User talk:Hawstom
|
|
Tom Haws
Before asking for input or making comments, please be sure you have read and internalized the documents that explain our absolute and non-negotiable Neutral point of view policy. I will continually refer to the NPOV document. Tom
| Contents |
Misc
Thanks for the alert. See you at User:Hawstom/Chalkboard.
Tom, did you intentionally place your comment within mine? Moogle 00:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello Tom, thanks for checking out the JW main page. I would really appreciate whatever input you could bring. George 12:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Evolution
I realize that you may have a busy schedule here at wiki, but after being referred to you by Kim Bruning, I was wanting to ask your opinion about the evolution article. The debate that I began evidently has been waged before, but without avail. There are a couple of very maniacal 'sentries,' so to speak, who are completely close-minded about hearing me out. I am not out to destroy their theory, but there are some problems with the article itself that need to be fixed. Evidently they see these discrepancies as important, though I don't understand why -- they have little to do with the theory of evolution. Several weeks back I heard someone on National Public Radio say that 'the evolutionists don't play fair with the debate.' I had to see it for myself. So, if I am intruding, forgive me, but I could use a teammate in this fight. If not, at least an anecdote would be nice, or even a small opinion. Regards, Salva31 09:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I'd just reccomended Salva to look at your edits in the archives at Talk:Human, I think you already know that I was somewhat impressed with those. :-) Kim Bruning 14:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Spotted your message on my talk page. Sure, if you think you can help him out, that'd be really nice. :-) Buuuut... Evolution is one of the biggest wikiminefields, so take care! Kim Bruning 14:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the problem that I have with this article is the unsupported and wholly unencyclopædic statement in the introduction:
- "As the theory has become widely accepted in the mainstream scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism. Skeptics — often Creationists — sometimes minimize the explanatory power and validity of evolution theory by criticizing it as "just a theory" — using "theory" as synonymous with "conjecture" or "speculation", instead of the technical, scientifically accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, evolution is a very powerful theory."
I have seen this card pulled by evolutionists time and time again. Actually, I have never known the theory itself to be presented without a statement which attempts to discredit or 'bull-head' out other theories that may be in any sort of conflict with it. When I originally began discussing the reason for this, the obstinant agression that was thrown back at me was incredible. Kim Bruning archived most of what I said and left quite a bit of my opponents' rebuttals in the main discussion page. However, considering my original intentions, which in no way had to do with arguing against science or destroying a theory, why this had to escalate into what it did is still a mystery to me. The comment in the introduction has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory itself, and is based solely on opinion rather than observation. I know several creationists who actively practice science, that of which is an increasing number. Secondly, evolution is a theory. Their attempts to bring it closer to fact nearly throw the scientific method out the window, especially to people who have not been informed of both viewpoints. This maneuver is made because they (evolutionists) are insecure about the validity of their theory, and they should be considering the long list of discrepancies that exist, which tend to disprove the religious notion that evolution is fact. Salva31 02:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to begin talking about this. Kim B. is right that it is a huge minefield. And yet perhaps there can be some progress made in the article. On first reading, I must say I was impressed by the passage you quoted. At the same time, I believe there is reasonable substance to your objection, and I fancy that perhaps I can begin to glimpse it. There may be pay in exploring a mental separation of the concepts of Origin of Life, Origin of Humans, and The Theory of Evolution. Perhaps it isn't the theory of evolution that you dispute. Perhaps it is the applications, inferences, and extrapolations that are made from it. And perhaps there is a way to clarify all this. Tom Haws 20:07, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Haws, my thanks go out to you for your support with the evolution article. I believe that I have succeeded in convincing the removal of the picture mocking the Ichtyus fish. This would not have been possible without User:Kim Bruning's help as well as your comments. As a Christian, it is my duty to work towards the obliteration of the will which has rotted the social infrastructure of my country and most of the Western world. We must be on guard against the forces of darkness that will not stop untill every moral foundation is destroyed. If I have overwhelmed you, I apologize. You must be busy with other things on Wikipedia. But please, do not forget that when you are in need of a fellow Christian's vote or opinion in any of your projects, my word is yours. Regards, Salva 02:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Latter Day Saint Articles of Faith
Yesterday I made a change to the Artices of Faith on the Latter Day Saint page which you corrected since, according to you, "I'm not sure how the AofF are presented by Community of Christ and other denominations, so I guess it's safest to leave them as written by JS."
