Talk:Golden plates/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Not entirely consistant with each other"

However, this mention of the descriptions being "not entirely consistent with one another" is an attempt to "poison the well" with respect to the witnesses.

— FAIR Wiki [1]

Okay I have an issue with this statement in the article,

Now I know its cited, however I'd like to make the following statements:

• Is this really relevant to the article?- It seems to me that just because it is "cited" it seems to be used in the article as an attempt to try and deliberately dissapprove that the golden plates exist, which is pushing neutrality policies as it is a negative interpretation of a source. In general it seems a stupid thing to put on the article, and a worthless "fact" to have a go at the subject of the article and dissaprove the fact that people claimed they saw them.

• There is no explaination of the circumstances to why the accounts "vary"- when you ask a set of different people to describe an object of a complicated design, the description is going to vary inveitably and not going to be entirely identical is it? People have different intelligence, use of language, and may have allegedly seen them at a different angle, place, etc, all varying factors. Also, how long were these "not entirely consistant" descriptions given after these people had seen the plates? What needs to be considered is to how long they allegedly seen them passed before they gave the account. For example, when you see something for the first time and give a description, then you don't see it for several days and give another description, will the first one be the same as the second one? I think not.

So really, in a book or not, is this really something worthy to be on the article? Just because it is in a book, does not mean it is correct, and that statement right now is explained by common logic. It's a cheap dig at mormonism, and if this John Foxe "I can edit the article how I like, but I'll revert anyone else" nonsense continues I'm complaining to a higher authority and presenting well researched evidence against him of how he is constantly violating wikipedia policy to manipulate LDS topics through negative interpretation of sources and controlling articles. [2][3][4][5][6]. Routerone (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I revised the language, but I think it's important to note that many of the descriptions of the plates differ in their details. There is no one agreed description of what the plates looked like, or how they were viewed. That doesn't mean that the eye-witnesses didn't see what they said they saw: it just means that their descriptions and accounts of seeing them don't match in every detail. I don't oppose some further exploration of why many of the witnesses described things differently. However, under WP:NPOV, the most prominent explanations in the literature will have to receive the most prominence in this article. The most prominent scholarly theories would be, as you might expect: (1) that the witnesses "saw" the plates only in visions, which are inherently subjective and unreliable (Brodie's theory); (2) that Smith had something physical (maybe made from tin, according to Vogel), but didn't give the witnesses a good view (e.g., by covering them with a cloth), and possibly their memories are faulty (not sure if Vogel discusses this possibility or not); or (3) that the witnesses didn't fully coordinate their made-up stories. I think well-cited apologetic views can be mentioned as well, given that this is a Mormon-centric topic, and some of them might tie into mainstream theories #1 and #2, because Mormon scholars accept that Harris, Cowdery, and Whitmer said they saw the plates in a vision, and I don't think most Mormon scholars dispute that many of the other witnesses said they saw the plates under a cloth. This discussion would take place in the body of the article, of course, and not the introduction. COGDEN 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me COGDEN, but I think you'll find that it is not concensus or "common fact" amongst Mormon scholars the witnesses allegedly "saw the plates in a vision" and under a cloth. FAIR, rejects both of these theories solidly on the basis of cited publications (The links also evaluate the descriptions). [7][8][9]. Routerone (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not attempting to describe an apologetic "consensus"--I was just noting an area of possible commonality: that Harris, Cowdery, and Whitmer themselves said they saw the plates in a vision with the angel Moroni (and Harris said he saw his in an entirely separate vision from the other two), and that is accepted by both apologists and secular scholars. Also, that Mormon scholars don't dispute that some of the other witnesses (like Emma and William Smith) said they saw the plates only under a cloth. COGDEN 21:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, if the "vision theory" is only a possibility and not a confirmation in itself, as established by alternate theories. Then may I ask why is it that this "vision theory" is treated in accordance that it is "fact" in the article opposition to the other theory which rejects the former? That to me sounds like blatant bias, and I'd rather you didn't try and "sweep apologetic theories" under the carpet (which you are blatantly doing), they deserve a far greater significance on wikipedia then they are currently getting. Routerone (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I don't think that apologetic theories should be swept under the rug. But under WP:NPOV we are required (like it or not) to give them less ink than the mainstream academic theories. To the extent that the apologists basically agree with the secular mainstream, we can just include it without worrying about apportioning weight. To the extent that you or anyone else can find a theory in a (reliable) apologetic reference that explains the differences in the witnesses' statements on the basis of faulty memory or faulty perception, then we should add that too. That's good stuff. I also think that sometimes, the mainstream theories can be presented in a way that is largely faith-neutral. For example, saying that the witnesses saw a vision doesn't pre-judge whether or not the vision was a real communication with God or angels, or whether on the other hand the vision was attributable to psychological processes. Likewise, both apologists and some mainstream academics would agree that Smith might have had a physical set of plates that he showed to some of the witnesses. The only point where mainstream scholars depart from apologetic scholars is when the former propose that Smith fabricated the plates out of tin, and the latter propose that a Nephite prophet fabricated the plates out of gold. COGDEN 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

