User talk:Scottperry/Archive-2010-04-18
November 2008 - April 2010
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The need for balance in the ACIM article.
Dear Ringess,
I'm hoping that you might be able to let the ACIM article represent both its supporters and its detractors. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where all sides of an issue are given space to be expressed. Even though I am partial myself towards ACIM, as I am a student myself, in order to keep with the requirements of Wikipedia, I would ask that you please allow the Criticism section to stand in the ACIM article. To temper the criticisms, it is proper to counter these arguments with properly documented counter-arguments, but not really to delete the whole section.
Thanks,
Scott P. (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey there. I am very familiar with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. I am not a student or a critic of ACIM. I have many reservations about the criticism section as it stood a while back. I've listed my reservations on the discussion page. For instance, the sentence about the possiblity that the material was not actually channeled, is not really a criticism. Nobody certifies channelers that I know of, the sentence could be applied to any channeled material. Why not let the reader decide for themselves whether the material was channeled or not. Plus the sentence about conspiracy theorists is too vague and the only ref is to a discussion forum. The material on the CIA and Thetman seems to me to be an attempt to create guilt by association. Thetman's career activities are not really relevant to the material unless we can establish a connection between them and the material, even then the material probably belongs in an origins section. We don't need to classify his contribution as good or bad, we can let the reader decide that. The quotes from a radio talk show host and a former teacher and a minister are opinions and speculation, if included they need to be balanced with other opinions. As an analogy, from an outsider's perspective, the origins of the Mormon church might seem strange and unverifiable. There might even be people who claim that the Mormon church's teachings vary significantly from other Christian sects. The first sentence isn't a criticism, but an observation and really wouldn't belong in an article. The second sentence isn't a criticism, but material about how much the Mormon church varies or resembles other Christian sects belongs in it's own section on an article about Mormonism. In other words it doesn't really matter much whether a radio talk show host (who we're led to assume is an expert on the bible and ACIM) thinks that both books are significantly different and that certainly not a criticism. The article could use a section on the differences between the course and mainstream christianity, with references from religious scholars in reputable journal. Likewise a quote about what a dangerous book it might or might not be (the reader can decide for themselves) belongs more in a reception section rather than a criticism section and needs balance with positive reviews. Finally, Prather's comments (although a former teacher) seem irrelevant. How did he establish that the course was the root cause of the behavioral changes he noted? How did he determine that these were ultimately detrimental changes and not helpful? Were these changes even permanent? Let's talk about this on the article's talk page, not here. Let's not discuss policy which we are both familiar with, but discuss material. In my opinion, neutrality is not about balancing poorly sourced speculative material with other poorly sourced speculative material, it's about ensuring that reliably sourced, scholarly material from different viewpoints is include. That's what the criticism section is lacking, in my opinion. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Glenn Beck and RFC
Hi Scott, if you still want outside comments on the GB political views section you will need to start a new thread on the GB talk page. right now you have an archived talk page referenced on your RFC page listing. Archives cannot be edited. So either start a new thread and modify your RFC listing or delete the RFC listing if your issue has been resolved. All the best,-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
FlashForward discussion
FlashForward and redirects
No problem, I'll try and change as many as I can find. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Number of FF episodes
Hi Drmargi,
I did some more web searching to confirm that FlashForward was extended to 25 seasons. Apparently the Zap2it author was working off of outdated info. Please check out the last comment on the talk page. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Scott, see my comment on the talk page. It was there as you were leaving your note on my talk page. We can't guess at whether Z2It is working from older information, or more updated information than Variety, etc. We have to work from what we know. Z2It is more current, and there's been a lot of change to FF in the last 24 hours. Until we can be sure the order is still 25, it's best to leave it blank. Drmargi (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'd call it expertise, but I'm happy to help. Sorry I reverted your comments, but I wanted to be careful. Zap2it gets a good bit of its information from press releases, which it often reproduces, so it's a good source in that sense, as is Futon Critic. The finale for most series is the second or third week of May, and never in June. There's just no way they have a 25 episode order any longer. The showrunner's comments suggest it might be 23 episodes, which is pretty usual for ABC, but an ending the third week of May counts up to 22. You see the problem -- either ABC, with or without the help of the producers, quietly cut the order at least two episodes or 25 episodes was never right to begin with. Based on the showrunner's comments, my guess is the latter is true. Whatever the case, we can't put it on the board until we have something definitive. Drmargi (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)
- Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.
- WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.
- Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."
- However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Scottperry! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Gary Renard - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello - You, or someone with your username, has voted in the Global Sysops Vote but you don't have a Unified Login (SUL account). Please could you:
- merge your accounts
- or add a link from your Meta user page to your local user page.
This is necessary to confirm your identity or your vote may not be counted. Thank you --(RT) (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The article Federal indictment of Hutaree has been proposed for deletion .... .... Prezbo (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I have blanked my portion of the article, and replaced it with an "author's request for deletion. I hope you don't mind, but I removed a bit of the graphics and stuff that you had in your comment, though it did certainly get my attention! Thanks for the suggestion to move the document to Wikimedia. I will do that when I get the time. Scott P. (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)