Talk:First Vision/Archive 6

message: I know that you guys have been discussing this issue above, but I felt it might focus the conversation solely to this section topic. I am not sure an introduction is an appropriate location for specific quotes. The Jesen and Mouw quotes/statements should go into the body. I believe the point that is trying to be made is that there is potential disagreement between versions and that it can be disquieting so individuals. I am not certain the value of intruducing that some people believe, whether LDS or not, and some don't is a bit redundant...one of those Duh moments. I propose they be moved down into the body. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me.--John Foxe 10:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with me.  That quote sticks out like a sore thumb, IMHO. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 14:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I also support the move. The Jade Knight 10:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The discussion is going nowhere, so I have submitted a Request for mediation. 74s181 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I'm the only non-Mormon editing here, I see no need for mediation at present. The issues that divide us seem to have narrowed during the past week, and you all have treated me fairly since Visorstuff protected the page, not using "consensus" as an excuse to force your will on the article.  Although mediation may be necessary in the future, let's try to work things out among ourselves first.John Foxe 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've tried working things out.  The dispute has been narrowed down to a short list of very specific issues since 17 July.  John Foxe, your comments since that time demonstrate that your position has not changed in any way. In my opinion, if you are truly a 'man of good will' you will agree to mediation. 74s181 17:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I will not allow these problems to be swept under the rug. 74s181 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And, BTW, you're not really alone.  I included COGDEN in the list of involved parties, you seem to trust his opinion and I think perhaps he shares your view on some of the disputed issues. 74s181 17:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation 

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)
Looks ok to me.  74s181 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new version is better syntactically.  "Prayer was the suggestion" is awkward.  In English we say, "He suggested that they pray" or "The clergyman suggested that they first offer a prayer."--John Foxe 15:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smith's religious confusion

message: In the "Historical context" section, the "Smith family religious beliefs" is first, followed by "Joseph Smith, Jr.".  To me, the narrative flows better with the sections reversed - first focus in one the early life of Smith (introducing most of the family), then add the larger context of family religious beliefs. 
I'd make the change myself (being bold and all that), but the switch requires tweaking a bit of text (wikilinks, introductory text for some of the people), so I'm posting the suggestion here for feedback. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a friendly warning that you've stepped into a potential minefield here, John.  This article (and John Foxe, the pesky non-Mormon) are currently being considered for review by the Arbitration Committee.--John Foxe 15:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the friendly warning.  As it turns out, I actually came to this article after reading the ArbComm posting.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I hope you can stick around for the dénouement.--John Foxe 19:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversing the sequence of two subsections? 

