User talk:Bjgmb

welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Bjgmb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Generally, biographies and articles are not reduced to commercials or edited that drastically to remove content. Please feel free to discuss why you'd like to erase or censor Martha Beck on its talk page. Without explaining your edits, you appear to be vandalizing the page, which may have some ligitimate reasons to be edited in the way you want (especially if there is incorrect or untrue information). You may also want to aquaint yourself with WP:3RR. Welcome again, and happy editing. -Visorstuff 00:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email[edit]

Thank-you for your email. While I am not the principle author of the article, I have contributed to it, and added in details gathered from news media. As it is an open source article, it is not "mine" or anyone elses. I am unaware of who added in the claim about her being anorexic, and it was unsourced - you are right to remove it. I reverted your first edit simply because you replaced an article with a commercial to promote a book she has written. I reverted your edits the second time, as you removed the majority of content without discussion. Both of these are against Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Policies. Please note that I'm not protecting content (as it changes constantly), I'm protecting the wikipedia process.

As far as your claim that the article is mean-spirited, I'm sorry you feel that way. Martha has been a relatively unknown author aside from the recent press about the book leaving the saints, and Oprah promoting it. If she didn't want so much press about it, she shouldn't have publicized it as she did or even written it. From the LA Times to New York Times, newspapers' coverage of the book was a media frenzy for weeks - and stories were consistent. Most of the article comes from those articles.

I am also suprised that you think that Leaving the Saints is a small part of her work. I'm sure it has generated more press than any of her othe works. In this way it is significant.

Feel free to edit (not remove) the article. It definitely needs it. As you do, please source statements and claims you make, unfortunately, citing your relationship with her is not a source and is considered original research. I still do not find anything in the article that is factually incorrect. The tone may not be appropriate in all cases, but if something is incorrect, let's fix it. Feel free to discuss here.

By the way, legal threats are not appropriate at Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Legal threats - it may help you through the wikipedia process to get information you feel is incorrect removed. I'm more than willing to work with you on this, but Wikipedia gets millions of editors each day - and many claim to have inside information on things, but unfortunately, we cant just "trust" anonymous people, which is why we ask for sources. Wikipedia doesn't care what is true or not true, it, unfortunately or not cares about what is citable. -Visorstuff 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

showing the wikipedia process[edit]

For excersize in the wikipedia process, let's go through each of the claims of the article and take appropriate action:

Dr. Martha Nibley Beck (born 29 November 1962) is a sociologist, therapist, and best-selling writer. She contributes regularly to Oprah Winfrey's O magazine.

is this accurate? it is cited.

Before her break with the LDS church, Beck co-authored Breaking the Cycle of Compulsive Behavior with her husband, John, in 1990.

Is this accurate? It doesn't matter who gets royalties, did they co-author? the publisher says so.

A large portion of the book dealt with overcoming homosexuality (the two have since divorced and both are now openly gay).

Is this accurate? Two parts here. Based on other works and statements, it looks right.

Beck is the mother of three children, one of whom inspired her to write her 1999 book Expecting Adam. Her son Adam has Down Syndrome.

Is this accurate? I honestly don't know, but I've read it in the papers.

She has since written Finding Your Own North Star and The Joy Diet. She also authored The Four Day Win as a supplement to weight-loss programs. [2]

Is this accurate? I assume so, as you introduced it and I edited it, based on what I read on her web site.

Her book, Leaving the Saints: How I Lost the Mormons and Found My Faith, (released in March 2005) is a narrative in which Beck describes memories of sexual abuse by her father [3], prominent Mormon academician Hugh Nibley; her sexual relationship with her husband; Feminism; religiosity; her experiences teaching at Brigham Young University; cultural dissonance and anomalies in Utah; her spiritual journey leaving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and her research and use of controversial hypnosis and self-hypnosis methods to recover repressed childhood memories (including the alleged abuse).

Is this accurate? I'd say it pretty much captures what I've read.

The book was originally conceived as a novel, loosely based on her life (with the main character being male), but was changed to relate her personal experiences at the encouraging of her publishers, according to a review in the Mormon magazine Sunstone.

Is this accurate? Yup, Sunstone review says it.

Beck has been criticized for failing to mention her current sexual orientation in the book, which purports to explain her sexuality; for her portrayal of Latter-Day Saints and Utah culture; and for her accusations against her father and others; that Brigham Young University systematically removed all mention of Equal Rights Amendment activist Sonia Johnson from its huge campus library.

Is this accurate? Again, she's been criticized, but for all of this? I know she's been critized for failing to mention her sexual orientation and LDS culture (leg hair=pubic hair?) but not sure about the ERA SJ claim.

On February 24, 2005, weeks before the scheduled release of Leaving the Saints, an article in the New York Times reported how Beck's memoir had already become controversial in Mormon circles.

Is this accurate? Yes, read the article

Hugh Nibley's family and many of his associates had denounced the book, and praise for it from Oprah Winfrey on her website and in her magazine had prompted 3,500 protest emails.

Is this accurate? See family web site. Not sure about the 3500 protest emails. We should ask for citations

Beck's seven siblings had denounced the book's accusations against their father as "false".

is this accurate? yup accurate.

Beck claims that a relative who supported her version of events spoke "only on the condition of anonymity after receiving threats of physical violence because of her support of Dr. Beck."

is this accurate? Dunno. The author of the statement quotes someone, but it's not cited. we should ask.