After revising Wikipedia:Synthesis#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position, I've realised that as FAIR was repeatedly stating, this article and Joseph Smith, Eight Witnesses and First Vision plus several others in the LDS topic field are indeed overrun with Synthesis. Meaning an unattributed interpretation, or claim is drawn from a source to reach a conclusion directed to attribute a certain point of view. This is indeed the problem with this article and the ones I've stated above. As a result I would like to undertake an article reform in itself to change the policy and neutrallity violating content, and I would appreciate if I was not ripped to pieces and shot down in flames for requesting such, also please do not remove the "Synthesis" template that has been placed on the article as it is there for a valid reason. Routerone (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided specific examples where you believe there are novel syntheses that have not previously been made in secondary sources. They very well could exist. On a related note, I've been thinking of adding more citations to the preeminent modern authorities, including Brodie (who has completely slipped through the cracks in this article), Bushman, Vogel (which unfortunately I don't have access to), Quinn, etc. Possibly, some of what you believe are unsupported syntheses are in fact just cases of missing citations to one of these or other works. COGDEN 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to make a note, I have just removed a portion of Original research from the article. The statement: "Later, Smith would view the power of "seeing" as the greatest of all divine gifts, greater even than that of a prophet." has been removed because from the article as it was an unpublished theory/statement, presented as fact, which was created from a personal analysis of a primary source (the book of mormon)[10][11], meaning it was violating the policy .Routerone (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This kind of thing is just a matter of adding a citation and perhaps rephrasing, which I have done. (Citation was to Bushman.) It's probably more productive to just make these changes yourself rather than deleting the content, unless you have a good argument that the content does not belong in the article. In this case, I think it's important to establish Smith's view on the religious nature of stone-seeing, which is the reason he had no problem with using the same technique to translate the Book of Mormon, a religious work, as he used to divine for enchanted treasure. Several authors have made this point, not just Bushman. COGDEN 18:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is wandering, pandering

