User talk:Journeyist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Warning

It has been quite clearly demonstrated to you that the word "controversial" applies to Eliseo Soriano, yet you continue to remove it from his article. If you do so again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The choice is yours. Moriori 07:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journeyist's Reply

You have quite clearly demonstrated your bias against Bro. Eliseo Soriano.

The ability you have to block my account is the only thing that prevents me now from deleting that malicious adjective, which in your opinion, applies to Soriano. You have your arguments, I have mine. You have the power to block me, I have not. Let it be known by all Wikipedians that this issue was settled not by reason but by your police power. Cheers! Journeyist 08:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Journeyist, but you are misinterpreting my position. I have already stated I have no pro or anti bias regarding Soriano. I can't understand why you say the word controversial is a malicious adjective. You said the word "kontrobersyal" quite simply means "much talked about" in the Tagalog dialect. True, but this is enWiki, so we use the word "controversial", not "kontrobersyal". It describes any preacher who faces rape charges, who criticises the beliefs and practices of other religions, and who was declared a nuisance candidate (and disqualified) in senatorial elections. Also, you should not remove warnings from your talk page, as you did with you last edit.Moriori 09:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the Tagalog word "kontrobersyal" does not have the negative connotation of the English word "controversial". More to the point, however, why use an adjective that only describes what other people thinks about Bro. Eli instead of an adjective that describes him directly? In fact why use any subjective adjectives at all?? Wikipedia did not use the word "controversial" to describe Bill Clinton or Marilyn Monroe or Evita Peron, persons of proven "controversialness"??? Does Wikipedia measure a person's Controversiality Quotient (CQ) to determine whether he deserves the tag? --Journeyist 06:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And hey, like when did I remove your warning officer Moriori?? It's my little badge of honor, why would I remove it?? --Journeyist 06:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DELETION OF THE WORD "CONTROVERSIAL"

The word "CONTROVERSIAL" is an expressed opinion on the value or quality of an issue. When ascribed to a person, the adjective only describes other people's perception of the subject. It contributes nothing factual to the subject himself and may indeed only serve to validate those biases.

To ascribe it to a person such as Brother Eli Soriano in his Wikipedia bio article makes the article questionable and unreliable as a source of facts. If such a judgmental article is maintained in an encyclopedia, that encyclopedia becomes indeed questionable. An encyclopedia that prides itself as not existing for publicity ends has no place for an article declaring someone "controversial". To allow such would serve as precedent for other persons being branded similarly.

Wikipedia's article for figures widely perceived as controversial such as Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, and Salman Rushdie were written with intelligent neutrality. They were described simply by their nationality and the position or avocation for which they are known for. Hitler was simply called German "Chancellor". Bush himself was simply called "43rd President of the United States of America" despite winning via a "controversial" electoral contest. Rushdie was simply called "British-Indian Novelist and essayist". No adjective was used to describe their character. Nor were there any adjectives used to describe their person in the light of other people's perception.

In the case of Bro. Eli Soriano, however, it is regretful that a Wikipedian by the name of Moriori think it scholarly to insert the word "controversial" to describe a Bible preacher he has not even met in person. I have removed that single word a few times to correct it and make the article more encyclopedic. What I call "correction" he call "vandalism", what a coincidence! He then replied with a warning, saying he will block me from editing Wikipedia altogether if I do not stop. Talk about reasoned collaboration, huh!

If I as a Wikipedian could not even correct a simple, statement about a person I know a lot about, then what contribution is Wikipedia expecting of me?

I am not sure whether I or another editor originally called him controversial, (and it is 9.20 pm here and I am going to bed to read a book so you can look it up). BUT, let me say loud and clear that the word controversial was sourced to Soriano's own website. It must have become an irritant after Wiki cited it, because it has recently been removed. Nonetheless, a preacher facing a rape charge, who criticises the beliefs and practices of other religions, and who was declared a nuisance in a senatrorial election -- still remains controversial. Removing the word from a website can't change his reputation.. Moriori 09:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHY MORIORI'S USE OF THE WORD "CONTROVERSIAL" IS MALICIOUS

As I've said in his talkpage I do not disagree with Moriori's opinion that the word "controversial" is applicable to Brother Eli. Perhaps Moriori will also agree with me that the words introspective, thin, ectomorphic, studious, are applicable to Bro. Eli. So why does he insist on using the "controversial"?