However, you are apparently unaware that the Articles of Faith, as listed in that article, are NOT how they were written by Joseph Smith.
Here's how AofF #4 was written by Joseph Smith:
"We believe that these ordinances are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."
It was modified in 1902 by the LDS Church, and "these ordinances" was removed and was replaced with "the first principles and ordinances of the gospel". That way AofF number 4 doesn't require AofF 3 as an anticedent.
Here's how AofF #10 was written by Joseph Smith:
"We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon this continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory."
This one was changed a couple of times. First the words "the American" were added before "continent", then "this" was later removed.
Here's how AofF#11 was written by Joseph Smith:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
In 1902, the LDS Church added the word "own" before "conscience."
Since you don't have the original text for Articles of Faith #4 or #11, I assumed you were using the current text used by the LDS Church, and would welcome the one-word correction. How was I supposed to know that you were trying to maintain a false perception of leaving them how Joseph Smith wrote them?
I suggest that you examine your own bias, because even though you claim you want to "leave them as written by JS", you aren't.
To be honest, it makes me not want to contribute to the project at all. And I really thought I might have something to contribute, however it is apparently not wanted. 149.24.204.1
- My sincerest apologies for both my ignorance and my offense. Please continue to add your expertise to the article and any others. Tom Haws 19:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Hello
I'd like to add some small notes of encouragement. I do believe the FLDS page is invaluable. I'm unaware of another reference that pulls all the timely information together so well.
Currently, I'm in some sort of semi-retirement from wikipedia. Some involvement in wikipolitics rather discouraged me (you seem to be quite active on the mailing list though, and I do enjoy reading that).
I'd like to strongly encourage you to keep doing what you're doing. You have some skill at consensus-building, I think. Or at least you're good at bringing together people with diverse viewpoints. Keep it up. Cool Hand Luke 07:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Exmormonism
Since it seems like you are pretty familiar with exmo linguistics I would like ytou to contribute to Exmormon once I get a decent ammount of information onto the page. Sound good? --Vegasbright 19:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the confidence. I will do my best. Tom Haws 19:53, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
WikiBreak
In the small time I've been keeping tabs on the JW related articles I think you've been doing a good job of being a moderate voice. I will be keeping tabs on the JW artices to try to help keep them NPOV. However, I'll be staying out of the Mormonism related artices. Trying to work on more than one of the two would be just too much stress and probably would send me to to a Wikivacation. Enjoy your break and come back refreshed. Kevin Rector (talk) 23:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
No problem, Tom any time.
Glad I could help.
Raj2004
Re: Parley P. Pratt
Hi - I stuck the Template:Tl tag on this article because, at the time I did so, the piece was written in such a way as to make it unclear to a reader unfamiliar with the history of the LDS church (e.g., me) what significance Pratt had. WBardwin made some edits to make his significance much clearer, so I have no objection to that label being removed now. In hindsight, I should have explained my actions on the Talk page. --Dcfleck 00:40, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
- An LDS list of apostles from the beginning to the near present exists at: [1] (http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/w/o/wol3/q12.htm) - Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Certainly, I would have a copyright concern if we simply copied it to Wiki -- someone put a lot of work into it, but there is nothing creative about a list. Perhaps we could ask permission (on the site's E-mail function)? If we choose to use it, it needs updating with the recent deaths of two and the calling of their replacements. And we should probably double check dates, etc. I've never made a Wiki - list, so I will try and check the policy. WBardwin 07:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Tom - I just noted the list of apostles we were speculating about is actually tucked at the end of Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. A great mind preceeded us! WBardwin 20:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Joseph Smith, Jr.
