Talk:Golden plates/Archive 3

message: I view Cogden's revisions as a deliberate attempt to bury objections to the historicity of the Golden Plates by adding as much extraneous material at the beginning of the article as possible. No one will actually read such an article, which I'm afraid is the intent of the revision.--John Foxe 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no such motive. I want balance as much as you do, but I don't see how adding more history can be a bad thing. If being at the beginning of the article is a problem, let's see if alternate arrangements might work. Also, I don't see any sourced critical objections in this article, yet, to bury (or apologetic commentary, either, for that matter). We'll always be able to stack notable commentary upon the base layer of primary source material. COGDEN 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of what I'm seeing, in an article that has effectively doubled in size, has little to do with the golden plates and obfuscates the former clarity of the article.  Why is Moroni's speech relevant or the Urim and Thummim or the black horse?  Although you've introduced things like the toad, which I should welcome, I'd gladly trade him for half as many words. "Simplicity is truth's most becoming garb."--John Foxe 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to see the significant contributions to this page from Cogden, I have had no time to dedicate to this page of late but I am glad to see others work here.  As for Mr. Foxes objections, please point out, specifically, what you object with in this article and we will see if we can work things out...now the glove's on the other hand.Twunchy 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you like this mishmash, Twunchy.  As for me, I wince when I read phrases like: "In retrospection to the time he was working as a treasure seeker."--John Foxe 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And now for something completely different...constuctive criticism!  I think the article is headed in a good direction here but a few thoughts about the layout.  I think the section of the physical description should be added to the top portion of the article instead of close to the bottom as it is now, and it also seems that we have redundant descriptions of the plates in the article (in the physical description section as well as the "story of the plates" section) now as well.  I think the Physical description section should be listed before the "Story of the Plates" or we run the risk of seeming to hype the story over the actual subject (like NBC and the Olympics, but i digress), this is an encyclopaedia if we are telling what the plates are (or are proported to be for those skeptical to the cause) we should list it up front. Twunchy 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One other point of criticism, could we clean up the apprearance of the article by switching the Harvard references to footnote referencing, just for visual asthetics? Twunchy 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more of a challenge than you would think at first glance. Many of the references are cited multiple times, and the "notes" section would probably be unwieldy and difficult to maintain. Plus, it slows down editing by making the raw wikitext difficult to read, in heavily-cited articles such as this one. In addition,  since you have to repeat the reference in every single footnote, there would be a ton of redundant information. COGDEN 09:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  COGDEN's December revisions 

message: After reading through Cogden's new version, I'm more satisfied with its content than I thought I would be.  Its greatest weaknesses are its unnecessary length and the woodenness of its prose.  I also agree with Twunchy that internal citations are hideous.  
So, as I have opportunity I'll revise for style and brevity, attempting to keep as much of the deleted content as possible in the notes.  What I want to emphasize is readability.  I use Wikipedia as well as write for Wikipedia, and I'm always pleased when authors know their craft well enough to help me, the reader, find the information I want to know. Our emphasis here should be on the Golden Plates themselves. Cogden has written a featured article on Joseph Smith, Jr., and much of the information in the current version can be found in that and other LDS-related articles. Links to those articles should be sufficient.--John Foxe 22:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to those articles aren't entirely sufficient, however, because information about the golden plates is scattered throughout those articles. This article exists so that all that information can be moved to one place.  Since this is a more specific article than the JS history articles, if there is any linking, it should be from there to here. Another main difference is that this article doesn't necessarily need to be chronological, as the JS history articles do. COGDEN 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic revision 

