User talk:Smkolins/Archives/2012/May

Baha'i Faith
I don't understand the list of Manifestations of God according to wikipedia. But there are other questions of religious neutrality also at issue here, such as preferring AD and BC over the scholarly historians' CE and BCE, that I am not following. Why is Zoroaster being excluded from mention? Is this a popularity contest?Julzes (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He is obscure to most readers, and it's an introductory section. The listing should be brief an illustrative, not exhaustive and tiring. Interested readers follow links to articles focused on subjects. That is why there are other articles. Consisteny is a process and wikipedia has many poking at it in all kinds of ways. Smkolins (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. It seems that the first (known or automatically included by Baha'is? I don't really know the faith's position on whether the list has other lesser Manifestations of God (I should and may be trekking to either Chicago or Israel some time soon), but I thought Zoroaster is just the one preceding Abraham and the list tallies to 8 (including the other now not in edit)) should be included, and I don't know how obscure. Editors get to write the article the way we/they/you/whatever want to, and I guess I will refrain from editing it myself (again) for a while at least.Julzes (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well consider that thousands see it every day and it's been a FA article. If many thought it was wrong it would be changed constantly. Instead this kind of change has been trickling in. Yes there are people who know better but as I say there are diverse articles about many issues - it all doesn't have to be or should be in this one article. But of course we do want to make the article better. I've looked for exhaustive lists of prophets recognized as such - there are various works - but there is no authoritative complete list perse. I would also say there's a ton of work out there to do from going through the articles combined into the book to make them each better to the list of country articles which so far hasn't reached the half way mark despite years of effort....Smkolins (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Saying it has been the way it is now and somewhat the way I suggest both at different times and that it was once an FA article, though, seems, well, to say nothing about which or what is preferable. But, okay, you know it more. The Oxford Encyclopedia of World Religions does include Zoroaster, but that is no proof of what should or should not be in the front article of wikipedia.Julzes (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed - what is proof? Is there some substantial other reason you know of? Someone who picks up a encyclopedia of some limited access might bring more of a focus than general access one. While this isn't the first time this has come I think that it's small part of the overall picture. Indeed I think the fact that thousands of people hit it a day and don't call for changes and it's status inside wikipedia as a well developed article speak well to it being "good" the way it is. That being said of course evolution should continue. Perhaps if something from Zoroastrianism catches public awareness or something else comes along worthy of note ... the idea to me is _not_ that change is to be stopped but that change should be more than about personal opinion. Smkolins (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that people popping in to read the article on Baha'i not wanting to request a change means what you infer. This is unlikely to be a major issue, though, so long as Zoroaster is little other than some ancient figure to a vast number of people, as you rightly say. And there is no reason we should expect something written in the method that wikipedia is to be balanced; just like the Soviet Union where it was perfectly safe to just be an objective mathematician or physicist, but watch out about history or economics.Julzes (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm being a bit facetious here, of course. That last remark could justifiably easily offend an enormous number of people. But there is a question of a kind of mob rule here at wikipedia. Plus, apathy with regard to editing or even reading carefully enough to have an objection could easily prevent the number of hits without requested changes from meaning what you infer.17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Julzes (talk)