Mormons run Wikipedia.org -- part 2

[_GoodK]

I'm sure no one else will remember, but long ago when I was skylarking over at CARM I came across a particularly eloquent poster who cautioned me not to trust what I read about the church on Wiki, for it is run by Mormons.

I didn't pay much attention to it, until this last week when I have been battling a (seemingly) LDS editor over the Utah Boys Ranch/Wikipedia page.

You can follow the talk page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Ridge_Academy

One editor seemed reasonable and I was willing to compromise with him (i.e removing the "nondescript" photo of a Mormon missionary on staff that I obtained) but another -- named R.Fiend has successfully had me banned from editing the site and has removed any mention of the Mormon church from the article.

To be clear; my goal is not to muddy the church with this place, as others have implied. My goal is to simply FORCE the church to acknoweldge and renounce the Utah Boys Ranch. That's all.

[_cinepro]

To be clear; my goal is not to muddy the church with this place, as others have implied. My goal is to simply FORCE the church to acknoweldge and renounce the Utah Boys Ranch. That's all.

Wouldn't such a goal be contrary to Wikipedia's purpose?

[_Bond James Bond]

To be clear; my goal is not to muddy the church with this place, as others have implied. My goal is to simply FORCE the church to acknoweldge and renounce the Utah Boys Ranch. That's all.

Wouldn't such a goal be contrary to Wikipedia's purpose?

No. Wiki is not about truth or fact, it's about finding a plurality of opinion on a subject by the editors. Majority rules, particularly when you can cite something off the net [whether that citation is good or bad is another issue].

[_Ray A]

but another -- named R.Fiend has successfully had me banned from editing the site and has removed any mention of the Mormon church from the article.

A self-confessed asshole, an opinion shared by the majority.

* "...a rather unpleasant, pisstaking deletionist..."
o -User:Grace Note, R. fiend's RFA

* "...extremely hostile..."
o - User:Everyking, R. fiend's RFA

* "...self-aggrandizing..."

User:R. fiend

Work on your book, and once that's done you won't have to go to Wiki; they will be quoting you.

[_Mister Scratch]

R. Fiend authored some articles on (among other things) single malt whiskies, so I somewhat doubt s/he is TBM.

[_GoodK]

Wouldn't such a goal be contrary to Wikipedia's purpose?

If I was just making things up -- instead of using facts to talk about something the LDS church wants to ignore -- maybe. But I have never made anything up or embellished facts regarding the Mormon gulag.

[_bcspace]

To be clear; my goal is not to muddy the church with this place, as others have implied. My goal is to simply FORCE the church to acknoweldge and renounce the Utah Boys Ranch. That's all.

What's the difference?

Someone is stretching credibility, synthesizing, and have forgotten the simple principle of NPOV. --StormRider 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the footnotes seem to source either DailyKos or a site called mormongulag.com. Are those reliable sources? -R. fiend (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, is utahboysranch.org a more reliable source?

Ever heard the term "evidence over interest?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahboysranchnetwork (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Kos is a third party source, although obviously not neutral. Neither thmormongulag.com nor utahboysranch.org are neutral or third-party sources (they're both involved), so they have to be used carefully. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is probably not appropriate for Utahboysranchnetwork/Good K to add information from "mormongulag.com" as a source, since he owns that site. 99.146.153.139 (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. GoodK is synthesizing and the sources don't seem credible.

[_Chap]

I am unclear which of these two propositions is nearer the truth:

(a) bcspace believes that the Utah Boy's Ranch is and was nothing like the description given on Mormongulag, and that GoodK and his colleagues are essentially telling lies.

(c) bcspace believes that the Utah Boy's Ranch is in its essentials pretty much like the description given on Mormongulag, and that GoodK and his colleagues are essentially telling the truth. However, he thinks it is not a bad thing that kids like GoodK was should be sent to a place like that.

[_GoodK]

I am unclear which of these two propositions is nearer the truth:

(a) bcspace believes that the Utah Boy's Ranch is and was nothing like the description given on Mormongulag, and that GoodK and his colleagues are essentially telling lies.

(c) bcspace believes that the Utah Boy's Ranch is in its essentials pretty much like the description given on Mormongulag, and that GoodK and his colleagues are essentially telling the truth. However, he thinks it is not a bad thing that kids like GoodK was should be sent to a place like that.

Starting with the premise that the LDS church is true, torturing young boys and literally forcing them to be Mormon is just a means to an end. Given Brad's delectation for political bigotry and theocracy, it's no surprise he not only supports, but engages in apologetic arguments for places like the Utah Boys Ranch.

You might also find it interesting to learn that bradspace has been following this topic rather closely, posting his Utah Boys Ranch apologetics on more than one other website discussing my story.

[_bcspace]

I am unclear which of these two propositions is nearer the truth:

(a) bcspace believes that the Utah Boy's Ranch is and was nothing like the description given on Mormongulag, and that GoodK and his colleagues are essentially telling lies.

(c) bcspace believes that the Utah Boy's Ranch is in its essentials pretty much like the description given on Mormongulag, and that GoodK and his colleagues are essentially telling the truth. However, he thinks it is not a bad thing that kids like GoodK was should be sent to a place like that.

In a certain sense, both could be true.