Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Urim and Thummin

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)

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)

Dradamh

I've left the following on Dradamh's talk page. He has not yet responded.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I reverted your edits on Josesph Smith, Jr. as most of the content you added in already exists at Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., which was recently created as the current article was too long. Please drop by my talk page if you have any questions/concerns.

Also, if you have interest in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the broader Latter Day Saint movement, or Mormonism, you may want to visit WP:LDS or List of articles about Mormonism. Hope to see you around and happy editing. -Visorstuff 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, before your edits are reverted by another editor or myself, please read what I've written above. The leg operation may be an important part of his life, however, it is included elsewhere. Also, your comment:

Editors trying to imply that Joseph Smith peddled "cakes and beer" at a young age are being deliberately antagonistic. They are misquoting a small portion of a book that is intense critical of Joseph Smith and of doubtful veracity

Not so. That was included by a active member of the LDS church. It is included in Bushman's latest biography. It is not anymore unusual in his timeperiod than my selling cherries and flowers on Memorial Day weekend in Utah as a child. Please re-read the article in its entirety and understand that this has been a well-reasearched article. Some of the terms you may not like, but it is structured in its way through much discussion on its talk page (which I also encourage you to read) and associated articles. -Visorstuff 23:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we revert again (aside from the number of children). As the additions are elsewhere, and irrelevant for this aritcle. They are no doubt very important, but they are in sub-articles and have been placed there for a reason. However, let's give him time to engage in discussion. -Visorstuff 23:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Visor, I am just now reading Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith and early on he only referred to it as a refreshment stand or cart; he did not say beer and cake stand. The "tone" of an article is important and the use of words easily leads one to either a positive or negative position. You know that I have resisted many of these comments being included because it simply does not directly add to the quality of the article, but rather leads to further questions and false iimpressions. In encyclopedic articles that is unnecessary. This is an editorial conflict rather than a conflict of facts primarily for me. Storm Rider 23:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I stand corrected. I could have sworn there is something about smith selling items to local farmers from his fathers shop. However, i've read so much on the topic in the last year, I can't keep my sources straight. I won't argue this one and am likely wrong, then. Thanks. -Visorstuff 00:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The "cakes and beer" statement is taken out of context from a book that is deliberately hostile towards Joseph Smith. All quotes from that book must be carefully considered. Many statements are inconsistent with quotes of people whjo were more familiar with Joseph Smith and his life.

The Smith family were hard workers, intelligent people, but not highly educated. They apparently prayed as a family every morning and evening, enjoyed singing hymns, read the Bible together, and were very interested in religion. The boys enjoyed homemade sports such as playing ball, wrestling, and pulling sticks. One neighbor described Joseph as "a real clever, jovial boy"; another neighbor said that the Smiths were "the best family in the neighborhood in case of sickness," and said that Young Joe, as he called him, worked for him "and he was a good worker" (William H. and E. L. Kelley interviews, Saints' Herald [1881], 161–68, quoted in Richard L. Anderson, "A Corrected View of Joseph Smith's New York Reputation").

Here is Tucker's description of the Smith family, "they were popularly regarded as an illiterate, whisky-drinking, shiftless, irreligious race of people -- the first named, the chief subject of this biography, being unanimously voted the laziest and most worthless of the generation." He says this of a family that was decidedly against alcohol and widely known for religious natures. Can we really believe anything in his book? [By User:Dradamh, last edit 18:05 UTC, Dec 5, 2005 - Cookiecaper 00:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)]

Dradamh, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes after your message, like this: ~~~~. Also, I don't see the harm in changing "cake and beer" to something along the lines of "refreshment cart". Cookiecaper 00:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree about selling. I don't see this as an issue from an academic standpoint. Let's wait for COGDEN's thoughts as he was principal editor here.

My other issue is whether or not the operation should be included - particularly if we are looking for Featured article status for December 23. As it is in the other article some may find it superfluous. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 00:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dradamh, WIKI is a place for scholarly articles about topics of interest. Religion is difficult given that they are topics of faith and often the topics of considerable debate. If an editor wishes to cite information printed in a book, it is acceptable on WIKI regardless of being "position". However, I agree that some books are reputable research and some are just plain tripe not worthy of being repeated. We must be careful that we are neutral as much as possible rather than producing articles that are skewed and overly positive. Storm Rider 00:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy in the City Beautiful section

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. I assumed (probably too quickly) the information would be put into a more appropriate article. Trödel|talk 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Question about spinoff articles

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)

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)

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)

Expanding 'Major Teachings' section

This section is painfully lacking - there could be an entire article on it (although most of these would be similar to or the same as a hypothetical Beliefs of Mormonism article). Please help me work on this one. --Trevdna 17:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this article is about Joseph Smith, not a place to repeat all the content in the Mormonism article. I'm cutting this out, with the suggestion that you integrate some of your new material into the right article.

It's been brought up several times, including on the Featured Article nomination, that this section needed to be expanded. That edit was maybe too much and needed some changes, but that doesn't necessitate a complete revert. I'm putting it back. Cookiecaper 05:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I did the expansion piece and my thoughts were this: I've read a lot of Joseph Smith material in his own words, and I don't see that anywhere in Wikipedia. I thought that a brief summary of his doctrines here was appropriate. The Mormonism article seems to focus on behaviors of numerous sects and post-Joseph Smith doctrinal issues. I thought that this section could paint a more accurate picture of him in terms of understanding some of the basic concepts that he taught while he was alive. Bhludzin 05:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about breaking this stuff out into a sub-article, then? Alienus 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We probably should do that with some of it, but the section needs more meat than it had or it needs to be done away with and replaced by a link to the sub-article in See Also. Cookiecaper 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Either one of those solutions sounds reasonable. Alienus 06:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So we agree that we will add more information to this section before we do anything else with it? --Trevdna 18:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

PD/Free Images

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. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 03:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"allowed to find" the plates

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)

You are correct. The POV in this article is terrible. Rense 07:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Contribution by 65.40.141.222

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)

Come to think of it...

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)

Joseph Smith Jr. never taught plural marriage. In fact, the article should stress that fact, and possibly link to Brigham Young for a discussion of plural marriage and Mormonism. --Nerd42 23:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Jr. Tells His Own Story

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)

Makes perfect sense to me.--The Scurvy Eye 00:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

This Article is Quite Biased

NPOV Dispute!!!!

Having a long history within the church it is readily apparent to me that the entire article is biased toward history as presented by the Church which has been heavily censored and changed. Reviewing the editing history, it appears any changes actively maintain the pro-Church bias a la FARMS and other Church publicity machines. It basically avoids any of the controversial and damning bits of history that discredit Smith and show the side of his character that the Church won't tell you about because that would, by the Church's own admission, call into question the veracity of the Church. To be a neutral article, it should demonstrate Smith's claims, detractor's claims and pertinent historical fact for both. As it is, most of the article states Smith's claims, or rather the Church's assertions about Smith, as if they were fact. The myriad of Church publications cited for the article should be indicative of the bias. I can only assume this article is being tended by Church interests at the expense of neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.118.151 (talk • contribs) .

I appreciate your comments, but would disagree with your position. This article has had a great deal of negotiation from both sides. Regardless, if you see something you think belongs; add it or change it. Opinions are not tolerated too well on any article on WIKI, so if your edit is controversial a reference is appropriate.

You might also consider that articles of religion are initially presented from the perspetive of the religion being discussed. However, in the third paragraph it clearly states the opposition he met by other Cristians. In addition, the first vision presented is not the first vision the LDS church idenifies as the first vision. It clearly referes readers to the article on polygny. Further, the Missouri and Kirtland period is frank.

You represent yourself as someone who has a long history within the church. Are you indicating that you are still a LDS and that you are therefore an objective individaul making the comment? I may be wrong, but I smell a axe you wish to grind.

In closing, you are invited to join WIKI. When editing on the discussion page type four (Storm Rider 05:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)) and then others will be able to see who is making an edit. Storm Rider 01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that this article needs some neutralizing and I am personally looking at it. I am particularly bothered by the repeated reference to Mormons as the "Saints" - that in itself is a heavy POV assertion that Mormon belief is indisputable. NPOVing this article (and it's companion articles is going to be a huge job and it would be great if someone else could also assist with it. Also, there appear to be huge sections from the sub-articles cntained in this article...shouldn't this be a quick overall summary, keeping the in depth details to the sub articles? bcatt 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC) By the way...what Storm Rider meant was you could sign by typing four tildes (~), found at the upper left of a standard english keyboard, below the escape key.

BCATT, before you go editing an article please make sure you understand and have a deep understanding of the topic. Without knowledgable editors, edits create massive amounts of work for everyone who does have in-depth expertise in a given field. This article is the result of many editors from both sides.

As for Saints, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the largest of the churches that claim Joseph Smith as its founder. Saints is a common term for members of the any of the churches that evolved from the Latter Day Saint movement. The term comes from the New Testament and was used to refer to those who followed Christ. The term "Saint" as in St. Peter was a term later used by historical Christianity to describe a holy person (see Saint).

You might also want to check out LDS WikiProject. It represents a group of people on both sides of the issue that seek to write balanced articles. We hope you will join and seek to gain further balance in all of the articles related to the Latter Day Saint Movement. Storm Rider 05:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

ALSO, claiming something is NOPV without explaining your reasoning is unacceptable. None of your above comments explains your reasons or motivations except for Saint; unfortunately, that demonstrates a marked lack of understanding of the subject. I have reverted the NPOV until you have explained your reasonings. Storm Rider 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term "Saints" in reference to Mormons, is only in use by those who are religious, it is NOT a universally used term, and therefore, it's use in the article is misleading. Also, very little is mentioned about the more controversial topics related to Joseph Smith. I was not out of line in adding the NPOV notice, as I did state my biggest concern, and am now stating more of my concerns. The article is also very misleading as to JS's alleged "visions" speaking of them as though they are proven fact, whereas they are actually no more than a claim made by JS himself. Contrary to your statement directed to the unsigned user above, it is NOT customary for religious articles to be written from the point of view of the people who hold those beliefs...EVERY wikipedia article is supposed to be written in strict NPOV, discussing ALL supportive AND opposing views EQUALLY...wikipedia IS NOT a religious recruiting vehicle. There are many opposing views regarding mormonisn not expressed here, and therefore the article is heavily biased and I am going to restore the NPOV tag. I am not the only one who has noticed this bias, as you can see by the comment left above, by the user whom I responded to, and I suspect there are many more complaints of this buried in the archives...who knows, maybe even deleted. bcatt 06:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with Storm Rider on the "Saints" issue, it might be good to see if non-LDS scholars like Jan Schipps use the term in such away. I think a compromise would be to change the "Saints" to "Latter Day Saints", making it clearer that this is a part of a name, and not a reference to implied holiness. Also, note that stormrider opined that articles are "initially presented from the perspetive of the religion being discussed," not that they are entirely told from the religious POV. All significant POV's should be present, and the amount of attention given to each POV should be proportional to the prominence of that POV. With just a cursory glance (haven't had a chance to dig through the archives), I think that it might be that more should be mentioned of opposing views, but this is an article about Joseph Smith not Mormonism, so those opposing views should be presented w.r.t. him and not the movement. It would be helpful if we can narrow down more specifically where you and other editors are seeing NPOV. And it's a little early to be throwing out veiled accusations of conspiracies to cover-up dissent - please assume good faith. --FyzixFighter 07:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I must assume good faith, but this really does look like another witch hunt from the ignorant. Bcatt, please just make sure you know more than Anti-Mormon literature about Mormons. FyzixFighter above is also correct that the topic is limited to Joseph Smith and not Mormonism. You may want to investigate just how many articles there are about this subject prior to making accusations about coverups. If you have had a even a remote contact with any of the Mormon related articles you would realize that they are constantly being vandalized from ANON's; I have grown impatient with them.

You are encouraged to make this article as balanced as possible and we all look forward to your enlightened thoughts. It might be helpful to start out reading the NPOV article regarding religious articles; FyzixFighter did a good job of summarizing, but it would obviously bear fruit to review. Further, you are supposed to explicitly cite all of your issues as to why the article merits an NPOV label; that is still lacking. All you have done to make broad accusations. If you do not follow WIKI guidelines for NPOV labels, it will be reverted. To come in with limited knowledge, take the word of another obviously new editor and then spout off and start talking about dark, evil cabals that are somehow controlling the article is at best disingenuous. Also, if you have an axe to grind, please focus your efforts elsewhere. The current article has been through massive editing. If you are willing to be balanced, please edit. If not, save us all the work you will create by only reading the first Anti-Mormon literature available to you; those waters have been thoroughly chummed. Storm Rider 07:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It obviously would help to explain the proper use of labeling an NPOV dispute:

How to initiate an NPOV debate?

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new sectioned titled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

Notice BCATT that you have not followed proper procedure; most importantly you have not clearly and exactly explained which part of the article does not see to meet NPOV policy and WHY. Broad accusations such as, "There are many opposing views regarding mormonisn not expressed here, and therefore the article is heavily biased and I am going to restore the NPOV tag." You have said nothing, but made an accusation. If you do not follow policy I will delete the label tomorrow evening. Storm Rider 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

An article should initially describe the point of view that the article is about, but it should never be written from the point of view that the article is about. For example, if I were writing an article regarding the belief in fruit as a wholesome food (we'll call it "Fruitism"), I could write: "Fruitists believe that fruit is a wholesome food, and prefer to eat as much fruit as possible. There are many people who do not consider fruit to be as important as the Fruitists claim it is. There are other people, the Disfruitists, who specifically decry the healthiness of fruit; while yet another group, while having no actual opinion on Fruitism itself, claim that the disfruitists are just being finicky - this last group is known as Antidisfruitists." But I would be out of line in writing: "Fruitists believe that fruit is a wholesome food. Fruit should be eaten as much as possible. Some people disagree."

Thus, phrases such as:

Smith was not allowed to receive the plates until 1827. (because the angel told him so)
Four years had passed since Moroni, the angel that had told Smith about the plates, first appeared, with periodic visits occurring in the interim. Finally, in September 1827, Moroni allowed Smith to take the gold plates, but had strictly forbidden him from showing them to any person without authorization.
Soon after Smith recieved the Golden Plates, his focus turned to getting the engravings on them translated.
Smith began transcribing characters engraved on the plates
Smith returned to Harmony and dictated to Emma his first written revelation, which rebuked him for losing the manuscript pages, but assured Smith that all was not lost, because if Smith repented of what he had done, God would "only cause thee to be afflicted for a season, and thou art still chosen, and wilt again be called to the work"
Smith's translation was sporadic.
the work he was dictating from the Golden Plates was a revolutionary and "marvelous work" of religion
Cowdery, like Smith, had the "gift" of translating ancient documents, as well as the "gift" of working with the "rod of nature", which would allow him to discern God's will much as Smith had been doing by looking through his seer stones and Urim and Thummim.
Cowdery acted as Smith's scribe for the majority of Smith's dictation
They baptized each other immediately thereafter, exercising their new authority.
Peter, James, and John also came to them during either May or June 1829 and ordained them to the Melchizedek Priesthood.
When translation was complete, Smith published his dictated work

are hugely inappropriate, as they all assume Joseph Smith's word to be the gospel truth (pun intended). That is just from the first two subsections of the biography section, nevermind the rest of the article and the companion articles. Followers of Joseph Smith should be referred to in clearly neutral terms, and "Saints" is not a clearly neutral term. I have not yet found any discussion in any of the articles regarding JS's charges of fraud/mischeif prior to establishing the religion either...I think this is a very pertinent subject. bcatt 08:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice STORM RIDER that you are trying to WP:OWN this article, and you are not giving a very good impression of interest in NPOV by nit picking silly things, with an obvious intention of attempting to demean me. Kindly note and accept that (from: NPOV)

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which 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".
The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted.
It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.
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.
assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves.
But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.

bcatt 08:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you bcatt for that list. Granted, like everyone I come at this from a personal POV, but let me see if I can sum up my views on a few of these as I try to understand where you are coming from:

1-4 There are similar statements around these that do state that the information is based on JS's claims, but I do see where you're coming from. To fix these we would need to somehow state that these are claims without destroying the flow of the article.

5 The only word that I'm guessing you say is NPOV is "revelation" since JS did dictate something to Emma containing that rebuke and way to repent.

6 Quick fix is to change it "translation" to "dictation"

7 You've taken this statement out of context. The sentence is already qualified as a claim by saying that "Joseph Smith believed the work..."

8 Similar to the first few, the intended qualifying statements are in the previous sentences. One could change it to read:

According to Smith, Cowdery had the "gift" of translating ancient documents, as well as the "gift" of working with the "rod of nature", which would allow him to discern God's will much as Smith had been doing by looking through his seer stones and Urim and Thummim.

9 I don't see the NPOV. The sentence makes no claim as to the nature of what is being dictated. I don't see how this isn't a fact.

10-11 Again like the first few - qualify them but do it without destroying the flow.

12 Change to "When the dictation was complete, Smith published his work..."

Information regarding JS's charges of fraud/mischeif prior to establishing the religion is contained in Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.. I still disagree with you on the use of "Saints." Would you have a problem with the compromise of using "Latter Day Saints"? We really should see how it's handled in scholarly articles to see what the established style is. Also, not all the sources are from the church - a good number are, indicating that it might be a good idea to find other sources to not give an implied POV. But that fact alone does not disqualify the sources altogether. --FyzixFighter 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I see this article and it's forks as presenting much information that is rumor and induendo. To be called biased towards CJC is just unreasonable. It presents information which follows NPOV, it uses sympathetic language to describe the positions of JS detractors etc. It may need improvement but if you think there isn't a critical historical treatment of JS's life you need to read more of the links. This article can not cover every detail but needs to focus on an overview of JS life in order to stay encyclopedic i.e. a well written succinct article. Trödel•talk 12:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the sample excerpts I provided where JS claims are stated as facts...these are things which are completely unproveable and need to be reworded accordingly. Therefore, it presents a POV, which is against wikipedia policy, and therefore, the npov tag is most certainly supported. bcatt 12:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yes.... the extensive use of claimed already presents the POV that JS is full of crap. E.g. in the not being able to take the plates comment - The introduction is pretty good, paraphrasing "Starting in 1823, JS described being visited by another heavenly messenger." However, the use of claims in the next sentence presents the POV that his description is the fantasy of a teenager. Once the presentation of material describes it's source, that is enough to alert the reader the source, and then we should present the information. Period.

You are perfectly welcome to come up with different wording than claim lots of other articles use that word, and lots of other aricles come up with alternatives. Using "claimed" and alternatives is NOT a POV, it is an adherance to NPOV policy:

assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves.
When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct.

The above mentioned statements ARE NOT FACT, they are OPINIONS about facts. Period. Therefore, stating them as fact is asserting a POV, which is not allowed. Is that what you meant on my talk page about the POV going both ways? It cannot be helped that Smiths claims cannot be proven...that is simply the way it is. It is not acceptable to distort and blur the lines between what is actual fact and what is claimed or believed by somebody. Claims is NOT POV...I can't stress this enough! Claims is a fact...this is what JS claimed. Nobody has put anything in the article about it being schoolboy fantasy (not that they'd be able to even if THAT were proven beyond a doubt), if that is how it appears when facts are stated honestly, well, maybe you need to retink your views...again, that's not my fault or wikipedias fault or whoever's fault. Please read: Wikipedia:Information suppression. Non mormon views of JS are not being properly represented, and there isn't a single - NOT ONE!!!! - non-church reference cited. bcatt 13:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fyzix, you have no idea how happy I am that somebody finally took the time to actually read the effort I put into supporting my position (instead of just brushing it off because it doesn't fit their narrow POV)...THANK YOU!

1-4. Yes, the problem I find with these is that it states them as fact, as though these "plates" automatically really existed just because JS claimed they did. It needs to be made clear that these are things he claimed, not things which are indisputable facts, while, as you say, keeping the article flowing along nicely. I think the early life article (though I haven't finished reading the whole thing yet) does a way better job at keeping it NPOV, though also needs some touch-ups...but that's another topic for another talk page.
5. Yes, I should have left off the first part. That he dictated is not disputed, that he had a revelation in the first place is not a proven fact, and all that follows in the rest of the sentence needs to be made clear that the only first hand source for this is JS himself.
6. Yes, dictation would work fine
7. No, that's why I left off the belief part, I have no dispute that Smith believed that, he says he believed it and you can't dispute that, can you? Who is to say what he did and did not believe (so long as they don't say one thing and do another...but I think that goes without saying) this sentence proceeds as though the existence of the plates in the first place is fact, when it is not. Not a single soul in the entire history of the world has ever seen those plates, so their existence is POV, and it needs to be made clear that these are "alleged" - or whatever word is preferable - plates.
8. That's getting there, but not quite...it does point out that it was Smith's opinion, but still asserts that God's will can be discerned by these methods, and that Smith successfully communicated with God via these methods, when it is actually an unsubstantiated claim.
9. I think you are right on that one, it was probably a brain fart...misinterpreting dictation as translation.
10...etc...I agree with all those suggestions

I have absolutely no problem with "Latter day saints" "LDS" "Smith's followers"...ANYTHING that is not a term which misleads any non-mormon (such as with just plain "Saints"). Whether it is used by non-mormon church scholars or not (even if it is used by non-church scholars), it is a clearly deliberate tool to amplify the importance of the LDS church, and something that indefinitely points out who is being referred to is most certainly at need here. It is the EXACT same practice that would also be used in any non-religious article, for purposes of clarity. I did not say that the lack of NPOV sources discredited the current sources, just that it is clearly stated in policy that sources should be balanced according to relevance; and I think that since the article is about Smith, but there are FAR more people in the world that DON'T believe in Smith's word, than there are mormons, both should get an equal balance, especially since NONE of Smith's religious claims can actually be proven. I didn't however notice any non-church references...do you mind showing me which one(s)?

Bcatt, just a few follow up comments based on your responses:

5 I'm not sure how we're going to qualify the word revelation. Maybe quotation marks around revelation, but some might see those as scare quotes. Let's play with it awhile and see what comes up. The following clause could use a bit of a touch-up to make sure that the reader understands that the clause is describing what is contained in that dictation. A reference to where it the dictation is recorded in the D&C would also help I think.
7 Ah, I see now what you're saying. Quick fix: how about taking out the phrase "from the Golden Plates"? Or using a quote from something JS said or wrote to give more evidence to the fact that he probably believed this. Granted based on my religious beliefs I disagree that no one ever saw the plates. There is the accounts of the Three witnesses and the Eight witnesses, as well as accounts by emma and JS's family. Certainly there are criticisms of all these, but to say that no one saw them is an opinion biased by what kind of evidence you accept.
8 I see better now what you're saying. Perhaps a phrase like "...much as Smith claimed to have been doing..."

I think one of the arguments for too many "claimed"'s and "supposed"'s was that too many of these would give the impression that while these people claimed these things, they were really a bunch of proven liars and morons. But IMHO this can be avoided by word choice and maintaining good flow. I don't have time at the moment (got to get to school and work) to make any changes, maybe when I get back and after some more discussion from other editors. I also am probably not the best person to go through the references and say which aren't from the LDS church (I wasn't here when it was hashed out). There are few from the RLDS, and 10 and 28 I don't believe are from the church, 10 is actually from the POV that the JS was a fraud. I don't think you can throw out all the Signature book references, since some of those are collections of records so you'd have to see which records they include.

Do any of the other editors have a problem with changing "Saints" to "Latter Day Saints"? Honestly I don't completely understand Bcatt's objections, but this seems like a reasonable compromise and bcatt (the current voicer of this concern) has agreed to it. Anyways, got to run - Tchau ya'll. --FyzixFighter 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In pretty much every Latter Day Saint denomination I've heard of, members are called "saints". Having a capital "S" probably wouldn't be NPOV, but using the term "saints" is NPOV because that's simply what church members are called. Furthermore, saints have been known to misbehave from the beginning, so though using the term may look weird to a catholic, saying someone is a saint in a Latter Day Saint sense does not imply that they are different from anybody else or that their ideas are more correct. --Nerd42 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Yeah, I think quotes might be pushing things over the other way...best to think of another way to represent it.
7. Using quotes from JS himself is a likely remedy to many of these problems, I can't see anyone being able to argue with the use of "Joseph Smith said" or, "wrote" or "According to Smith" or any similar form of attribution.
8. That sounds fine to me, or any similar wording if there is a dispute regarding the use of the word "claimed"

OK, see the one now that you pointed out (#10)...that tiny print kills the eyes! There are no external links to neutral or opposing views, which should be looked at as well. As I pointed out before, I never suggested throwing out any of the current references, just rounding it out to a more balanced representation of publications from both extremes as well as neutrals.

My objection to use of "Saints" is that the majority of non-mormon people read Saint as it is meant in regard to catholicism. If you refer to someone as saintly, you are making a POV value judgement, and when the average reader reads "Saints", they read it in this way - not as a reference to Latter Day Saints. This use, therefore, skews the POV of the article by representing mormons as "saintly" or beyond reproach. Whereas Latter Day Saints clearly identifies the group being referred to. In short "saint" is an ambiguous term, whereas "Latter Day Saints" is a specific term.

Probably most importantly, this article needs to be appropriately tagged to show that NPOV issues are on the table and have not yet been resolved. bcatt 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose (aside from being editable by anyone) is to present a NPOV to the average reader, and I hate to break it to you folks, but mormons are NOT the average reader. The average reader is NOT going to come to "Saints" and go "oh, it's capitalized, it must mean something different than saints"...another thing that'll probably be hard for y'all to take is that Catholicism has been around a LOT longer and this use of "saint" is WAY more ingrained in humanity's head than the mormon reference to themselves as saints. bcatt 17:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that the title of the article is Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, we could intially define the term Saint so that readers know exactly what is being defined. Do you think then that readers will understand the term's usage? I understand that personally you have an issue with term and if you do, there will certainly be others that also have a problem. The problem with using the term member and other similar terms is that it is too ambiguous for this article. Joseph Smith founded a movement that has splintered. To state member might lead people to attribute all members to a specific church and that would be an error. Though there are many smaller groups, most significantly smaller than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they possess a separate identity that should be respected. Storm Rider 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Saint controversy is a non-issue. The terms Saint and Latter Day Saint are different terms with different connotations. If someone wants to know how the term Latter Day Saint is different than the term Saint, the answer is one click away. Requiring LDS articles to disclaim the use of the word saint would be like requiring Catholic articles to disclaim the term catholic: after all, some people don't agree that the Catholic Church is really catholic in the uncapitalized sense. COGDEN 18:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Since it is a non-issue for us, then it really is no skin off our backs to make a change. I've just gone through and tried to grab all the instances of Saints, turning them into Latter Day Saints. The article had used the two terms synonymously (7 uses and 4 uses of each term respectively) so I hope no one gets too riled up about it. While we could define the term at the start, it's just as easy (and better in the world of technical writing) to pick one and stick with it throughout the entire article. I've also tried to address issues 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 (though a quote for 7 would be nice) raised above with small, simple adjustments that hopefully aren't too awkward. --FyzixFighter 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work FyzixFighter; you are the epitome of diplomacy. Hopefully we are well on our way to meeting the demands of our two newest editors. Sometimes I get the impression from new editors that anything that is remotely positive about Joseph Smith should be expunged. I overreact to what may be may appropriate concern, but that remains to be seen. Let's see where this goes from here. Storm Rider 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Storm for the compliment - it's a necessity when living in Boulder ;). I've tried to further address issues 1-3 (building on Storm Rider's initiative), 10 and a few others further down. I hope that the corrections for 3 haven't taken it too far the other way, and I'm not sure I like my wording in the priesthood section (issue 10). Honestly I wanted to make the sentence simply say they baptized each other, but I was trying to be true to what I thought the first editor was trying to convey. Good luck on addressing issue 4 - I can't come up with anything at the moment. As for rounding out the references list, could some of you editors who have been around point me to the relevant discussions in the archives concerning this list. Some books that I think could round out the list are "JS: rough stone rolling" by Bushman (also mentioned at the top of the talk page), "Joseph Smith" by Remini, and maybe something from Jan Shipps. --FyzixFighter 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I know you are really dead set on continuing to refer to mormons as saints, but you contradict yourself in saying first that since the article is about JS, it defines the meaning, and then saying that "members" and "Latter Day Saints" is too ambiguous. Especially when you are trying to use an ambiguous and misleading term to refer to the members of the LDS movement. I don't see how the terms I've suggested are not blanket terms that can refer to members of all LDS churches. I really don't care what term is used as long is it is not the misleading use of "saint". Cogden...how on earth is the term catholic not the same as Catholic? This really makes no sense. Plus, when one looks up saint on wikipedia, it takes them to the article regarding the traditional use of the term (which by the way capitalizes it to Saint), which is why it is ambiguous. If looking up saint took you to an article defining as Sant as a reference to a member of the LDS movement, I would have no issue with it, but that simply is not the case. I never said LDS members should stop referring to themselves as saints, go right ahead...but don't use it in the article because the article is not here to serve LDS members exclusively. Saying that not using saint to refer to LDSers in this article is the same as not using catholic to refer to the catholic church is ludicrous...what other use is there for catholic? When you look up catholic on google, you get exclusively catholic results (surprise!), when you look up saint on google, you also get mostly catholic results (with a few cities, movies, colleges, catholic churches, acronyms, etc mixed in - and NO LDS results on at least the first 4 pages)...use of "Saint" is simply not acceptable in making this an NPOV article. Fyzix makes the point in regard that clearer, non-ambiguous terms are better choices in regards to the techncal world.

It is not positivity towards Smith that is a problem, it is the hiding of important truths and the attempts to represent opinions as facts that presents a problem and prevents the article from being NPOV. bcatt 01:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Fyzix, this is looking WAY better! bcatt 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't part of the NPOV concerns, but every time I look at the article, the double use of the same picture bothers me...I'm sure there is another image of Smith that can be used in one of these two spots...why not change one of them? bcatt 01:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what the entire diatribe was regarding the term Saint; it was already changed in the article. Maybe you missed it? Let's move on.

You might want to begin editing the article yourself since you think so much is being hidden. We all have gotten the idea that you like to gripe, but now it is time to get off your self-righteous high horse and do some of the lifting. Exactly what is hidden; add it to the article and move on. And yes, I am just a little impatient with people who whine incessantly on the Talk page and do nothing to ameliorate the situation. Storm Rider 08:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

shakes head* Somebody needs a big, fat reality check. bcatt 09:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay bcatt, please explain. You have made three edits on the article page: 2 were to place the NPOV label and one was incorrect. The definition of Polygyny is:

In social anthropology, polygyny is a marital practice in which a man has more than one wife simultaneously. This is the most common form of polygamy. The man may marry more than one woman at the same time, or marry one or more other women while he is already married. The opposite form—where a woman has more than one husband simultaneously—is known as polyandry. See marriage for a discussion on the extent to which states can and do recognise these forms as valid.

Your edit exlanation read: "plural marriage is polygamy, polygyny does not necessarily include marriage). Could you please explain why your edit makes sense and why the original was incorrect. You have done nothing to make the article meet your "expectations", but rather you sit back and say what is wrong. THAT IS A REALITY CHECK, BIG AND FAT! Storm Rider 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...I'm whining? poly=many, gynos=woman, gamos=marriage - simple etymology - one can be with many women without actually marrying them. Thus, the fundamental difference between polygyny and polygamy. In regard to your previous comment, I responded (in regard to the use of the term "saint") to YOUR incessant whining that use of such an ambiguous term should be acceptable even though it is clearly mislading...you are only upset that I am capable of providing backup to what I say, whereas you can do nothing but spout your own personal POV without any outside support from an IMPARTIAL source. And, in fact, I do NOT sit back...if you actually took the time to investigate your outrageous claims, you would see that I have done an incredible amount of VALUABLE work on wikipedia, which I don't see that you can say for yourself. As for self-righteousness, I have stated only facts about the problems with the article and supported those statements with impartial sources, whereas you have sat back and "lorded" over this article, arbitrarily deciding what can and cannot be done to it (WP:OWN), while doing nothing but deliberately causing problems in order to try to deter people from making HEALTHY and BALANCED contributions to the article. I have put in a lot of work to the article just by going through it and pointing out some areas that need attention. This is a common and accepted practice on wikipedia, whereas your trolling is not. I am not required to do the proofreading, commenting AND editing myself. I choose to put the majority of my time on wikipedia into articles of more global importance, while also making some time to assist, as I have done here, in identifying areas that need work in other articles that I do not regularly edit. A perfectly acceptable practice. Hypocrisy gets you nowhere. bcatt 05:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

bcatt, please remember Wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks.

Also, most of these issues have been hashed out before. The use of Saints is not generally considered misleading and claimed, purported, and similar words can only be used so many times. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 06:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

<We interrupt your regularly scheduled exchange of accusations to bring the following rant:>

Can we drop the Saints issue *says FyzixFighter totally realizing the hypocrisy of this post*. The bulk of these last few posts has all precipitated from a slight misunderstanding of Storm's 17:28 7-Feb post. Storm was not advocating that the term is inherently defined by the nature of the article but was suggesting if we could define the term Saints w.r.t. LDS usage at the beginning much as technical acronyms are defined at the beginning of science papers. Storm also was only against the use of the term "member" as being ambiguous. Storm was never against using Latter Day Saint but in fact seemed to approve of it when I made those changing. So everyone stop the pissing contest, take the personal accusations and name calling to your talk pages, and let's get back to constructively critiquing the article. Sorry if some people think this rant is uncalled for but I much prefer resolving misunderstandings than watching them escalate into something ugly.

<We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion>

As I think about issue 3 (beginning of 2nd paragraph under 1827-1831), I really don't want to say again something along the lines of "according to smith's record" because then it begins to sound like JS was the only one telling these stories. Someone else, like emma or martin or the family must have made an account of this. I'd much rather say something like "JS's family and martin harris recount that..." to even out the POV - martin harris would be ideal since he is one of the three witnesses who also claims to have seen the plates and delivered the anthon script. Can anyone help with identifying who we could use?

To the polygamy/polygyny debate: what is the standard for resolving disagreements on word meanings? I think this is a case of does etymology trump Webster's (or whatever dictionary Storm cited) or vice versa. --FyzixFighter 07:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Storm rider's behaviour in regard to this dispute is horrendous, storm rider is intentionally inflammatory (otherwise known as trolling). And when storm rider finally succeeds in pissing off another user, other Morons are brought in to reprimand. You DO NOT own this article. It is NOT up to you what edits stay or don't. In addition to what is happening here, I have been harrased, vandalized, and trolled on my talk page by both storm rider and trodel. You quote wiki policy but REFUSE to follow it yourself. Mormons need to stop having such a strong presence in this article until there is a larger non-mormon presence built up. This inequality is why the article is biased. I am bringing in outside help, since the mormons have built a near impenetrable wall around this article, which EXPRESSLY VIOLATES WIKIPEDIA POLICY. SHAME ON YOU! bcatt 07:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What specific changes do you suggest to balance this article? Alienus 07:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The first thing that needs to happen is that there needs to be a ban (from this article only) of any number of pro-LDSers that is greater than the number neutrals and anti-LDSers, and the LDSers need to be regulated as to their OWNing behaviour of the article and their attacks on anyone who attempts to inject neutrality into it. I am seriously at the end of my rope with this and will do whatever it takes to see that the mormon wikipedia presence stops lording over this article. bcatt 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Note: what I mean is that if there are, say, 5 neutrals and 2 anti's, there can be no more than 5 mormons (not 7).

My comment violated no policy, and us not yielding to your specific requests does not mean we own the article, it means your requests suck. We have a number of non-LDS contributors to this articles and WP:LDS as a whole. Your suggestions are welcome, but the fact that they haven't been implemented instantly and precisely to your specifications does not constitute a violation of Wikipedia policy. Banning users from editing based solely upon religious affiliation is a wholly ridiculous proposition, especially when so few consider this article non-neutral. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 13:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I've made a satisfactory qualifier for issue #3 (the original list is way up near the top of this section). I hope it's a sufficient compromise for all editors. I also took the liberty to add a comment about the others who also claim to have seen the plates to provide balance to all the "JS claimed/purported/described"'s.

@Bcatt and other editors with neutrality concerns - Besides the categorization and limiting of editors, what additional specific changes/suggestions do you have to balance this article? --FyzixFighter 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's one. Trodel needs to stop changing my edit specifically because it's mine...especially needs to stop using faulty "reasoning", such as "polygamy equally can mean non marital polygamous relationships"...ummm, that exactly the same as saying "multiple marriage equally can mean non marital multiple marriage relationships"....WHAT? And storm rider is screaming that I am unknowledgable?????????? Why don't you get on trodels case, storm rider, as he clearly hasn't a clue what he is talking about. Plus, added into his and your previous behaviour, it is clear that this is a personal attack - he is specifically changing MY edits simply because they are done by me. Still going to claim that you aren't trying to censor people? bcatt 14:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"DO NOT CHANGE MY EDITS WITHOUT PROVIDING THE SAME AMOUNT OF EFFORT ON THE TALK PAGE AS I WAS EXPECTED TO DO. THIS IS VANDALISM DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY TOWARD ME", and you say we're trying to own the article? Also, Trodel is knowledgable. Polygyny specifically refers to a male having more than one wife; polygamy is ambigious and could include polyandry, which was not permitted within the Latter-day Saint practice of plural marriage. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 14:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not owning the article, this is expecting the same treatment as other editors. Trodel is specifically changing it because it is an edit I made. As I have pointed out already, polygyny does not necessarily mean marriage, as one can have multiple sexual partners without marrying them. If trodel is so knowledgeable, why would he say something like: "multiple marriage equally can mean non marital multiple marriage relationships"? bcatt 14:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, and I haven't slept in a lot of hours so I'm not even going to try to extract any meaning from it. Trodel has proved himself sufficiently to be considered knowledgable in my book. I'm not saying he's wrong on this, I'm saying I didn't read what he wrote. And yeah that'd be bad if they were reverting because you made the edit, but I'm not convinced of that. But I don't really care so you don't need to spend any time convincing me.

I guess then we have a decision to make. Both words have some ambiguity, but I think that we mean marriage is clarified by the context as "[it's a thing called plural marriage]" appears within the same sentence as polygyny. This is acceptable I think and communicates our intent faster than "polygamy called plural marriage ps no girls are allowed to have more than one husband" would. It's redundant, or something, and takes more words than necessary. Using polygyny allows maximum word effectiveness because it communicates that only males could have multiple spouses and then plural marriage comes in and not only says what it was called in the church but also emphasizes we mean marriage. Most of the contexts I've seen polygyny not meaning marriage in have been referring to non-humans. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 14:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute (2)

This page is on RFC so I peeked in. The issue of calling people saints seems to be resolved. Is there another issue that is still ongoing? Or is it the polygamy issue below? Cuñado - Talk 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been more of a general ongoing issue. The article currently does not represent many of the non-mormon views needed to create a well-rounded npov artcile. There has been a problem with non-mormon editors being heavily discouraged from editing, and a very overbearing mrmon presence deciding what can and cannot go into the article. It seems to have improved at least somewhat since I announced I was going to bring in an outside source (the RfC), and perhaps has improved slightly more since I did list it...but it is perhaps too early to tell, I may just be feeling more hopeful about it. I am hoping to attract a larger number of neutral and opposing standpoints so the article can get evened out, as it appears I am the only non-mormon editor sticking around at the moment and I started getting frustrated to the point of starting to get dragged into the negative behaviour used here to deter unwanted editors. I listed some of the immediate concerns regarding mormon biased POV already in the article (look for the numbered sections above), but only in the first two sections, hoping that people would get the idea and take it past those two sections, but so far that hasn't happened. Furthermore, I was repeatedly accused of being too unknowledgable to edit the article, yet told that if I wanted it more npov, I should do it myself. So far, every edit I have made has been reverted at least once, without being supported by the explaination that I was demanded to give for just suggesting that changes be made. I am also trying to stress here that it is important for church sources and links to be balanced with non church sources and links, as there is only one non-church source and no non-church links at this time. I guess that pretty much sums it up from my perspective, everything else is summed up in the extremely long "discussion" above. I would like to note that it would be easier to assume good faith if pro-mormon editors were willing to add in representations of alternate views themselves, instead of trying to keep them out of the article altogether. bcatt 18:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, I'm not a Mormon, yet I've stuck around and occasionally contribributed. I do agree that there is strong Mormon presence, though a lot of this is because non-Mormons don't know or care much about the life and times of Joe Smith Jr. So far, the only specific issue you've mentioned in the polygyny/polygamy one, and I can see some merit to both sides. It's certainly not a case where there's a clear attempt at white-washing. As it stands, this article is one of the more balanced of the Mormon-related articles out there. In short, I'm all for making the article better, and that may well mean fixing POV, but we need to stay concrete and deal with specific issues, not broad complaints of bad faith. If something's bad, let's make it better; complaining isn't going to fix anything. Alienus 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've read the preceeding dispute because I have in fact mentioned a lot more than just the polygamy/polygyny issue. bcatt 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but people have been working towards improving the article in an NPOV way and they have been accused of attempting to WP:OWN the article, or criticized for their attempts. It would be alot more helpful if you suggested alternative language rather than just criticizing what is there - what is there is often the result of much discussion, and in many cases unsatisfactory to the many editors of this page; thus, we are looking for suggestions.

Personally, I apologize for my unwelcome attitude. Unfortunately, I reacted improperly to the marking of NPOV without discussion, the reverting and criticism of User:Storm Rider, as well as the comments on my talk page.

Finally, going to specific references and finding inflammatory material that has been discussed as to it's source, verifiability and reliability and summarized already - see the sub-article about this section for the current state of that additional material - is, IMHO, not properly working towards NPOV.

Additionally, I find your accusations in the summaries that users are attempting to censor material, when the very things you are adding are in the additional detail at Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1844 along with the NPOV presentation of both sides of the disputed language is very difficult to take. Trödel•talk 20:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cunado, I hope you stick around for a while and please read the discussion page; nothing is more enlightening than the evidence itself. Rants can be one of my weaknesses, but I typcially do so if I believe an impact can be made. I have learned that in this instance everything that is said goes right by with no impact whatsoever. Going so far as to want to limit the number of "pro-Mormon" editors; has anyone ever suggested limiting editors on any article? I have chocked this one up to something that must be endured. After a long period we will get through it, but I look forward to individuals who assist such as yourself. Bcatt seems incapable of assuming that any of the editors with a long-term interaction on this article can be trusted; Mormon and non-Mormon alike. Thanks for your willingness to assist. Storm Rider 19:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely disgusting. EVERY article should provide equal representation of ALL views. Censorship is NOT acceptable. If you remove the details I added, then you must also remove as much detail from the pro-mormon POV. If what I added is mentioned in the sub article, then why does this article contradict by claiming that the reasons aren't known? Of course, this question is going to be ignored, as all valid questions are on this page. bcatt 20:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And proposing that there be a limit of so-called pro-mormon editors is not censorship!?!?!?! Also, how can you claim to comment rationally when you haven't even read the sub-article. Trödel•talk 21:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No Bcatt, that is a misrepresentation of Wiki policy. WIKI does not require an "equal" reprentation of all views. You know better, go back and read the policy; quit playing victim. You are not a victim and you have not been victimized.

Let's look at one of your recent edits:

The previous article read:

The early Church grew rapidly, but there were often conflicts between the Latter Day Saints and their neighbors. These conflicts were sometimes violent: on the evening of March 24, 1832 in Hiram, Ohio, a group of men beat and tarred and feathered Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon. They threatened Smith with castration and with death, and one of his teeth was chipped when they attempted to force him to drink poison (or tar, by his own account). The mob action led to the exposure and eventual death of Smith's adopted newborn twins. Rigdon suffered a severe concussion after being dragged on the ground. According to some accounts, Rigdon was delirious for several days. The reasons for this attack are uncertain.

You edited it to read:

In March, 1832 in Hiram, Ohio, there was a violent event where Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon were tarred and feathered. The reasons for this attack appear to be related to Smith's alleged intimacy with a young girl named Nancy Johnson.

This was a significant event. From the next day forward Joseph Smith spoke with whistle, but the event of chipping his tooth has been completely deleted in your attempt to make it NPOV and equal manner. The inclusion of the statement "by his own account" should have been deleted. There is documentation from those that spent the night scrapping the tar off of his body of the event. Calling the event a mob action is appropriate and should be included. You did not make it "equal" or NPOV, but rather you sanitized it so that the actions of a mob looked like a minor event. You have an axe to grind and you insist that anything that makes the persecutors of Joseph Smith look too bad needs to be expunged. You keep pointing a finger at long-term editors of this article accusing them of "owning" the article and POV; the only axe I see is the one in your hand. I will revert your edit to the previous version. Storm Rider 21:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is among the most biased articles I have read on Wikipedia, perhaps to the point of being dubious. The article would be better served posted in a pamphlet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.134.0.40 (talk • contribs) .

Balancing resource list

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)

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)

I just did a quick check of the resources listed and here's what I came up with:

7 modern definite church sources (1,9,11,16,17,18,19) likely with mormon POVs to varying degrees
1 modern church source that is fairly neutral (2)
4 writings by JS: BoM, D&C, etc. (21-24)
11 historical documents - usually accounts by people within the latter day saint movement (3,6,7,12,15,20,25,26,27,28,32)

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)

Talk:Plural wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.

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)

Polygyny - Polygamy

bcatt, I was rereading the article in full per my promise on your talk page. I thought that change was benign. Now that I see that is about the only substantive change you have made - I understand your frustration - that was not my intent. You have accused me of personal attacks and being irrational; as well as assumed that my edits were made in bad fath - please - that is not the way to come to concensus.

Finally, as to the merits, Polygyny is specifically what was practiced. Your argument that it must be polygamy because gamy has an etomology of marriage is unpersuasive. Second, polygamy is also linked to and used int he second sentence. Third, JS was not accused of being one of 2 husbands, but only of specifically polygyny i.e. having multiple wives. Trödel•talk 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it appears that JS was one of two partners, if not husbands, of Nancy Johnson. bcatt 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why a thorough understanding of the subject matter is required. First, the allegation is not that he entered into a polyandrous relationship but was improperly intimate with Ms Johnson; thus in this case he was not accused of polygamy. Second, if you look quickly you will find men as well as women sealed to Joseph, but please research on the meaning of sealing within that context as sealing does not always mean creating a marital relationship. Trödel•talk 12:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am intensely curious as to what "multiple marriage equally can mean non marital multiple marriage relationships" is supposed to mean, but, of course, nobody is willing to respond. bcatt 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Very simply that most polygamists in the US do not have multiple marriages they have one marriage and other relationships that they treat as marriages (if they are truly married to 2 people at once they can and are prosecuted under anti-polygamy statutes). Instead these polygamists either just enter into private "marriage" ceremonies that are not recognized by anyone other than the participants, or they marry one wife, enter into a sham divorce, then marry the next one; or they do some other action that indicates to them that they are married to multiple partners. All of these situations are commonly referred to as polygamy. However, they are not "marriages" recognized by anyone other than people of their denomination. Trödel•talk 19:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Plural wives in Mormon history is quite different from what society at large may think it means. Plural marriage is should be understood in the context of eternity an perspective. Joseph was "sealed" to many different women. Being sealed to another individual is defined as having the ability of being bonded throughout eternity. It is not known how many of the women to which Joseph was sealed lived with Joseph as a typical man and wife. Many think that the majority of his marriages were sealings only...i.e. they did not live as man and wife. It would be a mistake to think that Joseph was only sealed to all of his plural wives. Bushman's recent book cites that Joseph did appear to have sexual relations with some of them. There is a DNA project ongoing trying to determine if there are any descendants of Joseph Smith from these marriages; no progeny have yet been identified. Storm Rider 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for a simple, straight answer here. Polygamy means polygamy...it means: poly=many, gamos=marriage. Therefore, how can polygamy refer to a non marital relationship? bcatt 16:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You will remember that this was at the beginning of the founding of the church. The doctrine of Plural wives was given as early as 1833 but it appears that Joseph failed to follow the revelation until much later. As the doctrine evolved, particularly under the period of Brigham Young, it appears that men and women sealed together also lived as man and wife; i.e. one man and many wives (this fits with you definition above). It was slightly different during Joseph's time. Though Joseph was sealed to many women and did not live as man and wife with all of them, some think just a few of them were in a marital relationship. However, we still would think of all of those women being Joseph's wives. Yes, they were married to him for all time and eternity, but they did not live as such in this life. The marriages were real, but they were focused on eternity and not this life. This gets to the fundamental difference between definitions of Plural Wife and Polygamy; they are not perfectly synonymous.

Also, sealings are not limited to man and wife realtionships. Families are believed to be able to be sealed for eternity. Many people were sealed to Joseph; both men and women. Though this happened early in church history, I am not aware of similar things happening today. Storm Rider 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All of that is based on the LDS version of history and doctrine. While the LDS may believe that, and it should be covered that the LDS believes that, NPOV demands that it be labeled as what it is - the opinion of the LDS, not Smith's own idea(s). --Nerd42 19:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though this whole polygamy/polygyny issue the result of a similar problem with "Saint"...if the mormons have decided to use a word differently than it is used in common language, it needs to be specifically noted at the time the word is used. Try to remember that this is not an article by mormons for mormons (or would-be mormons), but is an article by everyone for anyone. Specifically identifying that a word is being used differently than it's actual meaning avoids confusion and misunderstanding, it is the same practice that would be used in any other article, religious in content or not, which used either unfamiliar words (such as might be transferred directly from a foreign language), made-up words (as one might find in a work of fiction), or words used differently than their actual meaning (as this case appears to be). bcatt 19:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Article size

That said (above), this article has reached 50 kb, which is a size generally recommended to be split. Yes, I realize it is already split. And I also noticed, when examining what would be involved in shortening this article, that the "Early life" article is itself 55 kb, and is also split up...I imagine the rest of the articles high on the "tree" (or low, depending on how you look at it) are similarly getting too large. I have some ideas for streamlining the parts that are elaborated later...there's a lot of deep description of things here that is also described in sub articles...BUT, I have another idea that might be interesting to try first. I'm not sure if it's been done before or if it's an acceptable way to arrange things within the bounds of wikipedias policy and manual of style, but here is what I propose:

All the sources could be compiled into one page called "Joseph Smith, Jr.: references" (or whatever), and a single link to the sources page added to the bottom of each article. The sources themselves could then be organized within the references page to make them easy to browse, this would effectively save some space on each article, avoid repetitive listing of references, and also make the articles a little more aesthetic as the reader approaches the end of it. bcatt 20:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

While you were making this comment - I removed the additional detail - the material you have accused the users here of trying to censor out of wikipedia is already present in the sub-article. see my comments above Trödel•talk 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with putting the sources on a seperate page. It results in sloppy editing, as editors bury their opinions into sources that are undocumented. WE have to keep the sources on one page. Plus, there is no precedence for this type of move on the Wiki.

Rather let's edit down and place content where it properly belongs in sub articles and simplify this article, realizing that not all arguments will be addressed (and therefore will appread POV to some). -Visorstuff 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I wasn't sure if it was actually feasable, it was simply a suggestion...although, supposedly I never make any suggestions. bcatt 20:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nancy Johnson and the Mob action against Joseph Smith

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)

NPOV (3)

concerns and south park=

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)

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)

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)

Frustration and interaction

”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)

Because someone does not agree with your personal opinion does not mean they are getting on your case. You are personalizing something that is not personal. Now that you have taken the "objective" person's view's (Talk) and let them know what an idiot they are because they don't happen to agree with every whim that you dream up...take a break, read the entire discussion page again and seek to understand everyone else's comments rather than defend your point of view. You rode in on high horse, reported three people (Storm Rider, Trodel, and Cookiecaper) because they did not roll over and let you run rough shod over an article where you have demonstrated limited knowledge. Your methods will not bear fruit; isn't obvious? Take a breather and take one step at a time. You can achieve your objectives, but when you show a total lack of respect for the vast amount of cooperative work done by others you weaken your position. Everyone will react as much to your methods as to the content of your position. Storm Rider 01:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

disruption issues

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)

Please do not feed the troll.

"Please do not feed the troll"

It appears that we have gone as far as we can with this. From now on this troll should be ignored and we need to withold all food. I am the worst offender and will desist from further interaction. However, that does not mean that the article is not in need of further improvements. Let's look objectively at balance to make sure that opinions and history is not presented as fact when the life of JS is the subject. Also, let's make sure that all related articles are clearly marked and their subjects are included in this article. This troll just fed their last here. Storm Rider 02:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone I missed where I was reported. If someone could link me to that, I'd appreciate it deeply. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 11:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Stepping in

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)

I hope so. You're one of the most civil editors I have met yet. --The Scurvy Ey e ^{a note?} 23:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"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)

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. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, why is it that it is okay for others to make sweeping generalizations such as "some of your arguments do not make sense", when I am criticized as being vague when I say that many opposing views not represented in the article (even though everyone already knows what those opposing views are). Honestly, people here need to start practicing what they preach. bcatt 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Conduct themselves maliciously"? Care to explain? "The community" is ALL of wikipedia's editors, not just the ones that want to own this article. And, if you looked at my history on wikipedia, you would see that my contributions are extensive, high quality, and respectable. bcatt 00:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Move to resolution

BCatt, I'll be honest on a number of things. Please take it in the spirit of helping you in your wikipedia experience from someone who's been around a while longer. I am familiar with Storm Rider, and I felt that suggesting he take a wikiholiday would suffice in letting him cool down. You I am less familiar with so I am more specific. I can see that you are frustrated - and at times rightfully so. Let's move on - that is why I am getting involved now. You are very trusted in other areas of wikipedia, but that trust does not automatically lend to all corners. I remember when you knew everone on the wikipedia. It has changed. It has become more specialized. And unfortunately, trust is not portable on the wiki.

Your profile says you assume good faith, and you usually do. But right now you are not - specifically with the photo issue. You wrote: "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."

It was made on a talk page - and to me it read like an olive leaf - a compliment, a "you are lucky to be blessed in this way" statement. something to say, we have something in common beside our differences in this debate. Please assume good faith. Enough of this, let's move on from it.

Storm Rider, I'm sure, will apologize when Storm Rider cools down. That is his MO. We all get frustrated that Mormonism is held to a higher level of scrutiny on Wikipedia than most religious editing, and that there is often two standards given. He is particularly sensitive on this issue, and how you worded some of your comments hit a chord on this - particularly when so much effort went into documenting much of this page and its sub-pages. He will cool down and move on.

You wrote: "why is it that it is okay for others to make sweeping generalizations such as "some of your arguments do not make sense", when I am criticized as being vague when I say that many opposing views not represented in the article (even though everyone already knows what those opposing views are). Honestly, people here need to start practicing what they preach."

Again that is why I am getting involved. I hope to help with this. Honestly, I do not follow some of your logic. that is not meant as an attack, it is feedback so you can work better with the group. Perhaps because we come from different backgrounds we don't speak the same language contextually - some words carry POV meanings to some, while others understand the words differently - see photo example above is a good example of this. All I'm saying is that if someone argues, it may be because your statements are not clear enough. If you feel your point is missed, try stating it another way. I want to understand where you are coming from and where you want to go with your edits. more context and stating things differently may help these editors understand you better.

Remember, our goal is to make wikipedia better. We are getting there. This has just been a heated discussion and we need to ensure that those involved put aside differences, decide on a common language and understand the arguments involved. Please don't bring me into the debate, as that is not my purpose right now, but I will try to facilitate as I can.

Thank-you for your conceding note about Cookiecapers "one little slip" (although again, I read it as he was trying to help the situation, not attack). It makes a difference in working with other editors. You know this, you've been around for nearly a year and are a trusted editor in many settings. I want to work with you to build the trust in this corner of wikipedia. Cookiecaper's point of trust above is a valid one. I'm hoping to help with it.

Now, as to the root issue, we need to decide one thing - should we address all issues and views on Joseph Smith, Jr. or allow sub-pages to do this, as I stated earlier on this page? If all views need to be represented, should we set a limit at how much or how large the article should be? -Visorstuff 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I did make an earlier suggestion on this size issue in an attempt to move past these other issues and just get on with editing and raising the quality and clarity of this article, but I will paraphrase it here:

This article is very large, the sub articles are also very large and even those may need to be broken down and subbed. As per NPOV, any pro view expressed in this or any sub artcile needs to be accompanied by it's opposing view(s)...but I really think that this article should serve more as laying down a timeline and introducing the fact that there are all these sub articles and what they contain, rather than arguing the merits of each view. The introduction seems very good, though I would like to wikify Christianity and possibly a few other words. I'm not going to go through and make suggestions for the whole article, but I'd like to give an example using the first section:

The first paragraph seems good. The second could maybe be shortened to just comment on JS's retrospectiveness, leaving the quote for the more detailed article and combining the following short paragraph about the family's other activities into one paragraph. The language in the next paragraph is confusing as to whether the theophany and Moroni incident are the same event...and the whole thing could be shortened to just mention his account of being directed to find the plates and other artifacts without going into detail about where they were reported to be or how or when they were reported have been put there, etc. The first sentence of the following paragraph can be added into this paragraph in a summarized way. Not sure if the next paragraph could be further summarized as it flows from his activities in the meantime to his marriage to Emma Hale, though some of the details could probably be saved for sub articles. In the final paragraph, the part about the additional visits seems like it belongs in the previous paragraph, but otherwise seems fairly succinct...maybe a few finer details could be saved for sub articles.

If this is done for each section, the article should be able to be shortened enough to keep it within the suggested size guidelines without losing the basic idea of the events covered in each sub article. The legacy and teachings sections seem very nicely summarized. As a side note...can somebody please comment about the double use of the same picture? And I think someone mentioned putting the timeline box at the bottom of the article (or was that a different article), which seems to have it's pro's and con's, but even if it was at the bottom, it seems very strange to have the same image twice...I haven't seen this occur in any other article. Personally, I like the oval one further down in Kirtland and wonder why this one isn't used in one of these boxes? (Unsigned by User:Bcatt

Excellent - we are working on ideas to fix the issue now.

However, the problem is that these suggestions did not reach consensus. Perhaps there is another alternative you'd like to suggest, or break down each one of the ideas to figure out what the community would agree with? Why don't we move in that direction... I'll guide the discussion if you'd like to suggest ideas and other editors will respond with their thoughts about your suggestions. Does this process work for everyone? -Visorstuff 16:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion relating to these suggestions (particularly discussion involving non-LDS members). "Community consensus" on wikipedia does not translate to "approval by a faction controlling an article". I don't see how these suggestions can possibly be controversial and so it seems this is just another case of rejecting my suggestions personally, or rejecting any suggestions from anyone outside the faction. As an admin, you should be well aware that this is not an acceptable way to conduct things. bcatt 00:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I am suprised at your response in my trying to help. However, I will not be dragged into the issues, rather my purpose is to guide discussion. As an admin, I am wll aware of Wikipedia policy and how things work around here, and can always use reminding, so thank you. However, I have not stepped out of line in my suggestions. Most of your suggestions were cosmetic and stylistic in nature - not content/doctrinal/historical. The WP:LDS has established guidelines and a nearly four year old precedence - and has a specific look and feel that has been promulgated since 2003. As this article fits within the project, it should be consistent with other project articles. That said, community consensus is needed in changing those guidelines - it is not "approval by a faction controlling an article." You know as well as I do that Wikiprojects are all like this. If you have a problem with it, then you should seek to change the precedence set by wikiprojects. This is how things operate on Wikipedia.

Second, why would we want to reject your "suggestions personally, or rejecting any suggestions from anyone outside the faction?" You make it sound like Mormon editors are conspiring against you. They are not. Again, if you look at the WP:LDS you'll notice that there are many editors here who are not Mormon, Latter Day Saint or otherwise connected to Joseph Smith, Jr. The project participants have gone out of their way to recruit and encourage them to help edit to ensure NPOV and eliminate myopic groupthink. It has been a focus of project participants since the beginning of the project to ensure credibility. Editors like Wesley, Alai, John Hamer, Alienus (who we are not sure of religious affilation) and many others are well-respected in their corners of Wikipedia and offer wonderful suggestions, and they work with the community to change things they see as myopic and have made a signifant impact. I hope you can do the same, but if you have issues with Mormon editors, you may want to ask them how to best work with Mormon editors. The bottom line is if you are willing to work with other editors who have put a lot of effort into the look and feel and standardizations of articles.

Are you willing to work through their established efforts and channels? -Visorstuff 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with bcatt that these need to be pared down. I'm still going through the archives to understand how you all got to where the article is now. I think another good strategy would be to really try and keep each section as a summary of the sub-articles, without repeating long sections of the subs. Here's a rought trim based on my thoughts of the first section:

Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont (in what is today South Royalton), the fifth child of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. After attempting to establish roots in various towns in Vermont, but being forced out by three successive years of crop failures, the Smith family settled in western New York, and began working a farm just outside the border of the town of Palmyra (Berge 1985). At Palmyra, Joseph Smith, Sr., also opened a "cake and beer shop," carrying gingerbread, pies, boiled eggs, root-beer and other similar products (Tucker 1867, pp. 14–15).

Although young Joseph assisted his father and elder brothers in farming by clearing land, hauling rocks, and other duties, his mother, Lucy, reported that as a boy Joseph was often found in serious reflection thinking about the welfare of his soul. Young Joseph himself later recalled that "[his] mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness" with regards to the religious fervor in the area.

[[Image:EmmaSmith.jpg|thumb|left|[[Emma Hale Smith]], Joseph's wife, whom he married in 1827.]]Smith claimed that he had a theophany when he was about fourteen years old, in which God spoke to him. This theophany has become colloquially known as the First Vision. In 1823, when Smith was seventeen, his family report that Joseph described an additional visitation by a heavenly messenger (Moroni) who directed him to a hill near his home where there was said to be buried ancient artifacts and a set of Golden Plates, which were said to contain the religious records of former inhabitants of the Americas, engraved in ancient glyphs. Smith reported that he was not allowed to receive the plates until 1827.

In the meantime, with his father and brothers, he also was said to participate in a number of precious ore mining operations for which later critics alleged him to be a treasure-seeker. While engaged in these mining activities in New York and Pennsylvania, he met and became engaged to his future wife Emma Hale. Emma's father, a participant in a mining venture, disapproved of Smith, so the couple eloped in early 1827.

After his marriage, Smith returned to Palmyra and moved in with his parents. Between 1823 and 1827, Smith described additional, periodic visits with the angel Moroni until finally, in September 1827, Smith indicated that Moroni allowed him to take the gold plates but strictly forbade him from initially showing them to any person without authorization. Later, at least eleven people besides Smith would state that they had seen the plates (see Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses), though the credibility of the statements and the neutrality of the witnesses is questioned by some outside of the Latter Day Saint movement.

I think this cuts out most of the incidental stuff and the "finer details" while keeping a summary of the important and noteable events in JS's early life. Did I take out too much, or can this be trimmed more?

As for handling the witness and qualifying there statement, IRC not all of the three witnesses say that they saw it in a vision - just Martin Harris. And while I can see that my attempt at compromise might be interpreted as commentary, the wordage used, eg "however" and seems to imply that the reader should see these facts as damning evidence against the accounts, a slight POV-nudge imo. My compromise was to try and get back to what FreedominThought originally intended with the edit, which was to express the critics' opinions without getting into the finer details which can be found on the separate pages on the witnesses and to avoid the constant NPOV qualifiers. --FyzixFighter 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Talk%7EJoseph_Smith%2C_Jr._Archive_7_dc64.html"

Category: Talk archives

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.