Talk:First Vision/Archive 5

message: I don't think most people will understand what 'Anachronisms' is supposed to mean. 74s181 10:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Possible anachronisms in" = "Criticism of" 

message: I am reverting the page back to the last stable version by 74. 
John, I'm not endorsing this version, but from your comments and the rest of the editors comments, this is the logical place to start. 
As stated above, this entire group needs to discuss any changes that are not grammatical before they are made, and have them worked out on the talk page before editing the article. This will prevent edit warring, and the ill feelings that exist here. I'll protect the page again to enforce this if discussion doesn't start happening to improve the article. -Visorstuff 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All my edits have been in good faith.  I have added new material and tried to reach compromises everywhere. Take a look and see if you don't think so.--John Foxe 14:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There has been no improvement discussions since the page protection. In this, we need to start from scratch. Thanks for understanding. I know this is a tedious process, but we need to go through the process to make it work. -Visorstuff 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, you seem to be deliberately disregarding the guidelines set forth for the releasing the page protection. Part of releasing it was specifically to promote discussion. If discussion does not take place, I will re-protect the page per the Wikipedia:Protection policy. -Visorstuff 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be glad to discuss any material in the article new or old. But if you'd like to protect the page again, I support that action as well.--John Foxe 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions

message: Before Storm Rider reverted my changes and Visorstuff locked the article for another 24 hours, I added a couple of new sentences about the Smiths' religion, tried to finesse the "exhorter" problem by adding a parenthesis that noted that Smith was not a licensed exhorter because he was not a member of the Methodist church; and of course, I eliminated any mention of believers and non-believers from the "Anachronisms" section. I also corrected the placement of a footnote or two and also made a few stylistic changes, some of which were mildly substantive and others that only tweaked the prose.  Take a look.  I think these changes move us in the right direction.--John Foxe 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My revert today was a the result of a clear request to discuss edits here first before editing, which was blatantly ignored. The protect, I interpret, is meant to force discussion and agreement on editing. If Foxe is unwilling to colloborate I fail to see the need to remove the protect. Either discuss your edits here first or don't edit for the time being; that applies to everyone and that applies to everyone. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Changes

message: Old:
:...was not published until 1840, 20 years after its recorded occurance, several early accounts conflate the First Vision with Smith's vision of 1823, which involved the angel Moroni...
New:
:...was not published until 1840, twenty years after the canonical date of its occurrence, early accounts often conflate the First Vision with Smith's 1823 vision of the angel Moroni...
Less POV to say that 1820 is the date held by the LDS Church; plus stylistic improvement (JF signature)
How about:
:...was not published until twenty years after the canonical date of its occurrence, second hand accounts often conflate the First Vision with Smith's 1823 vision of the angel Moroni...
I think saying both '1840' and 'twenty years after' is a bit redundant.  74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Often" is an indicator of frequency, and seems awkward when referring to a group of historical documents which are no longer being written.  "Several" is, IMO, a much better description of the accounts that conflate the First Vision and the 1823 vision.  The Jade Knight 06:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ...was not published until twenty years after the canonical date of its occurrence, several second hand accounts conflate the First Vision with Smith's 1823 vision of the angel Moroni...
74s181 11:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good enough for me.--John Foxe 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me, too.  The Jade Knight 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How the vision story has been presented

message: Old:
:...William wrote that the prayer was also the suggestion...
New:
:...William wrote that his brother's prayer had also been made at the suggestion...
Stylistic tweak (JF signature)
Ok, that's it.  Just a suggestion for how we might make these proposals and discuss them in the future. 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smith's religious confusion

message: Can't we just use the term Latter Day Saints (as opposed to Latter-day Saints)?  I would think that a "follower of the Latter Day Saint movement" could safely be called a "Latter Day Saint".  The Jade Knight 21:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormons and Contradictions

message: I can't say why, but 'version' seems negative to me.  Within the current article there are 9 occurances of 'version' and over 60 occurances of 'account'.
So, I want to do a global change of all remaining occurances of 'version' or 'versions' to 'account' or 'accounts'.  Obviously I would look at each of these in context first to see if makes sense.  
Any objections?  74s181 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem for me.  (Just make sure you spell "occurrences" correctly.)--John Foxe 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here either.  The Jade Knight 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there seems to be agreement, what is the procedure for making the change?  I could make the change, or we could ask User:Visorstuff to make the change. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 23:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global change - 'version' --> 'account' 

