Talk:First Vision/Archive 4

message: : Date of the First Vision - In the 1838 version of his story, Smith says that the First Vision occurred in "the second year after our removal to Manchester," and Manchester land assessment records suggest...
The word "suggest" used in the body of the article, and the word "indicates" in the footnote are both opinion words, and 'suggest' that the tax records don't quite say what Vogel would like them to say.  For this statement about tax records to be fact we need a quote from the tax record stating that the increase was due to construction of a cabin.  There are other possible explanations, this could 'indicate' that the existing cabin was added to, or it could 'suggest' that a frame house was constructed, both of these are things we know happened.  On June 4 I attributed the statement to Vogel, and added a balancing opinion from Tucker.  John Foxe removed the attribution and buried the Tucker info in the footnote, stating that it was unreliable.  This evening I re-attributed the statement and added a ref where Lucy Mack Smith says the frame home (which was built some time after the original log cabin) was under construction at the end of 1822. John Foxe reverted without discussion but gave an explanation, stating that what Vogel says the tax records 'suggest' or 'indicate' is a fact, not his opinion. 74s181 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used the word "suggest" deliberately.  It's possible but unlikely that public records are less reliable than an anti-Mormon's memory of something that occurred forty years previous.  That slim chance is correctly buried in the footnotes.--John Foxe 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not said that the public records are less reliable than 'an anti-Mormon's memory'.  But as I previously explained, LMS says that they were completing their frame house at the end of 1822. Once more, WHAT DO THE PUBLIC RECORDS SAY?  DO THEY SAY THAT THE TAX ASSESSMENT INCREASED BECAUSE THE SMITH'S BUILT A LOG CABIN? OR IS THAT VOGEL'S OPINION? And BTW, what, exactly, is Vogel, besides "...the author of a number of books related to early Mormon history"?  Is he a historian? What are his credentials? I ask this, so that the next time I attribute an opinion to him I can introduce him properly, I would hate to have to introduce him as a 'critic'.  74s181 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (I know it's embarrassing, but let the land records speak for themselves)
As I previously said, I'm perfectly willing to let the land records speak for themselves, but John Foxe, while insisting on having Vogel interpret the records, also refuses to allow the opinion to be attributed to Vogel, and refuses to allow this fact to be identified in the article. 74s181 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vogel on tax records

message: BTW, if anyone is counting, John Foxe reverted again at 23:36, 15 June 2007, that's three reversions in 24 hours. 
:...but Lucy did not mention this conversation in her own history.
Actually if you count her inclusion of the JSH account then she did mention it.  However, I think what John Foxe is implying by his insistence that this statement remain is that LMS makes no specific reference in her own voice.  Yes, this particular book by LMS doesn't contain such a statement, but you can't prove a negative like this.  You need to cite an expert who says that LMS never confirmed JS statement, this will then become a conflicting view per WP:NPOV and will require attribution. 74s181 14:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Proof' that JS didn't tell anyone about the FV when it occured - LMS history

message: After reading through the evidence, including the FAIR material, I agree that dating the move of the Smith family is more complex than I at first thought it to be. I have therefore deleted the whole section.--John Foxe 20:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because an issue is complicated does not mean it should be deleted, especially not without consulting the other editors of the page.  The Jade Knight 22:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've restored the deleted material until further discussion is had on it.  The Jade Knight 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I was making a concession.  Nevertheless, I have no problem with the inclusion of the material so long as critics and apologists don't appear in the text.--John Foxe 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabin date 

message: John Foxe has removed the following reference from the article:
*Diary of Aurora Seager (June 1818);
If it belongs in the article, someone might want to explain to him why, and add a note in the article.  The Jade Knight 10:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Material 

