User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2008/August

More on Hymers
Fair enough. However, I think the fact that Hymers was included in a book by Enroth on *Churches that Abuse,* and that his church was named in one of Enroth's articles entitled "Churches on the Fringe" (I was only able to find that watered-down version of the article online in which he doesn't "name names," but there is one that ran under that title in (IIRC) Christianity Today that does name the abusive churches, and Hymers' church is mentioned therein [because of his demand that all members of his church--or perhaps it was all the elders--carry vitamin C with them at all times and take it if they started to feel sick--and be willing to show their little roll of vitamin C tablets rolled up in aluminum foil, upon demand, to any church elder who asked to see it]). I do believe that Enroth is a neutral source.

And then, I just must toss this out as food for thought--and please do not get angry with me, it's just a thought experiment--might we say the same thing about an article on Hitler's life?--that we must be careful not to focus on the negative aspects? There are certain individuals who are malignant enough that trying to be "balanced" can border on the absurd.Scooge (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there exists a segment on Hymers that ran on Channel 13 her in Los Angeles: The newsanchors were Laura Diaz, and Pat Anson.Scooge (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hitler eh? Now *that's* throwing down the gauntlet. Have you seen our Hitler article though? It's actually quite balanced and fact-based, and that's what I'm advocating for here. While it's not original to me, we don't have to say "Hitler was the most evil man of his generation, with an unholy hatred of the Jews" - we can simply factually and accurately report his policies and actions, and trust the reader to draw his or her own conclusion. I'll look for the channel 13 story, as it is probably reliable. As for the books, we'll have to see. A big warning sign for books is if they were self-published; only rarely are such books considered reliable. Are you aware of the reliable sources noticeboard? You can list any questionable sources there to get an opinion. If the consensus is that the source is reasonable, you can feel comfortable using that source for additions to the article. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  10:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've added the transcripts for both shows to my "sources notebook"--my sub-page for Hymers--at the end:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scooge/Robert_L._Hymers

Here's the Amazon listing for Churches that Abuse: http://www.amazon.com/Churches-That-Abuse-Ronald-Enroth/dp/0310532922/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217439774&sr=1-12 His books were published under various imprints; this one was by Zondervan. It brought him so much grief that I heard he said he'd never "name names" again, but even the Amazon listing shows that it's been widely cited by people who study cults and abusive churches.

Here's |our article on Ronald Enroth. That might be worth a peek.

And, BTW, I really would like to see what ultimately emerges here to be fact-based, and respect NPOV. That's why I called in for help--I didn't think it served any good purpose to get into an edit war with the Hymerites, and I have a healthy respect for my own bias on this subject in any event--I want to see this done right.Scooge (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops; sorry. I was supposed to answer on my own page :(  Still getting the hang of this. Scooge (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, here is good. My goal, and I think most people's preference, is to keep the entire conversation in one place so that it's easy for others to follow what is being said. Zondervan obviously is a top tier religious publisher, I would presume that anything they published would be reliable for our purposes. The trick now is to find a reliable source for general biographical information on him; I suppose as long as its uncontroversial that we can use his website for that. Just as you posted, I added this to the talk page. It sounds like we're on the same page, and I'd suggest we take further discussions over there for transparency. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Scooge -

I urge you to read the Wikipedia policies for biographies of living persons, policy on biographies of living people. It will become obvious once you read it.

The initial hit piece you wrote, before both articles were merged, clearly violated Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. That is the reason those statements were taken out by Xymmax, the Wikipedia editor. In my view, this was apparent when you sought help from Wikipedia after my edits were made. Wikipedia states, “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.” Furthermore, Wikipedia policy states, “It needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.”

The policy on BLP states that “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research).” Kdl4082 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the situation can be helped. One of the people involved here is either (1) a bright colleague of Hymers' who has been with him for decades, or [at this point, more probably] (2) Hymers himself, using this man's account. Either way, there is a huge and persistent attempt to turn this entry into a puff piece that rewrites history (and integrates stylistic errors, redundancies, and the like therein, time after time).

The other is a survivor of the Hymers cult who was raped in it at the age of 14, publicly embarrassed for her "sinfulness" in having been so victimized, and still counts herself lucky to have escaped after losing only two years of her life to this man's evil "church." (Others lost many years, educational opportunities, career choices--and there are hundreds of them.)

