User talk:Bakirish

Wikipedia links
{|
 * valign=top|
 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention

Accuracy disputed - Second Anointing
In response to your emotional post on the LDS project page (which I moved to a more appropriate place on the project discussion page): More than one author, one article, and one point of view should be used as sources for all articles in Wikipedia. Editors do have the right to assert that a source is biased, and should present evidence to back their assertion. It is the Wikipedia editor's responsibility to have articles reflect varied viewpoints, balancing on the evidence and weight of each viewpoint.

In this case, the critical review of Bueger's book (clearly noted as a book review rather than the position of the LDS church) discussed Bueger's personal history, the history of his research and the methodology of this book's development, organization and publication. However, this work is still cited as a source for the article. It was not excluded. Please note that your point that any source originating within the LDS organization, their publishing system, or their educational system should be excluded also contains a severe bias. Would you then assert that no Mormon sources, or pro-Mormon sources, be used at all on LDS related articles? Would you assert that no official Catholic sources, or pro-Catholic sources, be used for Catholic articles? How about the Church of England? You see, this problem with "biased" sources goes on and on, as almost all authors have a distiguishable point of view. So, I suggest that, instead of attacking the LDS project, you discuss why you think Bueger is reliable and what research, documentation and presentation makes his work a citable source? Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Yes, it is appropriate to respond to my message on this talk or the discussion could be held on your talk page.  Each article and each project page has a discussion page so that editors can present complaints, concerns and explore issues with one another.  This allows the article/project page to present as "reader friendly" face as possible for those who access Wikipedia for general information.
 * As to the LDS project - please join if you are interested in working on LDS articles. During the years I have been here, I have seen project members range from "active Brighamites" like myself, inactive members of the LDS Church, members of other LDS based denominations, historians with a Mormon heritage but not belief, members of other denominations (your "Normal" churches, interesting choice of words, that), and some people openly expressing sceptical viewpoints about Mormonism.  The project encourages each person to express their opinions and concerns, as you have above, and then work with others to present as balanced a series of articles as possible.  However, as this is the real world, some articles swing widely over time from a strong LDS pov to one that is very critical, and then swing back again.  This is currently true of the Joseph Smith, Jr. article and a couple of others I monitor regularly.  Many other LDS oriented articles have quite a tame history, and conflicts are minimal.
 * As to your interest in the Second Anointing, by its very topic it is subject to criticism and conflict. In regard to Bueger's book, my biggest concern with using it as a source is not his checkered history as a member of the LDS Church (it is my understanding that he ultimately asked for his records to be removed).  Note that Michael Quinn's books are still widely used by many editors here, despite his excommunication.  The chief concern is how the book ultimately was produced.  If Bueger did, as asserted in more than one source, turn several incomplete batches of material over to the publisher and then walked away, any conclusions in the book would have to be suspect.  As a historian, I would then be interested in his sources and data but could not rely upon his perspective.
 * I'm posting a list of information Wiki pages at the head of your talk page. As a newcomer, you might want to flip through them to expand your understanding of the site, and current policies and procedures.  Hope to see your name around on other articles.  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Bakirish, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! strdst_grl  (call me Stardust) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style