Talk:First Vision/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

"Possible anachronisms in" = "Criticism of"

I don't think most people will understand what 'Anachronisms' is supposed to mean. 74s181 10:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1. This title is nothing more than a way to avoid the word "criticism", but everything in the section is criticism. 74s181 10:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Why is the 1838 version the only one with 'anachronisms'? 74s181 10:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, I removed the section divider, 'Later elaborations'. IMHO, the only way a divider like this makes sense is if a reference is cited that says so. I am aware of no 'historical fact' that makes the 1838 version any more or less of an 'elaboration' than any other version after the 1832 version. 74s181 10:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverts after good faith edits

This seems to be a constant problem on this article. Multiple editors will put forth effort and then John decides that it was better and he reverts, which then causes a constant state of edit warring to take place. I recommend that none of you revert the good faith efforts of other editors. If an editor is going to make major changes or additions at this point, discuss them first with the other editors and find a balance before moving forward. This does not mean that stagnation need set in, but it should keep reverts to a minimum and editing being productive. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider a wholesale revision of my edits with no consideration of their merit to be in good faith. We all understand that the "multiple editors" are all Mormons with the same POV.--John Foxe 22:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I was not targeting your edits. There was no 'wholesale revision', I made several edits over a period of about a week. Yes, you weren't here to discuss these changes, were we all supposed to just stop editing and wait for you to return? 74s181 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

1. "In addition to their Christian beliefs" / "Although they considered themselves Christians" - I think that "In addition" provides a smoother transition from the clearly Christian visions of the previous section, to the 'magic' activities and more clearly illustrates the idea that you, John Foxe, proposed, the idea of a blend of Christian and magical belief. 74s181 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2. "In an early draft" / "But in a draft" - But? Huh? There is no disagreement between 'money digging' and 'abrac', they are both 'magic' activities. 74s181 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
3. "illustrating this blend of folk magic and Christian belief. " - Why do you object to this phrase? The blend of Christian and magical beliefs was your idea, John Foxe. 74s181 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
4. "Smith attended the meetings of several denominations, particularly those of the Methodists" - Who says this? Certainly not Joseph Smith. What was wrong with the short quote?
5. And, BTW, John Foxe, you've broken this section, the phrase is now duplicated in the same section.
6. I saw that the 'Methodist exhorter' theory was presented in both the 'confusion' and 'anachronisms' sections, and since Smith most certainly was not a Methodist exhorter before the First Vision I moved the Methodist exhorter stuff to the 'anachronisms' section. 74s181 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to break with my usual practice and revert, so you can have a chance to:

"Try taking the revisions sentence by sentence. We're in no hurry.--John Foxe 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)"

74s181 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't have the same POV as all of the others—in previous articles I've worked on, I've had disagreements with both Storm Rider and COgden in the past. And I disagree with 74s181's views on labelling regarding this article. Anyway, I think it's slowly getting better, and I don't think your reverts have improved the article. The Jade Knight 02:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't insist on any particular labels like, 'critic' or 'apologist', but I think that WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements requires that disputed facts be attributed, I think that such an attribution needs both a name, and some kind of title, something that says something about why the 'expert' has the particular opinion. 74s181 03:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

John, much to the contrary, just because someone is a Mormon does not mean they think the same as every other Mormon. I can assure you that as Jade has stated above, we are individuals. Please [WP:AGF|assume good faith] in the edits of others. You are not the judge here and breaks Wiki policy to revert wholesale. My revert was to return it to the way it had been for several days; it is not the equivalent as yours. Furthermore, I added this section to clarify my reasoning and to prompt all to use the discussio page for edits.

Also, please do not play victim and attempt to garner additional credence for your bad behavior. You came in, reverted edits that had been worked on for several days, and then qualified the reasoning thta YOU liked it better before i.e. only my way edits are good enough.

Quit being defensive and follow policy; that was the intent of my edits on both pages. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing that you are not individuals or don't disagree among yourselves. But (excluding Cogden, of course), you all have the same desire to promote the official position of the LDS Church, clearly demonstrated by the easygoing agreement in this discussion page so long as I am not among you. Now, let's take revisions sentence by sentence. We're in no hurry.--John Foxe 09:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I went through your recent improvements from your previous revert, and added them to the stable version. Feel free to discuss any other changes you wish to make here (without reverting), so that we can work by consensus. The Jade Knight 10:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We need sentence by sentence discussion not wholesale revision without explanation to the earlier stable and less POV version.--John Foxe 10:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying, John Foxe, about having discussion. Talk about revisions you'd like to make here on the talk page, so they can be discussed. Sentence by sentence, if you'd like. At any rate, let's use the less POV version established by consensus as a starting point—several days worth of edits were made to try to improve the article, and they were accepted by the other editors here; there's no point in throwing out all that work to push a POV. Let's get everything down by consensus—if you think something's controversial, say so here, and we can discuss it. The Jade Knight 10:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

“It is indeed wearisome sitting alone in the dark.” John Foxe, I would offer you a candle but I suspect you would refuse it. I'm sure you feel like a martyr, I do sympathize with your frustration but your behavior isn't helping the situation. As I said earlier:

I can't speak for others, but I was not targeting your edits. There was no 'wholesale revision', I made several edits over a period of about a week. Yes, you weren't here to discuss these changes, were we all supposed to just stop editing and wait for you to return? 74s181 01:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And to that, let me add that it could have been worse. I could see that you were absent so I went slow, I brought up some of these changes here on the talk page so you could see why these changes were made and have a place to argue against them when you returned.

However, the current version of the article is what it is, and as you said yourself: 74s181 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Try taking the revisions sentence by sentence. We're in no hurry.--John Foxe 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)"

Just for the record... 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

22:07, 9 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (68,854 bytes) (some rewriting)

"In addition to their Christian beliefs" -> "Although they considered themselves Christians" - 'considered themselves' means, they thought they were but they were not, this is POV. Also, I think that "In addition" provides a smoother transition from the clearly Christian visions of the previous section, to the 'magic' activities and more clearly illustrates the idea that you, John Foxe, proposed, the idea of a blend of Christian and magical belief.

"In an early draft" -> "But in a draft" - But? Huh? There is no disagreement between 'money digging' and 'abrac', they are both 'magic' activities.

"illustrating this blend of folk magic and Christian belief. " -> ?? Why do you object to this phrase? The blend of Christian and magical beliefs was your idea, John Foxe. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

22:09, 9 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (68,859 bytes) (→Revivalism in the Palmyra area -sylistic tweak)

"was somewhat partial" -> "declared himself somewhat partial" This was a good faith edit, we don't know what he actually believed, but we know what he said. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

22:18, 9 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (71,559 bytes) (I prefer the earlier version)

'I prefer...' = JF inappropriate revert #1 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

22:22, 9 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (67,095 bytes) (→Possible anachronisms in the 1838 Account - again, the earlier version is clearer and exhibits less POV)

'less POV' = part of JF inappropriate revert #1, this re-introduces duplicate criticism. The rearrangement that JF undid had less POV, removed duplication, put the 'exhorter' into a more temporally correct sequence. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

22:24, 9 July 2007 Storm Rider (Talk | contribs) (68,859 bytes) (the previous edits were much better; large reverts should be discussed to minimize edit warring.)

Storm Rider undid the JF revert. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

22:27, 9 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (68,872 bytes) (tried a to reduce the POV in this phrase a tad)

"and supporting" -> "a fact that lends support" - this was a good faith edit, but more of a grammatical improvement than reduction in POV. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

22:32, 9 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (67,095 bytes) (Revert to revision 143595989 dated 2007-07-09 22:22:40 by John Foxe using popups)

JF inappropriate revert #2. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

22:33, 9 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (67,096 bytes) (→Date of the First Vision -restoration of a phrase)

"and supporting" -> "thus supporting" JF redoing his edit lost by his own reversion. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

01:49, 10 July 2007 74s181 (Talk | contribs) (68,859 bytes) (Multiple reversions and edits have resulted in duplication and other problems , I can't fix because it isn't clear what was intended, so I am reverting to the last known 'clean' version.)

Under "Religious Confusion", JF left "He attended the meetings " and "Smith attended the meetings ", obviously this was wrong. Admittedly, I was looking for an excuse to revert, but truly, I couldn't tell which way JF wanted it. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

03:03, 10 July 2007 Jade Knight (Talk | contribs) m (68,857 bytes) (→Date of the First Vision - fixing the grammar/slight rewording (per John Foxe's revision) - could maybe still use a little tighter wording)

"and supporting an 1820 date for " -> "which supports dating the First Vision to 1820" - a good faith attempt by Jade Knight to re-fix a problem that JF had identified and previously fixed. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

03:11, 10 July 2007 74s181 (Talk | contribs) (68,796 bytes) (→How the vision story has been presented - Remove the other part of the artificial division of 'earlier' and 'later' accounts.)

Last week I had removed the "Later elaborations" section header as I thought it was POV and an artificial division. Then I noticed that there was a matching "Earlier accounts" header, things were now out of wack, so I fixed it. Also changed a POV wikilink. I think this was a good faith edit, not part of the ongoing edit war. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

09:07, 10 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (68,791 bytes) (restored POV deletion)

JF inappropriate revert #3. There was no deletion until JF reverted. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

09:09, 10 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (68,802 bytes) (stylistic tweak)

"was somewhat partial" -> "declared himself somewhat partial" This was a good faith edit, lost as part of the edit war. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

09:13, 10 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (71,275 bytes) (restored POV deletions)

Actually, JF's reversion did not restore any deleteted material but actually resulted in material being deleted. I'm going to treat this as part of JF inappropriate revert #3. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

09:20, 10 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (68,696 bytes) (restored earlier clearer version)

Also part of JF inappropriate revert #3. Note that this 'earlier clearer version' duplicates criticism from the "Anachronisms" section up into the "Religious confusion" section, where it is temporally out of sequence. That is, JS didn't act as an exhorter, Methodist or otherwise, until after the FV. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

09:23, 10 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (68,807 bytes) (restored earlier clearer version)

Again, out of temporal sequence. JS couldn't 'not' tell his mother about the FV until after the FV. This belongs in the "Criticisms" er, I mean "Anachronisms" section. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

09:27, 10 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) m (67,673 bytes) (header level; removed duplication)

The duplication occured because JF copied the LMS material. And, BTW, this was not a 'minor' edit. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

09:29, 10 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (67,679 bytes) (→Smith's religious confusion -mechanical problem)

JF added a </ref>, moving text that used to be in the footnotes to the body. I think this was a good faith edit, correcting a past mistake. It introduced an uncited fact, that doesn't really matter because it later gets reverted as part of the ongoing edit war. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

09:33, 10 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (67,683 bytes) (→How the vision story has been presented - stylistic tweaks)

"wasn't published until later in the movement's history" -> "was not published until 1840, twenty years after it is said to have occurred" - Stylistic? More like, dept. of redundancy dept., how many different ways can you say 'not published until 20 years later' in the same sentence? Although I don't like it, I have to call this a good faith edit by JF. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

10:18, 10 July 2007 Jade Knight (Talk | contribs) (68,834 bytes) (restoring stable version; adding John Foxe's wording improvements)

Note that Jade Knight, after reverting, restored some of JF's good faith edits, including at least one that I don't agree with. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

10:27, 10 July 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (67,683 bytes) (Revert to revision 143692580 dated 2007-07-10 09:33:33 by John Foxe using popups)

JF reversion #4. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

10:34, 10 July 2007 Jade Knight (Talk | contribs) (68,834 bytes) (Revert to revision 143697597 dated 2007-07-10 10:18:25 by Jade Knight using popups)

Again. With Feeling. 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's 4 reverts by John Foxe in 12 hours. I say we need mediation. Does anyone disagree? 74s181 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since two of his reverts were in a row, I place it at 3 in 24. I'd like to know what John Foxe's reaction to your assessment is, however. The Jade Knight 12:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. It is 4 in 24. Yeah, I think mediation is warranted. The Jade Knight 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at this point you report John Foxe for breaking the WP:3RR, which may result in a very temporary block and then ask for mediation. 74, you did the documentation; do you feel comfortable doing so? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the WP:3RR page, unfortunately I'm out of time this morning. If anyone else has time, please go ahead and do it, otherwise, I'll take care of it this evening. 74s181 13:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me handle it. I know this culprit intimately.--John Foxe 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be better if you did, but I am not hopeful. John, we have talked about this before and periodically you edit in a more netural fashion; however, you have a tendency to write strictly from a negative position. Your tone, phrasing, etc. are all designed to show disbelief or incredulity. I also know that I am not the only one who has talked to you about this issue. I would almost say that you would be far more comfortable writing religious tracts than articles for Wikipedia. The standard is neutrality, which I think you support only if it means writing in a style that meets your personal objective, which is to show that Mormonism is a fraud. That perspective is not appropriate, just as writing from a pro-LDS perspective is not not acceptable.

It would be nice if you would stop reverting, but I think a block is merited. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As the only non-Mormon editor of this article, I'm at least as interested in reaching NPOV as you. (How will I ever get to do any serious editing?) And my past experience at Wikipedia has been that men of good will, regardless of personal belief, can find a way of reaching neutral wording. The problem has become that, although you are nice guys individually, together you enjoy flexing Mormon muscle in an attempt to marginalize or eliminate any notion that does not agree with the official teachings of the LDS church. Furthermore, whenever we seem to reach a compromise, someone (especially Les) says, "It's an improvement, but the article still needs more work" or "I've modified the statement, but I'd like to eliminate it later." Such talk doesn't provide me the warm fuzzy feeling necessary to work with people of different opinions toward a common goal.--John Foxe 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I think all of us recognize what it means to feel like the Lone Ranger; as a LDS it is rather a constant state of being for me. Mormon muscle may be an exaggeration, but we understand your feeling. I reject the idea that all of us write from a "Official" LDS position. However, I would say that we do not focus on every potential historical fact and give equal weighting to each. You have admitted in the past that you write with an agenda or objective in mind. That perspective is not conducive to neutrality. It is a lot like Fawn Brodie's style of writing; if the facts contratict the position, ignore them, and aggrandize the insignificant if it can support the position. Where you can be the most help is providing additional facts; where you create problems for Wikipedia is the manner in which you present those facts. If you worked coopertaive with 74 you may be able to get all of your desired information in the article, but it would be written in such a way as to be more neutral than you could do youself.

There is always a time for a new beginning; I invite you to consider this as just such an opportunity. I have an uneasy relationship with you and have chosen in the past simply to ignore articles that you are working on i.e. I make comments on the talk page, but stay away from too much editing of the article itsef. I have not found you to be an easy person with whom to work. Maybe you don't realize how negative your writing style is? Regardless, please consider working with Jade and 74 to develop an aritcle that is worthy of Wikipedia. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I wish you would realize that all of us - including the LDS editors - want a NPOV article. And most, if not all, of us are willing to work with people who have different opinions. However, I find it interesting that you frequently ignore a long conversation about the article, and then suddenly revert back to a much older version of yours. When somebody complains, you say that there is no hurry, we should discuss it change by change. People are more likely to believe your motives if you would quit reverting back to your version and start discussing any changes you aren't comfortable with.