message: I'm going to leave the phrase in for awhile, Bill; but isn't there something you could do to make it less awkward?  I hate to agree to awkward writing.
As for the substance of the phrase, there's no indication that JS was contemplating his journals and rethinking what he had written earlier.  And I still think your average non-Mormon would be surprised to learn that Jensen is arguing that JS forgot about seeing God in the same way that we think better of our parents after we reach our 20s.--John Foxe 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is not an easy idea to get across in a single sentence of the lead, but surely, John Foxe, you understood what the idea is about.  Joseph Smith at one age looked back and considered certain things more important and other things less important.  At a later age his perspective on the same event was a little different, and later on, it was more different. Also, as he learned more, certain things that he had seen and heard made more sense. 74s181 01:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And BTW, he didn't forget about seeing God, it's right there in the 1832 account. 74s181 01:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every psychologist who's ever studied memory knows that memories are less reliable the further they are from the event.  What you are arguing is that John Smith's memory worked in reverse and got more reliable over time.  Like I said, not only is this notion a hard sell to non-Mormons, I don't even think the average non-Mormon would understand Jensen's reference. (OK, Joseph Smith didn't forget about seeing "God," just God the Father with a material body introducing His Son. Good thing he didn't witness a murder.) John Foxe 13:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true.  It is also true that it is common for people to remember things in more detail later on in life the more they retell them.  Of course, it's questionable whether or not these are accurate memories, but it is a very common phenomenon (according to my fiancée who has a degree in Psychology) to remember things in more detail over time.  That doesn't mean that later accounts are more accurate, but it is not surprising that they shuold be more detailed (nor does it show an intention to deceive).  The Jade Knight 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...memories are less reliable the further they are from the event." Not always, see Repressed memory.  I think seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ would be an intense experience.  And I've personally had experience with memories of significant events in my early life that were hidden until triggered years later.  74s181 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "I don't even think the average non-Mormon would understand Jensen's reference", I agree.  The statement "...his own journals reflect..." is intended as a rebutal to "...struck by the difference...", but I don't think anyone will understand it who doesn't already know a lot about the history of the FV. That is, I think the rebutal fails for the average reader.  74s181 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, forget the content.  I'll try to repress my memories. Can you just make the phrase less awkward to read?--John Foxe 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John Foxe, in case you didn't notice, I'm actually leaning toward your side on the 'change in perspective' line.  That is, I agree with what Jensen is saying, but I think it is too complicated to try to explain in the lead, that is, the rebutal fails for the average reader. So, where does it fit in the article as it is currently organized?  74s181 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in perspective 

message: This article contains 8 instances of "nevertheless", which seems to be used in an editorial fashion as if putting forth an argument.  Anyone mind if I edit these out and try to make the article sound less contentious in that regard?  The Jade Knight 06:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on what you replace "nevertheless" with.--John Foxe 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If "flow" can be retained, I would eliminate it without a replacement.  I'd like the content to speak for itself, without this "pushing an argument" language that it currently contains.  The Jade Knight 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked through the "neverthelesses" and found them mostly expendable.  Nevertheless, there are a couple, which if deleted, will eventually require some rewriting of the sentences. In good writing, we point the reader with transition words like "hence, "but," "accordingly," "nevertheless," and (in extremis) "however."--John Foxe 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, but generally, in good writing, one is trying to push an argument (whatever it may be).  Here we have multiple authors with multiple points of view, and we want neutrality.  The Jade Knight 22:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nevertheless" =  in spite of that.  IMHO, "nevertheless" means, 'ignore what came before, what follows is the real truth'. Not exactly NPOV. 74s181 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nevertheless 

message: Even if you do it incrementally, if the result is the restoration of the last version that you liked it is still a revert. 74s181 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 14:21, 29 June 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (70,517 bytes) (replaced removed section as NPOV) 
Section was not removed, it was moved.  Text referred to activities of the Smith family, it was more relevant under JS family than JS, Jr. 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 14:25, 29 June 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (71,293 bytes) (restored deleted material) 
No material was deleted.  Paragraph on the angelic messenger was moved, I didn't think it was relevant to JS lack of formal schooling.  74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 14:29, 29 June 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (69,823 bytes) (restored heading as less POV; how many people practiced folk magic is difficult to say, certainly "majority" is wrong) 
The supposedly POV title that John Foxe replaced = "Smith family religious beliefs". 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 14:31, 29 June 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (68,724 bytes) (removed what is now repetition) 
When John Foxe reverted the section on the 'angelic messenger' that he said was deleted, he forgot to delete it from the place where I had moved it.  So, yes, it was now repetition, because I never deleted it to begin with. 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Lewis & Clark repeatedly used the phrase, "we continued on."  And so must we.  I've discovered that on Wikipedia, men of good will usually both reach accommodation and strengthen the article in the process.--John Foxe 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "men of good will usually both reach accommodation...", but others simply revert what they don't like. 74s181 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess that means that I will continue trying to improve the article, and you will continue reverting the changes I make that you don't like.  Sounds like WP:OWN, or maybe disruptive editing. 74s181 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Once again, John Foxe, I exhort you to try to engage in conensus building, instead of simply reverting what you don't like.  The Jade Knight 02:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Foxe reverts again, and again...