Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 7

message: I'm confused by the seemingly multiple references to the Urim and Thummim.  Section 1.1 seems to imply that they're "seer stones" from before he got the plates.  Section 1.2 indicates that he received that they're a pair of spectacles he got from Moroni, and doesn't mention whether he got them before he got the plates or at the time that he got the plates.  Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. says that they were stones he get from Moroni when he got the plates.  -- Creidieki 19:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is confusing and I don't know much as far as the treasure-seeking goes, so I can't clarify. It's even unclear whether these are the same Urim and Thummim (see Urim and Thummim for plurality of Urim and Thummim ^_^). As I understand it, which is just stuff from Sunday School, a Urim and Thummim was included in the box the plates were found in. This needs to be addressed and clarified certainly, thank you for bringing it up. Cookiecaper 22:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urim and Thummin 

message: I feel like this can be shortened up quite a bit, if not removed entirely. The assassination attempt on Boggs is interesting but not really a major event in Smith's life and doesn't really add much to the article; maybe it's better placed at Porter Rockwell or somewhere else. Removal of the section would result in a file size of 44kb,  a change of only two kilobytes.  I don't want to make such a big removal without consulting the other editors, so please leave your thoughts. Cookiecaper 14:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. I am in favor of making the article more concise and starting with events about other people's lives is a good start. Trödel|talk 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would support, IF the information was put into another article, like 1840s (Mormonism), or Joseph Smith, Jr. in Nauvoo or something like that and referenced in the current article. The context of these issues in Nauvoo and how it led up to Smith's death, are so important in understanding why he was killed, that these things need to be included, IMHO. We can definitely cut down on the article, but lets not lose the context. -Visorstuff 22:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I assumed (probably too quickly) the information would be put into a more appropriate article. Trödel|talk 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best idea would be to put it into a seperate article on 1831 through 1844 (see discussion below), because it doesn't fit very snugly into any of the suggested articles. --Trevdna 18:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that I have created the spinoff article, would there be any problems with getting rid of that section completely, now that it is in a new article? --Trevdna 16:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmkay... since no one has said anything for more than a week, I'll go ahead & take it out. --Trevdna 03:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy in the City Beautiful section 

message: I see that there are spinoff articles about Smith dealing with all the major events of his life except the period 1831 to 1844 (Kirtland, Nauvoo, plural marriage, etc.). Should there be a separate spinoff article for that period? It would make sense to me. Comments? --FeanorStar7 01:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Breaking off the spinoff articles is a relatively recent effort, primarily due to the length and complexity of this original article.  When the LDS project group decided to shoot for a featured article for Smith's December birthday, we targeted his early history and began to create divisions for the spinoff articles (see discussion above)  I anticipate that the 1831 to 1844 period will be next on the agenda.  This period is complex and may actually end up as two articles, perhaps divided by the Missouri expulsion.  Lots of history to cover.  Thanks for your interest.  WBardwin 06:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the liberty of creating that article, and I highly expect that it will end up as two articles in the end. So head on over to Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1844, and help make it better! --Trevdna 16:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about spinoff articles

message: There is an extensive collection of photographs and artwork prominently featuring Joseph Smith at the Church's website, josephsmith.net . I think you have to have Flash for this to work, but it's a very good resource. You guys should check it out. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 03:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD/Free Images 

message: In the interest of NPOV this article should indicate neither belief nor scepticism with regard to the nature of Smith's visions.  I feel that the multiple references to him being "allowed to find" the plates indicate a positive bias and that the reference should be changed to something along the lines of "claimed to have found". Euchrid 07:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The POV in this article is terrible. Rense 07:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "allowed to find" the plates 

message: I'm not sure if this contribution by him, found here, are correct, or not. Would someone please factcheck? Thank you. --Trevdna 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution by 65.40.141.222 

message: The "Plural marriage" section isn't well written at all, either. I'm going to take the entire thing out - if anyone wants to do anything to it, it can be found at the new article, which is not quite so visible. Also, it will not become the object of POV contributions (such as those from 69.242.151.90). --Trevdna 18:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come to think of it... 

message: Joseph Smith Jr Tells His Own Story is the name of a pamphlet in which Smith describes his experience(s) he claimed to have. I think this pamphlet really helps clear up alot of misunderstandings about what Smith actually said, since he wrote it himself. (i.e. the pamplet doesn't claim to be a revelation itself, so saying Smith wrote it himself would not be POV in this case) Therefore, this pamphlet ought to be cited when dealing with questions as to Smith's actual views and claimed experiences. So, unless anyone can find documentation discrediting this source, I plan to use it on Wikipedia for this purpose. Any objections? Questions? Comments? Has anyone else brought this up before? --Nerd42 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes perfect sense to me.--The Scurvy Eye 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He actually did not write a/the "pamphlet" - rather it was a serial in church publications - and the version you are using doesn't use original punctuation, has minor errors and inconsistencies, but that's fine (neither does the LDS version). Also, there is strong evidence that he oversaw and dictated portions of it, but that a large part of it was actually authored by others. However, as he approved the final copy, that is irrelevant, but you should be aware as some points will be disputed because of this. The content is basically the same as the LDS Church's Joseph Smith - History in the Pearl of Great Price. Most of it is already incorporated in the articles about Smith, but feel free to add relevant omissions/details where needed. Good luck! -Visorstuff 20:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really, and what is/are the specific meaningful (other than punctuation) difference(s) between the RLDS and LDS versions? --Nerd42 15:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Joseph Smith Jr. Tells His Own Story'' 

message: Some editors have remarked on the seemingly one-sidedness of the resource list. To that end I wanted to create this section to propose additional sources not previously mentioned that could be used to add variety to list. I've only got one at the moment:
*"Joseph Smith" by Robert V. Remini
::Sad to say, I haven't read all of it, but the parts I have read are amazing. IMHO, he does a good job of providing a balanced presentation and puts a lot of the events in the context of the bigger picture like the section on JS's presidential bid.
Bcatt, I noticed that in one of the posts above you said you have used some impartial sources as part of you're arguments. Maybe I missed them or misunderstood that statement (maybe these were sources in reference to wiki policy and not JS), but I can't seem to find where you state what those sources are. Would you mind sharing/repeating these sources on JS? --FyzixFighter 07:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I pointed out that storm rider pushes their POV without support of an impartial source. The sources I have relied on are wikipedia policy and universally accepted publications (dictionaries, etc). Other than that, I have not made any objection to things that aren't obvious to anyone unaffected by their bias. bcatt 07:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Martin Harris' history (28) is typically used by opposition (emphasizes treasure-digging and mysticism, and link is on website that opposes the church)
*4 historical documents opposing the church, not very neutral (4,10,29,30)
*3 neutral historical documents (5,13,14)
*1 neutral document (31)
*and 1 I can't tell on (8)
For what it's worth, there's the general break down. Did I get any wrong? --FyzixFighter 06:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balancing resource list

message: People really need to look at what I've brought up there, as it applies to all Wikipedia's articles on Joseph Smith Jr. --Nerd42 15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Plural wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.]] 

message: This story has been given numerous tellings (Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigman, 41-44, and Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 114-118 are others).  The basics are as follows and quoted from Bushman's Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling,  178:
:"In early 1832, oppositino took a violent turn.  On Saturday, March 24, Joseph was dragged from his bedroom in the dead of night.  His attackers strangled him until he blacked out, tore off his shirt and drawers, beat and scratched him, and jammed a vial of poison against his teeth until it broke.  After tarring and feathering his body, they left him for dead.  Joseph limped back to the Johnsons' house and cried out for a blanket.  Through the night, his friends scraped off the tar until his flesh was raw."
Motivations for this event as recounted by Symonds Ryder, I believe a participant in the event, felt that Joseph was plotting to take property from its members and he was determined not to allow it to continue and without impunity.  Accordingly, a company of citizens was gathered from surrounding communities and proceeded to the Johnson home to rid the country of Smith.
:The critical historian Fawn Brodie (No Man Knows, 119) speculated that one of John Johnson's sons, Eli, meant to punish Joseph by having him castrated for an intimacy with his sister Nancy Marinda Johnson, but that hypothesis fell for lack of evidence.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) .
Isn't that funny, you don't need any evidence to support outrageous accounts of visions and all manner of things that are controversial in their very existance, yet you don't approve of any evidence that suggests that a person or some people probably did something or things that people are generally known to do on a rather regular basis...this is not suspicious in the least. bcatt
:First, Fawn Brodie, a noted historian, was very critical of Joseph Smith.  You may not have heard of her book, "No Man Knows My Story", but let's just say it is highly critical though not completely objective of Joseph Smith.  It would seem that this was what you were searching for above...more references critical of Joseph Smith.
:Second, you are more than welcome of recounting the story of Nancy Johnson, but of course the reference of Ms. Brodie's work will be quoted and referenced that states there is no factual support for this rumor often found in the most baseless of anti-Mormon "literature".  In doing so, you get your way to suggest that someone may have done something others do on a regular basis, but I don't think that you achieve the ends you are seeking.
:Third, the archives, though lengthy, really would be an excellent resource for you.  They recount the work of knowledgeable individuals who have worked hard over years to get an article in the current condition.  These individuals were from both sides of the aisle.  This has been stated repeatedly and yet you continue to think you alone are coming to the rescue.  Unfortunately, you will find that everything that you think is missing and will want to bring in has been thoroughly hashed out; there is no new data that has not been debunked and the worst thrown out because there was not basis in fact; just like the drivel about Nancy Johnson.  The rest is in the article or its linked articles.
:Fourth, if you choose not to review the archives your strength seems to lie in what is currently in the article, its tone, and wording.  You seem very sensitive to how things are worded and may help in ensuring that the article does not cite something as factual when in fact it is belief.  Thus we all win because we gain a more balanced article.
:Fifth, we go out of our way to state Joseph's visions were his beliefs and those of the Mormon people.  You may think they are simply the imaginings of a simpleton and followed by complete idiots, as with all other religions.  There is no quarrel with your personal beliefs about religion.  However, there is strong quarrel with anything that is attempted to be presented as fact when in reality there is not basis for it.  Cheers!  Storm Rider 07:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nancy Johnson and the Mob action against Joseph Smith

message: ::I have had experience with religious pages. The same pattern is often repeated: members of the religion make most of the pages which *of course* are shedding a positive light, others come in and try to bring a slanderous tone accusing the members of owning the pages. A word of advice to bcatt, you should never expect people to roll over and die, and let you have free reign on their pages, and if you want something to stick, use sources and make the information relevant (i.e. it might need to go on one of the subpages), I don't approve of the last few edits you made. To the others, you just have to learn deal with it. I don't get the impression from the article that it's incredibly POV, but it is almost devoid of any critical tone that should be in an article about someone as controversial as him. There are plenty of critics who have torn apart all of Joseph Smith's claims. The losing of the translations is one that is a bit glazed over in the article. 
::bcatt, this might give you some ideas. Of course it's not a source in itself, but it is full of links and references. One more advice, stop using vague words like "Some people say" or "appear to be" or "alleged". Only state facts, and if the facts are disputed from different sources then state "This soure says this, and that source says that".
::Unrelated to the NPOV issue, I think the article needs more section breaks and possibly some shortening. Cuñado  - Talk 05:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuñado: Are you seriously suggesting that bcatt use an episode of South Park as a credible source of information about Joseph Smith? What's next? Orgazmo as a source of Mormon attitudes toward sex and pornography? --MrWhipple 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the site was for Rethinking Mormonism, which just happend to use South Park episode as a way of entering into a discussion about Mormonism.  It is not a terribly knowledgable site, but not as bad as others.  Unfortunately, it is strictly anti-Mormon with no ability to know who is the sponsor of the website.  That always makes me question reliability of any site; if what you have to say is so important tell me who you are so that I can judge your motivations. If bcatt is interested in learning, she can visit a number of sites on the internet.  Those pro and con are not hard to find.  Agreed, it was probably not the best recommendation, but not without some merit.  Storm Rider 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: concerns and south park=

message: :”Shedding a positive light”, “almost devoid of any critical tone”, and “glazed over” is POV, as the NPOV policy clearly states that:
*all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias
*NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"
*cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus
*where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted
*All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions
*neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject
*Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular
*Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better
*When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed
*NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a predilection to one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas
*Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others
*all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article
*NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each
:It is not "slanderous" to point out when somebody is doing something contrary to wikipedia policy. Not allowing all views of the subject to be represented is owning the article. In fact, it is slanderous to characterize everyone interested in NPOVing the article as “having an axe to grind”, “whining”, “unknowledgeable”, “expecting people to roll over and die, and let you have free reign on their pages”. Especially when the people accusing one person of being unknowledgeable are making claims such as:
*Even though the article titled “Saints” is almost exclusively about the catholic use of the term, and a google test provides nearly exclusively catholic results, the minority here use the word in a special way that is drastically different than how the majority of the world does, and therefore it is not an ambiguous term as used in this article
*although polygamy exclusively means “plural marriage” to the majority of the rest of the world, the minority here use it in a special way, and therefore we can use polygamy to mean something other than plural marriage
*JS did not engage in polyandry, even though within our special meaning of polygamy, he had multiple husbands, as well as wives who also had other husbands
*Catholic is an ambiguous term that does not have the same meaning as catholic
:Not to mention that these accusations of my lack of knowledge were based on the assumption and assertion that I have come here to edit based on my experience with a single piece of anti-mormon literature (which is slandered by qualifying it as “literature”), when I have in fact had much more extensive experience with the mormon church and with both pro-mormon and anti-mormon literature (and actually had exposure to more, not less, of the former), including living with a mormon family and attending their church for an extended period of time during my childhood, and more recently, attending church events and spending social time with the mother (who is mormon) of my ex-partners child over a period of several years. It seems to be the opinion of those here that anything not pro-mormon is “unknowledgable”, which is just faulty logic…a NPOV article cannot be written using only favourable sources.
:Not once did I expect to be given "free reign" of the page, I simply expected exactly what everyone should be able to expect on wikipedia: to have input as to the proper representation of it's content. In fact, I did use a source which was already on the page and it still got deleted. And if the opposing view is summarized on the main page, then the supporting view should be just as summarized...hiding opposing views away on subpages is called POV Forking:
* A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid…negative…viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article
:Except that what is done here is even worse, because the fact that other views exist at all is hidden from the main article and a person has to go digging around to find out any of the views opposing JS
:Not once did I write “some people say”, so I don’t know where you came up with that, “appear to be” is a way of presenting facts about opinions (which is what one is supposed to do, according to NPOV policy), it is similar to using “states”, “claims”, and similar facts about opinions, “alleged” was added by another editor, so I don’t know why you are blaming that on me, but I also don’t see what’s wrong with using the word either. AND, the section where I provided the source clearly in the same sentence as the opinion, it was deleted. Perhaps you could now explain more clearly, based on all this, why you are getting on my case? bcatt 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's so cute how you all read so selectively...picking out only the parts that you want to...which turns out to be very little. No wonder this article has such a tainted POV. bcatt 01:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, it is precisely that kind of personal attack which got you reported in the first place, that and your faulty characterizations of what I say...which you acheive by picking small portions of what I say and presenting them out of context by ignoring the rest of what I said. Perhaps you could actually demonstrate that you have read and understood what I have written, just like I have made the effort of responding specifically to all of your points (without, I might add, having to rely on leaving important things out and misrepresenting). bcatt 02:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frustration and interaction

message: :Internet troll:
*person who posts rude or offensive messages...to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants
*the troll [has a] negative reaction to outsiders intruding on its physical environment, particularly those who intend to graze in its domain without permission
*Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive...content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation
*Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset [someone] is to disingenuously claim that he is a "troll"
*The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem (a logical fallacy)
*Inflammatory messages, including racist, sexist, classist or otherwise needlessly hateful comments
*Opinionated statements: Posting messages expressing their own opinions as generally accepted facts without offering any proof or analysis
*Deliberate and repeated misspelling of other people's nicks in order to disturb or irritate them in a conversation
*Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error
*Pretending to be innocent [after flaming]
*Off-topic complaints about personal life (commenting about my daughter)
*trolling comments have the intent of provoking a reaction
*supression of a discussion the troll does not like or finds offensive
accusers are often motivated by a desire to defend a particular Internet project, and references to an Internet user as a troll might not be based on the actual goals of the person so named (but rather may be the intention of the accuser themselves).
:Storm Rider, you might want to make sure you can support your accusations with facts before you go around making such faulty claims. Above are the trolling behaviours that have been engaged in by Storm Rider with the intention of either evoking a reaction from me or making me give up on this article so that it can remain POV. Added to that is a false report to wikiquette alerts, which is further disruptive to the community in general, and done out of spite because I posted a legitimate complaint. bcatt 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey everyone I missed where I was reported. If someone could link me to that, I'd appreciate it deeply. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: disruption issues

message: Cookiecaper - it was solely frustration on Bcatt's part - at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Bcatt, regarding your complaint - specifically about your daughter's photo, please remove photos from your page if you don't want any comments about them - and i'm suprised that you got so upset at a compliment for one of them. It is being noted by admins and others. You may want to discuss issues with an admin or even mediation prior to making wikiettiquite alerts - which do no good. Please note that there are a number of different editors that you have interacted with on this page, and not all are LDS, and all have tried to help you. You are obviously frustrated, and as an admin, I'd recommend taking a wikiholiday. The editors who work on LDS-related articles for the most part bend over backward to try to include all viewpoints - they are much easier to work with than those in other religious groups when it comes to NPOV and not being over-protective. Try editing about the Moonies or Jehovah Witnesses or Catholic pages - or even human for that matter. I do have to say, that some of your arguments do not make sense, while others are valid. Work to provide better sources, documentation and such and you will be more successful in influencing others who are or are not better educated on the topic. One last thing - anonymous users are not taken as seriously and are often discounted, etc. As has been disucssed elsewhere, they have no credibility and should not be taken as seriously. It is frequent that anons are sock puppets, or have agendas that do not lend to wikipedia's goals. And it is too easy to register an account so the rest of us can better track your edits. If the anon wants to register an account please do. If not, you will be continued to not be taken seriously. Not meaning anything by this, but that is how the culture of the wiki works. I do suggest a wikiholiday from this page. 
Cookiecaper - I actually think you did a good job in trying to bring civility back to this discussion and am dissapointed that Bcatt suggested that you were involved when you were trying to help. Cookiecaper - keep trying to work with these guys. 
Stormrider, perhaps this is getting to the point of wikiholiday from this page for a few days? 
Bcatt, i'd suggest an apology to cookiecaper in the spirit of good will, as I know you were frustrated when you wrote it, but looking at the history it was unfounded. Such a move will help cool things down. 
All: I'd actually like to hear an arguement as to why this page should not be protected. I'm glad you've kept the "war" to the talk page, but there are some deep-rooted issues that need to be resolved before more edits are made to the article. I will try to do a better job at moderating this page and helping to guide discussion.  -Visorstuff 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so.  You're one of the most civil editors I have met yet. --The Scurvy Eye a note? 23:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Your requests suck" and "that'd be bad if they were reverting because you made the edit...But I don't really care" are not wikiquette violations? I'd like to know how that is. How about not bothering to address Storm Rider's personal attacks throughout the entire debate (right from the beginning), which was what brought me to the point of losing my cool, but jumping down my throat the instant I finally (after much provocation) bite back? The comment on my my daughter ("our child died at 3 months. You are lucky") was inappropriate, as it clearly intends to elicit some kind of guilty feeling from me, if he wanted to comment on my daughter, it should have been done in a different context, separate from this debate, and would have been more appropriate as an email that had nothing to do with the article. And yes, I was frustrated, for the reasons I have outlined above and throughout this debate, I was rightfully frustrated and entitled to have these issues looked at. It is inappropriate to target me for one little slip when others run rampant with attack behaviour. bcatt 23:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps my language was a little bit harsh. Sorry. However, your requests had been addressed several times already and some material changes were maded in consequence of them. The others had been rejected as unreasonable by two or three people who have built up a distinguished rapport for themselves in Wikipedia articles about Latter-day Saints and the LDS movement. These editors should be respected and trusted over newcomers that conduct themselves maliciously. It's the only quality control mechanism at Wikipedia. It would not be appropriate for me to storm into an article about medicine and demand that my every suggestion is heeded, as I know very little about the technical aspects of medicine. Even if I was a recognized authority on the subject, I'd still seek to build a basic sense of trust with other editors before demanding deeply significant changes that the community does not accept. Again, your good-faith edits are welcome and appreciated, but insisting your every whim be incorporated into the article at the behest of the editors who possess a fundamental understanding of the subject and have spent hundreds of hours improving the article demonstrates a brash lack of respect for widely-accepted institutions. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stepping in