Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
I am very inclined to agree with you. With the page as it currently stands, it violates the rule given here about using a single authorial voice with no rebuttals, and it seems to me that it will always be off-mission and a source of controversy which we don't need.
Anyone with objections to making Analysis.The Book Of Mormon part of the Permanent Red Link Club, speak now or forever hold your peace.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Maybe not the PRLC, since the page also refers to the musical of the same name, which I think wouldn't have a problem. Maybe have a commented-out message mentioning that the page shouldn't talk about the actual book, just the play?
I agree that there's no problem with the musical analysis page. Perhaps it could be re-linked to just the broadway show somehow?
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” -Philip K. Dick
Yeah, I think the best course of action would be to make it specifically for the musical, because attempting to analyze the book itself is asking for trouble.
Reaction Image Repository
Fair enough. I didn't fully consider that.
With the current subpage system, we can't redlink it for the book and not the musical, but in the long term that's a good idea. In the meantime, removing the content about the book and leaving a commented-out message is good with me.
-please ignore what was the rest of this post-
Edited by Telcontar That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
I would say cut out the book-related analysis and then lock the page so that the stuff already on the page relating to the broadway show is left intact.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” -Philip K. Dick
As I said there, the problem is that you guys want to have one analysis. Can't do that. You need to have two, not one.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
As Telacontar said, two analyses violates the general rules for what an analysis page is supposed to be. And I agree with him that it's just a potential source of controversy that isn't needed. There are plenty of other sites on the internet where MAI 742 and I can argue about religious topics.
Edited by Bense “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” -Philip K. Dick
That rule is about discussion, though. Not about having two contradictory analyses. It's more like YMMV pages - they can get two contradictory entries, but not one subbullet contesting the entry it's attached to.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I think the intent of the rule is that the essays on the analysis pages don't turn into a back-and-forth discussion between two viewpoints, which is effectively what's on the Bo M Analysis page now.
You don't mention whether you agree with the idea that having an analysis page is going to be a source of controversy. Would you argue for having analysis pages full of contradictory analyses for the Bible and the Qur'ran? That would seem like Grade A Flamebait to me.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” -Philip K. Dick
Analyses are fundamentally subjective. Trying to pin down one "right" analysis is going to cause a conflict even more guaranteedly so than any other approach to the problem. Much like trying to have one "right" opinion on YMMV is cause of many, many Edit Wars. Now, you don't need having discussion between them - just two separate text blocks.
I don't think that having multiple analyses on the Bible or the Qur'ran has been tried and I don't know how it would turn out, though.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I'd say that it's kind of missing the point of what we're about. Theological arguments are way, way too involved to have any relevance to a site dedicated to analyzing fiction.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
As one of the two people who caused this...
I agree, TV Tropes isn't about important or serious things - that's what The Other Wiki is for. We're just here to have fun and not think too hard about things.
The Book Of Mormon is almost certainly a fabrication - there's zero archaeological or genetic evidence their Ancient Jewish American Civilisations ever existed, despite supposedly having millions of individuals who lived over a millenia and using things like steel and elephants. While we haven't found ancient elephant skeletons and ancient Jewish steel swords or any of the millions of ancient Jewish people's skeletons... the fact that we haven't found a single shred of evidence is almost definitive proof that they never existed.
But, as Bense once pointed out, The Book is also a religious text. Does that change the fact that it is almost certainly fake? No.
But it is still a religious text. Some people may get butthurt if we just say out loud 'yes, it's almost certainly fake' - or worse yet, go into the details (as I have on that analysis page) of 'why' it is almost certainly fake.
We can't - and indeed, 'should not' - judge The Book Of Mormon on its own merits, its own claims, its own authenticity. Because if we do, we will have to treat it as fiction.
Instead, we should treat it as a religious text - beyond 'truth' and 'fiction', beyond debate, beyond question.
If people really want the truth about anything, let alone The Book Of Mormon, they won't come looking for it here.
^_^
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. — Mark Twain
Well if we all agree, regardless of why we agree, then let's delete the book-related analysis and leave just the Broadway-show stuff.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” -Philip K. Dick
nvm, disregard
Edited by jamespolk
Coo' ^_^
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. — Mark Twain
There is a potential edit war brewing over the Analysis page for Bookof Mormon. MAI 742 insists on using an analysis that I find insulting to Christians in general and factually inaccurate. We have had a long discussion on the subject (cf. the Discussion page for Bookof Mormon) but cannot come to a consensus. I note that neither the Bible nor the Qur'an literature pages have an analysis page. I believe it would be best if the Bookof Mormon page didn't either.
Edited by Bense