message: What is the significance of having the phrase "a day listed in local almanacs as the autumnal equinox" mentioned when discussing the day the Joseph learned of the plates? Bochica 15:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In this light, the visit of the angel Moroni took on unusual aspects. The angel had appeared on the night of the Autumnal equinox, between midnight and dawn--hours auspicious for a magical invocation. On the day of the equinox Joseph had subsequently made his four annual visits to the hill. When finally he retrieved the plates, it was the eve of the equinox, in the first hour after midnight. Accounts suggested he had been required to take with him that night a consort (his wife), to ride a black horse, and to dress in black--all lending a further magical tenor to the operation." Lance S. Owens, "Joseph Smith: America's Hermetic Prophet," Gnosis: A Journal of Western Inner Traditions, (Spring 1995).--John Foxe 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to see any corroborating primary evidence from a dependable, contemporary source about the whole issues Owen's lists as facts later in the quote.  Typical of Owen's vague "accounts suggest"s, his "wealth of unquestionably genuine historical evidence" and embarrassingly obvious agenda, he loves to "quote" primary evidence, usually garnered from sources contemporary to Joseph Smith that also argued that Mormons have horns.  Any information taken from Lance Owen's much hailed "research" should be viewed with serious skepticism until it can be corroborated with more neutral evidence.  Regardless, mentioning the equinox is not necessary or relevant here.gdavies 05:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence is what we're about here.  When we believe someone's research is faulty, we question it by citing the research of others.--John Foxe 19:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is significant for a number of reasons in Mormonism that are simply lost in the phrase "restoration of all things." Mormons belive that Abraham was a great atronomer and that certain signs and events happend in accordance with the stars - sounds a lot like astrology to some, although it is not practiced in the church today (nor is it authorized for those keys to be exercised today), it was part of restoring items. If you look at Smith's life you find two patterns to major religous events - astrological events and the pregnancies of emma (and pregnancies are supposedly lunar events, interestingly enough). He was born Dec 23 - winter solstice. He was killed June 27 - a few days after the summer solstice. Plates? Sept 23. Org of church? April 6 - both near the equinoxes. The other is the birth and death of his children - first son alvin died in the mist of the 116 pages debacle, the twins during the polygamy revelation, and more was going on at the time. The list goes on and on, and you can read aobut this in many articles in Mormondom, but is it merely coincidence or not? Don't care. It was written about by hulburt and howe and every major antimormon who said he was a devil worshipper since. Too many coincidences so they pointed to it as an evil thing, rather than "signs from the heavens." Agree with John, research stays until cited out by others. -Visorstuff 09:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, John Foxe, for adding the reference. I simply didn't know where the information came from as I was reading the text. I agree with you on your position regarding research that is considered questionable: We should not remove any references that someone has already taken the time to add, simply because we consider them questionable.  Instead, we should add the appropriate references describing the points-of-view we wish to support. If research is questionable, then we should be able to produce citations to support that position. Bochica 02:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Equinox?

message: Perhaps someone else with a copy of Rough Stone Rolling could recheck this. I can find the citation for the sentence before the ellipsis on the pages indicated, but I cannot locate the sentence after the ellipsis on pages 54-55. Could it be a typo in the page number? The citation I am referring to is the following:
"Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 50-51, 54-55: "The Smiths were as susceptible as their neighbors to treasure-seeking folklore.…Joseph, Jr. never repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end." I'm searching for the source of the second phrase. Bochica 19:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at the beginning of the second full paragraph on page 51.--John Foxe 20:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible typo in citation?

message: I'm removing the following: from the article: 
:There is no known extant example of writing on metal plates longer than the eight-page Persian codex. According to an LDS publication, in the early 1950s, American archaeologist and oil promoter Wendell Phillips is said to have discovered several engraved bronze plates at Khor Rori on the Arabian peninsula where most LDS scholars believe that Nephi built his ship to sail to the Americas. See the Nephi Project paper on the topic. A votive image engraved on a plate (with no writing) bears a striking resemblence to sacred rites performed in Mormon temples as well as to rites in ancient Mesopotamian paganism (a non-LDS image may be found here). Nephi and his family likely taught the gospel to people on their journey through the peninsula in neighboring areas during their eight year migration (see D&C 33:7-8) and may have in turn learned plate-making metalugy from these neighboring peoples.
How this appears makes the sentence misleading. As it currently reads, the citation seems to support the phrase "There is no known extant example of writing on metal plates longer than the eight-page Persian codex," which it does not. There is no need to include the citation if there is not a sentence about it, so I've removed it. 
Not every relic needs a detailed description by a museum curator. Heck, not even the Smithsonian museum has a written description of the sunstone available (the american  history encyclopedia published by them does, however). A photo of the stated plate was provided from a Non-LDS source. If that's not good enough, along with a Mormon description, because they found it interesting, then lets remove the other plates references as well. The only one that should belong in this case is the gold book, and its only referenced this much because its solid gold. Who cares about common metalic bronze writing that was common 2500 years ago? Its not that big of deal, but how it was written before my removal was misleading. Just because its a mormon author writing a description, doesn't mean it's not accurate or even apologetic. That it exists is indisputable. If we applied the same standard, half of these articles would be gone. 
As a side note John Foxe, as others have said, you get awfully attached to articles you work on. Not meant to be a criticism or to offend, just be careful because it creates a persona and reputation about you and others of us who edit Latter Day Saint articles. -Visorstuff 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another incidentally, the point is not to show "books" it is to show that people used metal plates/plaques to preserve things anciently. -Visorstuff 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading so removing

