Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 2

message: In LDS Pearl of Great Price, Smith says Moroni visited him first on September 21, 1822, not September 22.  Why do we say September 22 here?  Hawstom 15:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Official Church History, the visitations by the Angel Moroni took place place the late evening of the 21 and early morning of the 22.  Also it was five visits, not three - well, three times during the night of 21-22, and twice more during the day of the 22. See Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price.  I'm going to touch up that section of the article. --Beolach 11:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moroni's visit

message: This article seems to use the words some and claimed far too much.  For example, in the section Translation, it says 
:* Some accounts state that Smith would place a stone he claimed had divine powers into an upturned hat, then place his face into the hat and dictate what he claimed were translations or visions induced by the stone.
:* Some accounts state that Smith wore a breastplate and Urim and Thummin.
:* Some accounts state that Smith did not use (especially in his later translating) any medium, but rather studied the plates or a paper copy of characters and gave the translation to various scribes.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think this could be improved-any ideas?  — Braaropolis | Talk 07:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in many cases you can just remove the superfluous "claim" words as long as the resulting tone doesn't end up promoting a POV.  In the examples you give, I think the way the senetences start is probably good enough:
* Some accounts state that Smith would place a stone he with divine powers into an upturned hat, then place his face into the hat and dictate translations or visions induced by the stone.
I am very uncomfortable with the usage you have identified.  It appears to be used mostly to reveal rumor and gossip that has been around for decades, but without any basis in fact.  More than anything it attempts to present a negative POV in a benign manner.  I equate this to talk of Christ couching it in similar language:
"It has been said that Jesus was a homosexual".  Yes it has been said, but there is no basis in fact.  It is conjecture, rumor, and unadulterated gossip. --- Storm Rider
Hi, Storm Rider.  I think your points are fair.  And I think it is fair to ask for a little attribution.  As you know, the NPOV policy doesn't require we give equal weight to pseudo-scientific claims, only that we mention them.  This is a tough area to deal with, and I am glad you have noticed it.  Keep with it little by little and I'm sure we will all learn a thing or two.  By the way, you might check at the bottom of this page to see if there is a discussion that might involve you. Tom - Talk 04:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Using the words some and claimed

message: Some of the images used in this article don't have the proper tags and will be deleted with the next upgrade of the software.  Using images on the 'pedia is tricky and I don't think just scanning a picture in and claiming "fair use" is sufficient.  Two images used in the article are public domain (their copyright expired) and I added the appropriate  tag to them.  Two, however, don't have any tags and will be deleted as I mentioned unless the appropriate tags are added:
*:Image:Firstvisionjosephsmith.jpg
*:Image:Joseph_smith_paintingg.jpg - has the  tag, but I contest that just placing that tag makes it so
*:Image:Themartyrdomoftheprophet.jpg
To whoever uploaded the images, add the appropriate tags or have them deleted with the upgrade. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:44, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
:Funny, I was wondering the same thing - some of the images are not in public domain and their approved use is contested. Please provide written permission or source of fair use here. -Visorstuff 16:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I don't know if this has been discussed and decided before, but is there any particular reason why the article is at Joseph Smith, Jr. instead of the more common Joseph Smith? It's not as though the latter is a disambig page, it's just a redirect presently. Everyking 20:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  I guess there is just one famous Joseph Smith? Tom 22:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: That's an interesting question, because the title of the article in the Encyclopædia Britannica is just "Joseph Smith". In fact, I remember reading some other encyclopedia (I'm not sure where) that began "Joseph Smith (formerly Joseph Smith, Jr.)...". I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I can see some advantages of making the change. The name is so prominently associated with Joseph Smith, Jr. that any other famous person named Joseph Smith is going to have to use a middle name or initial. COGDEN 01:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
All right, if no one objects in the next day or so I'll delete the redirect and move it there. Everyking 10:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, but I think that this particular Joseph Smith's fame is so great that a disambig page might be merely an annoyance, considering that a vast majority of readers will probably be looking for this article. Often in a case like this we would simply put a notice at the top linking to the disambig page for other people with the same name. Everyking 22:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it how it is. ^_^ Cookiecaper 03:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: All right, that's enough opposition for me, we'll leave it where it is for now. Everyking 10:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Some recent anon POV edits contained much content, but had to be reverted wholesale.  I added an invitation < ! - - Comment - - > to the article to help head off future POV edits while still inviting participation. Let's educate new users they can help us do this right.  Tom - Talk 19:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon has made another, similar edit. I left a note on his talk page. Everyking 21:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I like your comment; looks good. It's unfortunate that they're doing this because the edits obviously took them some time. It would be better if people familiar with Mormonism help fill other potential articles like our stubs instead of plunging headfirst into a carefully balanced consensus work. Even if the articles have to be un-POV'd, we're at least making progress instead of simply re-reverting. Cool Hand Luke 06:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edits