No one involved here is close to operating without bias. We are at an impasse. Scooge (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax - please note that Scooge is reverting the R. L. Hymers, Jr. wiki page about every two hours. I understand that web pages are not to be reverted more than three times in a day. I would appreciate it if you remind her of this. Kdl4082 (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LIkewise, the other party is reverting at a similar rate, and not simply modifying wording, but rather suppressing relevant facts.Scooge (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replied over on the article's talk page. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for voting Keep on the Robin Simon AFD. Universal  Cereal  Bus ♫♪ (rock on) 09:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC) (formerly Rdbrewster)
 * Hey, I just do what the voices in my head tell me :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

One more notation on the Hymers article
I've sent Shell maybe 15 more articles/books that may be relevant to the Hymers article. I could send them to you as well.

Or perhaps I should simply list the citations on the Hymers talk page?--of course, in that case, I'd have to summarize their contents, and that would then open me to further charges of bias.

Point is, he has been mentioned in Time, and in People, and on many occasions in the L.A. Times and the L.A. Herald Examiner--and he's been mentioned in a number of books, including a few that chronicle the reactions to The Last Temptation of Christ. One thing that I believe is notable and relevant to the article is that not only did many in the Jewish (and Christian-Jewish) community react with horror to the way he framed his Last Temptation protests, but some mainstream evangelicals did as well, because they felt that his church's emphasis on Wasserman's Jewishness was extraordinarily inappropriate (particularly given that the the film was directed and produced by a devout Catholic).

He most certainly never mended fences with the Jewish Defense League, and to my knowledge never reconciled with Moishe Rosen, head of Jews for Jesus, who in fact performed Hymers' wedding years earlier.Scooge (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you want I'd be happy to see them too. I think I've seen the newspaper ones, as I have access to some of the pay-to-play newspaper archives. What I don't have is access to the books. If you want to summarize them on the talk page that's fine, or if it's all ready on Shell's talk page I can just look it up over there. As far as charges of bias, you've admitted several times that you are biased, but you also are perfectly willing to work constructively and cooperatively towards creating an article with a balanced perspective. I'll take an editor with an honest bias over a thousand stealthy POV-pushers. I meant what I said on the article's talk page - this article is much improved, and due in no small part to your efforts. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after Shell's last edits I'm pretty happy with the balance of the article. I just didn't want it to be a "whitewash," and it most certainly is not at this point. So I think my note above is moot--unless I either find something from the 1970s that throws some light on the evolution of H's churches, or manage to authenticate the transcripts I have from his television appearances. The discerning reader (or someone considering joining his church) can pick out that there is something a bit, uh, unorthodox about his methods without the article having to utterly slam him. So I may gather more sources in case other claims are made by his people that need refuting--or, again, if we need to flesh out any of the sections later--but I think as things stand it's coherent and fair.

Shell integrated a good deal of the material I emailed her into her last rewrite. Otherwise, I'll simply post digests to your page here if new material crops up that is somehow a candidate for inclusion for some reason. Scooge (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh by the way--could you make a note of my address, and then delete it Thanks.Scooge (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche conspiracy trials
A new editor has done a GA review on LaRouche conspiracy trials. I saw that you said you'd already done a close reading, and so your review would also be welcome. The more feedback the better! Cheers, ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh phooey, I had just logged in for the purpose of doing the review. Well, no problem, I'll just edit it instead :) Thanks for letting me know. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  11:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I'd figured this would be a likely outcome as soon as AnkaraCity did the review. On the bright side he did make helpful suggestions. I have no problem with relisting it. As you said on the talk page, the article should survive further scrutiny. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've posted a new request on the request board. I guess I'll delete the old talk page tempaltes and start fresh there too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

irestorer
Hello my friend,

Please Don't remove IRestorer article. It's a notable program. very better than Ghost & Acronis... extreme fast & amazing compression rate... you can try it.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.172.251 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The program does indeed look interesting, but I'm afraid that in my opinion has not yet received enough outside attention from websites or publishers that Wikipedia considers to be reliable for it to have its own article. Whether it is deleted or not is not up to me, but at the momment it does seem that deletion is the likely outcome. If you feel that deletion process was improper, you may request review at Deletion review. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)