message: I've cut the Gordian knot here by putting "The Story of the Plates" first.  That way it's easier to discuss the mindset of the Witnesses just once instead of twice.  The untutored reader will also get a better feel for the magic mindset of  time and place before reading the overlong (sorry, Cogden, I'm sure you're a great lawyer) description of what they said they saw.--John Foxe 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the benefits of this rearrangement... since the article is about the Golden Plates, shouldn't information directly about them (the physical description) be the primary focus? Why is discussing their "magical mindset" (ie speculating) even a priority? gdavies 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The story of the plates is what most readers will be looking for on arrival here. After all, if they conclude that the plates existed only in imagination, then their physical description is of considerably less interest.--John Foxe 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to wait for other editors to comment, but I'd like to revert to the previous arrangement.  Still, I'm more concerned about some of the actual material that you've introduced (palmer, the alleged Harris recantation). I hope that you can see your POV/bias quite clearly in your last statement. That's fine, we all have POV's, the problem is that yours has led you to a large scale revamp of the article in an attempt to advance your POV. That's completely inappropriate. gdavies 22:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rearrangement 

message: I think this comment is directed mostly to John Foxe, but I don't like how much of the information in this article repeatedly gets removed or demoted to the footnotes, and how primary sources get replaced with secondary and tertiary sources such as Bushman (though I admit he's a great secondary source), or especially Palmer (who is basically a seminary teacher with a Master's degree who wrote one book). There is no space limitation in Wikipedia, and there is rarely any reason to delete relevant content or primary sources. This is an en-cyclopedia, not a de-cyclopedia. If there's a problem with readability or style, the solution is to add text to fill in the gaps and rough edges, or rearrange the text, not to delete content. If the article gets too big, the solution is to bud-off a sub-article. If there are excessive quotations, the relevant parts of the quotation should be summarized. (I make this last comment because I think the article presently has too many long quotes, and I don't want to be accused of being a hypocrite because I deleted parts of a quote, or replaced a quote with a paraphrase.) COGDEN 04:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say I may be at fault here, I've tried to cut down on redundancy and make the article more readable.  I'm more concerned with the accuracy and reliability of some of the sources.  This article has come a long way in the last couple of months, we're making a lot of progress.  I agree that we need to focus more on primary quotations. The reference for Harris' recantation is to a letter from Stephen Burnett to Luke S. Johnson, found in early mormon documents 2 (by vogel if I'm not mistaken). Surely something of this nature could be corroborated by a primary source... We have several sources (including statements by Martin Harris himself, Brigham Young, and several other secondary sources) that show the complete opposite. I've attempted to remove, but the quote has been replaced (as has the Palmer bit). gdavies 09:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with replacing secondary sources with primary sources, but I dislike the notion of deliberately making articles long simply because there's no space limitation in Wikipedia.  When I use paper encyclopedias, I rarely pick up the Britannica because its articles are usually too long for my needs.  I might as well spend the time looking for an authoritative book or article that's at least quotable.  When I use an encyclopedia, I want brief information that suggests additional avenues of thought or research.  I privilege accuracy, simplicity, and clarity.  Bring on all the primary source quotations that you desire--and keep them in the notes.--John Foxe 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all these issues have already been debated ad nauseum by the general Wikipedia community, and the main policies I'd like to point out are w:Wiki is not paper, w:Editing policy, and w:Ownership of articles. Accuracy, simplicity, and clarity are very good goals that I share, but not at the expense of encyclopedic (read: comprehensive) content and neutrality. If someone wants the World Book version of a subject, they can read the introduction, or they can stick with the summary articles such as Joseph Smith, Jr. or Latter Day Saint movement. COGDEN 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it's necessary to sacrifice clarity for comprehensiveness.  The comprehensiveness of an article can exist just as well in the notes as the text.  It's just harder to prune the excess verbiage of others than to add more words of your own and let the articles luxuriate in every direction. But, as you said, this topic has been debated here by others, and I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree.--John Foxe 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with disagreeing, as long as we agree to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that we agree not to use footnotes as a repository for content simply because it's "messy". COGDEN 01:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that using footnotes for notes can be appropriate and should almost always have a reference in them. My fear is that the current article is not in the spirit of wikipedia with its use of footnotes. As pointed out below, as space is not an issue, we should find better ways to include content rather then burying it in footnotes. We can still be succinct, and include stuff so its not "messy." -Visorstuff 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of detail 

message: I reverted this change based on the fact that the edit summary was misleading. That was my bad - I should have noticed that there was another intervening edit. After reviewing the edit, I'm going to leave it though, to see if another editor agrees with the change, which adds some context for the source of the copper scroll and places it at the top of the section. --Trödel 15:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs a citation.--John Foxe 16:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to Ketef Hinnom has citations referencing the first part of the edit... is linking to that page adequate or do we need to copy the references onto this page as well? gdavies 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  change by [[User talk:Scarletsmith]] 

message: Now that controversy over this article seems to have died down, I've taken the opportunity to do some copy editing. Any substantive changes were made inadvertently. My intent was to make the article as clear as possible and to straighten out grammar and syntax.--John Foxe 21:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing 

