User talk:Eloquence

I will respond to messages on this page. Please check your contributions list ("My contributions") for responses. If there is a response, your edit is no longer the "top" edit in the list.

Unlike other Wikipedians I don't archive Talk pages since old contents are automatically archived anyway - if you want to access previous comments use the "Page history" function. But I keep a log of the removals:

Removed all comments prior to Jan 2003. --Eloquence 04:42 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments prior to Feb 2003. --Eloquence 10:19 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments prior to March 2003. --Eloquence 21:19 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments prior to April 2003. --Eloquence 08:14 25 May 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments up to May 31 2003. -Eloquence 19:14 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments up to June 21, 2003. --Eloquence 18:58 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments up to July 3, 2003. --Eloquence 21:51 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments up to July 22, 2003. --Eloquence 09:07 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments up to August 28, 2003.—Eloquence 02:11, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments up to October 15, 2003.—Eloquence 22:39, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)
Removed all comments up to December 5, 2003.—Eloquence 15:17, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Can you tell me where where in CVS are WfMsg warnings are stored? Alexandros 23:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

All translatable strings, which are called using wfMsg("stringname"), can be found in the Language*.php files in includes/.—Eloquence 23:52, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

MT

Thanks, I forgot to summarize that stuff due to having an exam tomorrow morning ;) silsor 01:54, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Uri Geller entry

Dear Erik,

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was vandalizing your entry on Uri Geller it's just that the claim that other magicians were bending spoons before Uri seem to be untrue. See for example Marcello Truzzi's comments on this @ www.zem.demon.co.uk/truzzi.htm - I've also consulted knowledgable magicians on this and they all give Uri the credit.

Best wishes

Steve Knight

I've adjusted the wording somewhat so that we don't imply that Geller was not the first to do it.—Eloquence 03:04, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that I think people have offered constructive criticism. I think Daniel made his point about the pictures very well and didn't deserve to be told to "read the fucking article". I also think it unfair to accuse anyone who comments of being a "rabid MT apologist". If I said something you disagreed with I expect I would be given the same label. I appreciate that you have tried to make compromises on the article, and this obviously shows as many people have said the page is better now than it was, but I do think the tendency for the talk page to descend into nothing but bickering and personal attacks will put off people who would otherwise have worked on it. I'm sorry if you found my assumptions unfair but from what I've seen you are not willing to assume to people are commenting in good faith; you seem to think everyone has an ulterior motive of wanting to force POV into the article, which in many cases (not all) is not the case in my opinion. Anyway, I'm staying out of it. Angela . 03:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Daniel clearly did not read the article has he did not understand the meaning of the images he commented on, and his suggestion that images need to be "representative" has nothing to do with NPOV. He has suggested earlier that wikipedia "shovels dirt" on public figures and has attempted to remove legitimate information from several articles I worked on. This is not constructive criticism, sorry, and it has nothing to do with NPOV.

I did not accuse "anyone who comments" of being a "rabid MT apologist", Adam Carr stopped working on the article after Alexandros and some other users tried to entirely remove the criticism section (check the page history). Yes, the talk page has descended into bickering, but if you read through Jtdirl's recent comments I find it hard to find anything constructive there that could lead to a useful discussion. I think you have a distorted impression of the history of this conflict.—Eloquence 03:36, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Book of Mormon controversies

Yes, I generally think it is better to give the Book of Mormon controversies its own article. There are many Mormonism articles like that... see, for example, Controversies regarding Mormonism. In terms of NPOV policy, all sides will (or should) have their positions stated...so what bothers you about it? B 05:12, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Well, generally we don't separate pro- from anti-opinions. For example, we don't have abortion only represent the pro-abortion view and the anti-abortion position discussed (with rebuttals) in Controversies regarding abortion. Doing so would give an unfair amount of exposure to one side. If I want to know about the Book of Mormon, my first stop would be that article. But if I go there, I only get the official Mormon side of the story. That is good if I'm a Mormon, or interested in that religion from a purely theological point of view. As a secular atheist or historian, I would probably expect the other material to be discussed there, too.