Personally, I'm not convinced that you truly understand what NPOV actually is. (It isn't an easy concept, so that isn't any criticism of you.) It appears that your vision of NPOV is a version that agrees with what you perceive of as the facts. That is POV, not NPOV. If/when this article becomes truly NPOV, most likely none of us will be happy with it. That is because it will give credence to positions that we don't agree with. You have already come to realize that some of your perceptions of the facts are more complex than you originally believed. I am hoping that you will get to the point where you can recognize that all of the "facts" are open to different interpretations. A truly NPOV article recognizes that, and tries to present all the reasonable alternative interpretations.

I think that if you review the changes, you will come to realize that at least some of the LDS editors are able to see the other side of many of the issues. In some cases, they have actually introduced alternate theories into the article. I would encourage you to step back, look at the bigger picture, and try to work with the other editors rather than periodically resetting the article. I believe you can contribute greatly to the article, but you will have to shift from "truth" to "verification" I would really hate to see you get blocked, but unless you change your habits, I am concerned it will happen. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did it, see report. I'm not happy about doing this, but something needs to be done to get John Foxe's attention. He rarely acknowledges these complaints, and when he does, it seems like it is a joke to him. 74s181 01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't so much for the 'slap on the wrist' that I suspect he will get, but more to have something on record if he persists in this behavior. Maybe this will make him exercise a little more restraint. 74s181 01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, Les, my past experience at Wikipedia has been that men of good will, regardless of personal belief, can find a way of reaching neutral wording.--John Foxe 14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"...men of good will" - I agree. Let's try a really basic definition of 'good will', hmmm, how about this, let's all agree to this set of rules for use of revert, and this definition of what a revert is, which includes both full and partial reverts. 74s181 02:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try again

I will not be bullied, gentlemen. Truth is more important to me than my reputation at Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I more than welcome another attempt to reach NPOV for this article. The ground rules need to include the proviso that we will work on wording first before any material is shifted from one paragraph to another.--John Foxe 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

John, that is precisely the problem. What you think is true is more important to you than trying to see the other side of the argument. Until that changes, you will most likely continue to feel bullied and picked on. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to accommodate other arguments. I've done so in the past, as you yourself have acknowledged. Truth is truth regardless of its origin. What I don't accept is having Mormon apologetics declared legitimate interpretations simply on the basis of the current doctrine of the Church or the concoctions of its apologetic arms, so that the article reads, "some scholars say x, while others say y"—the "others" being Mormons who get paid to write apologetics.--John Foxe 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet Fawn Brodie, who got paid to write an anti-Mormon biography, is acceptable? Dan Vogel has also been paid for his writing, which has been described as "anti-Mormon". Anyway, the people over at FAIR aren't being paid, to my knowledge (though, please correct me if I'm wrong). The Jade Knight 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fawn Brodie, like Richard Bushman, was published by Alfred A. Knopf. Dan Vogel's five volumes of Early Mormon Documents were published by Signature Books, a respected name in LDS studies. FAIR is an arm of the LDS church; its on-line, non-peer-reviewed publications are intended to be faith-promoting and by definition hew strictly to the doctrinal teachings of the Church. If FAIR's writers aren't paid, they're simply amateurs with an ideological ax to grind.--John Foxe 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessarily the case. I've looked into FAIR a bit, and there appears to be a two-tier system: on their website they have relatively amateur submissions on the website, but they also have a FAIR Conference with slide presentations by some reputable apologetic professors like Richard Bushman and Richard L. Anderson. It really depends on what is being cited. COGDEN 02:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly your POV of the situation, John Foxe. Did you miss the notice on FAIR's website that says "FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."? They are not "an arm of the LDS church", quite clearly and unquestionably. The Jade Knight 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not concerned about truth; it is irrelevant to the context of articles. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, rather articles report facts or positions held by experts. Readers are left to define truth as they deem appropriate. This is crucial that you understand this difference otherwise you will constantly be running into editorial problems. Further, none of the edits in question are issues of truth or facts, but mostly of style. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not concerned with truth. Never said it was. I said that I was concerned with truth.

If it were true that the recent edits were matters of style rather than substance, there would have been no howl when I reverted them. Nor would The Jade Knight have made the argument above.--John Foxe 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If that were true, please explain your last revert.[1] It had nothing to do with "truth" and everything to do with style. Your edits have been contested multiple times and you insist on reverting. You are in violation of ownership, WP:3RR, and I suspect several other policies. Please explain how other editors are supposed to interact with you? Is it possible for anyone to edit this article whose edits are different from yours? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start watching the dialogue for page and more closely watching the edits to the article. Please watch yourselves with the 3RR and edit warring. AND most importantly, I've noticed a few things were conclusions are being drawn without support. Don't lead the reader. -Visorstuff 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I've protected the page for 24 hours to enforce a cooling off period. Please try to start this discussion over and begin a productive dialogue. -Visorstuff 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"I will not be bullied, gentlemen." Look in the mirror. 74s181 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Truth is more important to me than my reputation at Wikipedia."

Ya got one, two, three, I said three reverts in a day.

Reverts that mark the diff'rence

Between a gentlemen and a Bum,

With a capital "B,"

And that rhymes with "T" and that stands for TRUTH! 74s181 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"...work on wording first before any material is shifted..." I've tried this multiple times, you ignore discussion about such changes until after they are made, then you revert and insist that such changes be debated, sentence by sentence. Unfortunately, structural changes can't be made sentence by sentence. 74s181 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"...FAIR is an arm of the LDS church..." Wrong, FAIR is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, see FAQ. 74s181 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"...non-peer-reviewed publications..." Wrong, FAIR is peer-reviewed, see FAQ. 74s181 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"If FAIR's writers aren't paid, they're simply amateurs..." Are you paid to edit on WP, John Foxe? What does that say about you? What does that say about the WP software, or the Linux OS that it runs on? 74s181 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"...with an ideological ax to grind." Look in the mirror. 74s181 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"I understand that Wikipedia is not concerned with truth. Never said it was." Oh, really? 74s181 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are a post-modernist, the "facts" of the believer and unbeliever cannot both be true... As men of good will we can believe differently while trying to be as accurate as possible in our search for historical truth.--John Foxe 09:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is no truth, then we should all give up Wikipedia and go out for a pizza.--John Foxe 10:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Truth is absolutely the issue here, and I will stand by the current version of the article unless you can explain what is POV about it... --John Foxe 15:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

74s181 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Current Version

Unfortunately, the current version of the page is the one that John Foxe keeps reverting to, including typos introduced by John Foxe. It ignores days of work done—when Storm Rider last edited the article, he did not revert, but simply changed one sentence. John Foxe reverted that, and then 74s181 reverted back to John Foxe's version w/ Storm Rider's amendment. I think we should restore the improvements that have been worked on over the past week in the current article. What's the opinion of you folks? The Jade Knight 02:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought the point of 'Protection' was to prevent editing or reversion? Or, am I the only one blocked from editing the article? If that is the case then I am really confused. However, if you know which is the good version, and if you can do the revert, then I say go for it. 74s181 03:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't, but if we can establish any sort of consensus on change, an administrator (like Visorstuff) can impliment agreed upon changes. The Jade Knight 04:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The protection in place prevents all edits from taking place and affects all of us equally.

I am not too concerned about which version is in place at the moment; though I believe the edits done in the past week were an improvement to the article. However, I am displeased with a simple protection of the page; John has proven he is not capable of participating or editing in a cooperative process. I believe it would have been more appropriate for him to have been blocked, but that is now water under the bridge. I also suspect that this go around his edits will be more closely scrutinized by admins.

I would encourage all, particularly Jade and 74, to not be discouraged by this turn of events. Once the protection is taken off, I would also encourage you to allow Foxe to have a fresh start here. I am not saying things will change, but give him the benefit of the doubt. If nothing else, you will given him enough rope to hang his ownself. Should he eventually merit a block, I expect it to be a more harsh disciplinary action than normal simply because of the excessive amount of leeway he has been given to revert at will up to this point. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well. And I hope you're right. The Jade Knight 07:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We have given John Foxe several fresh starts. I am always willing to give him another one. It would be easier if he would ever acknowledge that he has done anything wrong, but the Savior said to forgive 490 times, we're not anywhere close to that yet, so one more won't hurt.<g> 74s181 00:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I propose that this] is the best version. There are still many things in it that I want to change, but if we are going to declare a truce I think this version should be the starting point for future editing. 74s181 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has commented. If there are no comments when / if protection expires, I will revert to this] version, if someone else doesn't do it first. If you disagree, speak now. 74s181 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal #1

I've re-reviewed the recent edit history. John Foxe's most recent reversions seem to be focused on the movement and consolidation of Joseph's participation in Methodist services, but I suspect that the real stumbling block for John Foxe is the "exhorter = debater" statement.

That is, John Foxe has complained about the move, but I think what may be really bugging him is the "exhorter = debater" statement. 74s181 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"exhorter = debater" is not present in the current, protected version of the page, but it is present in the version of the page that John Foxe keeps discarding. 74s181 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, I propose that we agree to drop the "exhorter = debater" statement in the body of the article on the grounds that it is a tiny minority view per WP:UNDUE, and allow the "unofficial Methodist exhorter" interpretation to stand without specific attribution (but with citation) IF John Foxe promises to only revert STRICTLY in accordance with WP:REVERT, in this article and all others, FOREVER. 74s181 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts? 74s181 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to pipe in on the discussion to help with guidance. If this term is an issue, then I'll weigh in with my thoughts.

In using the term exhorter, I'm going to have to agree with COGDEN's apprisal above, and suggest we don't use the term or anything like it, until there is more information provide here and consensus is reached, which may or may not happen. The use of the term may or may not be accurate based on what we do and do not know - we simply don't have enough historical data. I think there is too much info that we don't have to draw the conclusion, and it leads the reader to think Smith "joined the methodist church," which is incorrect. Joining any of the Methodism sects requires one of two things - baptism and confirmation OR the profession of faith for those transferring from "another body of the Christian Church." You can enroll in sunday services, attend sunday schools and youth programs even today without becoming a methodist, but your names are listed on rolls if you attend on a regular occasion. i would encourage you all to find a different way to describe what he did as to not lead the reader. -Visorstuff 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One other comment - one reason I decided not to block John Foxe for reverting was that there was the reverting from other editors on this debate were done in unision without much if any discussion, and to me was similar to two individuals reverting each other without discussing. i think that having a discussion here will be helpful, and i'm hopeful that cooler heads than the comments above since the protection will prevail. If discussion does not take place, I'll keep the page protected or once expired, if things don't improve, blocks may take place - so please don't act in concert to revert each other's edits. I hope both sides will work out compromises, as to be honest, you are both holding on to items that are trivial and not neccessarily beneficial to this article. -Visorstuff 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Visor, my only comment is that your position has opened the door to tyranny of the minority. Foxe has demonstrated a fairly complete unwillingness to accept anyone's edits but his own, particularly on ones of style. What is more unfortunate is that he has consistently gotten away with it without bearing any consequences.

Just because several other editors reverted him does not mean there was collusion; it means his edits and his constant reversions to his personal edits were unacceptable. He has a tendency to go away for a few days, come back, revert all the work done in his absence and then demand that everyone kowtow to his position. This has gotten exasperatingly difficult to observe, much less in which to participate. I personally have better things to do with my time than to constantly fight with an editor that reverts with abandon that has obviously been condoned by Admins. Users 74 and Jade have done an admirable job simply being willing to work with Foxe for as long as they have. T'wer I Catholic I would be petitioning for their Sainthood. I am willing to continue playing a bench position in this venture, but I ask for extreme vigilence in monitoring his edits and unwillingness to work cooperatively. I am not interested in seeing any more free rides. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that there had been much discussion over a fairly long period of time in which there was an attempt to work with John. Unfortunately, John usually chose to ignore the discussion and then revert back to a version from several days previous. With his history of reverting, re-reverting didn't always come with a detailed discussion of why the re-revert - probably because it had already been discussed several times before. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 23:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bill—the changes were all discussed extensively on my part, but then John Foxe would frequently revert them without any explanation at all, with misleading explanations, or with the simplified explanation of "removing POV material" (or something similar). At any rate, I would find it acceptable if we removed all references to the "exhorter" material as a sort of compromise—John Foxe seems convinced that Joseph Smith was a Methodist, when both Vogel and Bushman have asserted that he was almost certainly not. I think his reverts of the exhorter material relate to his own interpretation of the quotation more than that of trying to accurately represent various academic views. The Jade Knight 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading Visorstuff's comments above, as well recent and past comments on the user talk pages of Visorstuff and John Foxe, I feel like I am in a lose / lose situation. So I will restrict my responses to Visorstuff's and John Foxe's statements on this talk page. 74s181 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

...reverting from other editors on this debate were done in unision...

This is true for the most recent round of John Foxe reversions, but not true in the past. There have been many cases where I would make some kind of change, John Foxe would revert, I would try a different approach, John Foxe would revert again, etc., etc. 74s181 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

... without much if any discussion...having a discussion here will be helpful...I hope both sides will work out compromises...

John Foxe often complains about lack of discussion before major changes. There have been many occasions where I have tried to engage John Foxe in a discussion about such changes before the fact. He almost always ignores discussion until after I actually make the changes. He then reverts and if he comments on the talk page at all it is one of his two favorite lines, "...sentence by sentence..." or "Men of good will...". 74s181 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope both sides will work out compromises...you are both holding on to items that are trivial...

Asking John Foxe to respect the WP:REVERT guidlines is trivial? Visorstuff said propose a compromise. I proposed one. I guess I didn't understand what Visorstuff meant. Please tell me, am I wasting my time trying to understand the rules here? 74s181 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided not to block John Foxe...if things don't improve, blocks may take place...

Blocks? Plural? Like I said earlier, I'm afraid I'm in a lose / lose situation here, but I have to say this, Visorstuff, I think your decision not to block John Foxe is a guarantee that his behavior will continue, or, more likely, worsen. Why do I think this? 74s181 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe's reaction to my analysis of his recent behavior and Storm Rider's recommendation that he be reported for 3RR?

Let me handle it. I know this culprit intimately.--John Foxe 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe response to heartfelt attempts to 'reach out' to him, and my acknowledgement that I had reluctantly reported him for 3RR? More "...men of good will..." hypocrisy, followed by:

I will not be bullied, gentlemen. Truth is more important to me than my reputation at Wikipedia.

