User talk:Steve Dufour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Steve Dufour, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Keep up the good work with Burbank!--ragesoss 23:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages

Contents 1 Barack Obama 2 Muir and Thoreau 3 Peace (rose) 4 Bigfoot intro 5 Motivation for Sun Myung Moon's anti-communism 6 Anti-Racism 7 Use of "claim" 8 Unification Theology 9 Stanley Crouch on Obama 10 Thanks much for your comment 11 WikiProject updates 12 about your change to Mike Longo 13 Scientology 14 List of Ex Christians 15 Post returned to sender 16 Political Positions / Issue Positions 17 Violation of WP:POINT. 18 Writers who illustrated their own writing 19 John Muir's vision

[edit] Barack Obama

Let's please keep a neutral viewpoint here about the pro-life groups and Obama's voting record.

Pic82101 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muir and Thoreau

Hi, The rewrite of the first paragraph of Muir was very well done. Is Thoreau within your scope? The first paragraph there could use some help. It's beyond me. Thanks KAM 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace (rose)

Hi Steve - just to let you know I've moved your para on this out of rose to its own page Peace (rose), it is sufficiently noteworthy to have its own page. Also expanded a little on details. - MPF 00:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I see what you wrote, has been turned into it's own article. Very nice! :) --HResearcher 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so. Steve Dufour 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bigfoot intro

Hey Steve. Re your comment on my talk page in which you asked if it is really necessary to mention in the intro that some people don't believe in Biggie. Yes it is. Your intro was "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, which many people believe is also real." OK, that's a believers' POV, so what's wrong with balancing it. Tell you what, l will change one single word in your intro and ask you how long the the intro would have survived. Change the (second occurrence) of the word "also" to "not", so that your intro now becomes "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, which many people believe is not real." Imagine the shock horror from the believers. And yet, you want the intro to say there are Biggie believers, but not to balance it by also saying there are disbelievers. Sorry, don't agree, which I why I amended it. Also, your intro says Biggie is a "legendary creature". So, Wiki was effectively advancing the POV that a creature actually exists, which is why I changed it to say Biggie is the name of a phenomenon. Incidentally, the word legendary doesn't only mean mythical.Moriori 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe in Bigfoot, but if it is real that would really be cool.  :-) Steve Dufour 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motivation for Sun Myung Moon's anti-communism

Steve, I've just made 4 edits to the Sun Myung Moon article, to the Views on Communism section. The argument that Sun Myung Moon is anti-communist because he was mistreated by them - and not for philosophical or theological reasons - seems like such an obviously empty accusation to those who are even a little bit knowledgeable about the man and his organization(s). But did I go too far? I want to be fair even to viewpoints I don't agree with, and you seem to have a good sense along such lines (you seem to have a similar perspective of trying to be fair). Please take a look at today's edits and let me know what you think. -Exucmember 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.

It looks ok to me. However I still think his anti-communist activities should be covered as a topic unto themselves as a very important part of his life and his contribution to the world; not mainly as an issue for debate between critics and supporters--although that could be mentioned in the criticism section. Steve Dufour 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is a very important part of his life and work, and deserves its own article. Why don't you start it? -Exucmember 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Steve Dufour 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Racism

Steve, I applaud you for your anti-racism. If I could give you an award I would. Well done.

[edit] Use of "claim"

I have tried and failed to track down any WP guideline or policy against "claim" as a word to characterize, well, claims. Could you direct me to the exact citation? Thanks. Robertissimo 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Words to avoid

[edit] Unification Theology

Steve, your recent edits and comments seem to indicate that you are not aware of the existence of the Unification theology article, but I can't believe that's the case. Anyway, it would be nice to distribute some of the UC teachings material there too, and to give some needed attention to that article. Both Unification theology and Divine Principle could use substantial revisions, as they were never edited thoroughly from beginning to end, to create a coherent article, by anyone (see especially the history of Unification theology). To me this is the single biggest deficiency in UC-related articles. The main overhaul should be done by a church member, not by a critic, so that the core presentation is true to what Unificationists believe. -Exucmember 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was aware that the Unification theology article existed. To me as a member the article on Divine Principle seems like it should be the main article. We members almost never use the expression "Unification theology". I'll see what I can do in improving the articles. Thanks for your support. Steve Dufour 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand are the beliefs of the Unification Church really something that should be covered in Wikipedia at all? If people want to know they can visit church websites and find tons of info. But there has been almost no research or discussion of them by non-church sources. Steve Dufour 06:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Crouch on Obama