message: I came to this article hoping for some neat pictures and accounting of the first vision.  However, all I got were a bunch of lame back and forth believed/not believed mixed in the article (well, I did get my neat pictures, thanks :).  Anyhow, all the pro/con rubbish mixed in makes the article very hard to read.. All this posturing gets in the way.
In a lot of articles with disputed topics like this, they separate out the two sides.  Why can't one POV be in one section, with the facts etc to back that up, and the other in a different section with those facts and POV, instead of trying to mix both POVs throughout the entire article?  That way each section can present its view and be done with it. 
Also, large chunks of the text seem completely off topic and irrelevant to the event of the First Vision (most of the Historical Context section doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.. comes off more as a blatant POV against the Smith family). 
Sorry I couldn't be more constructive in my criticism.  From the looks of the Talk page you guys already are having lots of troubles here. --72.200.73.175 05:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two people; two opinions.  I am super impressed by this article.  See me wax effusive below.  Tom Haws 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another opinion.  I had the same reaction as the anonymous editor 72.200.73.175 when I first started editing the article about 4 months ago.  It has been a long, hard struggle to get to where we are today, there has been improvement but we have a long way yet to go. I am cautiously optimistic that we may have turned a corner, time will tell. 74s181 02:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you distill for me your concerns? A brief summary of your POV might help.  And here's mine for your benefit:  I have no trouble believing in the core sincerity and effect of the vision.  I think it is a beautiful example of the accessibility of heaven for even a youngster.  I think the history of its re-interpretation, re-telling, re-framing, and re-working is a fascinating topic and an important one.  I think it's appropriate and important for the article to explain how the vision is canonized and used modernly and how is has been throughout the intervening years by various groups.  I think it is valuable and appropriate for the article to present the research of historians indicating contemporary reactions. Tom Haws 17:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you're asking me or 72.200.73.175.  My personal POV after reading the various accounts, the criticism of the FV, and working on this article for the last four months is this: I believe that the Father and the Son appeared to JS, Jr., more or less as described in the PGP/ JSH account. Maybe it was 1821 and not 1820, maybe JS, Jr., didn't quote Them perfectly.  These are minor issues relative to the big picture, which is, JS., Jr. prayed in the woods to know which church to join, the Father and the Son appeared, and they told JS., Jr. that all existing churches were wrong.  Obviously there are a lot of people who have a different POV including some otherwise faithful members of TCoJCoLdS.  Since this is Wikipedia we have to present the whole picture, and I'm up for that.  My biggest concern with this article has always been the overall negative tone of the article which comes from  interpretations of fact being stated as undisputed fact, rather than being properly identified and atrributed as someone's opinion, and balanced where appropriate.  74s181 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom, you've been around here a long time and have much more experience with these things than I do.  I'd like your opinion on some of key issues that have been the focus of major disagreement, even among some of the LDS editors.  74s181 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: #Instead of presenting a composite account as the article does now, I think we should present the 1838 / JSH / PGP account as the representative account or the 'who/what/where/when/why' of the FV, because a) the JSH / PGP account is believed to be the most complete and correct by the vast majority of those who accept the FV as fact, and b) most of the criticism is relative to this account.  I think this would have to properly introduced and explained, and that the other accounts should also be summarized and presented more or less as they are now. I think such a presentation would be consistent with WP:UNDUE. 74s181 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: #I think it is better to present the event using excerpts from the accounts rather than summarizing or paraphrasing.  For an example of one attempt, see .  Yes, some of the excerpts may be too long, especially in 'Reaction to the Vision', but I think it is better to let JS, Jr. speak in his own words as much as possible. WP is not paper. 74s181 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: #I think several parts of the article "...radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization"  per WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone.  One solution would be to properly identify and attribute each criticism as it is presented, per WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation and WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.  However, for a subject as controversial as this one, constant attribution and balancing of POV can make the article difficult to read.  We're experimenting with a separate section of the article titled 'Reaction to the FV' or 'Reception of the FV', with the idea of leaving the undisputed, strictly neutral facts in the main body, and moving all of the controversial statements into this new section, as described in Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Reception.22_or_.22Reception_history.22_section.  There is both pro and con discussion on this in various WP policy and guideline pages, I've presented some of these arguments above (see []), I'd like your opinion on which format (constant back and forth or separate 'reaction' section) is appropriate for this article. 74s181 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Either I'm way out of sync on this point, or maybe you've been talking to COGDEN <g>. Either way, my opinion is that First Vision (Latter-day Saints) would be a WP:POVFORK. 74s181 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you are right.  It was only a hypothetical example to point out that I believe basing on the 1838 version might be against WP:OWN. Tom Haws 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If we change from paraphrasing to excerpts, do we excerpt the 1838 account for the "What Smith said he saw" section? If not, which account, and why? Or, do we leave it as a composite, and excerpt each account for the additional details provided?  I think the 1838 account has precedence because it is the majority POV, IOW, the account believed to be most accurate and complete by the vast majority of those who believe the event happened at all. Other accounts represent minority POV of what happened and should also be presented but not given prominence, per WP:UNDUE. 74s181 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some difficulty with what you are saying.  It might be a good idea to talk about WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, and the notion of majority below. Tom Haws 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that the lead should explicitly introduce the idea of controversy.  It only does so now indirectly, thru the Jensen / Mouw quotes, which other editors want to remove from the lead. After the lead, I think there is a set of undisputed facts, plus two major POV's to be presented, 1) these are the things that JS, Jr. asserted (the account summaries without comment), 2) this is what believers believe and why, and 3) this is what non-believers believe and why. I do not want to bury or hide the criticism, my position is that the criticism is hidden in the article now, I just want to see it be properly identified, attributed and balanced.  If the criticism is done in-line, and if each bit of criticism is properly identified, attributed, and balanced, the article will be unreadable, that is why the article originally had a criticism section, but John Foxe has fought hard to remove all identification of 'criticism' from the article.  I found WP suggestions on how to handle such a situation, rather than calling it 'criticism' we can call it a 'reaction' or 'response' to the JS, Jr. assertion and the LDS movement belief that the FV happened.  IOW, JS asserted X, some people believed, many more did not.  74s181 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I agree with what you are saying.  In other words, I believe I support what you are trying to do as expressed here.  Tom Haws 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article reads terribly.. needs major rework 

message: A recent edit has the comment "reworking, condensing, and pushing controversial matters into footnotes". This is not how controversy is supposed to be handled.  Why is this being done? 74s181 11:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason errors shouldn't be corrected, syntax improved, and duplication eliminated.--John Foxe 14:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "reworking, condensing, and pushing controversial matters into footnotes" 

message: Did Bushman really say the Smith family was a religious melee?  If so, he used the wrong word.  The correct word is melange.   It should be corrected to "melange" or sic-ified. Tom Haws 14:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bushman says, "The Smiths were exposed to a conglomeration of doctrines and attitudes, some imported from Europe, others springing up in New England, none sorted or ranked by recognized authority, all available for adoption as personal whim or circumstances dictated.  The result was a religious melee." (26)  "Melee" can mean confused hand-to-hand fighting, but it can also mean a free-for-all or "any confused and tumultuous mingling." (so the AHD).  The difference between "melange" and "melee" is similar to the distinction between a melting pot and a mixing bowl.--John Foxe 14:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious melee ???? 