This article is sounding more and more like a CYA apology to all the criticisms out there on this topic. The recent edits, I think, have wandered far from the basics of an encyclopedia article, i.e. a terse and pithy who, what, where, why, when, and how, of the topic. For example not even 4 sentences in we are already hedging and apologizing for stating anything in this article, not to mention the article starts with a qualifying statement. It seems to me sentences 2-4 at the top of the article are out of place, going from beginning (Smith translated) to end (Smith returned) before even introducing the topic; we don't need a preview before we get to the article summary (first section). I'm pretty good at copyediting and I can't even begin to think of a wording that straightens out the beginning of this. This article is sounding much more and more like a book on the subject, rather than an encyclopedia. It is reading like a list of strung together quotes and I can even see merit in the synthesis argument because we are stringing together so many quotes from so many sources that even though this isn't original research it can be easily construed as such. The article is getting wordy, it lacks a clear focus on the subject and tries to include everything to the exclusion of clarity. Take a look at the differences between the FA version of this article (over 1,200 edits ago) and now [12]...I think it's clear that we have made some progress in some areas, but to pander to critics and apologists to this level is ludicrous. Twunchy (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. Part of this has to do with the history of the article, where it was initially Featured, then demoted because of the many non-Mormon editors who thought the article was too pro-Mormon. And I think the article goes too far in appeasing a lot of Mormon editors who have the opposite view, that this article is anti-Mormon. I think we should just basically ignore these calls from either side and just do the right thing by writing the article in roughly the same tone and containing roughly the same content and emphasis as the preeminent biographies of Joseph Smith (Brodie, Bushman, Vogel) and other well-respected scholarly works on early Mormonism (Quinn, the Van Wagoner/Walker article, etc.). COGDEN 10:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I reject the claim that the article was demoted due to being "pro-mormon". It is a poorly written article. Was then, is now. I think the synthesis argument somewhat hit on it but I think the over-reliance on "preeminent biographies" and "well-respected scholarly works on early Mormonism" are also to blame. Look at the about of references and what is referenced. Sometimes single words/phrases are referenced. Over 200 times and this is an article about one tiny part of a religious subject. By contrast, Jesus has roughly the same about of references and I think we can agree that Jesus is a far broader subject. Well that and a combination of ownership as well. The article needs to be re-built, ground up, with almost no input from anyone who has edited it because we, I said we, all bring a bias after months/years of argument. I am not trying to troll here but every time I have tried to work with other editors of this page I get met with "I don't like that, revert" regardless of the argument for the change. That being said, I am confident that someone can strip down the article into its core arguments and present them in a non-biased manner (i.e. encyclopedia style). The problem is it is likely no one here. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember it quite differently. Part of the cited problem was lack of secondary sources, not that there were too many. And it seems like you are saying that the article's problem is that it has too many citations overall, and that it is treated more comprehensively than the subject deserves. Where I come from, citations and comprehensiveness are good things. Surely, the Jesus article deserves greater comprehensiveness than the golden plates, but that is not an argument to reduce citations and details in this article. Rather, it's an argument to improve the documentation and comprehensiveness of articles about Jesus. Plus, you have to count the many Jesus sub-articles. In a sense, all Christianity articles are Jesus sub-articles. So if you count them all together, I don't think we need to worry that Jesus is getting short-shrifted.

That said, I agree the article needs a good going-over. I disagree that current interested editors are not up to the challenge, and that we should wait for some non-biased savior to come in and hew a new path. COGDEN 21:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I will rephrase to say that primary or biased sources are overly relied upon if that is better. Citations are good things but they seem to be used in excess simply to show some sort of comprehensiveness as opposed to being actually comprehensive. And that seems to be your argument "Because it is well cited, it is a good article" even though paragraphs are butchered with needlessly inserted quotes from people who in some cases are quoting themselves or others. In some cases single words are inserted, cited, and quoted. In fact there is one paragraph where there are basically two sources but their are earlier quotes from one that contradict the later quotes of the same one and heresy quotes that contradict both. It is seems to be wanting to add depth to the subject (in this case the paragraph I am referring to is the one about the physical sealing of the plates) but instead is just confusing, disjointed and frankly non-sense. On top of that, all of the sources are primary and biased sourced. No plain opinion on the matter. And again frankly the matter-of-factness of it suggest that there were plates, a part of which was sealed and the real debate is over how much of these plates are sealed (which of course is not the debate at all). The whole paragraph could be shortened to "Of those who have claimed to have seen the plates, there were various opinions as to how much of the plates were sealed. This opinion range from one third to two thirds of the plates." Thats encyclopedic. Currently it is written more like: Tim believed it was "one third" [cite] while Sally thought it was more like "one half" and the pages were "yellow" [cite]. Bob heard from Jake [cite] that Jake [cite] believed they were "likely" [cite] "two thirds of the book" [cite] that were "sealed" [cite]. Plus a few more sentences that create a false argument over what Tim said and/or information that doesn't mean anything. I see that as not being encyclopedic but rather being purposefully cumbersome and I think thats how I would describe this article as a whole. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said the article is in good shape, Kirkoconnell, but I'm just trying to understand your position, which seems to be a bit equivocal. You don't think that we should rely on "preeminent biographies" and "well-respected scholarly works on early Mormonism", but you also don't think that we should rely on "primary or biased sources". Other than these, what other sources are there? Here's my opinion: we ought to add lots of Brodie, Bushman, Quinn, Marquardt & Walters, Vogel, etc., and keep the primary sources but integrate and synthesize them better via these secondary sources. Other than the issue of what sources to use, your main complaint seems to be a matter of style and balance, rather than structure. Style and balance problems are easily fixed. So I'm trying to understand why you think we need to basically scrap the article and start over. COGDEN 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

rewrite of lead...

If I were writing the lead paragraph of this article paying no heed to previous versions, it would go like this...feel free to give your input.