The answer: Brother Eli is what Moriori says Brother Eli is.

1. MORIORI IS UNDULY IMPOSING HIS PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW By describing Brother Eli as "controversial" on the introductory paragraph of Soriano's biography, Moriori is imposing his point of view, his opinion, on the readers. Not very encyclopedic.

If Moriori truly believes that Bro. Eli is "controversial" why doesn't he just let the facts speak for itself? Is Moriori so insecure that the readers might not realize on their own that Bro. Eli is "controversial" that he simply must make sure of it by insisting that the word is retained and all those who disagree will have their Wikipedia account banned.

2. MORIORI ONLY ALLOWS EDITS THAT PAINTS SORIANO IN A CONTROVERSIAL LIGHT If you'll examine the page and how Moriori facilitates it, he acts as if he's the undisputed authority on the life story of Bro. Eli. You cannot add to the page any major changes to give it the decently balanced treatment Wikipedia gives to Adolf Hitler. No way. All information contained in Bro. Eli's biography must correspond to Moriori's valiantly defended self-same view that Brother Eli may be a lot of things to a lot of people but at the end of the day he is nothing more than a Controversial Filipino Evangelist. Period.

He is ever willing to use misinformed media reports as "source" so long as it supports his main thesis.

And What of Moriori's Final Defense? As Moriori elegantly puts it let me say loud and clear that the word controversial was sourced to Soriano's own website

My reply; Of course it was sourced from his own website. No one's denying that. But it was an error his writers did not realize at first. They were just trying to be non-patronizing about bro. Eli. Further, as I have explained in Moriori's talkpage, the error in diction was borne of a literal translation of the Tagalog word "kontrobersyal" which has a milder connotation among Filipinos. Remember that English is not our mother tongue. Nuances in the English language is easily lost on non-native speakers. All this, however, does not erase the fact that the word "controversial" unduly colors the whole article about Bro Eli. Had Bro. Eli's own website used the word "phenomenal" instead, I doubt that Moriori would use it.

Furthermore he says

a preacher facing a rape charge, who criticises the beliefs and practices of other religions, and who was declared a nuisance in a senatrorial election -- still remains controversial. Removing the word from a website can't change his reputation..

(There you have it. A Moriori who claims he has nothing for or against Bro. Eli declaring his personal opinion on the character of his subject.)

AGAIN, if Bro. Eli is truly controversial, what better way to prove it than by showing instead of telling? Why not show Wikipedia readers some respect by simply giving them facts, then leaving them to decide what to make of it?

Moriori loves to make a big fuss of Bro. Soriano's being declared a nuisance candidate, facing a rape charge and his criticism of other people's beliefs and practices to prove that he deserves to be called controversial, when that is not even the point. I'm not saying you sanitize Bro Eli's biography. I'm just saying you balance it. If you want to call him "controversial" fine, but you must reveal your attribution. At least that will pass journalistic standards.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I have two recommendations. Its Moriori's choice which to pick.

1. Simply delete the word "controversial". After all, Wikipedia readers are not morons you have to feed with your or other people's opinions. Would you, for instance, describe Hitler as an evil German Chancellor? It's in bad taste right, no matter how true?

2. Or just rename the entire title of the page. Instead of calling it "Eliseo Soriano", call it "Eliseo Soriano According To Wikipedian Moriori" . That way I won't even bother editing it, although rest assured I will watch it.

PERSONAL MESSAGE Above all, however, I appreciate Moriori for consistently guarding the bio page of Bro. Eli Soriano. It is my opinion that he is quite a reasonable enough person and I am glad to learn some of his Wiki ways(pun not intended). I hope, however, that his sense of fairness matures beyond Wikipedia's narrow definition of what is fair enough. --Journeyist 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)