Hey Steve. The idea of that paragraph (and most of the Pop culture section) is that the sources are almost all saying people like to see themselves in Obama. Crouch's view is the less popular one, and so it is added to promote balance. It needs to be stated plainly so people can get the contrast. I take your point about using a more complete quote. How about using this quote from the third to last paragraph of Crouch's article?

"when black Americans refer to Obama as 'one of us,' I do not know what they are talking about […] while he has experienced some light versions of typical racial stereotypes, he cannot claim those problems as his own - nor has he lived the life of a black American."

Hope this makes sense. Be sure also to check the notes, the title of the article referenced immediately before this one suggests that one article inspired the other, "black like me", "not black like me"... Without contrary sources (Crouch, and also Noonan) the section risks getting ripped up by people who read it as too flattering of Obama. Let me know how you see it. Thanks. --HailFire 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd not really sure what the point of Crouch's article was. I don't think it was really critical of Obama, more like just a rant about how the world was changing and leaving him (Crouch) behind. If you put the quote you prefer in the article I will not object. Steve Dufour 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Crouch is not criticizing Obama at all, he is criticizing the way he feels others (specifically African Americans) see themselves in Obama. The whole idea of the Pop culture section is to talk about Obama's celebrity and how it interplays with social perceptions, not substantiated facts. That's what makes it so tricky. The multiline quote you put in looks a bit disproportionate for the idea it needs to convey, but we can let it ride for now. Thanks again. --HailFire 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally we are not supposed to cut up quotes putting in three dots ... whatever you call that. So I just pasted in the whole paragraph. BTW the more I think about it the more unreasonable Crouch seems to me. He spent his life struggling against racism and then when things have improved and young people don't suffer the same things that he did he complains about that. Steve Dufour 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree! But the sentiment Crouch expresses has been pushed into the article before and unless it gets addressed, will certainly be pushed again. I think this is a good place to allow some room for it. Makes sense? Still thinking about how we could trim it down a bit. Maybe move the full quote to the Notes section, like was just done for the "I inhaled" quote that would not go away? --HailFire 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Better? Be sure to check footnote! --HailFire 20:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

At least that quote let's people know there is some controversy. :-) Steve Dufour 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI - the Crouch piece is getting more play - this week's Newsweek has a sidebar about Obama's not coming up through the civil rights movement, and Crouch's piece is prominently discussed. Tvoz | talk 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks much for your comment

Thanks, Steve, for the comment you added to the posting related to Transcendental Meditation on the Conflict of Interest Notice Board. It's an important point. TimidGuy 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There probably will not be any objective coverage of TM until the second or third generation has grown up in it. This has happened with the Mormons, for example. Steve Dufour 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject updates

• I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Smee. However, I am an advocate of less coverage on WP for Scientology and more for other, more important, subjects. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about your change to Mike Longo

where you said (→Background - no need for euphemism, we white people are not offended to be called that, although we are not really white, just a lighter shade of the normal human color :-)) - I wonder about the complexities of international coverage of wikipedia - is using "white" going to confuse people instead of Caucasion??--Smkolins 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)`

Both words are kind of silly; my skin is not white and I am not aware of any relationship I have with the Caucasis. Steve Dufour 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

