Talk:Ex-Mormon/Archive 2

message: Wick, a quick comment. You are adding in detail, while valuable, is strictly ancedotal. For example one of your edit summaries stated this is a main reason, however, it ranks releatively low according to research such as here . Please be careful about generalizing your experiences as the norm without proof of what the norm is. A way to get around this is to source material as a cultural example. However, some of what you've added in is not correct according to research. I'll try to cite some additional research stats and sources, but some are listed above, and I'll try to find where I've source some others. Bottom line is that statistically speaking, many who leave return in their mid-to-late 40s. Most leave by the time they are 28, etc. Almost always, according to research, deals with a testimony of or against Smith, not with history, etc. Those may factor in, but are not the primary reason. Just be careful to source materials as possible. -Visorstuff 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wick Griffon - a comment

message: The studies that you questioned existing were referenced at the end of the sentence.  The reference to BYU was to show conformism as a problem at the school and is therefore relevant. The reference to the Latter-day Saint Movement is relevant because the ex-Mormon experience is across the Restorationist Movement.  Finally, "nevermo" is a slang term only in the confines of the RfM board and it doesn't require a stub article for definition.  Your links for Tal Bachman and Steve Benson were relevant.  Your edits of adverbs were not. 72.75.1.129 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of reversions for GreenW47

message: It seems to me that some coverage of resignation is a vital topic to include on this page.  I know this is a potential "tricky" subject, as many people who try to resign have difficulty from the LDS Church in doing so and it seems that the LDS church leadership is uncomfortable in speaking on-the-record about the subject.  There are a couple legal references (notably Guinn vs. Church of Christ in Collinsville and the Normon Hancock Lawsuit - Mesa, AZ 1985) that should be included, as well as the possibility local LDS leaders may try to hold a "Court of Love" on an inactive member or a member who may have done something the LDS church would consider a sin. Dianelowe 06:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think the link would be a good illustration of the exmo communities education of "how-to" -Just my personal opinion. -Visorstuff 18:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resignation Discussion

message: A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging it.  For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book.  Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your citation must mention the web page.  Your citation might only mention the web page, or you can provide further information like this:
* <Web page>, which cites <book>, or
* <Book>, cited at <web page>.
However, you shouldn't cite only the book unless you looked at it yourself.  If you checked the book, it is no longer necessary to mention the web page but you can still mention it if that would be useful information for readers.  You can do so using a form like this:
* <Book> (also see <web page>).
The purpose of this rule is to enable readers to judge the reliability of the evidence and to enable them to verify it to at least the same extent as you did.
:As an Admin, I'm fully aware of Wikipedia policy. You'll notice that most editors begin to put in references and then edit the references into the article. I began, but my edit was removed  before I could even add in another one. 
:I find this funny as one who has tried to recruit exmormons to edit this page that you are slamming me. Not only do you not follow academic norms (IE removal of Latter Day Saint, Mormonism, Anti-Mormon activism), but you've not made citations for your edits, and stated issues with edits from other exmormons. Broaden your horizon and try to see that there is actually an academic side to all of this. You may actually want to get ahold of the research and see what it says, for example. I've no hard feelings, but find it quite funny at your attitude towards actual research. I'll love to add in that data, but again, all of my edits have basically been deleted here for the past 24 hours. I have other studies as well, but they will have to wait for a more appropriate time. I'm glad your here, its been much needed, but try to use academic/wikipedia norms.  
:I've asked a Greek Orthodox Admin to help guide this discussion (who is trusted by all wikipedians on topics of religion), as you seem to be hostile toward me simply because I'm LDS, regardless of my previous efforts on this topic. Perhaps another religions' point of view will help.  -Visorstuff 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I have never recruited anyone to this page. You are mistaking me, it seems, for others. And if you, Visorstuff, are so aware of the policies, then you wouldn't leave so many edit comments blank, for example. I appreciate the academic side to all things, but only when it has verifiability and function, not as padding or insinuation of authority or fact. 166.70.243.229 20:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it be known that Visorstuff recruits his own editors and reviewers to this page on a regular basis, and has already threatened me with expulsion and tried to smear me too. See above. 166.70.243.229 20:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I have asked for exmormon assistance on this page. I said nothing about you recruiting. How have I threatened you with expulsion or tried to smear you?  -Visorstuff 20:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Visorstuff wrote to me (on this page): Again, I'm not attacking, but as an anonymous user you are behaving like a troll and such negativity and disruption can eventually lead to the blocking of your IP address by another admin (I will not as I was involved in the discussion). Talk pages are for building consensus and helping with improving the article in question, and your discussions and 350 edits on 24 pages since December 2005 so far do neither, but rather criticize and "argue the question" on a number of topics. You do not have the best track record and working with other editors. Let's get someone who is exmormon wikipedian to edit appropriately. By the way, a troll would be a Mormon trying to undo this page, not an exmormon. And we are both anonymous. 166.70.243.229 20:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say where ''you'' got it 

message: Diane, could you please explain your recent edit where you deleted "spiritual" method (which I would take umbridge with because it is POV) and replaced it with faith-without-reason (without quotes).  Would you explain how faith and reason is at times equivalent?  You imply that in this situation faith and reason are at odds.  I would term this a highly POV edit.  I will edit the clause and then we can determine what is best on this page.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Faith-without-reason

message: WP:NPOV
NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.
Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.
An important note on using the term "fundamentalism". Please see the article on fundamentalism for the technical definition of this term. This word is often used in articles on religion, but should only be used in one of its technical senses. We should take care to explain what we mean by this term in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader (most people being unaware of how this word should be used.) We should not use this term as a pejorative phrase, and should remember that it is neither a synonym for "opposition to science" nor "deeply held beliefs" and it should not be used to refer to religion or political conservatism when those do not meet the word's technical senses. As religion is a controversial topic, be prepared to see some of these articles edited due to what may seem minor quibbles.
I think this is something we all need to read. Dianelowe 23:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very familiar with that section, but always good for a reminder. -Visorstuff 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Policy on Religion