I found the paragraph to have an offensive tone, which is why I edited it. If you feel that changes I made were inappropriate, you may reverse them (or better yet, come to some kind of happy medium.) Regards, Rmisiak 06:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Tom: I've posted an "Alert" on the LDS page. A young editor with a history of confusing and contentious edits has weighed in on Joseph Smith, Jr (see User:Gabrielsimon). I've politely referred him to the talk page. It appears he might be an issue for awhile. Peace. WBardwin 00:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BC - CE debate
FYI - I think you vote (in favor of the proposal) got deleted in the attempt to remove the duplication of the entire page that happened sometime this morning. While I am here - I thought I would lobby you a little - the current policy to let each page be specific to its content - CE or BC/BCE or BC is a good one - and it shouldn't be overturned for usage that would be unfamiliar to many users (as opposed to editors) of wikipedia - we should focus on our audience. After losing the debate and refusing to accept the BC/BCE compromise on Jesus User:Slrubenstein is trying to force his views though a claim to NPOV that I disagree with. Anyway - you may want to restore your vote. User:Trödel/sig 16:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I think letting each article use the designation appropriate to its subject matter is the best way to go. I proposed (and eliminated AD here: [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=13624543&oldid=13624520) but edited that only BC should be used here: [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=13582533&oldid=13579254)) on the Jesus page not using AD at all and letting years without designation mean the obvious i.e. the current time keeping system. (At that time I thought the objection was only to the Anno Domini - Year of our/the Lord since that was the only discussion). I also reverted the BC/BCE several times to see if there were others besides the verbose Slrubenstein (and his friends) who were opposed to just leaving in BC and having no designation for AD - there was sufficient support so I stopped reverting. I think the current status of BC/BCE on Jesus is appropriate for that page.
I disagree however, that BC/AD are any more NPOV by nature than BCE/CE because
- The abbreviations now have meanings themselves attached to them that are different than the words they stand for. (And that meaning presents no opinion as to the divinity of Jesus)
- For instance, I didn't realize BC was before christ until I was 14, many (2/3) in my office (I took a quick straw poll) had no idea what they meant - although they knew that the transition from BC to AD had something to do with Jesus.
- The demarcation(sp?) of the time change is the same - Jesus
- We should use what is convention instead of a more confusing term
- Perhaps with time BCE/CE will become more common; however, except in certain disciplines using BCE/CE will detract from the article because many of the readers will not be sure what BCE is.
I am also feeling personally attacked by Slrubenstein - he has called me a liar and a hypocrite, I feel he misreprsented my views and the opposition by claiming only 2 people were against the change, etc. As above your comment on my talk page he continues to be derogatory towards me - despite the fact that I agreed to the compromise.
One of the things that just gets on my nerves is people who start implementing a change while a vote is taking place and that is where I got in this one - which I had been avoiding - he kept reverting people who wanted the article to stay the same until the vote was complete - that is when I made my first revert.
Anyway, to sum up I don't think there should be any official site wide policy other than to be sensitive, to use NPOV terms, and to use terms appropriate to the article's material. User:Trödel/sig 17:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments User:Trödel/sig 21:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
BC/AD
Hi Tom, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:A_proposal_re_BCE-CE_Debate&diff=prev&oldid=13799313) was decent of you. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Article validation is go!