Having to click through to a separate, non-obvious article, listed as a "See also" at the bottom to get the material about Mormonism that interests me strikes me as unfair. If you applied the same principle to other articles, like abortion or homosexuality, don't you think that would be POV? If so, why should Mormonism receive different treatment? My approach to these matters has always been: Discuss all sides on the same page. If the page gets too long (>32K), summarize all the sections and create separate articles for each of them, without looking at whether they are pro- or anti (in the style of the country pages). That way, there's no "hierarchy of information" where some types of information (in this case, pro-Mormon) have a higher visibility than others.—Eloquence 05:21, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

The approach with Mormonism articles wasn't intended to bifurcate Pro/Anti POVs into separate articles. The current approach was intended to discuss all sides in the same article. A "Controversies" article isn't intended to be pro or anti; it is intended to discuss all POVs on the controversy. Look at how big the Book of Mormon controversies article is already and it is maybe 1/100th, 1/1000th or greater of what it could be. Those controversy articles themselves would grow beyond >32K which is one reason why those articles were bifurcated in the first place....early on the Mormonism articles were all controversy and no Mormonism...how can critics hit the target if the target isn't even painted very well or how could a more balanced Mormonism article even be written without bifurcating that stuff off at least at the time? I disagree that the "parent" articles are or are intended to be "pro-Mormon" and I think the abortion and homosexuality articles are poor analogies...still, your point is good enough. But what adjustments would be made? We could, for instance, merge Controversies regarding Mormonism with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I suppose eventually the Church article would turn into a mere summary-link article. Book of Mormon controversies would be merged with Book of Mormon which would, I suppose, also eventually become a mere summary-link article. So, I guess, I'm saying: Ok, I agree with the convention you are suggesting. We should see what other Mormon wikipedians think about this but I doubt too much resistance since generally it was me who created the current approach. B 06:49, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my point of view. I agree, of course, that the "Controversies" article is not necessarily anti-Mormon -- not in the way that a POV anti-Mormon article would be. It deals exclusively with the controversial aspects of Mormonism in a POV manner, which itself could be perceived as POV, and vice versa regarding the main article. Damn, NPOV is complicated! ;-) I like the structure you propose. Since I suggested it, I will write a detailed proposal on the talk pages and restructure the articles accordingly as soon as I find the time. Are you familiar with any other pages which are structured in a similar manner as the Mormon pages currently are?—Eloquence 06:57, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

I think there was some talk a while back about bifurcating a "Criticisms of Catholicism" article from the Catholicism article, but it doesn't look like that ever happened. May need to take a closer look at JW articles, but AFAIK Mormonism articles are the only ones that are semi-structured so. B 15:41, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Earth to Erik:

What planet are you on? You talk as if I "assume that everyone agrees with me" that the current MT article is not a proper basis to work on.

That's not what I said, and I'd sure like to know where you got the idea I was harboring any such assumption.

Actually, I believe the exact opposite of that: i.e., I believe that everyone wants to continue business as usual. I know my proposal goes against the grain, and I'm suprised that you didn't realize that I knew this. --Uncle Ed 16:41, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you believe that, then you should try to construct a logical argument to demonstrate that everyone else is wrong.—Eloquence 19:47, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Huh? If I believe WHAT? --Uncle Ed 20:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you believe that your approach to restart a 20K article from scratch is reasonable, then you should construct a logical argument to prove that. Without such an argument, you make it look like you think that everyone else obviously has to agree with the assumption that the present article is not a useful basis to work on. Frankly, so far you haven't offered a single coherent criticism of the article. Missing information? Add it.—Eloquence 20:40, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

I have no idea how those last few paragraphs related to the controversies to the book of mormon page, but I think the page Book of Mormon gives a complete overview of what the book of mormon is, and directs the reader to more in-depth discussion where they can see some of the disputed points. There is enough language in the book of mormon article to deliver a NPOV. I think the page would get too long, hard to navigate and unmanageable to add in all the controversy back into the page.

The article about the Koran has not allowed controversy to enter into its description either. The Bible page also directs controversy to other pages (See the entries on the Biblical canon, Higher criticism and Textual criticism), although I think both lack a lot of the criticisms that should be included about both sets of scriptures (and frankly the pages would be unmanageable). There are a lot of evidences and criticisms of each of these books that could be better addressed where the editors can pontificate for pages about evidences that support or denounce the Sacred text. I do not think the controversies page is anti-mormon by any means, it provides (for the most part) a NPOV and I think it should be a model for other pages.Visorstuff 23:06, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The issue is that the main Book of Mormon page gives an unbalanced exposure of views, i.e. it says only what Mormons believe and not on which grounds this is criticized -- the controversies are a mere "see also". That is not NPOV -- sacred texts are not the exclusive domain of their believers. If the same is true for other pages I think they should be adjusted accordingly. I do not believe that restructuring the article would make it unmanageable, but I'll take this warning into account when devising an alternative structure. We can try to find consensus on that and if that fails, we can vote.—Eloquence 23:15, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)