message: In the LDS Church, the First Vision was a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith experienced at the age of fourteen and that ended the Great Apostasy, began the Latter Day Saint movement, and laid the foundation for LDS Church theology and authority.  Most historians, including adherents of the LDS Church and other Latter Day Saint movement branches as well as those outside the movement, view the setting, content, and effect of the theophany in more complex terms.  In the Community of Christ, the vision is called the grove experience and was [insert CofC interpretation here]].  For many traditional Christians, the LDS Church interpretation is [insert citation here]. Tom Haws 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope in my first proposal here I have done a better job at following WP:UNDUE and keeping a sympathetic tone.  Tom Haws 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I eliminated the first sentence because it's vague and the second because it is both unknowable and unnecessary.  Who cares what "traditional Christians" (an undefined term) think about the First Vision?--John Foxe 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s.  I really like the article the way it stands!  :-) Tom Haws 23:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: My mistake. I meant I objected to the third and fourth sentences, the first and second that I deleted.--John Foxe 15:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions proposed

message: No surprise here, ceasefire is over, I made a change to the lead, John Foxe reverted it.  74s181 13:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I need to protect this article, gentlemen?  Tom Haws 16:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the edits have been pretty tame.  It's just the discussion that probably could stand to be turned over to others for a while.  May I suggest that John Foxe and 74 consider not addressing one another on this page for a while (and possibly go out for pizza together :-D )? Tom Haws 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the offer, Tom.  I think over the months Les and I have grown to understand each other pretty well, and I'd enjoy sharing a pizza with him if we didn't live several time zones apart.--John Foxe 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: -D  Well, as long as you aren't wearing each other out, enjoy.  It's just hard to get in a word edgewise sometimes.  Tee hee hee. Tom Haws 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Foxe Reverts Again... 

message: My first problem with the current intro is that the first sentence is not accurate. In the LDS church, the First Vision is all the things mentioned (an event that ended the Great Apostasy, originated the Latter Day Saint movement, and laid a foundation for the theology and authority).  But in the other largest denominations, the Prairie Saint contingency, the boyhood theophany doesn't mean the same.  Yes, it's important to account for the movement as a whole. But no, we can't treat them all like they are part of the LDS Church.  I tried to achieve that in my proposals above, which I will try working on.  Tom Haws 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS movement vs. LDS Church

message: I didn't want anyone to think that these signficant changes came out of nowhere, so I thought I would recap the discussions that led up to this. 74s181 13:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 08:51, 23 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (74,917 bytes) (deleted material that is only Mormon glurge and has no citations, not even any proof that JS talked with a Methodist minister in 1820)
Mormon glurge?  No citations?  There was a short excerpt from the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account, where JS describes his first attempt to share the FV, with a reference.  No proof?  I didn't assert that the encounter actually happened, I neutralized the excerpt with "...what he said was the first critical reaction to the vision" (emphasis added). 74s181 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 09:07, 23 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (72,471 bytes) (→Objections to the First Vision - it's not necessary to mention concerns about JS's character; these anachronisms are all factual matters)
JF only wants his particular brand of criticism, I think he's wrong, but in an effort to satisfy him I removed mention of all types of criticism other than 'anachronisms', and left JF's "Possible anachronisms in accounts of the First Vision" title when I restored the deleted intro this time.  74s181 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 09:50, 24 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (73,963 bytes) (character is interesting but cannot be proven one way or the other-let's stick to the historical record)
Wikipedia articles are not supposed to 'prove' anything, they are supposed to present all significant POV in a neutral manner. 74s181 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 09:52, 24 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (72,781 bytes) (→How people have responded to the First Vision -removed section because undocumented)
Everything in the introduction to the 'How people responded' section is documented, either in the introduction, or in the discussions that immediately follow. 74s181 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 09:54, 24 August 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (70,839 bytes) (→Possible anachronisms in accounts of the First Vision - section deleted because it claims anachronisms are criticisms rather than historical evidence)
Yesterday the complaint was that I mentioned that there were criticisms of JS, Jr's character.  I removed that statement.  Today, JF objects because I used the word 'criticism', so this time I took it out.  74s181 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "How people have responded to the First Vision" section