Talk:Master Mahan

message: allow me to preface this by saying that I can't help you with the substance of the article.  this is all (at least from my perspective) fairly arcane, and I have no idea how one would judge fringe from non-fringe here.
that being said, it does feel like tempers are flaring a bit.  Sanitycult, I recognize that you think Good Ol’factory is trying to add a fringe opinion, but is there any way you can fit it in in some minor capacity?  my own feeling is that if you can fit it in without (a) an unwieldy amount of explanation, and (b) without throwing the balance of the article to hell and back, then you should at least give it a try. honestly, I just think the argument will resolve itself quicker if you stop thinking in 'yes/no' absolutes, and instead phrase it as a 'how much?' issue.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both of your suggestions are good.  I think that the Tanner stuff should be confined to the Theory section but it needs more sources to warrant it's inclusion. I didn't change the "sacred texts" part because it was NPOV i changed it to make it clear, but your suggestion might be better.Sanitycult (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Religious texts" is good. The problem with just using the "Joseph Smith translation of the Bible" is that it's also in the Pearl of Great Price, which includes excerpts from the JST but not the entire thing. The excerpts are canonized by the LDS Church but the entire JST is not. Referring to "texts" plural is probably better. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Sanitycult, you stated that "the Tanner stuff should be confined to the Theory section". It has been the entire time, with the exception of a mention in the lead paragraphs. Perhaps this is more a misunderstanding of the purpose of the lead paragraph(s). I believe it is to briefly summarise the contents of the body of the article, which follows. This is a common format for articles on WP, and it is exactly the pattern that has been followed with this article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to recap for a moment: the "Master Mahan" as "Master Mason" argument is made or acknowledged now in six cited sources: Tanner, Quinn, Brown, Arbaugh, Homer and Whelan. Three of the sources (Tanner, Arbaugh, and Whelan) make the connection and argue for a derivation; one (Homer) points out the connection but takes no position on it; and two (Brown and Quinn) acknowledge the argument as a traditional one made and then go on to present what they believe are better or more convincing derivations. I'm not sure what more could be asked for on this point, really; it's being addressed by proponents and detractors and neutral people and we're citing all of them. There are no quotes from the Tanners — the only quotes are from those that dispute the theory. Even the detractors acknowledge that it's at minimum a commonly-made argument. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you guys have started an RFC below.  Excellent, and thank you for going that route - I think it will help you resolve this dispute in a much more constructive and civil manner than past handlings of the dispute. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: wikiquette response

message: This is a great example of the innacuracy, inconsistancy, and parody of neutrality that is wikipedia.  Facts don't belong, only agendas. Fairness is a joke, as long as one editor with a chip on his or her shoulder decides that reality should warp to his or her perspective at all costs. Sources are hyperlinks and only need to marginally relate to the article. Opinions are facts and facts are whatever "feels" right to the dominant editor, or the editor that will stop at nothing to push his or her viewpoints.  Its no wonder that articles about internet memes overshaddow articles about the founding fathers and movies and comic books tend to be the only articles without glaring errors. Wikipedia is a giant press kit, a car commercial, and a mob of griefers and trolls that just want to undermine everything for the fun of it. Good Olfactory, good luck with your article.  Good luck with your altering history and reality, not that anyone ever goes to wikipedia for facts or research anymore anyway, and good luck with setting up little bastions of ignorance, intollerance, bigotry and personal humor on all the little articles out there that are unworthy of attention by other editors. You've worn me out.Sanitycult (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's give him a big hand, folks! He deserves it! (Wait, I'm 9 months late on this? My watchpage is obviously seriously messed up ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When I saw it yesterday my initial reaction was to comment, but then I had to laugh when I saw the time span between the two edits. Regardless, he did spin a decent bit of vitriol. --StormRider 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, this popped up on my watchlist! I think it may have something to do with the universal clock add-on I recently added, but still—ridiculous! Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A Good Example of a Terrible Article

message: Mahan Air is an Iranian Airline.
Makkan is the PC GAME *HOMEWORLD 2* ADVERSARY
I suggest those interesting in further investigation of MASTER MAHAN, investigate ISLAM. (lolz, but not joke)
Whatever potential animosity is discovered....motives and agenda do not matter -> CITE YOUR SOURCE
WIKIPEDIA allows for Published Hearsay....just not Original Hearsay.
ps: If Cain = Perdition, and the "Natural Man is an Enemy unto God." then suppose Cain is the perfect representation of the "NATURAL MAN"...or NATURAL MAHAN. :)
I'm just giving leads to those who are willing to investigate and benefit the rest of us. If I find anything worth referencing, I will make mention of it so that it can be discussed in regards to its relevancy on this article.
Loneindividual (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote someone else who already said this very well: "you seem to have some misunderstandings about Wikipedia. Our core principles are that we are an encyclopedia, not a soapbox to publish opinions from or a place to fight outside battles.  This is not the place to do those things - you should create a blog or website, write op-ed articles for magazines, write a book, etc.  We are a collection of neutral point of view encyclopedia articles." -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  C O N S P I R A C Y ! 

message: These two tags are years old, and the article seems to have improved in both aspects --Greenmaven (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing outdated tags 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Master Mahan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613164218/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C16999 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C16999
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified