Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 8

message: Working on this section and have a problem with the following phrase:
:The Missouri period was marked by many instances of violent conflict and legal difficulties for Smith and his followers. A recent article (Jan 4, 2006 Kansas City Star) demonstrates the degree to which the courts were biased against Smith's followers.
I don't know who wrote it, but how were the courts biased?  The following paragraph mentions how two people were fined 1 penny each for tarring and feathering Mormons, but it does not demonstrate how that applies.  Could someone take a look at this.  I am unfamiliar with the article quoted.  Thanks.  Storm Rider 08:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. That article is available at KansasCity.com for $2.95. Search the archives for Joseph Smith in quotation marks, like this: "Joseph Smith". Also, Kansas City is my hometown and I live there today but currently do not have a subscription to the Star. Sorry bro. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a Google cache of the page. ; ) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 12:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Life In Missour section

message: #The article was primarily focussed on the finding of the legal documents and how they will be used in the present, I did not see anything supporting the assertion that the article was trying to show the bias of the courts against Smith. Although, even if it was, this is still an example of language geared toward influencing the reader (as per "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject", "Readers are left to form their own opinions").
#"Forcibly" in the following paragraph gives the impression of physical removal, if this is not the case, it needs to be reworded to specify clearly how they were dispossessed of their homes & businesses.
#"agressive mob violence" is terribly redundant and tries to hard to elicit sympathy for Smith
#"persecution" asserts that Smith and his followers were entitled to move into and take over an area, which in turn asserts Smith's claim that "God had given it to them".
#How many Danites is "a small group"?
#I question the use of "Extermination order" as possible "Mormon terminology"...the article sourcd at the beginning of the section comes from a more neutral source and calls it an "expulsion order"
bcatt 12:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the link wasn't even added until after you posted your thing. I changed it because I didn't think the highlighting was paletteable. Still doesn't matter though, as "extermination order" is the commonly accepted term, with 1.5 million Google hits, while "expulsion order" mormon returns something like 300,000. While The Star may be a more "neutral" (and by neutral, I mean less pro-Mormon) source, their use of expulsion order is POV, not any use of extermination order. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 13:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you provide any non-church sources that refer to it as an extermination order? bcatt 14:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about the language of the order itself: "The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary..." see here for full text. Note that the word expulsion appears no where in the order and is a modern euphamism to introduce a softer POV into Governor Boggs' order. Trödel•talk 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I'm not really too sure what to do with this subsection. It seems poorly organized and difficult to read. I don't want to remove anything of worth, so I want to put anything I take out into the subarticle, but I'm not sure how exactly to do this without interrupting the flow of both articles. I removed the paragraph on the Danites in the main article (relatively unimportant, already in subarticle), and moved the quote about the trial to the subarticle, and added much clarification to the subsection. This sectino still needs work, however, so please tighten up the prose and make it more readable.
For your viewing pleasure, I give you my diff from this article, and my diff from the subarticle. I would like help on both, if possible. --Trevdna 22:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life in Missouri subsection 

message: Needs to be researched and re-written.  The lost tribes were not to reestablish Israel.  Israel was reestablished by Jews from the tribe of Judah which was not one of the lost tribes.--FreedominThought 08:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gathering of Israel subsection

message: These anons have included virtually identical bullet points to the 'Life in Missouri' section, which I object to, not only because I think they are of dubious POV (I worked a little on that), but because they don't seem to be the underlying factors for the violence. I have included the most recent versions below:
*The military expedition led by Joseph Smith to re-take Jackson County by force of arms, otherwise known as Zion's Camp. Smith and his followers were warned by the Clay County Sheriff that they would be committing treason if the crossed over into Jackson County so armed. However, cholera overtook many of Smith's men, so Smith was forced to return back to Kirtland, Ohio.  
*The burning out of ex-Mormons from their homes in Davies County, Missouri by Mormon vigilantes called Danites. Although he had publically condemned them, there is speculation that they were acting on the orders of Joseph Smith.  
*A June 17, 1838 sermon given by Sidney Rigdon at Far West. Many of the statements in this sermon were viewed by some as a declaration of war against the residents of Missouri.
These DO deserve mention (some perhaps in the subarticle, if not here), but they seem to be effects, rather than underlying causes of violence.
Further, these anons have included the bolded text here: "In consequence of these reports, including sworn affadavits by ex-Mormons that the Mormons were planning to burn both Liberty and Richmond, Missouri, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs issued an executive order known as the "Extermination Order" on 27 October 1838..."
If the person that included this is reading this, would they please do a favor and include a reference for this? - it seems to be out of place, as (even if it's true - I suspect it isn't, but it could be...) I'm sure that these reports would have included many other things in them as well. Thanks!--Trevdna 15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusions by 67.9.135.139 and 65.70.157.104

message: Trodel, you have accused It's Mormonlicious of being a sock puppet, to the extent of seeing yourself justified in using that as a sole excuse for reverting their edits (edits I might add, that had seemingly fine and appropriately descriptive edit summaries). However, you have failed to summon the common integrity required to state outright who you are accusing mormonlicious of being a sock puppet of and why. Yes, I'm sure most of us know the answer to this already, but it doesn't change the fact that if you are going to make these kinds of accusations, you need to at least do it in a responsible fashion. bcatt 08:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think it is your sock Bcatt. My only defense is that when a person comes to an article that they have never commented or edited before, makes their only edits there and uses Wikipedia terminology, they most likely have been around for a while. Granted it could be a new user since they don't understand the difference between attribution and weasel words(one of the examples is: "Critics/experts say that...") Sorry if I offended you - I think that the last week or so progress was being made towards a concensus that addressed some of your concerns - I had no intention of disrupting that. Trödel•talk 13:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Glad you're not offended - Trödel•talk 02:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  responsible how?? - it stands above with my sig - what method do you want me to indicate responsibility for my own edits besides that Trödel•talk 14:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot tell a lie: Trödel is my sock puppet.  Feel free to shut down that account now. Alienus 05:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I did say who - "no one in particular" - but that doesn't change that they are likely a "second username" for someone. - as Mormonlicious admits below - that is a different issue since the difference between that and a sock are lost on me Trödel•talk 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I must be someone's sock puppet too then...so, you better track down who's sock puppet I am while you're at it. Because I was quite aware of how wikipedia works and quickly familiarized myself with arguments on pages I intended to edit, very quickly after becoming an editor. You know, you aren't doing a very good job as an admin if you hold double standards based on what religion an editor is (something I've seen frm you in other issues on this article as well), and particularly by misstating the way wikipedia is intended to work in order to accomodate your own faction. bcatt 21:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Visorstuff needs to clarify in his mind that "sock puppet" and "second user name" are not synonyms, and then he needs to begin to deal with the article rather than the personalities involved. - It's Mormonlicious 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an entirely necessary discussion — but this isn't a good place for it. Could y'all please move this to user talk pages? Tijuana Brass 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For all you voyeurs out there. bcatt 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock puppetry accusations 

message: Hello, Wikipedians,
I'm just a dabbler in wikipedia, but I've been watching this article with great interest for a couple of years now. The topic of Joseph Smith is one of the most controversial ones possible. Was he a prophet, as he claimed, or a fraud, as his opponents maintain? It's one or the other, folks (no, he wasn't insane). It's likely that a universal consensus on the matter will only occur at the world's "Game Over" event, should there be such a thing.
In the meantime, the debate rages on. And poor Wikipedia is a prime battleground. Almost everyone who might post to the article has a strong opinion on the matter. Often, those who believe he was a prophet have based their entire lifeview on this information. Others see believers as hopelessly deluded, and seek to show them their error.
It's a tug-o-war, NPOV rules or no NPOV rules.
What's the solution? Isn't the idea behind an encyclopedia to give the facts, and present reasonable, well-documented interpretations of them? But both sides will continue to fight over wording and nuances, literally until the end of the world. It will never please everybody, and since everybody can edit the document.... yikes.
Maybe divide the article into four parts:
"Joseph Smith, Jr.: The Facts" contains only docuemnted facts. What happened, according to who, what records show. Stuff that both sides can mostly agree on (there will always be the unreasonable fringe; ignore them).
"Joseph Smith, Jr.: The Fraud" holds material from the point of view of those who maintain that he was a fraud, or at least deluded.
"Joseph Smith, Jr.: The Prophet" holds material from the point of view of those who maintain that he was a prophet, or at least once was a prophet.
"Joseph Smith, Jr.: NPOV Summary" holds a smaller set of information, suitable for casual reading by those seeking a surface scan of who he was. Strict NPOV in here, of course.
I think this scheme might be possible, because all sides can have their say, without having to delete each others' content, step on each others' toes.
At least we can be grateful that Mormons aren't as touchy about their prophet as Islam. :) Wadsworth 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost sounds like a good idea, at least as far as reducing conflict, but it's called POV forking...even if you are suggesting that this is done within a single article, it is still in violation of wikipedia policy and guidelines. bcatt 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, of course someone else thought of this before me. :) I read the article you referenced about forking, and I noticed this: "Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy." Perhaps this is one of the few times when a forked article would be legitimate? Wadsworth 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this would be an instance where a content fork would be approriate. A very good example of where a "content fork" is adviseable is with topics such as Evolution vs. Creationism...here, each article would concentrate primarily on discussing what each of the topics is, reserve some space to introduce the fact that there is an opposing topic and why, and provide a clear link to the opposing topic. bcatt 01:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so the war continues...Wadsworth 17:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: Mission Impossible? 

message: Why do I call this vandalism?
*Intentional insertion of POV language (intensely berated, immense political power, enemies)
:K we could take out intensely and immense. Enemies, by definition , are people that oppose you. These people opposed Smith by every estimation, enemies is accurate.cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No man the edit was performed because the header sucks as you made it. The talk page was directed at you yeah but if you weren't here I wouldn't have even talked it. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah they do. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No they don't.cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: K? It improves the article. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: By his contemporaries is not inaccurate, Smith was opposed by these. Maybe some word changing would help there but it doesn't justify a complete revert. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoopity-doo, that doesn't changed anything. And I consider calling me and other members of my religion brainwashed a personal attack OMG BCATT. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Smith wasn't racist, this is POV, you suck (personal attack ftw). cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No it's not.cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This explained amply in my rendition. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ex-Mormons are the same as non-Mormons, everyone else is identified the same in my thing. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Information is organized in mine as well. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (minor nitpick about Talk page format: it's very confusing to try to read comments by two different people interleaved with each other. Cookiecaper, do you think next time you could reply separately, or even copy the text you're responding to and italicize the parts you're quoting? Just for readability in case anyone else wants to keep up with the discussion. thanks. Wesley 16:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, Wesley!  On the point about the edit summary:  I don't think that a description like "revert vandalism/trolling" is at all accurate, even granting all the above points of argument as to why they may have been "bad edits".  Essentially one is not simply accusing someone of making bad edits, but of doing so in bad faith, and there's a reason we have guidelines against that. Using such characterisations may help to vent one's frustrations in an editing dispute, but they're more likely to then escalate it, than to help the other party to see the error of their ways.  Alai 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: That's right, it needs reverting