propaganda. It is a past time of religious zealots that seek to build up their church by tearing down others with lies and wild stories fit for children at bedtime...boogie men and the sort. I have found Evangelicals to be notorious good at spinning yarns about Roman Catholics and Mormons alike. I am sure you have heard them; not Christian, members of a cult, etc. It is wonderful stuff, but hardly the type of material one brings up in educated circles.

Lastly, if you are serious about your allegations, you may want to address the individual church articles rather than the Mormonism article. This specific article necessarily must cover broad subject matter given the diverse beliefs of the different sects. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved my response to your statement on my discussion page here-
Bluntness and frankness is not discouraged on Wikipedia. However, I find the premise of your positiong interesting. You only read anti-Mormon literature...do you think it is not without religious "ornamentation"? Please be serious. ANTI anything is propaganda designed for a specific purpose. If you were really serious you would be studying Mormonism from Mormon sites; there are many of them. Tell me, if you wanted to learn how to make a watch would you go to the butcher to learn? The same is done for virtually everthing. If you want to learn about Buddism, study something that was printed by a Buddist. If you want to learn about Catholicism; study the catechism. This is not a novel principle, but it is certainly telling about who is attempting to learn. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.57.157.81.html"