Talk:Golden plates/Archive 1

message: There is no need for this article. It is redundant with the Book of Mormon article or articles dealing with Book of Mormon controversies. Any additional material in this article should be moved to an appropriate article, and this article or article variation such as "Gold Plates" should redirect to Book of Mormon. "Golden Plates" or "Gold Plates" is not the proper title for a Book of Mormon related article that covers the origins or authenticity of the Book of Mormon as the current article seems to do. B 15:28, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
:Completely agree. We are getting some weird pages popping up. Visorstuff 07:49, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. Educate me on the Wiki way here. Hawstom 22:04, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I do think there should be an article on the Golden Plates, but it should be quite limited in scope, and there should be a separate article about the Book of Mormon Witnesses. A page on the golden plates should say what the plates are, and give information like their purported contents, size, weight, etc., where Smith said they were found, and details of Smith's bringing the plates from Cumorah and hiding them in logs and barrels, etc. The Witnesses article would be about everyone who said they saw the plates, and what they said, and whether they are credible witnesses. I don't think these articles are redundant at all, because if everything that could be said about the Book of Mormon were put on the Book of Mormon page, it would be a ridiculously long page, and we seem to be moving away from the idea of having "Controversies regarding x" pages. COGDEN 05:10, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: We need a Witnesses of the Book of Mormon page, addressing the three and eight witnesses and others that have been shown the plates throughout history. Perhaps we rename this article "Book of Mormon Plates" or something more descriptive? -Visorstuff 02:03, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any real ambiguity with the name "Golden Plates", especially capitalized. I don't like "Book of Mormon Plates" because I've never heard them referred to in that way. Moreover, it has a resonance with such potential topics as "Brass plates of Laban", "Kinderhook Plates", etc. If by some coincidence there should arise another article about a different kind of "golden plates", we could change it then. On the witnesses article, should it be Book of Mormon witnesses or Witnesses of the Book of Mormon? I like the latter, because the phrase "Witnesses of the Book of Mormon" is in more common use. COGDEN 03:03, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me Visorstuff 03:05, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Someday I will understand the way these pages are named. Maybe I am just an engineer, but it seems to me the pages should all start with the root words Hawstom 06:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No Need for Article

message: I removed the non-witness witnesses section from this page and put it on the talk page. I don't know where or how to fit it in appropriately. I suggest we try to keep specific information about the witnesses in their respective sections. If this doesn't work, please explain on the talk page so we can work together toward a better article. We have to write in conformance with the absolute and non-negotiable Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. Please as at my user page or at this discussion page if you have questions. User:Hawstom Oct 2004
I changed the line claiming that the "three witnesses" never denied their claims to have seen an angel and the plates, replacing it with a statement that they were each later excommunicated, and that there has been claims of evidence they at least later expressed doubts. I removed the claim that "obviously, Smith never changed his testimony", as this is not obvious -- I have read three different accounts of the vision mentioned in this article. These two revisions are more in accordance with the Neutral Point of View, which I have also applied by adding additional "claimed to have" type wording in several places that reinforces that this entry discusses claims that have been made, rather than established facts.
As David Whitmer's publication was mentioned, I provided a link to the online version I discovered. I also included a link to an off-site description of the types of doubts that have been published regarding the Witnesses, which I found on the same site as the David Whitmer publication. I'm uncertain whether the details about the doubts regarding the witnesses need to be added to this entry, and have decided to simply add a pointer in which readers may review one presentation of the data for themselves without replicating these claims in the Wikipedia. User:BarkMe Nov 30, 2004
:I don't think it's an improvement in bias avoidance to shift the article from a sympathetic tone to a skeptical tone. In fact, if we refer to the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View document, we see that articles should have a sympathetic, positive tone. Putting the term "claimed to" in some locations is gratuitous and inappropriate in light of the facts. For example, I don't think there is any dispute that Emma Smith, Martin Harris and his family, Joseph's parents and brothers and sisters, etc. actually saw and lifted some object around the house and as brought in by Joseph Smith. Certainly you, BarkMe, don't dispute that fact, do you? The only opposing perspective that I understand needs to be represented fairly is that most of the world does not believe Joseph Smith actually had a set of ancient writing plates inside that cloth. Secondly, in well honed non-bias style, we can avoid using words like claimed and instead use words like "said", "believed", and "told". A hatchet job by partisans in favor of Smith or opposed to him is not suitable here. Wikipedia must be agnostic and simply report the points of view. We may be able to improve the article by using more directly attributed and documented sources, such as the quote by Catherine Smith that "I was disappointed [when Joseph brought the plates home, because] I thought we would be able to see them." This type of quote shows authentic first person experience with Smith and the object he presented to his family. Tom - Talk 19:54, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I will look to expand this article - it has factual problems - there should be no skepticism, when each of them on their deathbeds state they never denied their testimonies - each with legally-binding witnesses present. I'll rework -Visorstuff 19:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Toward NPOV

message: This article firmly belongs to UFOlogy, not an encyclopaedia. European people are unable to grasp how can so many silly sects sustain themselves in USA. Americans must not be very bright to be taken by such svindles. Also it should be noted that the popular internet expression of calling someone a "moron" comes from the name of non-existing angel Moroni. 195.70.32.136 09:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "moron" comes from the Greek moros meaning stupid or foolish, which predates the story of Moroni by a few millennia. –Shoaler (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your intellectual presence. The comments above had contributed to human knowledge in accordance with Wikipedia's mission. -Visorstuff 16:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Angel of Moron