Sunstone Magazine published a review of "Leaving the Saints" where the reviewer, Tania Rands Lyon, declared that "By the end, I was persuaded. I hated most of the book, doubted many of the details,was disappointed in her relentlessly negative and ridiculous caricature of the LDS Church and culture, and questioned some internal inconsistencies; but I believed that she had been abused by her father".

is this accurate? yup. see links.

Okay now, back to the process. I'll go in and type in {{fact}} after all the sources we don't know were comes from. For those we do, I'll add in URLS. this way we can find out if they are accurate or not.

Please visit the article to see what I've done based on this excersise -Visorstuff 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP users and legal threats[edit]

By the way, per the legal threat I recieved via email, the person who wrote "Now Beck, an anorexic, writes books and consults on diet and health issues" was an anonymous user (ip address 71.146.88.167) [1]. If you want to track them down, you can follow a Whois query here and here. I'm also taken aback that the email author wrote "I am saddened that people like you use the internet as a way to destroy people." I've not tried to destroy anyone. Like the email said, the book speaks for itself, as does Beck's visibility on the topic. Again, the publicity the book recieved did the destroying, not me. At this point, I'll respect the request to keep the email private, however, as a party to the correspondence, I will reserve my rights to future use of it if neccessary. Please have whoever wrote the "nice" note to me read this thread. Happy editing, and hope you continue to contribute to wikipedia. We need more editors who are willing to verify sources. -Visorstuff 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: email: "Leaving"[edit]

Not quite sure where to respond to Karen, however, I'll do so here. Please pass along my note.

Rather than posting the email, and keeping Karen's request not to post it (for now) (Although I reserve the right to post any private communication to me in accordance with Arizona law) I want to address some items in her email to me:

Karen stated the was not interested in posting anything on Wikipedia, and if that's the case, our dialogue is moot. If she didn't care, she wouldn't have emailed me.

Second, I am not ignorant to any of this. And I'm struggling to see where the bias in my note above comes through. Is it where I encouraged you/her to provide sources?

She stated that Wikipedia cannot protect people who commit libel. You seem to be correct - see John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. However, I've only reported what has been published elsewhere. Incidentally, you are right about people could be sued. Anyone can be sued in a court of law for anything, so not sure what the point of the statement is regarding that.

Thank you for the background information about Martha. It is, unfortunately, unreferenced so I or other editors cannot include it. If you have sources, by all means, add in the info. It is wonderful that she's been able to accomplish so much. Good for her.

I however, disagree that one can be a "fan" (short for fanatical) and not hear of leaving the saints. A fan, in this case, is someone who follows everything the author writes, or zealously follows the work of author. See Characteristics of a fan.

And you claim that oprah didn't promote teh book is false - she still does - it is listed in her "reading room" [2]

You stated that "Martha’s family was behind every article that was published about Leaving, including the first ones in Utah. Martha did not initiate any press coverage."

While I don't know whether or not Martha initiated press coverage, you make an absolute statement that is impossible to prove. Martha's family was behind every article? I know they weren't even contacted by wikipedia, let alone blogs or even many newspaper/tv stories that appeared. I work in this industry and am not blind to how it works. In addition, haveing worked with publishers, I'm sure the publishing house set up some publicity [3] on the book as well - which typically includes pitches and press releases and sending out review copies. If you'd like I can dig up the release?

Being as the NY Times article was the first to appear (even in utah) on the topic, as far as I can find I don't know how they got it from utah papers. Could you point me to articles that appeared prior to 24 February 2005? I'm sure there were some, I'm just not familiar and it would make a good addition to the article.

thank-you for sharing the review at Alibris.com. You staed that "this review captures what Martha was really trying to do and why she wrote the book" [4], which says that "The account of her abuse is the central incident of the book," which disagrees with what you stated elsewhere. I don't care if she was abused by him or someone else or no-one (unfortunate when it happens to anyone), but the fact remains that the wikipedia community has referenced it as a major event in her life. From your emails to me, I would say that it is still a major event and possibly even is affecting her - a defining moment in her life - and a consequence, good or bad, of her writing.

As far as you pretending to know my opinion and biases in this regard, don't. I haven't stated them and you trying to assume what they are is reading between the lines for things that are not there. I do not think I have an opinion on much of the matter other than I think the timing of the release of the book was unfortunate.

As far as having a one-sided approach, feel free to add in a second side. Don't censor what has already been written, but provide a greater view (and a non-commercial one). Criticism sections exist in many if not most articles, and these critical views of beck from her family could be put in one if there was more content. That is what wikipedia is about. Add in content. add in citations.

You stated that you are "not interested in participating on a web-site that has scholarly aspirations but allows anyone to write anything they want with complete and total anonymity and no official or fair editing process."

So much of academia feels this way. As a published writer and once-aspiring academician, I can understand this. However, I've found the contrary. There are many policies and processes to help balance articles (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for a very relevant one. Limiting research to a limited literati or intelligensia is what wikipedia seeks to break down. It typically cuts down on the biases of a sole author and offends the theory-driven professors (no offense, as I know you hold a Phd). Every statement must be referenced or it is considered invalid by readers. I know, for example, Beck's book is not referened at every sentence and claim. Neither is much of academia - that is why you present at conferences and are peer-reviewed. That could happen at wikipedia, and is one reason for the 1.0 project, but that is a process it took britannica years to do, let alone such a new and young medium such as this. Wikipedia is definitely not perfect, but the majority or research is pretty solid. -Visorstuff