Last word then I'll shut up and wait for the axe to fall. I've tried, really hard, to work on this article in spite of John Foxe's WP:OWN attitude and behavior. I feel like I have been very patient with John Foxe. But when I saw his revert at 22:18, 9 July 2007 with the comment "I prefer the earlier version", effectively flushing a weeks worth of careful editing by myself, Wrp103, and Jade Knight, well, I ran out of serenity: 74s181 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

the courage to change the things I can,

and the wisdom to know the difference.

74s181 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think 74s181's concerns about Visorstuff's comments are warranted. When a group of editors work for a week to meticulously improve an article, and then someone comes in and reverts all their work wholesale, not even considering the improvements they have worked so hard to make, I think they're warranted to act to keep the improvements, if there is consensus against the rogue editor. I have explained each and every one of my edits at some point, frequently both in the edit summaries and on the talk page here. I have begged John Foxe to engage in more discussion and consensus building. Often he has ignored the concerns I've brought up, or dismissed opposing viewpoints as "POV" pushing, "apologetics", and "lies". Reading this talk page in conjunction with the edits which have been made over the past month would make this quite evident. The Jade Knight 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

74 - no one understands John Foxe's ownership of articles better than I do (for example see the history at Golden Plates. His ownership is the single biggest reason my edits on wikipedia have slowed as much as they have. That said, because of my history with John, I am trying to approach this situation cautiously and will as much neutrality as possible. If you look at the actions of administrators on the 3RR, my response to the situation to protect the page is typical and not unusual in an edit war such as this. I simply think that cooler heads need to prevail. John knows that continuinuing behavior will result in his being blocked. Don't read too much in my plural use of the word - it was not directed at you.

What I would prefer in this situation is edits discussed prior to them being made. I'll leave a note about this below. -Visorstuff 14:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected?

Ok, what's the deal? I just noticed that the edit tab is back and works, but the {{pp-dispute}} banner is still showing. I'm afraid to touch it, what are the rules for this? Do we wait for Visorstuff to remove the banner? 74s181 00:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The Jade Knight 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So, do the two of us make a 'consensus'? I'm willing to stick my neck out, if for no other reason than to test and see if I've read the situation correctly. 74s181 01:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to take a chance. 74s181 01:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule. But I think if 75%+ of editors on an article agree on an issue, that's a good sign of consensus. The Jade Knight 01:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not concensus. Especially on Wikipedia. Concensus means that you take (or should take) a controversial paragraph or two and try to work it out somewhere outside of the article itself, or come up with some other mechanism where most of the editors can agree to the course of action.... even if it is a compromise. Common appeals to factual sources and determining the quality of the sources for the information is relevant in the process, but that is only to try and come up with something approaching WP:NPOV guidelines and trying to make an objective and verifiable piece of prose. Concensus is the method to achieve this goal... not the goal in itself which is to write an encyclopedia article.

Tyranny of a mob is just as bad as being a tyrant of one who insists they get their own way. And it takes the ability to be able to see what the other contributor's point of view may be and earnestly try to seek a neutral point of view. Even if tis means you have to acknowledge that your POV may not be all that neutral either.

There are other guidelines to help focus this process, but the reason for the page protection and editing freeze is because there seems to be an element missing somewhere by more than one individual who can't seem to respect legitimate contributions by others. Again, I'll say it: The atmosphere regarding the acceptance of the contributions of others on this article absolutely stinks, and is not in keeping with the general spirt of Wikipedia and why this project was established originally. Having been a participant of Nupedia back elsewhen, there are some very real reasons why thing happen the way they do here on Wikipedia. Majority rule is not one of them, but neither is ownership of an article by a single individual. --Robert Horning 23:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said majority rule. And yet, when it comes to decisions as to whether or not to delete articles in the AfDs, these are usually conducted through democratic tally, give or take (but not based on simple majority). Consensus is the process of working together, and also the result of working together. Consensus may still exist where one (or more) editors disagree with the consensus being established—it is not simply a matter of numbers, but numbers are one indicator of consensus. The Jade Knight 06:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussions

I am reverting the page back to the last stable version by 74.

John, I'm not endorsing this version, but from your comments and the rest of the editors comments, this is the logical place to start.

As stated above, this entire group needs to discuss any changes that are not grammatical before they are made, and have them worked out on the talk page before editing the article. This will prevent edit warring, and the ill feelings that exist here. I'll protect the page again to enforce this if discussion doesn't start happening to improve the article. -Visorstuff 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

All my edits have been in good faith. I have added new material and tried to reach compromises everywhere. Take a look and see if you don't think so.--John Foxe 14:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been no improvement discussions since the page protection. In this, we need to start from scratch. Thanks for understanding. I know this is a tedious process, but we need to go through the process to make it work. -Visorstuff 14:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John, you seem to be deliberately disregarding the guidelines set forth for the releasing the page protection. Part of releasing it was specifically to promote discussion. If discussion does not take place, I will re-protect the page per the Wikipedia:Protection policy. -Visorstuff 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to discuss any material in the article new or old. But if you'd like to protect the page again, I support that action as well.--John Foxe 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Again - as a reminder, let's all please discuss improving the article rather than other users. Look forward to a good discussion. -Visorstuff 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Before Storm Rider reverted my changes and Visorstuff locked the article for another 24 hours, I added a couple of new sentences about the Smiths' religion, tried to finesse the "exhorter" problem by adding a parenthesis that noted that Smith was not a licensed exhorter because he was not a member of the Methodist church; and of course, I eliminated any mention of believers and non-believers from the "Anachronisms" section. I also corrected the placement of a footnote or two and also made a few stylistic changes, some of which were mildly substantive and others that only tweaked the prose. Take a look. I think these changes move us in the right direction.--John Foxe 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My revert today was a the result of a clear request to discuss edits here first before editing, which was blatantly ignored. The protect, I interpret, is meant to force discussion and agreement on editing. If Foxe is unwilling to colloborate I fail to see the need to remove the protect. Either discuss your edits here first or don't edit for the time being; that applies to everyone and that applies to everyone. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with John Foxe's description above is that it provides almost no detail on what the changes actually are. However, John Foxe may have assumed that since he had already attempted these changes, and since those attempts are in the article history, that we could go look at them there. That's fine, but I want to propose an example for how this might be done from now on. I will format this as if John Foxe had posted it, and I will 'sign' his comments like this: (JF signature). I have comments on some of these proposed changes, I will add them as if I had added them after the fact. Additional comments would go in-line, following the existing comments on a particular proposed change. 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes proposed 7/13/07 by John Foxe

Smith family religious beliefs / magic section

Old:

In addition to their Christian beliefs, the Smith family practiced ...

New:

Richard Bushman has called the spiritual tradition of the Smith family "a religious melee." Joseph Smith, Sr. insisted on morning and evening prayers, but he was spiritually adrift and had repudiated evangelical religion.<ref>Bushman, 25-26. "If there was a personal motive for Joseph Smith Jr.'s revelations, it was to satisfy his family's religious want and, above all, to meet the need of his oft-defeated, unmoored father." (26-27)</ref> No members of the Smith family were church members in 1820. The family also practiced...

A bit more on JS sr. religion(JF signature)

Old Abrac:

In an early draft of her memoirs, Lucy Mack Smith described how...

New Abrac:

Nevertheless, Lucy Mack Smith emphasized that...

(JF signature)

I don't understand 'Nevertheless'. How does the 'abrac' statement disagree with the 'money digger' statement? 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think that "nevertheless" is not an improvement. I think the earlier version is more neutral. The Jade Knight 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it is important to inform the reader that this quote comes from an obscure manuscript and does not appear in any final published form of the LMS book. 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make with the "nevertheless" is that LMS wanted to emphasize that the family was not sitting around casting magic spells when they should have been out hoeing. In other words, she was reacting to all the bad press from Howe's book.

And of course the "abrac" statement doesn't appear in the published version. At the time, the Church was very sensitive about the connection between the Smiths and folk magic. The fact that the quotation was not included in the published version makes it all the more important.--John Foxe 20:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess 'Nevertheless' makes sense in that context, but it wasn't clear to me, or to Jade Knight.

Although I still think it would make more sense in an article about Joseph Smith, I agree that the 'abrac' stuff is important. However, what is the harm in 'early draft'? That is, after all, a historical fact, it isn't an opinion. <g> Maybe you would prefer 'unpublished manuscript'? Well, unpublished isn't correct, it was ultimately published with the 'abrac' stuff edited out. I suppose that 'early draft' is maybe a bit misleading, it implies that LMS chose to remove the 'abrac' stuff before publication. Can anyone think of a better word? 74s181 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I like "early draft". And I'm still opposed to the usage of "nevertheless"—regardless of which argument it is supporting. The Jade Knight 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this until a better term comes along:

In an original manuscript of her memoirs, Lucy Mack Smith responded to criticism by describing how...

74s181 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete:

...illustrating this blend of folk magic and Christian belief.

I think the LMS statement is best left for the reader to interpret; it's difficult to tell if she had a blend of Christianity and magic in mind. (JF signature)

She says 'while we did this, we also did that', sounds like she meant a blend to me. I think you can add a or tag without prior discussion, even under the new rules, but since 'you' brought it up, I oppose deleting it. 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding why you opposte the deletion of that line. To me, it is an editorial interpretation. What is wrong with letting the reader figure this out on their own? The Jade Knight 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to be convinced that it should be removed. What I'm saying is, it isn't appropriate to just delete something for that reason, and just posting a comment on the talk page saying that you want to delete it is also less than optimum. There is already a well defined process for this sort of objection on WP, it should be tagged, and time should be allowed for other editors to comment on it, or maybe even find a citation to support it. By other editors I mean not only the small handful who are editing this article all the time, but also any lurkers or drive-bys. That is what these tags are for, to call attention to something that needs to be corrected and/or discussed. 74s181 11:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I want to delete the statement is that it can't be proved that it has anything to do with Christianity. What LMS is saying is that while the family went about its work, it didn't neglect thoughts about spiritual things. There's nothing about Christianity there.--John Foxe 20:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, 'welfare of our souls' sounds like a Christian sentiment to me. But I'm not saying that it can't eventually be removed. Wikipedia has a process for this, the assertion should be tagged, time needs to be allowed for editors to notice the tag and try to find an expert opinion, and if none is found within a reasonable time period it can then be deleted. My opinion is that it is ok to tag something like this without previous discussion, even under the current strict requirement for discussion that Visorstuff has laid out. 74s181 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're making an unwarranted assumption by using the word "blend." How does Smith family practice illustrate the "blending" of magic with Christian belief?--John Foxe 22:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"whilst" 74s181 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I'm confused. I thought this was a long example by 74, rather than an actual proposal for changes. In any case, if somebody talks about spiritual matters, and they come from a Christian background, it is likely that they consider spiritual matters and Christianity pretty much the same.

I apologize that my explanation wasn't more clear. When the first protection expired, John Foxe started reverting again. Visorstuff reverted his changes and warned him to discuss his changes first. JF then proceeded to make almost the exact same set of changes. Visorstuff warned him again, this proved fruitless, so Visorstuff protected the page. JF then posted a single paragraph summary of multiple change he wanted to make. I felt that JF didn't understand what Visorstuff was asking him to do, so I went thru the edit history of the changes he had made to the article prior to Visorstuff reverting and protecting it, and put it into a form that I thought might work for actual discussion of the individual pages. 74s181 02:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why an early draft is being quoted in the first place. The fact that it didn't make it into the final version indicates she didn't think it worth including. The fact that folk magic was common during those times makes me wonder why it is worth mentioning. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 01:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is alleged that this and other material didn't make it into the final version because Brigham Young didn't want it in there. While checking references, I read somewhere that LMS didn't publish the book, that one of the missionaries on his way to England stopped by and visited with LMS, and purchased the MS from her, then published an edited version of it in England. BY had it recalled. Later, a further edited version was published. I probably don't have the story exactly right, even if it is I don't know how much of it is true, but knowing what I do about BY I wouldn't be too surprised if it all was true. Of course, we really don't know. LMS might have edited the Abrac and other stuff out herself, produced a new manuscript that was actually published and then thrown the old MS into a trunk where someone eventually found it and sold or donated it to the Church archives where Dan Vogel found it and said 'Wow, this is fabulous!'. There are no living eye witnesses we can question, so like most history it's all someone's opinion. Well, I guess that Dan Vogel is living, we could get his 'account' of how he reacted when he first read the 'Abrac' stuff. But he would be the only witness and we know how credible a single witness is.<g> 74s181 02:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have previously questioned what this material is doing in the FV article, it seems like details of the Smith family history that would be more appropriate in one of the Joseph Smith articles. John Foxe insisted that it remain, giving several reasons, one of which turned out to be completely false. I attempted many different arrangements of this, most were reverted outright by JF. There has been much discussion in "Requested source contexts", "Joseph Smith is the 'who' of the First Vision but is well covered elsewhere", "John Foxe reverts again", and "Faculty of Abrac". 74s181 02:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How the vision story has been presented

Old:

...was not published until 1840, 20 years after its recorded occurance, several early accounts conflate the First Vision with Smith's vision of 1823, which involved the angel Moroni...

New:

...was not published until 1840, twenty years after the canonical date of its occurrence, early accounts often conflate the First Vision with Smith's 1823 vision of the angel Moroni...

Less POV to say that 1820 is the date held by the LDS Church; plus stylistic improvement (JF signature)

How about:

...was not published until twenty years after the canonical date of its occurrence, second hand accounts often conflate the First Vision with Smith's 1823 vision of the angel Moroni...

I think saying both '1840' and 'twenty years after' is a bit redundant. 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think that none of the early JS accounts conflate the two visions, it is the second hand accounts that make this mistake. 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Often" is an indicator of frequency, and seems awkward when referring to a group of historical documents which are no longer being written. "Several" is, IMO, a much better description of the accounts that conflate the First Vision and the 1823 vision. The Jade Knight 06:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

...was not published until twenty years after the canonical date of its occurrence, several second hand accounts conflate the First Vision with Smith's 1823 vision of the angel Moroni...

74s181 11:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's good enough for me.--John Foxe 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, too. The Jade Knight 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a consensus, I've made the change. 74s181 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible anachronisms in the 1838 Account

Old:

...Methodist meetings—he was described by an associate as a "very passable exhorter," which Dan Vogel has interpreted to mean as a "very passable" Methodist exhorter

New:

...Methodist meetings because an associate described him as a "very passable exhorter." (Although lay exhorters were common in early Methodism, Smith was almost certainly not a licensed exhorter because church membership would have been required.)

Tried to finesse the "exhorter" problem. (JF signature)

Looks like you are also trying to 'finese' the Dan Vogel attribution, hmmm? I think we need to reach a more general consensus about whether or not we're going to follow the WP:NPOV policy in this article, see discussion. 74s181 03:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Old:

...early Methodism, almost certainly Smith was not a licensed exhorter because church membership was required.) <ref>''EMD'', 3: 50, n. 15.</ref> though this interpretation is disputed.<ref>{{Harvnb|Turner|1851|p=429}}Turner says that "after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings." According to...

New:

...early Methodism, Smith was almost certainly not a licensed exhorter because church membership would have been required.)<ref>Bushman, 69-70. A childhood acquaintance of Smith's, Orsamus Turner (1801-1855), noted that "after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, [Joseph] was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings." in O. Turner, ''History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase'' (Rochester, New York: William Alling, 1851), in ''EMD'', 3: 50. The Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, so it is likely that Smith's first dabble with Methodism occurred during the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra.''EMD'', 3: 50, n. 15; {{Harvnb|Turner|1851|p=429}} According to...

Citations moved to proper statements, etc. (don't think there's any substantive change here)) (JF signature)

Old:

...While he almost certainly never formally joined either church, he did associate himself with the Methodists eight years after being instructed by God not to join any established denomination.<ref>Bushman, 69-70. A childhood acquaintance of Smith's, Orsamus Turner (1801-1855), noted that "after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, [Joseph] was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings." in O. Turner, ''History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase'' (Rochester, New York: William Alling, 1851), in ''EMD'', 3: 50. The Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, so it is likely that Smith's first dabble with Methodism occurred during the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra.</ref>

New:

...Thus Smith associated himself with Methodism eight years after being instructed by God not to join any established denomination.

Citations moved to proper statements, etc. (don't think there's any substantive change here)) (JF signature)

Looks like a pretty substantive change to me. Also, there is a problem with the 'thus' statement. Needs a citation, some expert who draws this conclusion. 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it again I guess it is ok. This is one of those changes that is hard to discuss 'sentence by sentence', but I think it is ok to go ahead and make the change so we can see what it looks like when it is all done. If we weren't in lock down I would go ahead and add the tag to the current version of the statement. 74s181 11:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Old:

In the 1838 account, when describing his confusion about the various churches, Joseph states that he was unable to determine which, if any, of the churches he studied were correct.<ref>JSH:1:10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be aright, which is it, and how shall I know it?</ref> This sentiment is also recorded in the 1832 account.<ref>...from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divisions the wickedness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I become convicted of my Sins and by Searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament..." in ''EMD'' 1: 28</ref> Also in the 1838 account, Smith states that it had never entered into his heart that all churches were wrong.<ref> - JSH:1:18 ... No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.</ref> Critics point to this difference as evidence that the account contradicts itself.{{dubious}} At no point does Smith explicitly state that he believed that the true church of God did not exist on the earth. Mormons don't consider this difference a contradiction; many assume that Smith was stating that none of the churches he investigated were true.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}

New:

In the 1838 account Joseph claims that it had never entered into his heart "that the existing churches were all wrong," but in the 1832 account in his own handwriting, Smith said that he had already concluded from reading the Bible that all churches were wrong.<ref>...from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divisions the wickedness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I become convicted of my Sins and by Searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament..." in ''EMD'' 1: 28. Mormons do not consider the difference a contradiction, because Smith does not explicitly state that the true church of God did not exist on the earth. Smith may simply have been stating that none of the churches he investigated were true.{{Fact|date=July 2007}}</ref>

Getting critics and believers out of the text (JF signature)

What you are proposing is a partial revert to the 11:32, 5 July 2007 version. There has been some discussion of this already, Wrp103 and Jade Knight implemented the change. If you have problems with the current version, I think you should resume the earlier discussion. 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have one question for you, if it isn't 'critics' who "point to this difference as evidence that the account contradicts itself", then who is it? Because, someone has to point to it, if you don't have an expert who makes this conclusion then it is or . 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as you've said, I find discussing things this way confusing. I just don't want any mention of "critics" and "believers" in the text. (They can be in the footnotes if really necessary.) The whole sentence needs to be reworded to remove the "critics," and I think that can be done.--John Foxe 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as rewording doesn't mean reverting, that is fine. We need to move forward, not backward. I agree that it is hard to visualize this way, but you can go into edit, add a temporary / to the first <nowiki> tag, and do a 'show preview' to see how it will appear with the references hidden. I only did the <nowiki> to make the references visible. 74s181 23:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I pointed out above, here has been some previous discussion on this section and the attempt to make it look like one account contradicts another when in fact they do not. Please take up this discussion there, so we don't have to repeat the whole thing here. 74s181 23:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do my best. I'll even eliminate the whole thing if there doesn't seem to be any way around the problem. In my view almost any solution is better than introducing the views of critics and believers. Especially if it's a solution that makes the article shorter. (In passing, you'd probably be aghast if you knew how little I understand of the technical side of Wikipedia and of computing in general.)--John Foxe 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do respond above, mind posting a note here, so the rest of us know? Anyway, I wouldn't mind if the whole "exhorter" business got cut out of the article—the text everything seems to be based on is ambiguous, and I don't think we need to hash it out here if we can just ignore it entirely. The Jade Knight 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Smith's religious confusion

Old:

...William wrote that the prayer was also the suggestion...

New:

...William wrote that his brother's prayer had also been made at the suggestion...

Stylistic tweak (JF signature)

Ok, that's it. Just a suggestion for how we might make these proposals and discuss them in the future. 74s181 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to Intro section

I think we should add something indicating that most Christians believe that the event didn't happen. I suggest that before the second sentence starting "Even current LDS Church Historian ..." the following be added:

Most Christians believe that the First Vision never happened, and that such visions no longer occur. Many point to what they perceive as contradictions between the different versions as an indication the event was fabricated.

I think that will help the flow into the second sentence, which kinda sticks out right now. I am sure we can find reference for those sentences.

The problem I have with it right now, is that it sounds like most people believe it happened, which is clearly not the case. Any thoughts? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 00:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems obvious that most non-LDS Christians believe it never happened. In fact most non-Latter Day Saints don't believe it happened, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or otherwise (though Baha'ists may be an exception). If there is no other article that covers it, it may be worth having a section on "Visions and the Latter Day Saint Movement" which discusses some of the differences of the LDS view of visions with that of mainstream Christianity. What do you think? The Jade Knight 06:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I second The Jade Knight. There's no reason to mention non-believers or believers here.--John Foxe 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, changes to the lead! Danger, Will Robinson! <g> 74s181 12:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about:

...it had become a foundational element of the faith.

Today, most denominations associated with the Latter Day Saint movement teach the vision as a doctrinal truth like the Death and resurrection of Jesus although some differ in regard to its significance and the accuracy of its canonical details. Other Christian churches teach that the heavens are closed, and point to what they perceive as contradictions between the different accounts as an indication the event was fabricated. Even current LDS Church Historian Marlin Jensen...

This incorporates Bill's idea of what other churches think about the FV, and fixes a couple of other problems that have been bugging me for a while. 74s181 12:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that asserting what groups of people believe is problematic. I think it is much easier to talk about what institutions teach, less chance of dispute. Personally, I think there are probably a lot of Christians who believe that visions can occur, yet belong to churches who officially teach that the "heavens are closed". Otherwise, how would the LDS get so many converts?<g> Same with "most members of churches associated with the Latter Day Saint movement", who knows what 'most' believe? 'Most' is one of those words to be avoided if possible, and backed up with a citation when used. Much easier to accurately report what is taught, and provide citations if needed. 74s181 12:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This also fixes a redundancy problem with the previous paragraph, the last sentence of which was saying essentially the same thing as the first sentence of this paragraph. 74s181 12:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful to compare the FV to another faith-based-but-historically-disputed event like Death and resurrection of Jesus. I know that some don't like the quality of this particular article, but I couldn't think of another event that works as well. 74s181 12:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think 'accounts' is more correct than 'versions'. Within the current article there are 9 occurances of 'version' and over 60 occurances of 'account'. 74s181 12:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This change is fine with me. Do we also want to add a comment that Mormons don't perceive the differences as contradictions? We could then change the "Even, " to "For example, " for the next sentence:

...it had become a foundational element of the faith.

Today, most denominations associated with the Latter Day Saint movement teach the vision as a doctrinal truth like the Death and resurrection of Jesus although some differ in regard to its significance and the accuracy of its canonical details. Other Christian churches teach that the heavens are closed, and point to what they perceive as contradictions between the different accounts as an indication the event was fabricated. Mormons, on the other hand, don't view the differences between accounts as contradictions. For example, current ...

One of the problems that I've mentioned for months is that articles tend to get longer simply because its easier to add than to subtract. This article is about the First Vision; it's not a comparison of Mormonism and Christianity. Let's avoid introducing Mormons vs. non-Mormons into this article. I can live with the lead paragraph as it is, but I would be even happier to see the whole thing disappear.--John Foxe 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in this proposal that is outside the scope of the First Vision. Now, that 'Faculty of Abrac' thing... <g> Because we say who believes the FV, we also need to say who does not. Saying they reject the FV because the 'heavens are closed' is about as terse as you can get. We do need a reference for 'heavens are closed', shouldn't be too difficult to find. 74s181 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but I think we need a different label than 'Mormons' which is associated with TCoJCoLdS. Maybe 'believers', but maybe that is too broad. Certainly, saying 'followers of the Latter Day Saint movement' over and over again is too cumbersome. 74s181 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Mormon Historical Association" seems to encompass the whole movement; I don't think there would be any confusion.--John Foxe 20:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing I could find was "Mormon History Association" which looks pretty TCoJCoLdS centric, but not absolutely so. The question of 'Mormon', 'Latter-day Saint', 'Latter Day Saint', 'LDS', etc., has been thoroughly debated here (lots of comments by COGDEN, BTW), and here. There is an entire article is devoted to it here. 74s181 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with this, is that the Jensen quote becomes a response to the 'contradictions' issue, and the Mouw quote doesn't fit as well. I suppose we could break it off into a separate paragraph and let it stand on its own. I think that might work. I've said before, I think the Mouw quote is very important, it sort of takes the edge off of the subsequent criticism. 74s181 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never understood why, Les. Mouw is hardly typical of evangelicals; and by using his quotation, you have to say that he's sure JS didn't really see God and Jesus. So how can Mouw be so sure that Smith is trustworthy and yet be equally sure he didn't see God and Jesus? "The mystery remains."--John Foxe 20:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But, "The mystery remains" is the whole point. Here is this evangelical, he should be right there with the most flaming critics. He knows that God didn't appear, but he also thinks JS was sincere, he can't accept the arguments that JS made it all up for fun and profit. He can't explain it, it's a mystery to him. Or, IOW, I suspect that I like the Mouw quote for the same reason you like the Jensen quote.<g> 74s181 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about 'evidence' instead of 'an indication'? 74s181 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, are there really any LDSM denominations who 'differ in regard to its significance'? I know some differ on accuracy, but I think that all who teach it as a doctrinal truth agree that it is the most significant event since the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Those who do not teach it as a doctrinal truth are already outside of 'most', so I don't think we have to further qualify. 74s181 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mormons and Contradictions

Can't we just use the term Latter Day Saints (as opposed to Latter-day Saints)? I would think that a "follower of the Latter Day Saint movement" could safely be called a "Latter Day Saint". The Jade Knight 21:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to add the selected text (which I happen to dislike), you also need a fact tag (or a citation) for the contradiction part. The Jade Knight 21:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Unless a verifiable citation can be found for these, I propose we delete the following lines (one is dubious and the other, largely a response, is uncited):

Critics point to this difference as evidence that the account contradicts itself.[dubious — see talk page] At no point does Smith explicitly state that he believed that the true church of God did not exist on the earth. Mormons don't consider this difference a contradiction; many assume that Smith was stating that none of the churches he investigated were true.[citation needed]

The Jade Knight 06:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need to mention a "contradiction" at all.--John Foxe 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As wrong as we might think it is, I suspect that there are probably critics out there who have written about this particular 'contradiction' in reliable sources. We need to allow time for someone to find one of these references. 74s181 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be harder to find an apologist to support the second statement, but again, we need to allow time for that, especially since it is a balancing POV. 74s181 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of these tags is to call attention to problems. We need to allow time for these things to be fixed, especially given the level of contention on this article. How much time? I don't know, but I suspect there is some standard. Looking for guidance here, boss! <g> 74s181 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I added that section is because John Foxe kept presenting the two statements as contradictions (actually, he quoted two different accounts, possibly to suggest that the details changed over time). The point I was trying to make was that the two statements don't necessarily contradict each other. It is perfectly reasonable to interpret "they were all wrong" as referring to the churches Smith investigated, while at the same time allowing the possibility that there was still a "true" church out there that he hadn't found. In fact, that theme appears several times during the early missionary efforts of the church - the missionaries find a group of people that don't believe any of the known churches are correct, and have been praying to find the true church.

I have no problem changing the text, but I think the two comments from the 1832 account should be mentioned, since it crops up often in writings by critics. My approach is to show where the different groups disagree, and attempt to explain each viewpoint. I would not object to a total rewrite, as long as the issue is mentioned in a balanced manner. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To give you some insight into my motivations ... I was born and raised Catholic, became agnostic in college, and finally joined the Mormon Church in my 30s. Anti-Mormon material was influential in that conversion. A friend had given me a number of Anti-Mormon books and articles. After studying them, I realized how deceptive they were, and how shoddy the scholarship was. It was clear to me that they couldn't have been influenced by God, and so if Satan was trying to discredit the LDS Church, I decided to look into it closer.

One of the common techniques of Anti-Mormon literature is to present what they claim is a contradiction. They then suggest that Mormons either are not aware of this contradiction, or that they have no answer to explain it. Because of this, any suggestion that something pertaining to Mormons is a contradiction, should (IMHO) be balanced with the LDS perspective. Since things like "they were all wrong" and the priesthood needed to see God appear in Anti-Mormon literature, I believe that such things should be mentioned in a balanced manner where appropriate. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think differences in the accounts can be mentioned without using the term "contradiction." Again, I'm dead set against having the text say, "Critics say..., but Mormons believe." If you follow the history of this article, substitute wording for such things has been found on a number of occasions.--John Foxe 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, it seems clear that whether the label is used or not, 'contradiction' is the thread that runs thru much of the current version of the article. I agree that the differences in the accounts could be presented without talking about contradictions, but when statements about different accounts are joined by words like 'however', 'nevertheless', etc., it is clear that someone is trying to illustrate a contradiction. 74s181 21:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem with any 'historical fact' or modern day accusation being presented, as long as it is done in a NPOV way, with appopriate attribution. However, it sounds like what you want is to lead the reader to conclude that there is contradiction, without ever actually saying so. The only reason I can think of for this would be that if contradiction is labeled as such it becomes an interpretation, not a 'historical fact' it would have to be attributed to a critic, and you're 'dead set against having the text say, "Critics say..."' If a critic didn't say A contradicts B, then who said it? As I said before, such statements are or if not properly attributed. Please help me understand how I have misunderstood your intentions. 74s181 21:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd much rather dispense with "however" and "nevertheless" than introduce "critics" and "believers." If you think those words lead the reader, by all means, let's eliminate them.--John Foxe 21:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, in many cases, we should eliminate "nevertheless" (without introducing "critics", &c.) Bill brings up a significant concern, however—if this is commently quoted in anti-Mormon publications, it would be nice for Wikipedia to present the facts in a neutral manner, so people could decide f or themselves. What is the best way to do this, I wonder? The Jade Knight 21:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If some statement is definitely linked with anti-Mormonism, let's eliminate it rather than try to present the material in a neutral manner. I'd like an article that's as short as possible and one that avoids discussing the views of Mormons and non-Mormons. The less there is to argue about, the easier it will be to reach NPOV. The article will also be more readable—one of the first casualties of edit wars.--John Foxe 22:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is it tends to strengthen Anti-Mormon material, since it reinforces the "Mormons can't explain" suggestion. I would prefer, for example, that the two quotes are identified, along with a note that some (non-believers, critics, whatever) think it is a contradiction, but others (believers, apologists, whatever) don't see it that way. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly about not introducing believers and critics into the article. Better to eliminate anything that can't be talked around. If whatever anti-Mormon statement you dislike isn't mentioned at all in the article, then there's no reason to discuss why that material can't be explained. For purposes of this article, it doesn't exist. I'm sure there are pages on Mormon apologetics where it would be appropriate to discuss such things at length.--John Foxe 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with John Foxe on this one. If the issue is significant, it may be worth raising. But just because the anti-Mormons like harping on it doesn't inherently mean it belongs here. The Jade Knight 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the criticism does exist, and to ignore it would result in an incomplete article, and, as Bill said, would reinforce the "Mormons can't explain" theory. This is why I have resisted John Foxe's deletion of 'neutralized' criticism. 74s181 23:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is more to the FV than the accounts written by JS, and as soon as you go beyond quoting those documents in their entirety you are into the realm of opinion. What modern experts say about the First Vision is as much of a 'fact' on WP as what the source documents say. What critics say is a WP fact. What the churches teach is a WP fact. 74s181 23:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Any disputed interpretation of the source documents represents the POV of the person who does the interpretation. If it is done by an editor it is WP:OR. If it is done by an expert it must be presented in a NPOV way, as in, "ExpertA says so and so, but Expert B says thus and such". Comparison of excerpts from source documents is inherently POV, either pro (see how these agree) or con (see how these contradict), even if you don't want to label it as such. Please tell me, John Foxe, do you even read my attempts to explain these principles? Or, am I just wasting my time trying to get you to understand how WP is supposed to work? 74s181 23:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We can state what churches believe about the First Vision. That's fine. We can ignore what moderns, critics or believers, say about it except perhaps in footnotes. We don't have to interpret the source documents; we just need to lay them out as they (mostly) are right now. There's no reason to lead the reader; let him make his own decision about them. If you think that my wording has given an anti-Mormon interpretation to a document, we can change the wording. What we'll get is no critics, no believers, and a faster track to a shorter NPOV article that we all can live with.--John Foxe 00:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"...ignore what moderns, critics or believers, say about it" This would result in an incomplete article. From WP:POV:

Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects.

74s181 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"...lay [the source documents] out as they (mostly) are right now." They are mostly laid out right now to support examination of contradictions. Whether or not contradictions exist is an interpretation. Failing to attribute each such comparison is WP:POV and WP:OR. 74s181 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) From WP:POV

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

Who advocates the point of view

What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

74s181 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"There's no reason to lead the reader..." I agree. Criticism, identified as such, doesn't 'lead' anybody, but placing excerpts of two different accounts together in such a way as to 'lead' the reader to conclude that there is a contradiction is, IMHO, leading the reader. 74s181 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"If you think that my wording has given an anti-Mormon interpretation to a document..." Yes, there are problems with wording, but the biggest problem I have seen since the first day I started working on this article is organization, as I have explained many times, in fact I just explained it in the 'lead the reader' comment. 74s181 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"...article that we all can live with." I can't live with an article that doesn't answer the questions people have after they run into a rabid anti-mormon evangelist. I can't live with an unbalanced article that is structured to lead the open minded reader to a conclusion that I know is false. And John Foxe, be honest, I'm sure that you can't live with an article that doesn't answer the questions people have after being taught by Mormon missionaries. 74s181 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you ever read any of the policy / principle links I have provided, but I hope you will read this one. Writing for the enemy is part of the NPOV policy, and is especially applicable to controversial articles like this one. It specifically outlines how disputed facts should be presented in these articles. Here's an example it provides:

So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________."

It also says that you should present not only your belief, but also my belief in this manner. I don't really expect you to 'write for the enemy', but we all need to understand that all significant POV should be identified and attributed, in the body of the article, not hidden in the footnote. IMHO that means that we have to either write "Critics argue..." or we have to write "Dan Vogel argues..." Either way we must also provide an accurate reference.

Writing for the enemy and the example above are part of the WP:NPOV policy. What are the first words of the policy?

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

Any questions? 74s181 01:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You put forward a persuasive argument. I still don't like it, including all this minute trivia that people get in arms up about, but I can see that it would (unfortunately) appear to be Wikipedia policy that it be included (and I can see why you would want it in). The Jade Knight 02:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, I still think we have grounds to cut if citations for all relevant points cannot be found. This applies to much of this. This article is at such a point that everything should be cited. The Jade Knight 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, if there is a disputed statement (like the one we're discussing), and if we tag it, and if no one comes up with a citation for it, then we delete it.

Also, if after discussion we reach a consensus that something is a tiny minority view (see WP:UNDUE then it can be deleted. The "exhorter = debater" theory is an example of something that, while citable, may be a tiny minority view, even though you and I both think it makes as least as much sense as the "methodist exhorter" theory. 74s181 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As for what I want in the article, all WP policies aside, I want people who come here with questions to find answers. If they've heard this, that, or the other wacko theory, er, I mean, common misconception, I want them to be able see it presented here, in a NPOV way (So-and-so argues...) along with a balancing response (However, thus-and-such explains...) WP policies just mean that when it is all finished it it will look like an encyclopedia article, not an LDS or an anti-LDS tract. 74s181 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy to live without an article that ignores questions raised by Mormon missionaries. A article that just presents the factual material is all I want, all we need, and all we're likely to agree on. Let the reader make up his own mind without the addition of anti-Mormon and apologetic disputes. Besides, Les, you already agreed above that you wouldn't try to change the structure of the article, one to which COGDEN contributed the lion's share. (Of course, stating the beliefs of the various Mormon denominations is absolutely correct and necessary.)--John Foxe 11:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What John Foxe really meant, IMHO. 74s181 03:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy to live without an article that ignores questions responses to criticisms raised by Mormon missionaries apologists. A article that just presents the factual material in a POV manner is all I want, all we need, and all we're likely to agree on get, as long as I'm around. Let the reader make up his own mind without the addition proper identification of anti-Mormon and apologetic disputes criticism.

When did I agree that I wouldn't try to change the structure of the article? 74s181 03:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I probably read too much into your comment of May 30th: "Splitting the article into three sections - I only suggested splitting the article up this way because I think it will result in a cleaner article than what we're going to have after we attribute all the controversial opinions. I'm not pushing for this anymore. And BTW, I don't think separate sections in the same article constitutes a POV fork. 74s181 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"--John Foxe 15:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I said that. When I said "I'm not pushing for this anymore," I was talking about splitting the article up into three sections. I still feel that way. I'm not now proposing splitting the article up into sections, I'm proposing attribution, or, IOW, "...what we're going to have after we attribute all the controversial opinions." .74s181 15:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

When will you get it thru your thick skull that I could care less whether something was contributed by COGDEN or Fawn Brodie, or you? If it's wrong, it's wrong. 74s181 03:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Global change - 'version' --> 'account'

I can't say why, but 'version' seems negative to me. Within the current article there are 9 occurances of 'version' and over 60 occurances of 'account'.

So, I want to do a global change of all remaining occurances of 'version' or 'versions' to 'account' or 'accounts'. Obviously I would look at each of these in context first to see if makes sense.

Any objections? 74s181 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem for me. (Just make sure you spell "occurrences" correctly.)--John Foxe 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No objections here either. The Jade Knight 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be agreement, what is the procedure for making the change? I could make the change, or we could ask User:Visorstuff to make the change. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 23:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that we have consensus on this. The page protection expired. I edited the article and made this change. The was one place that said "Thus, Cowdery's version of the story, containing a single vision", and it looked like replacing 'version of the story' with 'account' would be grammatically ok, so I did it. I did not change 'version' where it was part of quotation.

I also removed the page protection tag, per Visorstuff's instructions. 74s181 00:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Another uncited claim

"As polygamy ceased to be a defining characteristic of Mormonism, [Joseph F.] Smith sought to re-emphasize the First Vision.[citation needed]" - I do not at all see the connection here, and unless a citation is provided for this, I feel strongly that this should be cut from the picture caption. The Jade Knight 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It has been flagged since June, I don't know how long we need to wait but it has already been at least two weeks. BTW, I find it interesting that the quote says 're-emphasize', this implies that it was emphasized in the past. 74s181 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think the phrase should be deleted. The best that could be hoped for is "some people believe that ..." since I doubt that Joseph F. Smith said something like "now that we don't have polygamy to talk about, let's bring back the first vision" ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This was COGDEN's addition, if anyone wants to check with him about it.--John Foxe 11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete?

Yes. 74s181 02:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - sounds like OR to me -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep?

Spiritual tradition of the Smith family

I don't think anyone objected to the new sentences at the beginning of the paragraph. I put "abrac" in the footnotes in an attempt to avoid any controversy over whether this practice was a blend of folk magic and Christianity.--John Foxe 11:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

When you make these changes, your description of the change needs to be more specific than 'see discussion', it needs to reference a specific discussion. 74s181 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about the changes you wanted to make to the 'abrac' section. You should have used that instead of adding a new section like this. 74s181 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But, since we're here... 74s181 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you were ok to add the Bushman comment because a)there was no objection, and b) there was lots of discussion about other things since it was posted, so clearly, no one had a strong objection to this. 74s181 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

However, there is as yet no consensus on the other 'abrac' changes, your deletions and changes there were premature. There was a proposal for an opening statement on the table, you ignored it. There is significant discussion on the deletion of the 'blend' statement. You've created a problem by doing this, because if I undo your changes it is a partial revert. 74s181 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think that eliminating the "abrac" statement from the text would be a big deal. Would you really complain about its presence and then complain about its absence?--John Foxe 19:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would complain if you just deleted it, because unlike you I want a truly NPOV article. However, you didn't delete it, you buried it in the footnote to a marginally related statement. 74s181 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You did delete the 'blend' statement as I said and I'm sure you know. 74s181 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But the main reason I complained is because of your 'business as usual' attitude. 74s181 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 74s181. You shouldn't have gone and done all that without making sure it reflects consensus in discussion, first. The Jade Knight 11:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And a consensus is when a majority have explicitly stated that something should be done. The fact that nobody explicitly objected to a suggestion doesn't constitute a consensus; people could be thinking about the proposed change and trying to make a decision, or they could be concentrating on a different issue. This was the entire point of the discuss, then edit comments. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that forbids editors from editing before taking a nose count. In fact, such a procedure is antithetical to the nature of Wikipedia and would suppress any inconvenient minority.--John Foxe 09:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but. Wrong. Maybe. 74s181 11:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, this entire group needs to discuss any changes that are not grammatical before they are made, and have them worked out on the talk page before editing the article. This will prevent edit warring, and the ill feelings that exist here. I'll protect the page again to enforce this if discussion doesn't start happening to improve the article. -Visorstuff 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

74s181 11:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Differences in "no true church" memories

I looked at this paragraph and decided that it was best eliminated if for no other reason than that Bill connects the material with anti-Mormonism and that we would be unable to discuss the matter without reference to critics and believers. Elimination also makes the article shorter. I hope you view this change as a matter of good faith on my part because that was truly my intent.--John Foxe 11:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Wrong, maybe. 74s181 13:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

John, your obsession about avoiding critics and apologists has resulted in a number of contorted sections. (You might recall that I stated deletion strengthened the Anti-Mormon bias of the article.) If an issue is well-known about the topic, then it should be discussed in the article in a NPOV manner. That means that all sides to the issue are explained in such a way that the reader can make up their own mind on what is "true". By removing a section, you are weakening the article rather than improving it. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I do wish to avoid the mention of critics and apologists in this article because in Mormon hands, historical facts are often labeled "criticism" so that apologetic material can be introduced to blunt their force. Facts are not criticism, and no apologetic material should be introduced as if there were two sides to historical truth. If, however, in any case I have inadvertently strengthened the anti-Mormon bias of the article by my refusal to admit "critics" and "apologists," this bias should be proved (you can't just declare a section "contorted") and then eliminated.--John Foxe 09:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Wrong. Been there, quoted the relevant policies, JF ignored. 74s181 11:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, John Foxe is either unable or unwilling to understand WP:NPOV, or unwilling to abide by it. 74s181 11:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Exhorter paragraph

Here I thought it best to consign even the word "exhorter" to the footnotes, again in the interest of reaching NPOV. Once again, the change makes the article (although not the notes) shorter.--John Foxe 12:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, see discussion, wrong, see WP:PAPER. 74s181 13:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with what you've done with this paragraph, either. For one, you've replaced "because" (which is, by the way, a partial revert) which I am strongly opposed to—the quoted text is perfectly ambiguous and does not say anything about Methodist exhorters, as I've shown in discussion. You've also, in so doing, removed the attribution of that interpretation, replacing it with something that comes across as original research. The Jade Knight 11:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the article should contain a series of quotes by experts without any comments from the editors. There must be some text to connect the quotes together, but they should attempt to explain the various sides, not to interpret the quotes. (Or, quote a passage, and then explain how the various sides interpret the quote.) The problem I have with a number of sections is that a quote is cited, but then an interpretation of the meaning of the quote is inserted. In other times, a series of quotes are placed in such a way as to lead the reader towards a given conclusion. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the attempt to introduce POV quotations by either Mormons or non-Mormons. Philosophically, to treat historical facts as if they were opinions is deceitful. Practically, it will become virtually impossible for us to reach NPOV if the page becomes a battleground for Mormon and anti-Mormon quotations. Again, if there is distortion or an attempt to lead the reader, those can, and should be, corrected.

