User talk:Mike Doughney/Archive/Jan-2009

Same-sex marriage in California and History of marriage in California

Can I ask for your input in combining these two articles, or do you think the History article stands well enough on its own? I also would like to rework the Same-sex marriage in California to better describe the timeline. What do you think? MrBell ^(talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the articles best stand alone. Perhaps a sentence should be added to the summary in Same-sex marriage in California regarding Newsom's authorization of same-sex marriage licenses in 2004. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How about the summary now? MrBell ^(talk) 23:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rick Warren

You have mentioned on my Talk Page (Teledildonix314) that the definition of Reactionary somehow does not cover the actions and expressions of Rick Warren. But i give you the most obvious example: Californians had (temporarily) a few months of marriage equality, but then Warren worked hard to encourage the passage Prop 8. When Proposition 8 took away the marriage equality, and reverted to the Status quo ante of traditional discrimination, this appears to be an obvious demonstration of Reactionary politics. How could it possibly be described otherwise? The basic civil rights were finally upheld firmly by a high court, but the Reactionary voters decided to veto those civil rights anyway. Isn't this a textbook definition of 'Reactionary'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledildonix314 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my work and reverting my edits? Instead of arguing with you about vocabulary or Neutrality Of Viewpoint, i added citations and direct quotations to the article, and i verified the footnotes giving the citations from the original sources. There is no Original Research going on, and there is no Subjective issue to debate: facts are self-evident. When i added footnotes specifically citing the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the DailyKosTV report, and the reports on Democracy Now, you tried to argue that this is somehow presenting something which isn't Neutral? How can a direct citation of an actual verbatim interview _not_ be Neutral? What could be more objective than citations which allow the audience to hear the information and make their own analysis? What is inappropriate about quotations directly from reliable sources? Why do you think the Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Pacifica News Network of Democracy Now are not reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledildonix314 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Like it says at the top of the page here, "If you're not already familiar with Wikipedia policies, particularly those regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research, please consider carefully studying those policies before commenting here." Mike Doughney (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren

In response to the user's claim that DailyKos and Pacifica are "reliable" sources, please note that those sources are not politically neutral. DailyKos and Pacifica are not NPOV, they are left-of-center. Willking1979 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've pulled the Daily Kos references (they were redundant and pointed to MSNBC anyway). That Pacifica isn't NPOV does not necessarily disqualify use of references to them, particularly when qualified with other sources as has been done in the article as it stands. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Our good friend is at it agian

Looks like he finally added a source about Rick Warren...from a "progressive" news source. That is not a "reliable source" to me. Willking1979 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a supporting major-paper which includes reference to the controversy. Mike Doughney (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

apology for this week's contention

Hello, i am Teledildonix314. I would very much like to apologize to you (Mike Doughney) for causing you any disturbance this week. I am very sorry about causing you or anybody else to feel as though there was disruption. In the future, having learned from my mistakes here, i will avoid repeating anything similar. I know you are an editor/administrator who is just trying to make this Wikipedia function well, and i know you are not personally attacking me, but i hope you will understand that the situation caused me to feel hyper-defensive when i was being treated in a way which felt (to me) very inflammatory and inconsiderate. It was a mistake for me to react in anger, and i see it is stupid to perpetuate hostilities or conflicts, and i'm really sorry for failing to just walk away more quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Teledildonix314

In my defense, i was just reacting to the situation where people were calling me a 'vandal' and 'tone-deaf' and an 'idiot-savant'. Wouldn't you feel like doing the same? I know that doesn't make it right for me to fight with you or anybody else, but i hope you will understand how i felt.

Please accept my apology and my promise to avoid doing anything around here which anybody might feel is contentious or in conflict or in any way disruptive. In the future i will not repeat these mistakes, and i will stay away from situations where they might possibly come up again. I am sad because i feel like all of my contributions are dismissed as having no value, while other editors are allowed to make dubious contributions which stand unchallenged, but i know Wikipedia is not about fairness. I am disappointed because i feel like i tried to make my arguments by presenting facts and citations, but no amount of fact-based reporting seems to change people's minds. I am sad because i feel like everything i have tried to do here has been totally frustrated, despite the fact that so many other editors have been able to push their agendas and write all sorts of horrible articles which go unchallenged.

