Talk:Daniel C. Peterson

"Controversy"
The "controversy" section added to the Dan Peterson article today not only misrepresents Daniel Peterson and has the tone of some polemical People magazine article, but also pales in comparison to the vast amount of work Peterson has done in apologetics and also the study of Islam, and merits absolutely no more discussion that a thousand other things he has done. Justify it's inclusion, justify its points, other than personal arguments and unsubstantiated claims, or leave it out of the article. The information added to the article is extremely misleading and polemic in nature. This is why I have removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuickmereGraham (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the material is not very representative of Peterson's work, but that doesn't justify its removal. It is relevant, notable and appears well cited.  If you feel the tone or weight of the material for this article is too POV, perhaps you can modify it accordingly.  Add some of his other notable work, make it more concise or offer his side of the story.  It looks a bit like censorship when you just remove something that you don't want people to focus on too much.  Rich jj (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuickmereGraham (talk • contribs) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, your spelling and grammar need considerable work. The least you could do is spell names correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuickmereGraham (talk • contribs) 03:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are spelling or grammar problems, rather than get snippy about something so inconsequential, why not fix them yourself? That is the whole idea of a wiki...--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just starting out, mate, I am not as familiar as you on the wiki protocol, as you can see by my hasty deletion of your addition. I still believe including this in his wiki is extremely irrelevant. I recommend closer attention to detail on your part, thus making it easier on others who would otherwise have to spend time cleaning things up. QuickmereGraham (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? "Extremely irrelevant"? I disagree with you 100%.--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote that the controversy section be removed and that it be replaced by a passing reference to the tension that exists regarding some of his apologetic work. This "controversy" to which you refer is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot, and it is not noteworthy in and of itself. Tsluke (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2008


 * Perhaps the standards for notable are different on this part of the wiki, but I think that a few computer messages and what appears to essentially be a ministry's blog does not a notable event make. I guess that I am just used to peer reviewed papers or articles reported on by news services. I am going to delete it right now. If someone can show how these sources fit with the following policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources, I would be more than happy to concede.Rutilus (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point to the following page, which seems relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. An adequate "controversy" section about a living person really does require far, far better sources that the ones included. It is difficult to see how the included resources make the cut.Rutilus (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rutilus. I believe that the "controversy" section does not belong in the wiki article, relies on questionable and inadequate sources, and is overshadowed by Peterson's work in general. It seems to have been added to the Wiki for polemical purposes to begin with. It does not belong here. Pending something relevant it should not be included. --QuickmereGraham (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The controversy section now constitutes half the article, which creates the impression that this controversy is the matter for which Peterson is most notable. That seems unlikely to me. In fact, putting this much weight on this section gives the article the distinct aroma of a hit piece. --Yaush (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you - but I don't think it should be excluded altogether. To the world at large, Peterson is an apologist - that is why he is notable enough to be in the wikipedia. To not call him an apologist, and not have any controversy associated with the article give it the distinct aroma of self-promotion, in violation of WP:SOAP. If we strip out the controversy and stop calling him an apologist, I think we should delete the article altogether. I will try to whittle this section down to a paragraph.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I made a bunch of changes, and condensed that section considerably. Take a look and slice and dice if you think it needs more work.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Career
The article should probably be updated to reflect that Peterson is no longer the editor of Mormon Studies Review (formerly FARMS Review, another change that should probably be made). I'm hesitant to add or change anything of significance myself, as I'm really not familiar with the appropriate guidelines. For someone a bit more experienced than myself, the relevant link is probably this one: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/news/index.php?id=150&type=news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.108.46 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the reference, and made the change suggested above. Only a full year late. Remember that one of WP biggest guiding principles is to be bold. WP:BOLD--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel C. Peterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121125091802/http://meti.byu.edu/meti_staff.php to http://meti.byu.edu/meti_staff.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216012348/http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56184763-78/mormon-review-institute-studies.html.csp to http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56184763-78/mormon-review-institute-studies.html.csp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)