The Golden Plates are a set of engraved records that are believed to be the source of the Book of Mormon, by followers of the LDS Movement. They were said to be found by Joseph Smith, Jr. within a stone box buried in a hillside in Wayne County, New York, after receiving a visitation by an angel concerning their whereabouts. Described in the Book of Mormon as being made of metallic “ore” and engraved in an otherwise unknown language called reformed Egyptian, many have called into doubt their existence, but those faithful to the LDS movement typically claim them to be of divine origin. Physical descriptions of the plates by those few selected to view them vary, but most who saw them agree that they were gold or brass in color and fashioned into the shape of a book with silver wires in the shape of a “D”. Measuring approximately 6x8 inches of thin pliable sheets, with its weight estimated from 30-60 lbs, some have speculated that Smith may have fashioned them himself, and his religious claims therefore are dubious.

Thoughts? Twunchy (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to it completely. I think the current lead is fine the way it is, now as for this proposal;

• It doesn't have a fluency or tone that suits the style of a lead paragraph
• It seems too subjective rather than a generalization of the article content
• It seems too LDS skeptical on the whole and cites rash critical theories that have little substance or supporting evidence
• Goes into unecessary detail about the description of the plates
• Doesn't mention to how the plates are claimed to be a record of ancient american prophets.
• Doesn't give any information whatsoever on the most important aspect, that it is the alleged source text for the Book of Mormon, and that had Smith claimed to translate them.
• Numerous sources stress that "reformed egyptian" was an adjective for the language and not a noun.

Routerone (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When COdgen proposed this as a featured article many moons ago, the piece got clobbered because it was perceived to be 1. too Mormon in its POV and 2. too dull stylistically because of its repeated "said to bes," "reputed to bes," and "claimed to bes." I appreciate the effort you've put into this draft, Twunchy, but I don't see its stylistic advantage over what's there right now.

As much as I'd like to see an article of half this length, realistically, that's not going to happen no matter who comes on the scene. As I've said elsewhere, one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that compromises tend to be made by lengthening articles instead of shortening them. One advantage of the current lead paragraphs is that they provide an adequate summary beyond which most readers will not have to venture.--John Foxe (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And this is exactly why the article is the mess that it is. The current lead is completely unencyclopedic. Encyclopedias should be about the nuts and bolts of an item. The farther you wander from that, the more controversy there will be. I have always taken issue that this article trumps the story of the plates over the actual item. The "unnecessary detail" the description of the actual item is relegated to 2/3rds of the way through the article. If I did an article about a revolutionary sports car would the fact that it has a HEMI 450 engine on a space frame chassis be too much detail? Or would the fact that the designer went to a prestegious college to learn drafting be more important? That's truly where this article goes wrong. There has been so much rhetoric on this article that it seems impossible to change it. How in the world do I agree with Kirkoconnell? I never do. But this instant reaction is the main problem. The fact that 99% of the world doesn't share the viewpoint of the LDS story of the plates is a huge problem here. Most LDS-leaning editors don't see that. And I was only getting into the FIRST paragraph, not the entire lede. THe details you mention Router would be in subsequent paragraphs in the lede. The first paragraph should be a consice description of the subject. We don't have that here. Twunchy (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your example of an article about a revolutionary sports car would hold true if the car actually existed. But if there was doubt that it ever did, we would be more interested in how people came to believe that there was such a car rather than the details of its perhaps non-existent engine.--John Foxe (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But still you've ignored my principle point, the fact that the plates are the claimed source text of the book of mormon and an alleged record is more significant than what they were described to look like, for it was that source text claim which creates its fundamental importance within the Latter Day Saint movement, not the exact details on its appearance. Routerone (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that several claims made by John Foxe are not accurate upon research. The article was proposed to be a feature article by Twunchy. The major flaw people found was that the article was poorly written. Biased came in second and few people mentioned the "claimed to bes" and so on as the reason for rejecting the article for FA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Golden_plates/archive1 is the link to the discussion. If anything the article seems to have drafted even further into the ether from the time of the discussion to the present.