With all due respect, Bill, you need to recuse yourself on this question because of a possible conflict-of-interest. You have told us that you were converted to Mormonism after reading anti-Mormon literature and then deciding that anti-Mormon arguments could be answered. You are now proposing that this article be turned into just such an LDS recruiting tool by introducing anti-Mormon arguments that can be answered by Mormon apologetics.--John Foxe 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, we should follow WP policies, like WP:NPOV. John Foxe's behavior clearly demonstrates that he is unable to understand or unwilling to follow this policy. 74s181 11:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism exists

...so deal with it. 74s181 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I will save everyone the trouble by pointing out right up front that:

1. My comments in this section are in violation of WP:AGF 74s181 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
2. My comments in this section are in violation of WP:NPA 74s181 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
3. However, I believe my actions are necessary, and justified in this particular case according to WP:IAR 74s181 12:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

When I first started working on this article I realized that the failure to identify criticism was a major contributor to the negative POV. I tried to fix it, but John Foxe wore me down, just like he does everyone else, so I laid it aside. However, looking at what is happening in the article today I see that this failure to identify criticism is both a violation of core WP policies, and at the core of the recent edit war. 74s181 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm mad as **** and I'm not going to take it anymore. So, put on your firesuits and get ready for an analysis of the history of criticism in this article, and a major discussion on this issue. 74s181 14:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

History of 'Criticism'

Article was created 23:59, 29 August 2003, containing the following statement:

Critics claim that the various records are inconsistent. They suggest that Smith's earliest recitals of his experience claim only that an angel visited him, rather than God and Jesus Christ, and that Joseph changed his story over time.

Criticism section as it existed 23:30, 15 December 2003, no section header:

There are a number of sometimes conflicting records depicting Smith's claims, most of which were made second hand. Smith did not record any details of such a vision until 1831 or 1832, and detailed accounts were only published about a decade later. Critics claim that the various records are inconsistent. They argue that Smith's earliest versions of his experience claim only that an angel visited him, rather than God and Jesus Christ, and that Smith changed his story over time.

Criticism-related article edit history

Section title added 18 December 2003, note how the title changes over time:

20:41, 18 December 2003 Kdawg Criticisms of the First Vision

14:22, 3 May 2005 205.118.4.97 Criticisms of the First Vision (added sections for each account, detailed chronology including pre-1830 second hand accounts)

18:41, 22 December 2005 Hawstom Criticisms of the LDS Interpretation of the First Vision

19:17, 14 August 2006 John Foxe Criticisms of the Canonical 1838 Version of the First Vision

19:26, 24 August 2006 John Foxe Difficulties with the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision

18:18, 23 October 2006 COGDEN Critical and apologetic analysis

19:01, 23 October 2006 John Foxe Difficulties with the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision (revert)

20:04, 23 October 2006 COGDEN Critical and apologetic analysis (revert?)

20:14, 23 October 2006 John Foxe Difficulties with the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision (revert)

20:18, 23 October 2006 COGDEN Critical and apologetic analysis (revert)

23:55, 24 October 2006 COGDEN Interpretation and criticism of the First Vision

10:50, 25 October 2006 John Foxe Criticism and apologetic responses to the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision

21:02, 25 October 2006 John Foxe Historical difficults with and apologetic responses to the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision

07:40, 26 October 2006 COGDEN Criticism and Apologetics

(it gets a little tricky here. Most material from the criticism section has moved into the new section JF just addeded, but the Criticism and Apologetics section remains)

21:30, 26 October 2006 John Foxe Difficulties with the Canonized 1838 Account

09:46, 27 October 2006 John Foxe (removed Criticism and Apologetics - his comment: "removed last section, which seems to have become inconsequential"

10:21, 27 October 2006 John Foxe Historical problems with the 1838 Account

01:23, 9 May 2007 74s181 Criticism (created section, moved critical material from 'Historical problems' and elsewhere)

10:59, 13 May 2007 John Foxe Historical problems with the 1838 Account (revert 4 days of editing, "")

12:33, 13 May 2007 Wrp103 Criticism (reverted John Foxe's revert)

20:07, 13 May 2007 John Foxe Historical problems with the 1838 Account (revert of Wrp103 :revert of John Foxe revert)

12:56, 15 May 2007 74s181 Criticism (revert 1.5 days of editing "due to lack of response to specific objections / comments")

18:33, 15 May 2007 John Foxe Historical problems with the 1838 Account (revert)

12:03, 16 May 2007 74s181 Criticism of the 1838 Account

14:25, 16 May 2007 John Foxe Historical problems with the 1838 Account (revert)

15:27, 16 May 2007 Wrp103 Criticism of the 1838 Account (revert John Foxe's revert)

15:46, 16 May 2007 John Foxe Historical Problems with the 1838 Account (revert of Wrp103 revert of John Foxe revert)

16:45, 16 May 2007 74s181 Criticism of the 1838 Account (revert, again)

18:22, 16 May 2007 John Foxe Historical Problems with the 1838 Account (revert, again)

01:58, 17 May 2007 Wrp103 Disputes about the 1838 Account

09:04, 17 May 2007 John Foxe Possible problems with the 1838 Account

09:10, 17 May 2007 John Foxe Possible historical problems with the 1838 Account

04:52, 22 May 2007 COGDEN (section header removed, critical material remains)

17:54, 29 May 2007 John Foxe Possible anachronisms in the 1838 Account (still the same section)

Criticism-related talk page history

23:59 29 August 2003 Article has used the label 'Critics' from its inception. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

18 December 2003 The criticism section was titled as a separate section. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

19:26, 24 August 2006 After three years of stability, John Foxe renamed the criticism section, removing the word 'Criticisms' from the title. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

23 October 2006 COGDEN attempted to rename the criticism section using the words 'Critical' and 'apologetic' two months later, begining on 23 October 2006. John Foxe resisted these changes using reverts, violating WP:3RR. Discussion ensues. John Foxe creates a section for criticism specific to the 1838 version, then renames it to 'Historical difficulties...'. Storm Rider tries to calm things down. COGDEN points out that having a separate 'criticism' section is a violation of WP:NPOV and proposes that the material be merged. After most of the criticism has been moved from the original criticism section to the new criticism section ('Historical difficulties') John Foxe deleted the old criticism section. No consensus is reached. Visorstuff announces his departure, stating: "The current form stinks, and it only seems to be getting worse." Other editors express their frustration, but John Foxe's changes remain. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

10:25, 27 October 2006 John Foxe announces his objection to the words 'critic' and 'critical'. COGDEN concurs. After this, John Foxe eliminates, then resists (often by reverting) any attempt to introduce the word 'critic' or 'criticism' into the article. A typical example:

Please do not the use the term "critic." Believers and non-believers should not have different truths frequently equating these labels with 'not truth'.--John Foxe 10:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many variations, but they all say essentially the same thing, No labels allowed, signed, John Foxe. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

03:56, 16 April 2007 74s181 (me) first expresses concerns about the tone of the article, and John Foxe's attitude towards it. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

00:45, 18 April 2007 74s181 begins his first attempt to gain consensus on the POV problems in the article including lack of identification of criticism, receiving encouragement from some editors. John Foxe is almost silent, until 74s181 begins making changes. Reversions begin. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

13:16, 27 April 2007 John Foxe restates his 'no critics' doctrine. 74s181 attempts to explain that beliefs are also facts as long as they are properly attributed, according to WP:NPOV. This goes on for several days. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

03:09, 2 May 2007 74s181 presents a specific outline for article restructuring, including a criticism section, receives a positive response from wrp103, no response from John Foxe. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

5 May 2007 74s181 attempts a small change in line with the proposed outline, John Foxe adds negative POV to it. 74s181 again tries to explain how WP:NPOV is supposed to work, John Foxe plays continues to play dumb. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

03:36, 9 May 2007 74s181 restructures the article as previously described, including grouping all the criticism together. No text is deleted, only moved. Wrp103 expresses support for the new version (emphasis added):

I like what you did. Great job! Thanks!

I especially like the fact that people can understand all the factors - the big picture, the individual versions, as well as the controversies ... all clearly labeled and easily available. Thanks again! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

11:08, 13 May 2007 John Foxe reports that he has reverted the restructuring. Wrp103 and 74s181 write detailed responses, explaining why John Foxe was wrong. This continues for several days, with various editors writing in favor of the changes, and John Foxe resisting every attempt at change, mostly via reverts. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

17 May 2007 74s181, wrp103, and Robert Horning surrender to John Foxe. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's all for now. There don't appear to be any changes to the title of the criticism section after this, but maybe later I'll check the rest of the history. 74s181 02:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions and other observations

The article has always included criticism and still does today, even though it is no longer identified as such. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has included a criticism section almost since its inception, and still does today, even though it is no longer identified as such. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires all significant POVs to be included, and presented in a NPOV way, this requires attribution, which frequently involves labels such as 'critic' or 'apologist'. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Failure to identify criticism as such is itself a form of POV. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

While the attempt by 74s181 to re-create a separate 'criticsm' section may have been inappropriate, John Foxe objections were all to the attempt to label anything as criticism, not the attempt to organize it into a single section. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe's statements and edit history demonstrate that he has taken ownership of the article and will not permit multiple POVs on the same issue or proper attribution of critical statements. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Several well-respected editors have abandoned this article as a result of John Foxe's actions. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple attempts have been made to explain these issues to John Foxe. He has demonstrated that he is either unable or unwilling to understand WP:NPOV policy as it relates to multiple POV and attribution. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm tired of this for now, I think I've dug myself a deep enough hole. Maybe more later. Comment is invited. 74s181 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Last explanation WP:NPOV to John Foxe

If there are POV statements in the article, we need to identify and eliminate them. But facts are not criticism, they simply are. If I say that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492, you can argue that he didn't discover it, that in the first place, it was already populated and that the Vikings probably got to the New World first anyway. But if I say that Columbus "was a navigator and colonialist who is one of several historical figures credited as the first European to discover the Americas" (as the Columbus article currently says), that's a fact beyond refutation by any reasonable person even if he's Cherokee or Swedish. Facts are not criticism; they are not Wikipedia-POV.--John Foxe 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV (emphasis added):

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. 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 asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. For example, when discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

What part of this do you not understand, John Foxe? The way to fix POV statements is not to "...identify and eliminate them". NPOV is achieved by neutralizing, not by neutering. 74s181 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've observed something interesting about your approach. Someone will identify a problem statement in the article, you'll fight tooth and nail any attempt to attribute or balance the statement. But as soon as you're forced to admit that the statement is POV you will delete it or bury it in the footnotes to avoid having stay in the article with attribution and / or balanced or in other words, rather than have it remain in the article identified as criticism. 74s181 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, since you brought up Christopher Columbus, here's close but not quite perfect example of what I'm talking about with different POV.

Following Washington Irving's myth-filled 1828 biography of Columbus, Americans commonly believed Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat. In fact, few at the time of Columbus’s voyage, and virtually no sailors or navigators, believed this.

I'm wasting my time talking to you, John Foxe. I've explained these things many times. Either you can't understand, or don't want to understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work, you've had plenty of opportunities and time to learn. So I am done talking to you until you admit that your behavior has been wrong, and specifically state how you are going to change it. 74s181 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to discuss first, then edit?

Would somebody explain why John Foxe thinks it is fine to make a series of changes because he thinks people agree, or at least don't object? I am especially concerned that a preliminary, unpublished source has suddenly risen in stature and is being cited without any mention that the selection was deleted before publication. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting the whole reference to "abrac." But of course, the sentence has been published in EMD, 1, and I just got 82 Google hits for "abrac" and "Lucy Mack Smith," so it's hardly a dark secret.--John Foxe 19:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that John Foxe was out of line in making the edits he has before discussion. I think it would be fair to revert his edits that were not expressed discussed and agree upon beforehand, and force him to actually discuss them. The Jade Knight 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My intent is to reach NPOV. The "abrac" quotation seemed to generate an usual amount of controversy for its comparative unimportance, and so I thought I'd eliminate it from the text as an attempt to demonstrate good faith. The quotation is not something that would have been added by a Mormon, neither is it crucial to this article. I give my hearty consent to keeping it or eliminating it, putting it in the text or the footnotes, whatever you all prefer.--John Foxe 14:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean "Neutered POV" (removal of attribution) or "Neutered of POV" (removing POV from the article). NPOV is not achieved by deleting POV, it is acheived by neutralizing it, per WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. 74s181 15:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no POV in the "abrac" quotation and nothing that needs to be neutralized or deleted. My hope was to reach NPOV by making concessions. I don't believe any material I deleted was POV. (You've broken your promise not to talk to me, Les.)--John Foxe 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, Wrong. It was. (Sorry.) 74s181 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a consensus can be reached. Who is in favor of reverting the latest edits by John Foxe, and restoring it to the last version by 74.

There is no rule that forbids editors from editing before taking a nose count. In fact, such a procedure is antithetical to the nature of Wikipedia and would suppress any inconvenient minority. I have discussed the changes I made here; if they do not appeal to you all, then discuss the changes individually. A simple reversion sets a bad precedent for what we are trying to accomplish here—reaching NPOV—especially because I was acting in good faith in an attempt to compromise the differences between us.--John Foxe 10:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but. Wrong, maybe. Wrong, we are. Normally true, but, I doubt it. 74s181 11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, this entire group needs to discuss any changes that are not grammatical before they are made, and have them worked out on the talk page before editing the article. This will prevent edit warring, and the ill feelings that exist here. I'll protect the page again to enforce this if discussion doesn't start happening to improve the article. -Visorstuff 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that John Foxe's edits to the the article and comments on the talk page demonstrate that he is unable to understand or unwilling to comply with WP policies, especially WP:NPOV. 74s181 11:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that we are moving towards a consensus to revert John Foxe's most recent changes, with the possible exception of his addition to the 'religious beliefs' section. That is, the Bushman 'melee' statement, and the JS, Sr. 'morning and evening prayers' statement. 74s181 12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe disagreed with any revert and demonstrated his refusal to participate in the consensus process by not posting his dissent under the Oppose label. But, maybe he just didn't get it. So give him a bit longer. 74s181 12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree

1. Agree -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Agree, but I think the addition is ok. 74s181 18:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Agree, though parts of his changes I don't have problems with (and would perhaps support if he brought them up here on the talk page first). The Jade Knight 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Critics and apologists

I thought I would here state in one place and in a separate section what I have already noted above: my opposition to the introduction of warring Mormon and anti-Mormon quotations. Philosophically, to treat historical facts as if they were opinions is deceitful. Practically, it will become virtually impossible for us to reach NPOV if the page becomes a battleground for Mormon and anti-Mormon quotations. If there is distortion, or the article seems to lead the reader, these problems can, and should be, corrected without introducing the notions of partisan "experts."

