Michael Reed 1975
Conflict of interest
editPlease cite the specific rule that states that I cannot use my book--a substantially documented book that happens to be THE most authoritative volume ever published on the topic, and which has received overwhelmingly positive reviews from respected scholars, such as Boyd J. Peterson, Fiona Givens, Michael Quinn, and Robert Rees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Reed 1975 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 November 2013
- How are your edits here at Wikipedia (which so far appear to be solely for the purpose of placing a particular publication of yours on Symbolism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints & Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in-line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The burden of proof is not on me. It is on those who insist on enforcing rules that do not exist.--Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Reed 1975 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 December 2013
- I took this item to the article's talk page here. It seemed to go be going back and forth. Bahooka (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Per your articlespace edit history to this point, you have made 7 edits to 2 different articles, all of which have added (or re-added) your book. This is a nearly classic example of basic wp:COI editing. Also please keep in mind that here at WP, editors that add material (such as you adding your book) have the primary burden to demonstrate that their edits follow WP guidelines, not the other way around. Expressing an unwillingness to even try to do so (other than demanding that editors questioning your edits provide you with the policies and guidelines why you can't) does not help you demonstrate that you are here to build an encyclopedia; instead, combined with your single-purpose editing, it does tend to lend more weight to the idea that "advancing outside interests is more important to [you] than advancing the aims of Wikipedia", which is counterproductive to your goal of keeping your edits in place over the long term. Please reconsider your position. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Mike Reed: It is I that holds the primary burden? Is that another rule you've made up, or do you have an actual basis for that claim? As for me, I am merely relying on the rules of logic and debate. I assume that WP has high regard for the rules of logic. You may not though.
- I could have also pointed out wp:BURDEN, which might have been considered a more direct answer to your specific question, but I guess I answered with the links that at the time I thought you most needed most. Even though this first experience with editing at Wikipedia may have been a bit jarring, I hope you chose to make additional useful contributions. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Welcome!
editHello, Michael Reed 1975, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your recent edit to an article that is part of the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject. We welcome your contributions and hope that you will stay and contribute more. Here are some links that I found helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia and Tutorial on editing
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Policies and Guidelines
- Manual of Style
- Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)
- Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
If you run into a dispute, please use the Talk pages and the Latter Day Saint movement project talk page to discuss subjects (especially controversial ones) to help reach consensus. But don't be afraid to be bold!! Also, as new Mormonism-related articles are created, please make sure to add them to List of Latter Day Saint movement topics.
Remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.
And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Bahooka (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michael Reed 1975 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: ). Thank you. —Bahooka (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- It's troubling to me that your first edit after your block is the same re-introduction of text that got you blocked. You would be far better served by continuing to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. I've removed the text from the article because I didn't see any independent editor on the talk page speaking up for inclusion.
- Please don't re-add the text to the article. Persisting in a dispute after consensus has decided otherwise or refusing to listen to consensus is disruptive editing. I would hate to see your account blocked long-term over a matter that could have been resolved with discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The text was taken down by LDS apologists for illegitimate reasons in the first place. Rules that didn't exist were fabricated, and when when I asked to have such a rule cited, I was told that I am the one that carries the burden of proof. That's nonsense. I'm suppose to show that such a rule does not exist (prove a negative), while pretending psychic abilities for an endless amount of interpretations of the many rules that exist. Right. That's absurd. I care not if I am banned long term for such reasons. The facts posted in the page have not been called into question. What is called into question is whether or not my book qualifies as "self published." It isn't self published by any stretch of the imagination and any intelligent and honest person who claims to knows the rules of this forum should admit this fact. But there's the rub. Those censoring my posts are neither intelligent nor honest.--Mike Reed
- WP:Consensus is a long-standing guideline for editing. So are some of the guidelines that have been mentioned in the talk page discussion about the edit (WP:Conflict of interest and, more specifically, WP:SELFCITE; I see where WP:SELFPUB is mentioned but not as the reason for disqualifying your edit/source). Other guidelines have been pointed out to you about edit warring; I also need to point out WP:No personal attacks, in light of your last comments.
- Also, all of this would be a non-issue if you focused on the merits of the source and the information in it, since the point of contention is your conflict of interest with the cited source. In other words, focus on how the book is well-reviewed or accepted by scholars, and you may well find that one of us (who isn't related to you or the book) is then willing to cite it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
We'll see.
