Talk:Roger E. Billings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Generally, lets keep external links in section at the end. — Zeimusu | Talk 02:38, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Discussion from user talk pages

By the way, why do you keep adding malicious comments to the Roger Billings page? I know that they are not true, and they seem to be written in the spirit of "intending to defame". Are you and he mad at each other? It seems so "out of character" compared to your other contributions? User:Firewriter

Hi, I do think we need to mention the reason why anyone is interested in Billings's religous affiliation. He is not just a member of a minor LDS sect, but he is claimed by that sect to be a patriach and a prophet -- that is notable! He did write a pamphet in which he critizes the mainstream LDS groups for rejecting polygamy, that too is notable not least because it was presented as evidence by Novell. Finally he uses the title "Dr.". Novell claims he is not entitled to it. When more than one point of view exists, policy is to include all the points of view. — Zeimusu | Talk

Thanks for the response.

The current version of the article mentions that Billings is a Patriarch in his Church. It is a belief of followers of Joseph Smith that "anyone" that testifies of Jesus Christ by the Spirit of Prophecy is considered to be a Prophet.

"If any person should ask me if I were a prophet, I should not deny it, as that would give me the lie; for, according to John, the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy; therefore, if I profess to be a witness or teacher, and have not the Spirit of Prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I must be a false witness; but if I be a true teacher and witness, I must possess the Spirit of Prophecy, and that constitutes a prophet; LDS History of the Church 5:215-216

By their way of thinking, they are all Prophets.

I have a copy of the "pamphlet" titled "True Dream of Zion". I have examined it carefully. Nowhere does it criticize the mainstream LDS groups for rejecting polygamy. If you have access to a copy, I suggest that you check this fact.

He does use the title of DR, not be confused with PhD. The Doctor of Research degree was granted by the International Academy of Science by authorization of the Missouri Coordinating Board of Higher Education. Novell attacked his claimed degree in early petitions, and then backed off after taking his deposition. The degree is legal, and is recognized by professional organizations.

A user called User:DrHydrogen has made some edits. I'm a little worried because of the name — Zeimusu | Talk 03:14, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

I did notice that "Dr. Hydrogen" did not like some of my comments about Drew Major. I assume that "Dr. Hydrogen" is Mr. Billings since that name was dubbed on him by Time Magazine. I think he felt that those comments might be offensive to Mr. Major. I do not agree, but I respect his opinion. If so, I doubt that he crossed the "line" banning people from writing articles about themselves since he only deleted material he thought would be offensive to others after "others [had] laid the groundwork".

He also did not like your statement:

"In a pamphlet "The true dream of Zion" (1985) Billings explained his reasons for leaving: he embraces polygamy, and criticizes the LDS church for abandoning it."

I must say, I agree, you are way off base, and I would have deleted it myself if I had seen it in time. The statement is just "blatantly false".

The more I get into this, the more I like it! It is FUN! User:Firewriter

[edit] Deletions by Firewriter

Firewriter has deleted Dr. Billings' photo, as well as a reference to his church several times without any explanation. As far as I know, based on the church's former website and information provided by a believing member and in the press, the information about his religion is factual. And the photograph is an authentic likeness. Please discuss the reasons for your deletions. COGDEN 03:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I removed some comments that do not adhere to the Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines regarding libel and personal attacks. An anonymous editor restored them. I have reverted back again. If this material, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia continues, we may need request a block on that IP address. Tigereye7 (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content

This article appears to be well-sourced and neutral. I removed the birthdate as unnecessary, per WP:BLP. -Will Beback · † · 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pitch article

MotherHubbard, As I understand it, the Pitch is an alternative weekly magazine that spends a significant amount of energy trying to "dish out dirt" on the local government in Kansas City. While it may be a respected source by some, it is indeed a tabloid, and it's references don't seem to fit in with the BLP rules on reliable sources.

I quoted the BLP rules section that caught my eye below, for your convenience.

I do not think that the references from the Pitch (Johnson 2005) should remain.


Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." -- Hoorah83.

He was talking about gossip rags, like National Enquirer, etc. Just because a periodical covers controversial material doesn't make it inappropriate for Wikipedia. One of the goals of the Washington Post is to "dish out dirt" on the federal government. But it's still a good source. The Pitch is in tabloid format (which just means how the papers are arranged), but so is the New York Post, and I don't think anyone would complain about citing an article from there. The Pitch article is a well-written piece of investigative journalism based on actual interviews. It's not the kind of thing Jimbo Wales is worried about. MotherHubbard 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And you would know because you have asked him? Also, keep in mind Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground :) --Octalmage (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)