With all due respect to Bill, he has a possible conflict-of-interest. He has told us that he was converted to Mormonism after reading anti-Mormon literature and then deciding that anti-Mormon arguments could be answered by Mormon apologetics. By proposing that this article become a battleground of opposing critics and apologists, it could be argued that he wishes to turn this article into the sort document that led to his own conversion.--John Foxe 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to John Foxe, his comments here and edits of the article demonstrate that he is unable to understand or unwilling to comply with WP:NPOV. Note especially how he makes up his own rules about how things ought to be, never refering to official WP policies. Note also that when this is pointed out he never responds directly to what the policies say, he simply restates his view of how things ought to be. 74s181 11:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bet you've never heard of WP:VOLUBILITY in which an editor can be voted off the island for chronic garrulousness.--John Foxe 13:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said. 74s181 14:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Interminably. John Foxe 15:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

John, everyone who edits this article has a possible conflict of interest. You clearly think that Mormons are mistaken. I clearly think they are not. That has nothing to do with NPOV, as long as we don't try to push our particular viewpoint. NPOV must present both of our reasons for believing that Mormons are mistaken or not.

I am curious what leads you to conclude that I am attempting to turn this article into the sort of document that led to my conversion. My agenda, if I have one, is to prevent this article from being an Anti-Mormon document or a Pro-Mormon document. It should list all the recognized issues/problems as "facts" complete with interpretations. If you look at my edit history on this article (or any other, for that matter), you will find a balance of pro- and anti- edits. I am as likely to raise a possible problem as I am to suggest a possible resolution. I have been that way all my life, and am not likely to change.

You yourself have admitted that some of the "facts" you once held to were less factual than you originally thought. Unfortunately, that hasn't seemed to open your eyes to the possibility that your remaining "facts" can be interpreted differently as well. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If I had thought you were an unreasonable person, Bill, I would not have voted in favor of your becoming an administrator. Nevertheless, I believe that the account of your conversion to Mormonism would lead an impartial observer to conclude that your interest in pushing for the inclusion of pro- and anti-Mormon POV in this article was an attempt to proselytize.

We need only present facts here. For instance, Joseph Smith gave several different accounts of the First Vision. Opponents of Mormonism will argue that Smith's stories are contradictory; Mormons will argue that the accounts can be harmonized. We both agree that there are different accounts. That's the only fact that we need present here.

The following sentence is the sort I find objectionable: "Critics of Mormonism argue that there are many different versions of the first vision, while other scholars..." What has effectively happened in this sentence is that a fact (the different accounts) has suddenly become a position held by critics. The statement that there are different accounts of the First Vision is no longer true; it's just one position opposed by another one equally valid. But to treat historical facts as if they were opinions is wrong; it is deceitful.

As you have said, I have learned that some "facts" I once held were incorrect. We are all finite and fallible. I hope I never get to the place where I can't be corrected or confess that I am wrong.

Now, as one man of good will to another, I'd ask that you not try to add pro- and anti-Mormon POV to this article. The few sentences in this article that separate us can be finessed with deft wording. If we can do that together, we can take on all comers. But if you introduce pro- and anti-Mormon interpretations, Pandora's box will open.--John Foxe 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that you would use Pandora as a metaphor for NPOV. My personal opinion, not official LDS doctrine, is that the Pandora myth is a corruption of the doctrine of the the fall, which according to LDS was an essential part of Heavenly Father's plan, or, IOW, had to happen, was meant to happen. I realize that you probably believe as most non-LDS Christians that the fall was a big mistake, and that we would all be much happier if Adam and Eve had never eaten the forbidden fruit, or if Pandora had never opened the jar, or if properly Neutralized POV were never allowed in this and other LDSM articles. 74s181 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

John, according to your logic, the following statement is NPOV: "The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) don't agree with each other." There is a big difference between stylistic differences and factual differences. There is also a big difference between major variations and minor variations. Yes, there are different accounts - that is a fact. However, the significance of those differences is what is important for NPOV. Critics think the differences are major and support their view that the event was fabricated. Mormons think the differences are minor, and they are all saying basically the same thing. By presenting those two viewpoints, the reader can understand the controversy over the topic. They can study the differences and decide for themselves whether the differences are major or minor.

Simply stating that there are differences is POV, not NPOV, because it gives the impression to an uninformed reader that the various accounts contradict each other. As 74 has pointed out many times, the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV states:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.

That is exactly what the example you quoted was doing - presenting two different opinions - which is NPOV. Now, unless you can convince WP to change their policy, I suggest that you learn to live with it, even if you don't like it. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the statement, "The four Gospels differ from one another." If the differences are presented accurately, the reader can decide whether the differences are major or minor. Accounts of the First Vision should be presented in the same way. Apologetic material should be relegated to the footnotes because the accounts themselves are not criticism, they are not opinion. They are facts. They are not an anti-Mormon concoction. They just are. To present facts as anti-Mormon criticism is immoral. It is a lie.--John Foxe 09:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Time for action

The article has been protected twice in the last several days. No one is editing the article right now, including John Foxe. However, nothing has really changed about John Foxe's attitude. 74s181 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't rehash the whole thing here (see Talk:First_Vision#Criticism_exists), but I believe that the core issues are John Foxe's insistence that:

1. 'Facts are facts', even when they are arranged to lead the reader to a conclusion.
2. Criticism should not be identified as such or attributed.
3. Any response to criticism is apologetics and should be removed or buried in footnotes.
4. Controversy should be ignored, not reported.

Additional problems with John Foxe include:

1. Refusal to engage in discussion of changes that he doesn't want until after they are made.
2. A tendency to revert any substantive change to the article that he doesn't like.
3. Ignorance of, or unwillingness to understand WP policies.

Feel free to add other specific criticisms to the above, but please, if you have discussion about these criticisms, add it below. 74s181 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Visorstuff has made a sincere attempt to resolve this problem, but I now understand that he was hampered by his past involvement in this article and with John Foxe. 74s181 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is time for someone with wisdom, authority, and no previous relationship to this article or any of the key players in it to step in and take action to resolve this. I'm not sure how we make that happen, but first I want to see if we have a consensus. 74s181 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• "I believe it is time for someone with wisdom, authority, and no previous relationship to this article ..." By inviting this 'diverse' group [2] of editors to come here for this issue it almost appears that you are trying to 'rig' the consensus that you desire, from people who have had a 'previous relationship' to the article. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. Since this is a comment about what I am doing and has nothing to do with John Foxe's behavior or attitude I will respond to it here rather than moving it to the discussion section. 74s181 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I invited the list that I did is that these are all people who have done significant editing on this article since John Foxe became involved. I wanted to make sure the everyone who has an opinion on this issue has an opportunity to express it before "...someone with wisdom, authority, and no previous relationship" is invited to review the situation and take some kind of action. I first invited the people that I knew were recently involved, then I went thru the edit history of the article to find others. In the interest of full disclosure there was one user who had a few edits that I decided not to invite, in retrospect that was probably a mistake. However, in order to be completely fair and above board I also posted the notice on John Foxe's talk page, as can be seen at the top of the history, and as demonstrated by user:Duke53's quick and thoughtfully response. 74s181 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree

Yes, I agree it is time to request mediation.

1. 74s181 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
2. The Jade Knight 03:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Agree - Unless John indicates he is willing to conform to WP:NPOV, we need mediation -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Agree - even the process of beginning mediation will assist in laying the ground work for a more cooperative interaction. However, it is unusual to ask about pursuing medition; typically one just does it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

I disagree with mediation. I think we can continue to work with John Foxe without bringing in an outsider.

1. I think a mediator can only help if the interested parties all want one, so unless John Foxe wants a mediator, I don't think it will do any good. Since I haven't been following this closely, though (been focusing on Mountain Meadows massacre), I'd like to see John Foxe's response to 74s181's description of the issues listed above. COGDEN 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe's response to 74s181's description of the core issues listed above has been moved to Talk:First_Vision#Discussion 74s181 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

74, I am uncomfortable with this caliber of discussion. Foxe is an editor with all the "rights" of any other editor. He will bear the same consequences as any other editor should he break rules or when he works collegially with other editors. It is appropriate to post warnings when an editor's actions are not appropriate to what we do here. It is also appropriate to ask for assitance or report editors to admins when they consistently break the rules. However, to vote on his edit history seems unhelpful and I am not sure I understand what your desired outcome is suppsed to be. He will not be more a paraiah than he already is; he believes his "truth" is so much grander than anyone else's truth and he is here to shine his light on readers.

You have done an outstanding job of editing the article and by remaining as calm as you have. My purpose in writing is not to excuse Foxes behavior, far from it; I condemn his actions and feel that his edits are more appropriate for a rather low quality, Evangelical, cult tract. You know the kind; they are always printed on really cheap paper handed out by really mindless oafs to terrify the uneducated. You have to remember that he is not neutral, does not claim to be neutral, and you should never expect him to be neutral. He writes, always, from with a single objective---to disprove and disparage Joseph Smith and anything that was associated with him. Accept that and continue with your editing. Ignore him completely. He is not interested in discussing or hearing anything that may conflict with his position, so dispense with attempting to engage him in conversation.

I know that it makes editing a complete pain in the butt, but the alternative is to allow him to move from one article to the next and twist historical fact to match his objective. You know his actions better than anyone and you know that he will ignore every other editor that conflicts with his position. However, I do think if you will consistently place warnings on his page for each and every infraction of the rules, there will come a time when he will be blocked, perhaps indefinitely, or he will be forced to change his behavior.

What I find so interesting is Foxe's insistence that he is "fighting for the truth" while condemning LDS as being fanatic and operating under group think. As my mother used to say, "as soon as you point your finger to condemn another there are at least thee fingers pointing back at you." I suggest forgetting this vote, move on, post warnings, seek mediation and continue to edit the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The standard procedure, I believe, is to request mediation (WP:RFM). Many of us have said that it would eventually come to that, and I'm guessing now is the optimum time to request it. I'm not sure what the above vote set up is actually voting on, so I'm not sure which way to vote. ;^) I don't think much progress will happen with this article until an outside mediator gets involved. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You're both right, the question wasn't clear. The question is, do we request mediation or not. I've clarified that. 74s181 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I used to help in editing this article but stopped because of the incessant bickering and edit wars between editors. It seemed that there was difficulty reaching compromise or "consensus" on a number of issues. I haven't been following the edit history for some time, so I'm not aware of John Foxe's recent actions or edits and wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on these. 74s181 invited me to comment, but all I can really say is that I've been driven away from participation—not by John Foxe specifically—but just by the general tone of the editing process that governed here when I was active here. –SESmith 21:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

SESmith and I have been editing at Oliver Cowdery for some time, and I don't believe we've ever had a conflict.John Foxe 10:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Oliver Cowdery, then several other articles. (sigh) Fixing the First Vision article is still my priority. 74s181 11:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe's response to 74s181's description of the core issues listed above, with 74s181's responses inline: 74s181 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

'Facts are facts' even when they are arranged to lead the reader to a conclusion.

Facts are indeed facts even when they lead the reader to a conclusion; but if POV can be demonstrated in the arrangement, they should be rearranged.

74s181 response: A few examples of 'Facts' in the present article that are actually criticism:

At least 8 places where the word 'but' is used outside of a quote. 74s181 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire 'criticism' er, I mean, 'anachronisms' section. 74s181 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a simple matter to drop a "but"; if POV can be demonstrated, the material should be rewritten.--John Foxe 10:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism should not be identified as such or attributed.

Criticism should be properly identified and attributed; but facts are not criticism, and to label facts criticism is deceitful.

74s181 response: But many of the so-called 'facts' in the article are actually criticism, not facts. 74s181 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If any "facts" can be proved not to be facts but criticism, they should be properly identified as such.--John Foxe 10:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Any response to criticism is apologetics and should be removed or buried in footnotes.

I disagree. But apologetic response to facts is POV and should be removed or buried in the footnotes. Furthermore, the use of the terms “critics” and “apologists” (and their synonyms) should be avoided in the text. If necessary, such discussions can be conducted in the notes.

74s181 response: Like I said. 74s181 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too.--John Foxe 10:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy should be ignored, not reported.

Where we can avoid controversy, we should, sticking as closely as possible to statements that all editors can agree on. It’s a mistake to deliberately add POV to controversial articles under the guise that one is balancing POV statements from one side with POV statements from another. Readers are not ninnies. If they want critical or apologetic material, links and references will guide them there.

74s181 response: see Talk:First_Vision#Last_explanation_WP:NPOV_to_John_Foxe, also from WP:POV: Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects.

74s181 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts are not points of view. The attempt to treat them such is immoral.--

John Foxe 10:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC) John Foxe 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For once I agree with you, John Foxe. You are trying to twist the facts to support a particular POV, while I am arguing for a neutral presentation of the facts and the various interpretations of them. 74s181 12:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe didn't respond to my statement about the 'criticism', er, I mean 'anachronisms' section. The theme of the entire section is still criticism, even though JF has renamed it at least 15 times and continues to argue that to have a separate 'criticism' section would be POV. According to JF's arguments, the entire section should be deleted. WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation says that all critical statements should be presented as the "motive for changing his story" criticism is stated. But even this statement lacks a balancing statement as required by WP:NPOV. 74s181 12:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is in the eye of the beholder. The "anachronism" section is filled with well, anachronisms. There's no POV there except for the Grant Palmer statement, which is clearly identified. If you want to add apologetic material there, that's fine.--John Foxe 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe said:

It's a simple matter to drop a "but"...

I'm afraid it's not so simple. Here are a few statements that contribute to the negative POV of the article that I found during a quick review this morning. Most relate to the POV that the contradictions in the accounts prove the FV didn't happen, others relate to the POV that Joseph Smith was the devil, or, IOW, are more general attacks on Joseph Smith's character but otherwise have nothing whatsoever to do with the FV. 74s181 12:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Nevertheless, Smith's various accounts give different dates.
2. but William's date is incorrect...
3. even though Smith reported...
4. but none prior to 1823...
5. but Lucy did not mention this...
6. but William understood...
7. although there is no contemporary evidence...
8. Smith was, however, hounded...
9. but his status within the movement...
10. Unlike later accounts of the vision...
11. However, Cowdery apparently confused...
12. Thus, Cowdery's account, containing a single vision, differs...
13. Cowdery's account also differs...
14. but neither "personage" is identified with Him....
15. There is no mention of all churches being condemned as corrupt...
16. but a cousin of his wife's "objected to the inclusion of a 'practicing necromancer'...
17. Lucy Mack Smith did not mention...
18. but did not identify them as angels or as God and Jesus...
19. but Smith did not identify the personages...
20. neither of William's accounts makes a distinction...
21. Joseph Smith History 1:7-8. Nevertheless, a childhood acquaintance, Lorenzo Saunders, recalled...
22. These, however, followed rather than preceded the traditional date...
23. but in 1823, the property was assessed at $1000, "which indicates...
24. For a counter argument—that there was a second cabin...
25. Nevertheless, Bushman gives no evidence...
26. Fawn Brodie writes, "the Palmyra newspapers... took no notice of Joseph's vision...
27. In 1835, Smith approved... a view not out of harmony...