message: Comment inserted into flow of text by gdavies: "This method has been described in reference to translation, but (other than chase's affidavit) I don't know of a reference that this was his 'technique'".
:In responding to your comment, instead of "technique", would you favor something like "practice" or "method"?  COGDEN 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just didn't see evidence that this was the way that he looked for Gold specifically. I believe I recall seeing a quote that that's he did the hat thing while translating parts of the plates, but I don't know of a reference that says that he used the same method or technique or whatever (yes, I guess I do prefer "method"...) while working for Stowell. Perhaps Chase's affidavit says something to that effect (if I remember right Chase says that's what he did as soon as he/they found the stone), but certainly that doesn't merit it's acceptance as fact in this article ("Joe's favorite way of divining was..."). gdavies 06:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the citations on that point in the article. There are at least Martin Harris (1859), Isaac Hale (1834), Clark (1842), and Mather (1880), who said he did this prior to finding the plates. But there's also a few others that aren't cited in the article (maybe they should be), including Lapham (1870), Lewis (1879), Turner (1851, p. 216), Tucker (1867), etc. As far as I know, nobody ever described any different "pre-plates" method of using the seer stone than putting the stone in his hat and putting his face into the hat. COGDEN 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Technique" 

message: "The Golden Plates represent just one of a number of metallic plates significant to Latter Day Saint history and theology." What other plates do Mormons find significant?  Bytebear 07:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are at least four other sets of plates mentioned in the Book of Mormon, which are important to LDS theology, and then there are the  Kinderhook and Voree Plates that are important to LDS history.--John Foxe 11:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but compared to the Golden Plates, these other plates are a footnote in LDS history, or are mentioned in the golden plates themselves.  The sentence implies many plates that are equal in importance.  I find this incorrect. Bytebear 08:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the sentence implies "equal in importance." Although the Voree Plates are a footnote today, they were not in the 1840s when Lucy Mack Smith and every one of the Witnesses still living (except perhaps Oliver Cowdery) followed Strang and endorsed their authenticity.--John Foxe 11:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've altered the wording to mention that these were the "most significant". I don't believe that anyone would argue that, and it removes any suggestion of equal importance (something that I noticed as well). Tijuana Brass 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.--John Foxe 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other metallic plates 

message: I'd like to suggest moving most of the references in this article to the end of the sentences which they apply to. I'm impressed by the hard work that editors have put into documenting what's here — something that is noticeably absent from most articles — but there are so many of them placed into the middle of sentences that it's causing a readability problem. This shouldn't cause any confusion over what part of the sentence the reference is supporting, so long as the reference is clear (in other words, if a sentence consists of Fact A, Fact B, and Fact C, with all references placed at the sentence's end, there shouldn't be any problem finding those facts in the references — unless the reference itself is problematic). I'd go ahead and start the change, but I thought I'd see if anyone cared to comment on the idea first. Tijuana Brass 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something I left out: The references I'm suggesting that we move are those that only list a source with no parenthetical (footnote style) information. In some cases, like this one, the footnote is an explanation of a specific part of the sentence and should be left. Tijuana Brass 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's fine, but if the footnote relates to a specific word, phrase, or clause, and not to the rest of the sentence, I think it should be left as is, unless there is some explanation put into the footnotes to make clear what part is being referred to. COGDEN 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference placement 

message: Apologies for starting a second thread on topic that's similar to the previous one — I wanted to separate the discussions.
Another thing that strikes me when reading through this article is the frequent use of conditional phrases such as "Smith reported", "purportedly", and "Smith said" with the intent of demonstrating that the history of the Golden Plates is largely based upon the unverifiable account of one man. I understand the reasoning and agree that the article should make that fact clear, but I see the point becoming belabored. In articles such as these, it's not really necessary to constantly mention that things were "asserted" to have happened if the source of the story isn't changing. To give two examples:
:A. "As described by Peter, an angel descended upon the sanctuary and light filled the room. The angel moved towards the statue, and as it did, tears appeared to flow from the statue's eyes." In this case, assuming that Peter was the only person present and is the sole source of the story, we've introduced a conditional statement at the beginning. With the "element of doubt" established, it's not necessary to do so as the story continues — using a term such as "Purportedly, the angel moved..." would be superfluous.
:B. "As described by Peter, an angel descended upon the sanctuary and light filled the room. James, who was also present but sat in the rear of the room, claimed that there was a light present, but did not see an angel or any third person." Here, we have two different accounts/sources, so reintroducing the "element of doubt" in James' account isn't out of order.
That's not to say that all such terms should be removed, just cut down some. I'll probably go ahead and do this a bit; if there are any removals that other editors feel are essential and were not implied, then we can go back and review things.
By the way, this issue may very well have come up before — if not here, then in other LDS related articles. If anybody remembers where and when (and if), please link to it here. Same goes if anybody recalls a policy page explaining this; if there's not one, there should be. Tijuana Brass 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--John Foxe 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree also. COGDEN 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another readability suggestion