Hey! Thanks for visiting my userpage! I'm honored. I haven't contributed to the Scientology article so I will not take any criticisms of it personally. I am quite interested in your critique of the article though. Briefly summarized, what would you say its problems are? If you don't have time to reply I'll understand. We are all busy.Will3935 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In the first place there is way too much coverage of Scientology on WP relative to its real importance. In the second place the articles are being run by people who are hostile to it. In some cases hostility to Scientology is the main interest of their lives. When I tried to move, not remove just move, some opinion on the Scientology article, pointing out that even the articles on Hitler and Nazism were not so hostile towards their subjects, my change was quickly reverted. The reason, I was told, is that people already knew how bad the other things were but they had to be warned against Scientology. Steve Dufour 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take offense at this question. It is not meant in a belligerent tone (I wish we had voicemail). I honestly wish to be properly informed on this subject. Can you tell me of any specific misinformation in the article or of any information that has been censored from it? I have studied this subject a little and wish to be sure my understanding is accurate. Thanks!Will3935 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the information presented in the articles, I have not checked all of it out however. What I object to is the mean spirited and unfair tone of Scientology coverage here. It seems to be run by people who have a strong interest to discredit it. This is in marked contrast to the coverage of almost all other groups here on WP and is also against the spirit of WP policies, as I understand them. Thanks for asking. Steve Dufour 03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ex Christians

I just ran across this list and your justified criticisms of it. I believe the concept is fundamentally not encyclopedic. I am surprised to find it in Wikipedia. I suppose, however, that any effort to nominate it for deletion would arouse cries of "fundamentalism" and "censorship." If this concept is appropriate for an encyclopedia how about the following lists?

List of ex-republicans

List of former taco eaters

List of former ABBA fans

List of people who have changed from Ford to Chevy

List of ex-readers of the list of ex-Christians

This presents Wikipedia with a whole new field for new articles!Will3935 06:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What is really interesting is how few genuine ex-Christians, even if we use the term very loosely, there really are. Steve Dufour 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post returned to sender

"Hi Athaenara. Barbara Schwarz is a friend of mine and she has told me that she feels hurt by what she thinks is an attack on her by certain people here. I reviewed the policies and, to me, it seems like the article on her doesn't really come up to the standards of what WP should be all about. I told her that I would do what I could to have it removed. That has been my motivation for trying to bring the article to the attention of the WP community, not any desire to disrupt. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)"

And this from someone with a prominent "I support NPA" userbox on her page. Doesn't exactly jibe with her psychobabble on the COI NB or on the AfD talk either. How does it go? Comment on the content, not the contributor. I think that is it. --Justanother 14:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Justanother. I am trying hard not to come down to their level.  :-) Steve Dufour 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, you should not. There is no real downside for me as I will get attacked no matter what so I may as well have some fun and show these guys (and gals) up for what they are (it is soooo easy). But even I am tired of shooting fish in barrels and my arm is tired from holding the gun so I am, what do they say? Giving it up for Lent? Sorry if I am not helping you out over at the Scientology articles. I appreciate your efforts to make them more NPOV and in conformance with WP:V, etc. I am not helping because I want to take a wikibreak and do not want to get sucked in to anything other that the AfD. Later. And thanks. --Justanother 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy your break. Steve Dufour 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Positions / Issue Positions

I noticed your work at Political views of Barack Obama and was wondering if you would like to provide some input at the discussion currently occurring over at Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move concerning conventional naming of these types of pages. Thanks. - PoliticalJunkie 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Steve Dufour 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of WP:POINT.

• Please see WP:ANI. Smee 00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I disagee Smee. If people outside of the Scientology/anti-Scientology community had checked out the nomination the article could have very well been deleted. The fact that they did not is another thing which shows Xenu's non-notability. Steve Dufour 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writers who illustrated their own writing

I have created a new category Category:Writers who illustrated their own writing per the discussion on Category:Writers who also draw/paint in which you participated. Please help me populate it. I'm sure there are a lot more writers who belong in it, but I can't think of them. Thanks! -- Lesnail 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I will help out with that. Steve Dufour 19:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Lesnail 20:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Muir's vision

I agree that there is a lack of evidence about Indians. However, you can't say that we don't know what John Muir envisioned for Yosemite. He wrote very extensively on the attributes of the area and battled to preserve them. In addition to the two 1890 Century articles, I have placed a couple of quotes on my Talk Page. How about restoring your last edit? Finavon 10:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)