Validation is running on the test wiki, http://test.leuksman.com/ (the interface is only in the Monobook skin at present) and there's discussion on wikipedia-l starting here (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-May/thread.html#39580). It'll be in 1.5. W00t! See m:Article validation feature and m:En validation topics - do freely add topics to rate on, we can cut the list down later - David Gerard 10:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Your previous comments about not giving up make complete sense now
Tom, I am not trying to be smarmy or rude but I know now why others have dropped out of editing mormon wiki pages. During my wikiholiday I took for finals I came to the realization that the editing of mormon wiki's by me and others who respect history, documentation, and above all else objective truth cannot possibly share their point of view on wikipedia. I find the tactics of questioning everything that sheds a not so positive light on the LDS church but allowing the sugar coated happy-fun-time tales of pro mormon wiki authors frustrating and above all else a poor interpretation of what wikipedia is.
Furthermore I now understand why there have been so many exmormons that have stopped editing due to this same finding and now have decided to limit seriously the childish and distorted views expressed about joseph smith, brigham young, the funny dress up game I used to think was so sacred in the temple and other indviduals, beliefs and activities ou find to be above objectivity.
Do I fault you? No. I fault the organization that has pounded into your head that the activity of objecting to the mormon faith is in some way showing persecution toward mormonism. If all else fails in defending a falsehood, just claim you are being persecuted. Seems to work pretty good for most of the LDS authors.
I do not have the time to sit and correct the voluminous ammounts of faith promoting banter that is so pro-mormon as to be laughable. Do not take this personally, as you have been trained to do but merely take it as a continual sign that frustration abounds when dealing with this medium that has been capialized by individuals who are not motivated by objectivity and scholarly intentions but instead are seeking to shoot down documented facts through worn out apologetic arguments. Utilizing the most tried and true mormon apologetic argument of ad hominem is old hat, attacking the person and not the fact. I should have expected this and it is my fault for believing the pro-mormon editors were above this laughable tactic among other childish moves.
I am sick of this and am saddened that Wikipedia is at a loss because of the actions of a few. Vegasbright
- I'm not sure I understand completely all your concerns, but I think I get the general gist. I am sorry that things are turning out every bit as difficult here as I thought they might for you, but I am glad you are persisting. I will continue to do all I can to facilitate improvement and understanding in the WP:LDS project, and I will always appreciate your dedication to the project. Tom Haws 15:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Your opinion at this talk page is sought
Talk:Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy
The subject of the debate is the 1975 armageddon date by the Jehovah's Witnesses, specifically the section marked "Jehovah's Witnesses and failed 1975 prophecy" and "Personal Crusade".
One person, User:66.158.232.37, argues that since there was no "official" prophecy made by the Watchtower, then the 1975 armageddon prophecy should not be included in the article.
Another person, User:One Salient Oversight (myself) argues that books by leading Jehovah's Witnesses, plus the behaviour of individual witnesses around the time indicate that belief in a 1975 armageddon was widespread amongst the organization. This therefore demands inclusion in the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy article.
I am not asking you to intervene on my behalf, nor am I asking you to take sides. You are a major contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses and I believe you can help settle our disagreement in an objective and impartial fashion.
--One Salient Oversight 03:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Combine the Existence of God Articles
I'm proposing combining the Arguments for the existence of God and the Arguments against the existence of God articles. Bryan also supports this, Mel opposes. Since you have supported a similar idea in the past, I was hoping you might want to give your two cents on the matter. Here is the discussion: Talk:Arguments for the existence of God#Combine the articles. Thanks! crazyeddie 17:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Duplicate restoration on FLDS
Thanks for your work on the FLDS article. However, when I restored the other two paragraphs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints&diff=15262550&oldid=15255480) I'd also integrated that paragraph into the first paragraph of History:
- The area of Hildale and Colorado City have a long history of polygamy, dating from the early decades of the 20th century. According to FLDS accounts, Brigham Young visited the area and stated that "this is the right place [and it] will someday be the head and not the tail of the church [and]...the granaries of the Saints."
If you want to delete my addition and use the older placement that's fine with me, but it probably doesn't make sense to have both versions in there. mennonot 15:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hi from cookiecaper
I'm 17. :) Cookiecaper 04:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)