About now JF would remind us that 'COGDEN wrote x'. I don't know how COGDEN feels, and I don't want to speak for him, but I have been involved in a couple of these and I am still not happy with them. What is there now is what JF would permit. In case anyone has forgotten, let me remind you of the typical edit process in this article.

1. Editor identifies a problem in the article and proposes a change.
2. Sometimes other editors participate in discussion, but JF always ignores it.
3. Change is made.
4. JF reverts.
5. Editor tries a different approach.
6. JF reverts.
7. JF puts on his 'wise old editor' hat and writes on the talk page: 'sentence by sentence' and / or 'men of good will'.
8. Editor tries another approach.
9. JF reverts...
10. Repeated until original editor gives up and moves on to a different problem, or a different article.

I am not going to stand by and allow this problem to be swept under the rug again. 74s181 12:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's POV in those connective phrases, I have no problem with modifying them, sentence by sentence as a man of good will. (I must be in my "wise old editor" mode.) I'd even sacrifice good writing for the goal of reaching agreement.John Foxe 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I smiled when I read this. But the problem remains. 74s181 14:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A more detailed example of John Foxe's defense of POV disguised as fact. Before the recent meltdown we were discussing a particular contradiction criticism, Talk:First_Vision#it_had_never_entered_into_my_heart.... In "Smith's religious confusion", it says:

From age 12 to 15 he said that he became progressively more distressed both because of his sins and because he believed that "there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament."[25] In 1842, Smith wrote that he had been unsure which church was correct or whether they were "all wrong together"[26]—the earlier conclusion of his father.[27] In another account, the younger man said that at the time of the vision, "it had never entered into my heart that all [the churches] were wrong."[28]

Note how the last sentence subtly pushes the 'contradictions' POV. The section is about Joseph's religious confusion, but what does "..it had never entered my heart" have to do with confusion? It doesn't, but the same thing was repeated in the 'criticism', er, I mean, 'anachronisms' section, a more appropriate place. 74s181 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 3 I posted a comment about this problem. After some discussion, wrp103 and Jade Knight reworked the paragraph in 'anachronisms' to clearly identify that this interpretation was an opinion, OIOW, POV. This happened on July 5. On July 9th, the revert war started. On July 14th, in discussion about this particular paragraph John Foxe said:

I'll even eliminate the whole thing if there doesn't seem to be any way around the problem.

On July 15th he did just that, but left the identical but as yet unidentified criticism in the 'religious confusion' section.

Again, we do not achieve NEUTRAL POV by deleting POV. NEUTERED POV is still POV. POV must be properly attributed or, IOW, NEUTRALIZED, per WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation.

I'm frequently accused of being too verbose. So here I've given a list of problem statements without much explanation, and I've also given a more detailed analysis of one particular example of the problem. Take your pick, the conclusion is the same either way. John Foxe is either unable or unwilling to abide by WP:NPOV.74s181 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Way too verbose, Les. Your example (if anyone has the diligence to wend his way through it) demonstrates my willingness to compromise and work collaboratively with others.--John Foxe 15:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

...and you unwillingness to comply with WP:NPOV. We do not achieve NEUTRAL POV by deleting POV. NEUTERED POV is still POV. POV must be properly attributed or, IOW, NEUTRALIZED, per WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. 74s181 17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote WP:NPOV: "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can." That Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision differ, that there are no extant quotes by Lucy Mack Smith about it, and that the first account of the event was not published until twenty years after it was supposed to have occurred are all facts of the same sort. They contain no POV, and there is therefore nothing to be neutered, neutralized or balanced.--John Foxe 18:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That there are differences in the accounts is an undisputed fact. That these differences are contradictions is a POV. 74s181 02:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That Joseph Smith said he told his mother is a fact. That there are 'no extant quotes from Lucy Mack Smith about it' is a nonfact, only relevant if you are trying to prove something, and that would be a POV. I could just as easily say 'There is no extant record of Joseph Smith telling anyone that he made it all up', this is as much a 'fact'. 74s181 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "contradictions," I said "differences."

There's no POV in the statement that there are no extant quotes about the First Vision from Lucy Mack Smith. It's a simple fact. And it's relevant too because she was obviously a believer, and on several occasions people wrote down her memories about her son and his early activities. While it's true that your sentence about Joseph Smith is also a fact, practically speaking, it has no meaning because we don't expect people to announce themselves as liars. Only the reverse is worth mentioning, as when the Fox sisters explained how they created spiritualism.--John Foxe 15:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, 'there is no contemporary evidence for this persecution' is followed by 'As Mormon historian James B. Allen has written, "There is little if any evidence', this arrangement is NPOV, exactly in conformance with Wp:npov#A_simple_formulation. But this is followed by 'Smith was, however, hounded about his treasure hunting activities', which is irrelevant to the section title 'People Smith said he told about the vision in the 1820s', and is obviously a character attack, or, IOW, POV. 74s181 11:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've already said that the arrangement of material can be worked out cooperatively.--John Foxe 15:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that you now realize you have been wrong about your understanding of WP:NPOV, and that you would now agree to changes that you would not have agreed to a month ago? Or, are you saying that your attitude hasn't changed, and you're willing to continue 'negotiating' as you have in the past? Or? 74s181 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the above prepositions and connective phrases, I thing many of them should be changed, but I think many of them are also fine. It really depends upon what the preposition does: If it privileges what is said after the preposition as being preferable to what comes before, that can be a problem, and it ought to be changed. But in some of the above listed statements, the preposition just indicates to the reader that a different fact is being presented, without making an implied judgment as to which fact is better. Prepositions such as "nevertheless" can be pretty neutral if used properly; for example: "Most of Smith's accounts said Smith saw at least two beings; nevertheless, one account said he saw 'the Lord'"; or "Lucy Mack Smith wrote about the visit of Moroni, but did not relate independent memories concerning the First Vision". This kind of thing is totally non-offensive, because the "nevertheless" and the "but" are not there for the purpose of making a judgment. On the other hand, if you said something like: "Joseph Smith said he was a prophet; nevertheless, he drank and swore", there's a hidden argument in that sentence that implies a POV (i.e., that a prophet can't drink and swear), and that kind of thing should be changed, unless the implied proposition that a prophet can't drink and swear is not controversial (which it is). COGDEN 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to COGDEN's comment of 19:51, 18 July 2007. 74s181 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But in some of the above listed statements, the preposition just indicates to the reader that a different fact is being presented, without making an implied judgment as to which fact is better.

According to Wp:npov#Fairness_of_tone:

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.

The 27 statements above are examples of this, but before I explain why, I need to define what type of 'implied stance' is subtly radiated by the article. Here is an excerpt from the very first version of the FV article:

Critics claim that the various records are inconsistent. They suggest that Smith's earliest recitals of his experience claim only that an angel visited him, rather than God and Jesus Christ, and that Joseph changed his story over time.

This is criticism of the FV based on the differences between accounts. There are other criticisms 'out there', but I think 'inconsistency' is a leading criticism among anti-LDS.

Since a major POV concerning the FV in the real world is inconsistency, one would expect to see some mention of it in the WP article on the FV. I did a search on the current article for the text 'incons', allowing partial matches. How many do you think I found? Zero. How many occurances of 'contra', as in, contradict? Zero. It's harder to search for a partial word on google, but a search for 'contradict "Joseph Smith" "First Vision"' finds 940 hits. 74s181 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the specific words 'contradict' and 'inconsistent' are absent, the idea of inconsistency is clearly the backbone of the article as it currently stands. Of the 27 statements I identified above, all but #16 'radiate an implied stance' that there are inconsistencies between the accounts. 74s181 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How do we fix this? One way would be to explicitly state the POV and attribute it, along with a balancing response. I suspect that John Foxe will again argue that "to treat historical facts as if they were opinions is wrong; it is deceitful". The facts are one thing, but it is the unattributed interpretation of facts that radiates an implied stance. 74s181 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the alternative? WP:NPOV "...requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly." I think that the 'contradictions' POV is itself a major POV and deserves its own section. Some editors will object to this, citing WP:NPOV#Article_structure:

Examples that may warrant attention include... articles that "segregate" text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself.

I don't think that creating a section to discuss the 'contradictions' POV is 'segregation', I think that this POV is significant enough to warrant its own section, presenting examples and both sides of the argument. In fact, the article has had such a section almost since the very begining, but today it only includes examples and the implied stance, it doesn't contain any attribution or balancing content. The name of this section is "Possible anachronisms in the 1838 Account". 74s181 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If we were to explicitly discuss the 'contradiction' POV in the 'anachronism' section it would still be necessary to remove this 'implied stance' from the remainder of the article. Following are some ways that this could be done. 74s181 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Stop making comparisons, explicit and implicit. "Account A says B, but account X says Y". Removing the 'but' leaves "Account A says B. Account X says Y." Either way, taking sentences from different accounts and placing them side by side invites comparison. Doing so without identifying this as criticsm is both POV and dishonest. 74s181 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Stop refering to nonfacts. "but Lucy did not mention this", "although there is no contemporary evidence", "but neither "personage" is identified", "There is no mention", etc. The absence of a fact is not a fact, unless you're trying to prove something. That 'something' is a POV and must be attributed if you're going to bring it up at all. 74s181 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Stick to the subject. 'Account' sections that refer to other accounts 'radiate an implied stance' of contradiction. 'Historical context' sections contain facts that have nothing to do with the who, what, where, when and why of the FV, these facts are present to 'radiate an implied stance', generally one of negative character. 74s181 01:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Another quote from Wp:npov#Fairness_of_tone:

We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views impartially.

My interpretation of 'plausible' in this context is, I don't believe it, but I can see that someone else might, it isn't a totally stupid argument." I don't expect or even want to 'prove' that the FV happened as described in JSH. I can honestly say that I am comfortable with the plausibility of the 'FV didn't happen, JS was a liar' POV. John Foxe, can you honestly say that you are comfortable with the plausibility of the 'God the Father and Jesus Christ really did appear to JS in 1820' POV? 74s181 02:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to explicitly discuss "inconsistency" between versions of the First Vision, because it's better to discuss "consistency" instead. No critic of Joseph Smith that I know of has anything interesting or even notable to say about "inconsistency", other than "the words are different", which is obvious and the audience doesn't need "experts" to tell it that. There are, however, intestesting and probably-notable apologetic writings as to "consistency"—for example, explanations for how "angels" might refer to Jesus and God, and for why Joseph Smith might have mentioned "the Lord" without noting that God the Father was there too. So in many cases you might want to do something like this:

"The 1832 version says Joseph Smith saw "the Lord". The 1838 version, however, says Smith saw two distinct personages, God and Jesus. According to some Mormon scholars, Smith may not have said that there were two personages in the 1832 version because he didn't think it was important, though he didn't exclude the possibility of a second visitor. Another explanation by secular scholars is that in 1832, Smith's understanding of the Godhead as consisting of distinct individuals hadn't yet been developed.

In this particular case, I don't see much wrong with a "however" between the two descriptions of the versions, because the "however" doesn't really mean the two versions are "inconsistent", it only means that the two versions are different, which nobody disputes. The difference in language between the versions is acknowledged anyway, because it's followed up with an apologetic explanation defending "consistency". Any explanation defending "consistency" inherently acknowledges that there is a difference in language that must be explained, which probably makes a "however" appropriate. COGDEN 17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the absence of evidence isn't itself, many times, a notable fact. I think it's appropriate, for example, to note the fact that although Joseph Smith's family wrote about Moroni's visits, they never related independent memories of the First Vision. That's a notable fact that's brought up a lot in the literature. But we could follow that fact up with apologetic explanations for why that might be (e.g., he may have kept the vision to himself, or the Smith family didn't place as much importance on the First Vision as they did on Moroni's visits). No need for critical explanations here, though, because the critical implications are obvious. So in the end, you have (1) a fact, (2) an implied but obvious critical POV, and (3) an explicit apologetic POV. COGDEN 17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

'Inconsistency' seems to be the most common criticism of the FV by anti-LDS, I think it is definitely a notable POV. I am swayed by your sample paragraph, but WP:NPOV says:

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.

I agree that the use of 'however' in the sample is fine, because it is followed by an attributed and neutralized statement of POV that explains the difference. Still, the 'contradiction' POV needs to be addressed directly, we don't want to change the article into a Mormon tract. 74s181 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My point with 'absence of evidence' relates to the creatiom of a section to discuss the various occurances of the 'contradiction' / 'noncontradictin' POV. If we were to create such a section, it wouldn't be appropriate to leave the existing assertions of the POV elsewhere. The three suggestions are ways to eliminate the implied contradiction POV that is sprinkled throughout the article. If a reliable source makes an 'absence of facts' comparison, then it is certainly appropriate to include such a statement as part of the discussion on this particular POV. As Wp:npov#A_simple_formulation says:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

Thus, a statement like:

Another common criticism is lack of corroboration. Smith states that shortly after the vision he told his mother that he had "learned for [him]self that Presbyterianism is not true," but Lucy did not mention this conversation in her memoirs. However, so and so explains thus and such.

would be perfectly fine with me. Of course, we have to figure out who 'so and so' is. 74s181 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose any solution that gives moral equivalence to historical facts and Mormon apologetics. The word "criticism" should never be used to describe historical facts regardless of whether or not they are used by anti-Mormons or disagree with the official teachings of the Church. Facts are facts. Nevertheless, once such facts are presented (as facts and not as anti-Mormon criticism), Mormon apologetics are perfectly in order. Thus, I could support: "There is no extant record that Lucy Mack Smith ever mentioned the First Vision. Mormon scholars argue that her comments may not have been recorded, that she considered the vision of Moroni more important, and..." I would oppose: "Critics note that Lucy Mack Smith never mentioned the First Vision."John Foxe 13:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Still Foxey after all these words. Is that a vote for WP:RFM? 74s181 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with John Foxe in this particular example. If something is a non-controversial fact, it does not need to be qualified by a "critics note". It's much better to state facts, where possible, than to state arguments. Besides, critics aren't the only people who note these kinds of things. Apologists also note them when they respond to them. COGDEN 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Responding to 74s181 above, I don't think that failing to say that "critics say there is a contradiction" turns the article into a Mormon tract. That there is a contradiction in language is not controversial, and it is just so obvious it doesn't need to be pointed out. We don't need to say that two statements are different, when they obviously are. We can just go ahead and give apologetic and/or secular explanations for why the difference exists. COGDEN 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9