message: "As polygamy ceased to be a defining characteristic of Mormonism, [Joseph F.] Smith sought to re-emphasize the First Vision.[citation needed]"
- I do not at all see the connection here, and unless a citation is provided for this, I feel strongly that this should be cut from the picture caption.  The Jade Knight 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It has been flagged since June, I don't know how long we need to wait but it has already been at least two weeks.  BTW, I find it interesting that the quote says 're-emphasize', this implies that it was emphasized in the past. 74s181 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the phrase should be deleted.  The best that could be hoped for is "some people believe that ..." since I doubt that Joseph F. Smith said something like "now that we don't have polygamy to talk about, let's bring back the first vision" ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 03:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was COGDEN's addition, if anyone wants to check with him about it.--John Foxe 11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. 74s181 02:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Delete - sounds like OR to me -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another uncited claim 

message: I don't think anyone objected to the new sentences at the beginning of the paragraph. I put "abrac" in the footnotes in an attempt to avoid any controversy over whether this practice was a blend of folk magic and Christianity.--John Foxe 11:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you make these changes, your description of the change needs to be more specific than 'see discussion', it needs to reference a specific discussion. 74s181 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is already a discussion about the changes you wanted to make to the 'abrac' section.  You should have used that instead of adding a new section like this.  74s181 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: But, since we're here... 74s181 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you were ok to add the Bushman comment because a)there was no objection, and b) there was lots of discussion about other things since it was posted, so clearly, no one had a strong objection to this. 74s181 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: However, there is as yet no consensus on the other 'abrac' changes, your deletions and changes there were premature.  There was a proposal for an opening statement on the table, you ignored it.  There is significant discussion on the deletion of the 'blend' statement.  You've created a problem by doing this, because if I undo your changes it is a partial revert. 74s181 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't think that eliminating the "abrac" statement from the text would be a big deal.  Would you really complain about its presence and then complain about its absence?--John Foxe 19:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would complain if you just deleted it, because unlike you I want a truly NPOV article.  However, you didn't delete it, you buried it in the footnote to a marginally related statement. 74s181 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You did delete the 'blend' statement as I said and I'm sure you know. 74s181 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: But the main reason I complained is because of your 'business as usual' attitude. 74s181 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with 74s181.  You shouldn't have gone and done all that without making sure it reflects consensus in discussion, first.  The Jade Knight 11:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And a consensus is when a majority have explicitly stated that something should be done.  The fact that nobody explicitly objected to a suggestion doesn't constitute a consensus; people could be thinking about the proposed change and trying to make a decision, or they could be concentrating on a different issue.  This was the entire point of the discuss, then edit comments. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rule that forbids editors from editing before taking a nose count.  In fact, such a procedure is antithetical to the nature of Wikipedia and would suppress any inconvenient minority.--John Foxe 09:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but. Wrong. Maybe. 74s181 11:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated above, this entire group needs to discuss any changes that are not grammatical before they are made, and have them worked out on the talk page before editing the article. This will prevent edit warring, and the ill feelings that exist here. I'll protect the page again to enforce this if discussion doesn't start happening to improve the article. -Visorstuff 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 74s181 11:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual tradition of the Smith family 

message: I looked at this paragraph and decided that it was best eliminated if for no other reason than that Bill connects the material with anti-Mormonism and that we would be unable to discuss the matter without reference to critics and believers.  Elimination also makes the article shorter. I hope you view this change as a matter of good faith on my part because that was truly my intent.--John Foxe 11:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, Wrong, maybe. 74s181 13:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, your obsession about avoiding critics and apologists has resulted in a number of contorted sections.  (You might recall that I stated deletion strengthened the Anti-Mormon bias of the article.)  If an issue is well-known about the topic, then it should be discussed in the article in a NPOV manner.  That means that all sides to the issue are explained in such a way that the reader can make up their own mind on what is "true".  By removing a section, you are weakening the article rather than improving it. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do wish to avoid the mention of critics and apologists in this article because in Mormon hands, historical facts are often labeled "criticism" so that apologetic material can be introduced to blunt their force. Facts are not criticism, and no apologetic material should be introduced as if there were two sides to historical truth. If, however, in any case I have inadvertently strengthened the anti-Mormon bias of the article by my refusal to admit "critics" and "apologists," this bias should be proved (you can't just declare a section "contorted") and then eliminated.--John Foxe 09:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Wrong. Been there, quoted the relevant policies, JF ignored. 74s181 11:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: IMHO, John Foxe is either unable or unwilling to understand WP:NPOV, or unwilling to abide by it. 74s181 11:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences in "no true church" memories 

