Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley

message: The below is from the edit war report:
BEGIN
Somewhere around mid November the section 'Member of The First Presidency' had editing concerns raised, particularly regarding the word 'implicating'. An edit war was determined to have occurred and the section was protected. Discussion occurred on the talk page without resolution. Dispute resolution was requested without anyone volunteering. The reported user AndyTheGrump participated in these events. Under BRD on the current talk page the POV concerns have been formalized. Another editor [user:Trödel] joined the discussion further pushing for their own POV, summed up by the editor declaring the matter a "simple issue". Under the BRD on the talk page Trodel was challenged to defend the assessment "simple issue". Trodel did not do this, what rather removed long standing, secondary-source-cited items that contradicted his POV on the talk page. For example, that several books describe the situation and that an Mormon defender had confessed in publication that the "the whole episode achieved epic proportions." Removal of these cited items served only to help Trodel POV of "simple issue".
The section has been heavily debated on the talk page. Editors have been blocked for the simplest of edits to the section and consensus has been deemed necessary. Trodel has obviously acknowledge the existence of the talk page discussion and the current formalization of POV dispute, but made his edits without discussion on the talk page. Most importantly his edits only served to push his POV and did nothing to address the concerns "implicating" or "on behalf of the church". However, after making his edits Trodel sarcastically wrote "Proposed edit made to resolve issue."
Obviously edit warring, I reverted to the original. AndyTheGrump, having had a contentious back forth with me on the talk page, insisted I play dumb with him or else he would continue the edit war. I refused.
Mormography (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mormography, is your point about the article, or about User:AndyTheGrump? If the former, write up the matter here, keep AndyThe Grump out of it, and keep it concise. If the latter, keep it off here and digest the advice you received in "How Do I appeal Your Ban Of Me At Gordon B. Hinkcley". (And did I mention the desirability of concision?) -- Hoary (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is about the article.  The edit war report was regarding edits that deliberately make the POV concerns worse, done rather blantantly with sarcasm.  All instruction was that consensus was required in editing this section and now suddenly I am the only that requires consensus with regards to edits.  Very, very interesting.  So much for wikipedia and it supposed standards.Mormography (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

text: It should of course be noted that Mormography has omitted what I assume admin Bbb23 intended to be the closing statement for the so-called 'edit-warring' claim - where as a result of a " frivolous report" he was "Warned that if you persist in reverting at the article or you file another bogus report in this forum, you may be blocked without notice".  Evidently the message has not sunk in - I shall be reporting this continuation of tendentious behaviour, in the firm expectation that it will now result in a well-deserved block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposing the above is not about the article but about [user:Mormography].  If I am correct, then becareful reporting it to Bbb2 because consistency to supposed philosophy would definitely require him to block you.Mormography (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you run off to Bbb2 to complain about it then - and while you are at it complain that I called you a semi-literate time-wasting incompetent POV-pushing troll. Which I just have. Though I would add for clarity that your illiteracy and incompetency combine in such a manner that I've still not figured out what the %&*@ your POV actually is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War Report 

message: Lamandaqua [sic]  June 18th 1825
Dear Sir,
My Father has shown me your letter infor-
ming him and me of your Succefs in locating
the mine as you Suffage but we are of the
opinion that Since you cannot ascertain ing
particulars you should not dig more untill
you first discuss if any valluables remain
you know the treasure must be guarded by
Some clever spirit and if such is discovered
So also is the treasure so do this take a
hazel Stick one yard by being new but 
cut cleave it Just in the middle and lay it 
asunder on the mine so that both inner parts
of the stick may look one right against the
other one inch distant and if there is treasure
after a while you shall see them draw and
form together again of themselves let me know
how it is Since you were here I have almost
decided to accept your offer and if you can
make it convenient to come this way I shall
be ready to accompany you if nothing happened
more than I know of I am very respectfully.
			Joseph Smith Jr.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Actual Stowell Forgery  

message: This wikipedia page needs substantial improvement. Various of the sections are sparse, and are choppy. Additional information on his life and church service are needed. I have added details about his younger life, and his tenure as president. Please do not simply undo changes without verifying the references and accuracy of statements. Please revise and comment instead. The references I included are from secular media and legitimate church sources. I have included details about his mission, Greek and Latin skills, and the detail of two books he authored. I provided transitions to these so they don't read so choppily. Please add revisions therein and do not simply undo. Vermilioncliffs (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please stop using primary and other poor ,  sources? --NeilN talk to me 05:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

text: The Deseret News needs to be used cautiously as it is owned by the LDS Church. Similarly, his biography's publisher is owned by the LDS Church. These cannot be considered independent sources. --NeilN talk to me 18:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

text: There's no bigotry. I would say the same thing about any media which is reporting on the president (or any high ranking official) of its owner. The biography should be considered as a WP:SELFPUB and its use limited as such. Just be careful of sourcing any self-serving content to these references. --NeilN talk to me 18:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, but they also report on things which mainstream sources wouldn't find notable. I'm not going to revert you, but further reliance on these types of sources may merit a  tag being put on the article. --NeilN talk to me 18:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements to Early Life 

message: Where's the evidence for Hinckley being involved in purchasing the "Stowell Forgery"? The claim lacks a source70.34.2.50  18:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see virtually every section above this on the page seems to touch on this. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing is poor. A dead link and books with no page numbers. --NeilN talk to me 18:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I didn't put it back. And the previous discussions should be addressed. --NeilN talk to me 18:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

text: If you'll look into the archives of this page, let alone what's still on the active page above, this topic has been covered a lot.  While it may need improved sourcing/dead link fixes, there has previously been consensus that it belonged.  The issue typically hasn't been the inclusion or not, as much as consensus on balanced, appropriate wording.  Hinckley was very involved and/or received significant attention and coverage about involvement.  That is why I included it again "without discussion" and on this section made reference to other places for your review. Coming in with new IP address being used, the context and history of this is likely missing from your view. Given all of this, I am going to put it back in, invite review of archived discussions, and welcome improvements that may be needed. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Presidency