But my sadness and frustration are not your problem. I only came here to your page to apologize and try to explain, hoping you wouldn't think of me as a 'vandal' or a 'tone deaf idiot-savant' in the future. That will probably be easy, because i don't intend to do any further editing which could have the slightest bit of contention about it. So i suppose you will be happy to find that you have successfully managed to push away somebody who could have been a competent editor but instead was discouraged by the overwhelming inflexibility and lack of compromise which is met by anybody whose facts and citations don't harmonize with the Status Quo and the opinions popular among the other members of the crowd. The end result is an encyclopedia with little or no value... but at least you won't have to put up with us contentious editors and all of our annoying facts and observations.

Teledildonix314 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I saw Teledildonix314's apology/attack/admission of guilt. Although when you say "Congratulations to Rick Warren and all you other evil hatemongers and scapegoaters and fantasy-based superstitious barbarians", there's more than a touch of cohersion implied (I'm thinking an administrator threatening to block him). Man that's some serious "name-calling," wouldn't you say Mike? Maybe you should report him again.

In all seriousness, despite my objections to your threats, I'm willing to put an end to this. So if you withdraw your report against me, I"ll remove mine. Let me know.

Manutdglory (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not at any point write, "Congratulations to Rick Warren and all you other evil hatemongers and scapegoaters and fantasy-based superstitious barbarians." I don't know where you found those words, although I have a pretty good idea (but I haven't yet read all of todays' traffic on the talk pages). I'm rather disinclined to withdraw my report when you falsely attribute that kind of rhetoric to me. I'll take credit for having specifically called Warren, a public figure, a "thuggish slimy weasel" with justification, and have with ample evidence called you and others tone-deaf to Wikipedia culture and procedure but I have written nothing more than that. I would suggest that you get in the habit of properly attributing quotes and sources, since that really sits at the core of what Wikipedia is; evidently you've been having difficulty keeping who said what straight in your mind, since you've both misattributed statements to the wrong people (like this one) and disregarded sources of facts you clearly find inconvenient. When you come out in public and write giggle-inducing accolades like "Like 90% of Americans, I see Warren as a kind, loving man who has done incredible good for the world and is one of the greatest Americans alive," you obviously have your own particular set of blinders on for the rest of Warren's activities and peculiar habits of language, about which you seem blissfully unaware. And it's not that I object that you feel that way about him (that discussion, were it to occur, is not relevant to Wikipedia), it's just that you don't seem to have any awareness of how your views affect your editing. Given that, no, if you persist in edit-warring to remove multiply-sourced material that happens to be detrimental to Warren from the article, and habitually calling others' edits vandalism, among other behaviors that show an unwillingness on your part to assume good faith, I will not withdraw my report. I'm willing to wait and see what you do next. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I thought it was clearly evident that I was referring to Teledildonix314's apology he posted on the Rick Warren discussion page - not you (such as my repeated use of "him" not "you") . Guess you haven't read it yet. I'm so tempted to say more...but I'll desist and give you a chance to change your response.Manutdglory (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't write clearly, and you don't seem to be able to tell the two of us apart, when you're not busy trying to play us off each other. Get lost. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you are clearly a complete joke. You wasted all that time writing the above paragraph to me, even though you obviously didn't fully read what I wrote. "I can't write clearly...?" - actually, I have a Masters degree - what do you have? Maybe it's you who can't read clearly. Then, rather than getting embarrassed and apologizing for looking like a complete fool, you actually have the nerve to attack me once again.

And to accuse me of being biased in defending Rick Warren while you attack him while being an atheist is unbelievably hypocritical. You have absolutely no class. Manutdglory (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AA Allen and Don Stewart

Allen's successor's wiki article Don Stewart (preacher) is being vandalised (all criticism from WP:RS) by a new user in the name of neutrality. Tgreach (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Don Stewart Article

The article needs more verification and references and I thank you for pointing that out. You also did a good job in beginning the organizing structure of the article. However, just because a charge from a disgruntled former employee or a religious bigot appears in a news article or tabloid television program doesn’t make it true. In the matter of Stewart and his organization’s legal status there is no more reliable source or reference than the legal bodies that license and govern these corporations. Documentation from the Texas Secretary of State’s office shows that the Don Stewart Association has been non-profit in good standing for the past 20 years. I didn’t see how to access further records from their web-site, so when did this loss of non-profit status occur and how is it relevant if it is much older, since they have been doing things properly this long? There is no record of financial misuse. The US Tax court had a question of clerical filings and paper work that was cleared up in 2001. However, they have no record or charges of financial misconduct such as the eight million dollars to family members that you say your articles claim to have. What court or legal licensing board substantiated these claims? I can’t find it.

Secondly, it looks like Wikipedia is being used as a second web-site for the Trinity Foundation. Is this really okay with Wikipedia? While the organization is reassuring to Southern Baptist’s and finding your ministry criticized by them is a badge of honor for Pentecostals, using them and Fisher as a reference clearly violates Wikipedia’s NPOV.

Finally if you say anything about Stewart you have to mention his Green Prayer Cloth. I know it’s odd, but it doesn’t matter if you like it or not, that is what he is famous for and using his own words of why he does it from his television program, puts it safely inside Wikipedia’s NPOV guidelines.

I’m currently doing a lot of detailed research on healing evangelists for a possible book, not particularly favorable, but culturally and historically accurate and fair. They have many things to criticize, but my research shows they have also been unduly singled out in certain areas that other religious leaders haven’t. As I continue to research claims against them in print, particularly in legal matters, the misinformation and false claims are shocking.

Don Stewart is a small fish in a small pond which in itself is a double standard. For instance there is nothing in Billy Graham’s Wikipedia about the number of family members on his ministerial organization’s payroll, the ministries private jet, various homes around the world, etc. Stewart has been in the ministry for 50 years and he doesn’t have a private jet. In fact for the first 20 years of ministry he raised his family out of a trailer he pulled behind his car. If he has some comforts now so what. Either way it’s not Wikipedia’s job to pass judgment or criticize him or Billy Graham.

This article needs to be about who he is culturally and historically. If you think it would be helpful we can take this up with Wikipedia. There are clear Wikipedia guidelines on liability to living persons that we must respect. Thanks for your hard work and input, but I am concerned about a perceived malicious tone in your recent edits that could be misunderstood by some. It almost seems like the point you are trying to make is that Stewart is a crook, rather than an objective article about his place in American culture as a healing evangelist. I hope I’m mistaken in this perception. Thanks again. Harvest09 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have me confused with another editor, as I have made only one edit to that article. And as it says at the top of the page, "If you're not already familiar with Wikipedia policies, particularly those regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research, please consider carefully studying those policies before commenting here." There is also no central Wikipedia authority that you might "take this up with." Please study Wikipedia policies and procedures, such as WP:5P, to get a better idea of how Wikipedia functions. - Mike Doughney (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostalism, Fasting, etc.

Although the information in the articles Fasting and also Black Fast were correct and had valid sources, those sources were improperly cited. I have contacted the person who placed these here and they have agreed to place them back when able to properly cite sources.Agciorg (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Curtis D. Ward, Dr. Marvin Arnold, and William Chalfant are popular authors within Pentecostal circles but not within mainstream secular historical circles. Only mainstream authors should be cited. Agciorg (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss such changes on the article's talk page(s) and gain consensus from other editors before performing wholesale deletions of material supported by references. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Granted. I will do as requested but I will do so with great intensity. This whole Wikipedia thing is wrought with references to non mainstream secular authors. Most of these religious articles quote authors who publish through their own religious organization's publishing house. Every religious article in Wikipedia needs overhauled. Please direct me to the Wikipedioa guidlines on who qualifies as an author and which publishing companies qualify as mainstream publishing companies. I mean, really, is "Bishop" Golder published by Random House Publishing? or Simon and Schuster? These religious people create their own publishing companies and publish authors that mainstream Publishers would never touch. Evangelicals and Pentecostals are particularly bad at this. These people are in a world of their own and everyone else suffers for their self induced psychosis. Please direct me to the Wikipedia guidelines as to what authjors and publishing houses can be quoted so that I may better do my job in eliminating some of this garbage. Agciorg (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

May I ask why you are so quick to respond when I make a correction in an article but so slow to respond when I ask you a simple question? Agciorg (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

May I further inquire as to whether or not you are part of the societal islands (evangelical, Pentacostal, or Oneness, etc) that I am attempting to delete and if you have an ulterior motive in undoing my deletions? A personal agenda is not moral, for an evangelical or anyone else! Agciorg (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that ONLY secular mainstream authors publishing through secular mainstream publishing companies be cited in the articles. Agciorg (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My grandfather was at the Asuza Street Mission revival as well as a member of the PAW, the early Assemblies of God, and was also present in the merger that culminated in the UPCI. I graduated from Bible college . I also graduated from a "secular" college with a "secular" degree. I formerly taught history and have a good grasp of church history. Perhaps Agciorg could live with my credentials and contributions to the article. I would be more than happy to contribute to the OP article in conjunction with DevonSprings and Ltwin if this is permissable. Perhaps we can exchange ideas and information followed by a joint edit text that we can then submit on the basis of our mutual agreement. Mike, I am certain I know what individual is stirring up controvery and why. It is an old axe they are grinding. I would prefer to discuss this further with you via email if you would be so kind as to email me at Connor15511@yahoo.com. Perhaps with more understanding we can all harmoniously edit Wikipedia. Thank you very much. Connor1551 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

consensus

We may need your help with the OP article. We need to discuss these issues on the talk page. Consensus needs to be reached. Ltwin (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Adamkey / Joel Osteen / Lakewood Church

It's not promotional material. The event in question is relevant to criticism of Osteen, as are references to other actual protests(ie Fred Phelps). Adamkey (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed"

As that is me, I can confirm it. Furthermore, the federal court has accepted it as fact. The authenticity is therefore confirmed. Stop deleting the section. Adamkey (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Like it says at the top of the page, "If you're not already familiar with Wikipedia policies, particularly those regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research, please consider carefully studying those policies before commenting here." Mike Doughney (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the stated policies, and my postings seem to fit in them. Could you please explain why you keep deleting my posts, as opposed to referencing policies that do not on their face prohibit them? Adamkey (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Manutdglory

It seems you interacted with this user before. I've reported him here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Manutdglory. You may wanna comment. Thx... Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Dr."

First I wish to thank you for your scholarly contributions to the Oneness Pentecostalism article and other articles in Wikipedia..

I too have some contributions to add to the OP article which I feel are valid due to having grown up in the OP environment, having been the offspring of an OP minister, and having had the opportunity to have met many of the leading figures of the movement.

Again I appreciate your contributions to the article, however there is a minor area in which we perhaps disagree.

The "Dr." in Dr. Curtis Ward and Dr. Marvin Arnold is more than just an academic or professional title—it has become their name, one by which they are widely known. It has become as honorific as the "Pope" in Pope John Paul or the "Sir" in Sir Paul McCartney or the "Dr." in Dr. Phil. If you notice this has been changed by others in the past who are familiar with these personalities (with Dr. Ward and Dr. Arnold). It is my concern that others will not readily recognize them outside of their publicly established names. (Also in their circle it has become offensive to not properly reference them with certain prefixes such as "Elder", "Bishop," "Doctor," etc.).

Also the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), says in the opening statement :

" The objective of this Manual of Style(or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles. Adherence to the following guidelines is not required; however, usage of these guidelines is recommended."

Firstly the Oneness Pentecostalism article is not a biographical article. Dr. Ward and Dr. Arnold are not mentioned in a biographical sense.

Secondly the style guide says that "adherence to the following guidelines is not required."

It is my request that since the abovementioned personalities are well known by their full title and name within their movement, since it it considered offensive not to use certain prefixes within the movement, since this is not a biographical article, and since the style guideline says that adherence to these specific guidelines are not required—it is my request that we in this instance allow the article to use the prefix "Dr." in the very brief mention of Dr. Curtis Ward and Dr. Marvin Arnold.

Thank you very much for considering my request.Rachida10z (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rachida10z, I agree with Mike on this one. WP:MOSBIO is not just for biographies. The naming conventions it sets out should be followed. The reason given for ignoring the guideline does not make since to me. Ltwin (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If "adherence to the following guidelines is not required" wouldn't that allow for inclusion in instances in which the personalities name and prefix are widely recognized by the community? For example I have never read an article where Dr. Benjamin Spock was ever quoted as "Spock" or "Benjamin Spock." He has always been quoted with his academic prefix (except in a biography) simply because it had become part of his name through which he was widely known. Since Wikipedia does not make this guideline a requirement should it not be left as commonly recognized in the OP community? Thank you. Rachida10z (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning the guideline would be moot. There are many people who are known by their academic titles in thier own communities. If they are as well known as you say, I'm sure the omition of an academic prefix want throw them off too much. Ltwin (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand, and thank you for responding.Rachida10z (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)