Talk:Glenn L. Pace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Balance[edit]

Rich, I am not detecting any sense of balance in your edits. In this man's entire life, in his service to church and community, in his occupation, being an author, you make over 50% of the article about a memo that no one knows about, about incidents where no evidence could be found? This is known as crating a mountain out of a mole hill, synthesizing facts not in evidence, resulting in an article that has nothing to do with reality or the man. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making good faith edits. Apart from the mere fact that he is a GA of the LDS Church, his writing of the memo and background investigations are what he is most notable for. Do a google search for "Glenn L. Pace" with the name in quotes and you will begin to see what I mean. It's not "crating" [sic] a mountain when the mountain is already there. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most notable to who? Oh, you mean anti-Mormons know Pace more for his memo. How many of those are around? Now, what do LDS know him for? Those 13 million and their knowledge of him, his service in Africa, his book, and his being a general authority supposedly is insignificant because the Tanners (and all the other anti-Mormon sites quote the Tanners) quote him? Do you think there might just be a wee bit of imbalance in this picture?
When you Google him the first 10 sites identified focus on him being that insignificant general authority you gloss over; however, TWO mention his memo and both are anti-Mormon sites. Yeah, I am seeing why he is KNOWN for the memo read by a significantly small set of people is so overwhelmingly important that this individual's life is caricatured to a memo. Give me a break. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, expand the article, then. I have no problems with that, but don't delete information for which he is clearly notable. By the way, I am a member of the LDS Church, and when I think of Pace, I think of this memo he wrote, not his other work or any of his talks in g.c., etc. Everything is not a "black–white" "Mormon–anti" conflict. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, I appreciate you being a member of the LDS church, but membership does not merit a free pass on wikipedia. As an editor, what I resist is sensationalized writing styles, synthesis of facts to arrive at personal conclusions, and POV editing (this one is much harder to maintain). In this instance, you really can't tell me with a straight face that of all Pace's accomplishments, his piece de resistance is a memo about ritualized child abuse. You are certainly not stupid, so please do not hide behind that piece of flimsy cloth. I don't buy it. You know precisely what you are doing and you are more than capable of seeing the weakness in the position.
Of course the world is not black and white; I have found it mostly gray. However, your style of writing on a few articles would lend me to think that you are more comfortable writing in a black and white fashion. You know better than to write in a sensational manner, but you continue to do so. For the life of me I can't figure out what the payoff is for you. What is the objective you hope to achieve? It certainly is not improved, balanced articles. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely mentioned that I was a member to give an illustration—specifically, to demonstrate that it was possible for an LDS Church member to find this fact being Pace's central notability. But that anecdotal evidence is neither here nor there, really—it was just an illustration. I was neither seeking nor even thinking about a "free pass".

As for my writing style, two editors, both non-LDS, have reviewed the article on SRA and LDS Church and both have said they felt it was written in a NPOV manner. You simply have a different interpretation of what is "sensational", I guess. You may think it is; I don't. Please don't tell me what I do and don't believe or "know better" about. We obviously see things differently. All I ask is that you respect my good faith efforts to improve and add content. I have no problem with this article being expanded so that the info. on the memo is but one section of a lengthy, beautiful article. But please, it's notable, and it should stay, IMO.

I suggest that any further discussion of specifics of the "SRA" issue be transferred to Talk:Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to real life demands on my time, I won't be reading, much less responding to, any more posts here for awhile, so any comments made should address the article in general and not me specifically if they are to have any utility. Cheers. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry B. Eyring?[edit]

The Eyring and Pace articles list each other as a "see also," but I can't figure out why. Eyring's article shows nothing about the satanic ritual investigations or anything else here. Are they related? If so, I think the better solution would be to mention it in this article (but probably not Eyring's unless he is notably related to Pace; I imagine it would be the other way around). Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any connection either, so I removed the cross-links. — Val42 05:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was because they were both counselors in the presiding bishopric at the same time, i.e. they served together in the presiding bishopric. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move : Why?[edit]

Why in the world was this page moved to Glenn Leroy Pace? In all the sources, he's almost always referred to as "Glenn L. Pace". I see no reason to move to the full name, as that name is almost never used in the sources except when stating what his full name is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the move, but I agree with you that it shouldn't of happened. Thanks for correcting it.--StormRider 14:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenn L. Pace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_L._Pace&oldid=1209580622"