Consider the following reviews:
Michael Reed's invaluable study shines new light on Mormon's complex and ambiguous relationship with the cross. Reed's research, the most exhaustive ever undertaken on this subject, should help other Christians understand the historic, cultural and religious context out of which Latter-day Saint attitudes toward the cross emerged--and it should help Latter-day Saints find greater spiritual meaning to this most poignant and profound of Christian symbols." --Robert A. Rees, LDS author of "The Reader's Book of Mormon" and religious studies professor at UC Berkeley and GTU Berkeley
"Michael G. Reed has written a book that deftly examines one aspect of Mormonism's inconsistant overlaps with traditional Christianity and inconsistent departures therefrom." --D. Michael Quinn, author of The Mormon Hiearchy
"This is a fascinating study of a surprisingly misunderstood symbol. Reed's well-researched history of the cross has much to teach modern readers across denominational lines." --Ryan K. Smith, american historian and author of "Gothic Arches, Latin Crosses: Anti-Catholicism and American Church Designs in the Nineteenth Century"
"Just finished reading Michael G. Reed 'Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo'. It was a very informative read. Reed did a lot of research that really enlightens our understanding of the (typical) current Mormon aversion to the cross. Drawing on many historical sources, Reed demonstrates that the cross-taboo was not a part of early Mormonism. In contrast, most nineteenth-century American Protestants found the cross to be distastefully Catholic. The Mormon view changed, in part, because of the influence of early nineteenth century cultural perceptions of certain influential Latter-day Saints. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Mormon history." --Mike Ash, LDS apologist and author of "Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One's Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt"
"Though a fairly light read, the book is interesting and engaging— and it is, in many ways, a significant contribution to the historical record. Reed sets straight several misconceptions about the place of the cross as a symbol in the restored gospel, while inviting the reader on a pictorial journey through a transitional period in LDS Church history." --Alonzo Gaskill, LDS author and BYU professor of Church History and Doctrine
"In recent years, Mormon Church leaders have made significant attempts to repair the rift with the Catholic Church engendered by the former anti-Catholic rhetoric of some of its leaders. Banishing the Cross provides an important and comprehensive study of what animated the prejudice against the cross in the first place and of its manifestation as a historical aberration rather than a constant in Mormon history. I highly recommend this outstanding book, not only for a greater understanding of the reasons behind the banishment of the cross, but also for its rich treatment of an animus so at odds with Joseph Smith’s own sentiments vis-�a-vis the Roman Catholic Church. In his last recorded sermon, Joseph stated: 'The Old Catholic church is worth more than all' the rest." --Fiona Givens, coauthor of "The God Who Wheeps"
"An insightful discussion of LDS—Roman Catholic relations can be found in Michael G. Reed, Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo (Independence: John Whitmer Books, 2012)."--Stephen H. Webb, Author of "Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn From the Latter-day Saints" and retired professor of religion and theology from Wabash College
"While President Gordon B. Hinckley repeatedly emphasized his respect for other churches that use the cross, he emphasized that, “for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.” [2] Unfortunately, this argument rings hollow, perhaps even condescending, to other Christians since they too worship the Living Christ. The cross reminds them not only of Christ’s death, but of his atoning sacrifice—his life, death, and resurrection—and of their complete dependence on that expiating force. So the symbolic force of the cross is a major division between LDS Christians and creedal Christians. And for the average Mormon, LDS antipathy to the cross may seem doctrinal, perhaps foundational, dating back to teachings from Joseph Smith. However, as Michael Reed aptly demonstrates in his new book "Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo" this history is much more recent and quite complex..... While many Mormon historians have noted correctly that early Mormons echoed the anti-Catholic attitudes and polemics of their nineteenth-century neighbors, Reed conclusively shows that early Mormons had no aversion to the cross. He persuasively demonstrates that the taboo against the cross arose as Mormons lost their connection with folk magic and masonry, as anti-Catholic bias grew within both the membership and leadership of the Church, and as relations between Church leaders and Salt Lake area Catholics grew more tense. What is fascinating about Reed’s analysis is that the institutionalization of the taboo occurred quite late in Mormon history and is not based on any strong theological reasoning. With contemporary Mormonism's more ecumenical focus, a tremendous lessening of anti-Catholic rhetoric, and greatly improved relations between all denominations of Christinanity and the LDS Church, it is not hard to imagine a world where Mormons can once again embrace the symbolic power of the cross. Reed’s book is a wonderful addition to Mormon history and a helpful guide in rethinking our contemporary aversion to the central symbol of Christianity." --Boyd J. Peterson, LDS author and professor of religion at UVU and BYU
Consider also my reviews on Amazon.org.
We shall see if any of the above has any importance to apologists censoring my very minor change. I am not optimistic.--Mike Reed
Hints on how to sign posts
edit Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. Bahooka (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)