message: The article has always included criticism and still does today, even though it is no longer identified as such. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusions and other observations

message: Would somebody explain why John Foxe thinks it is fine to make a series of changes because he thinks people agree, or at least don't object?  I am especially concerned that a preliminary, unpublished source has suddenly risen in stature and is being cited without any mention that the selection was deleted before publication. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 19:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with deleting the whole reference to "abrac." But of course, the sentence has been published in EMD, 1, and I just got 82 Google hits for "abrac" and "Lucy Mack Smith," so it's hardly a dark secret.--John Foxe 19:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that John Foxe was out of line in making the edits he has before discussion.  I think it would be fair to revert his edits that were not expressed discussed and agree upon beforehand, and force him to actually discuss them.  The Jade Knight 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My intent is to reach NPOV.  The "abrac" quotation seemed to generate an usual amount of controversy for its comparative unimportance, and so I thought I'd eliminate it from the text as an attempt to demonstrate good faith. The quotation is not something that would have been added by a Mormon, neither is it crucial to this article.  I give my hearty consent to keeping it or eliminating it, putting it in the text or the footnotes, whatever you all prefer.--John Foxe 14:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV does not mean "Neutered POV" (removal of attribution) or "Neutered of POV" (removing POV from the article).   NPOV is not achieved by deleting POV, it is acheived by neutralizing it, per WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. 74s181 15:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no POV in the "abrac" quotation and nothing that needs to be neutralized or deleted. My hope was to reach NPOV by making concessions. I don't believe any material I deleted was POV. (You've broken your promise not to talk to me, Les.)--John Foxe 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, wrong, Wrong. It was. (Sorry.) 74s181 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no rule that forbids editors from editing before taking a nose count.  In fact, such a procedure is antithetical to the nature of Wikipedia and would suppress any inconvenient minority. I have discussed the changes I made here; if they do not appeal to you all, then discuss the changes individually.  A simple reversion sets a bad precedent for what we are trying to accomplish here—reaching NPOV—especially because I was acting in good faith in an attempt to compromise the differences between us.--John Foxe 10:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but. Wrong, maybe. Wrong, we are. Normally true, but, I doubt it. 74s181 11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated above, this entire group needs to discuss any changes that are not grammatical before they are made, and have them worked out on the talk page before editing the article. This will prevent edit warring, and the ill feelings that exist here. I'll protect the page again to enforce this if discussion doesn't start happening to improve the article. -Visorstuff 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that John Foxe's edits to the the article and comments on the talk page demonstrate that he is unable to understand or unwilling to comply with WP policies, especially WP:NPOV. 74s181 11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that we are moving towards a consensus to revert John Foxe's most recent changes, with the possible exception of his addition to the 'religious beliefs' section.  That is, the Bushman 'melee' statement, and the JS, Sr. 'morning and evening prayers' statement.  74s181 12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: John Foxe disagreed with any revert and demonstrated his refusal to participate in the consensus process by not posting his dissent under the Oppose label.  But, maybe he just didn't get it. So give him a bit longer. 74s181 12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to discuss first, then edit? 

message: Yes, I agree it is time to request mediation. 
#74s181 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: I disagree with mediation.  I think we can continue to work with John Foxe without bringing in an outsider.
#I think a mediator can only help if the interested parties all want one, so unless John Foxe wants a mediator, I don't think it will do any good. Since I haven't been following this closely, though (been focusing on Mountain Meadows massacre), I'd like to see John Foxe's response to 74s181's description of the issues listed above. COGDEN 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John Foxe's response to 74s181's description of the core issues listed above has been moved to Talk:First_Vision#Discussion 74s181 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree