User talk:SteedLaw

A couple notes
Hi SteedLaw: I've seen a few of your contributions, and I was hoping I might be able to give you a few pointers. This edit caught my attention, because it looks a lot like what Wikipedia calls original research. Wikipedia has very strict rules about citing sources, and what is and isn't a reliable source. For articles about religion, the Bible (and scriptures in general) are not considered good sources, and using scriptural verses to support a position is frowned upon. It is much better to cite a published religious scholar who has made the argument. For instance, instead of saying something like, "Mormons believe such and such because of this scriptural verse" you would say, "According to scholar Richard Bushman, Mormons believe such and such". Does that make sense?

If you have any questions feel free to ask. I've added your talkpage to my watchlist, so if you ask a question here, I will see it and can respond. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kolob, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ''I can't see any justification for your removal of cited text here. You need to start using WP:Edit summaries if you think you have a good reason for your edits.'' Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity
Thanks for leaving edit summaries this time, but removing sourced text just saying it is wrong isn't satisfactory. Read WP:VERIFY. Bushman, for instance, is a reliable source by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi SteedLaw, I second what Dougweller said above. You can't just go about removing sourced material that you don't agree with. I'd be happy to give you some editing tips, or to help answer any questions you might have. On a separate note, I would point out that Wikipedia is a community, and good communication is a must here. Will you please acknowledge that you have received our messages here, and that we're not just talking into cyberspace? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I am entirely new to Wikipedia and of course, would appreciate some pointers.

My questions regarding the above two edits is as follows: What is the protocol for source material? Are people realy allowed to quote any material so long as it is published? Even if it from an unreliable source?

On the instances in question, it would seem to me that the best policy when speaking on the subject of the specific beliefs of Mormons would be to directly quote and/or provide reference to official Mormon church publications, which clearly cite their doctrine. The above deletions in both the Kolob page and the Mormonism v. Chrstianity page appear to clearly misrepresent the beliefs of actual Mormons and the Mormon Church. As I stated, there exist numerous publications from the Mormon Church which officially explain their doctrine. In my opinion, there seems to be no need to cite reference secondary, and apparantly quite misinfored dubious commentary on the subject of "What is Mormon belief and Church doctrine" regardless of whether such commentary is published or not.

Like I said, I am new to Wikipedia. If the protocol is to be able to cite any source material, regardless of reliabilty, then I will do well to remember it and will, rather than delete such insertions supporting erroneous claims. I will rather simply add and cite more reliable source material setting forth the actualities.

In any case, pointers would be appreciated.

Best,

Jeff


 * Jeff, Thanks for responding. For the purpose of editing articles related to Mormonism, publications by the LDS Church are a little hit and miss. If you are using them to state the position of the church on some doctrinal issue, that's fine (although you should be careful to attribute: for example, "The LDS Church states such and such on this doctrinal position"). Even then, though, Wikipedia still favors the views of scholars who have studied Mormonism. And secondary sources are almost always favored above primary sources, which seems counter-intuitive, but makes sense once you get some editing experience. (See WP:SECONDARY)
 * As for the sources that you feel misrepresent Mormon belief, finding other published academic sources that contradict them is a valid path forward. You may also want to check the sources cited to make sure they are being quoted correctly and in context or that they haven't been misunderstood. Richard Bushman (who was mentioned above) is a very reputable scholar on Mormonism, and is probably one of the best. Some of the material removed was cited to him. I'd recommend looking up the pages there to see what he has to say. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeff, good to see you responding. As I think I've said, you need to read WP:Verify and WP:RS to understand why we mean by reliability. And remember, our articles aren't meant to be a search for the truth, they are meant to present what reliable sources say about a subject. But that has to be balanced, see WP:NPOV = lots to read! And just in case you want to use Jeff Lindsay, he's been discussed and is not considered to be a source we can use. This isn't an easy area because some Mormon ideas are considered to be WP:FRINGE and sourcing both pro and con isn't always straightforward, although in the case of Bushman it is. Read article talk pages, maybe even the archives of the talk pages, before you edit. And I don't understand what you were doing on that list of children article. You added stuff unnecessarily (and without sources) where there were already negative findings, and two where they weren't you said there were negative findings, but again you didn't give a source. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________

I see. Like you both stated, I think there is a lot for me to learn about editing a Wikipedia page. I apologize if I caused you grief; I intend to take your instruction to heart and act more appropriately in the future. In my defense, I am entirely new at this.

Clearly, I would never consider using Jeff Lindsay as a potential source for material. However, if I may, what is the take on other published studies from more scholarly, though albeit, "apologetic" sources? Unfortunately, it is often hard (as you say) to find a truly neutral or objective publication on LDS history and/or theology. What also about publications of the general authorities of the Church? Am I correct to assume that Ensign, Liahona, New Era publications and general conference publications of the Church authorities are to be considered "secondary." Let me know.

Please know I appreciate your commentary. I will attempt to make my actions model in the future.

Regards,

Jeff


 * No problem at all. We were all new once, and I've certainly made my share of blunders. You're right, Jeff Lindsay (I just googled him) would be a bad source, since he's self-published. Church publications (Ensign, etc.) would be a step up from that, though I'm not clear myself on whether they're primary or secondary. They have to be used carefully though, since they are also of a self-published nature. Publications by the Maxwell Institute would probably be a step higher than that, next to publications from other academic peer-reviewed sources like Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. At the top of the pyramid I would put scholarly peer-reviewed books that have been published by respected publishing houses. This is all my opinion, though, but it's not a bad one if you ask me :-)
 * By the way, if you type four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of a post, the software will automatically insert your signature with a time/date stamp. Good luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Exaltation (Mormonism)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Exaltation (Mormonism), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1090&index=6, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Exaltation (Mormonism) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Exaltation (Mormonism), in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Exaltation (Mormonism). See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Exaltation (Mormonism) with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Exaltation (Mormonism) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)