I see the problem as ownership at this point which is why I am, and always have, requested that we get a third party to re-write. The problem is everytime I got a third party interested they would try to make an edit and get it reverted over and over. So I stopped trying. Now I just watch the article to see if people actually want to make a change and hope that people will let them do it. Oh and I make sure that if it gets nominated for FA status again it will get denied if it is in its current state, I do that too. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was once the tenant of a "beverage dealer" who was a teetotaler. When I asked him why he didn't drink he said, "You can either sell the stuff or drink it, but not both." While I'm sure that in real life his rule is more often honored in the breach, I've noticed that among editors and complainers at Wikipedia that the editors tend to edit more than complain, and complainers tend to complain more than edit.--John Foxe (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah..... whatever John. I tried to edit if you remember. You tend to be the first to revert. So if anything you helped make me a "complainer". Please stop with the high ground and start being productive (i.e. let people edit?).-Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I would suggest maybe you review my editing history before you make claims like that. I am actually offended by the charge that I am only "complaining" especially when dealing with you lot for almost two years on one article that you guys will not let anyone edit. So seriously, please spare me the non-sense.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As to Twunchy's proposal, I see a lot of good things there, but Routerone has some good points as well, as does John Foxe. I think that the mythology (in the lit-crit sense) behind the plates is just as important, if not more important, as the plates' claimed physical details. We have to cover both. I don't agree with Routerone that the proposal is too LDS-skeptical. I agree with Twunchy's point that the predominant academic views are that the plates either (1) were seen only in visions, or (2) were manufactured by Smith. The predominant Mormon view that the plates were an authentic ancient artifact is technically considered WP:FRINGE, but since this is an article about the "fringe" subject matter itself, the Mormon perspectives can't simply be ignored.

Personally, I would favor a rather short first paragraph just saying what the plates are and why they are important, and then include some of these physical details in a second or third paragraph, as well as an overview of the mythology. The current intro doesn't really touch on the physical details, and it probably should, given that it's a significant part of the article.

As to Kirkoconnell's points, if the main issue is really about writing style, then that seems like an easily-fixable problem. Good writing is something that most people can agree with, and I believe that style is one of the article's biggest problems at this point (in addition to not having enough secondary source material). If the problem is more structural, then we ought to discuss specifics about a new and improved structure.COGDEN 18:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Style was mentioned in the feedback regarding the suggestion but if you review the suggestions the major one was that the article was, overall, constructed poorly. I do not believe that that is simply "writing style" nor do I believe there is an easy fix. I think the first step is to define what the article should be about exactly and how far you want to discuss each part. A good place to start with the defining would be should we have a header that clearly states both opinions and then have an article that explores both in separate sections. If that is an acceptable structure we can then define it further. If not, figure out what is. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've kind of taken the bull by the horns and boldly revised the intro. Let me know what you think. COGDEN 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. As usual, COGDEN, you've displayed excellent discrimination in improving a controversial piece. Although I'm always itching to make stylistic changes, I'll forbear in order to give the other folks a chance to see what you've done without complicating matters.--John Foxe (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now made some stylistic changes. I've tightened up the prose a tad, but I haven't intended to change the meaning except in the elimination of the words "skeptical" and "critics," both of which I dislike as descriptors of non-believers.--John Foxe (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

When I've said that I edited to eliminate the POV "skeptical" and "critics," readding those words is not "stylistic."--John Foxe (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is better including those than the words "beyond belief". I class that in itself as a deliberate attack against Mormons, and won't tolerate it. Like the first vision article, its obvious non adherents don't believe in it so its pointless and POV pushing including such a quote whether it was in a book or not. Lay off trying to include that term, I've dicussed this earlier and there was no objection to it. Routerone (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree For the phrase 'As Richard Bushman has written, "For most modern readers, the [golden] plates are beyond belief, a phantasm, yet the Mormon sources accept them as fact."' I do not believe the quote is require. The statement that it is unbelievable is the most accurate. This quote leads that while most feel it is beyond belief, Mormons do not. Thus suggests that they are to be believed. It should be explicit, Most modern reader do not believe the plates existed. There does not need to be an ambiguous/leading quote for that. Also, the quote is from a Mormon apologist. I do not believe it is appropriate for a Mormon apologist to provide the voice or framing for the opposition if a quote is to be required. I will not revert as I wish to discuss but this is a point of conflict right now. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope an even better compromise is the elimination of the whole sentence plus the Bushman quotation. After all, the Bushman quotation doesn't say that the existence of the plates is a central belief, just that "Mormon sources accept them as fact."--John Foxe (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree No, I had explicitly stated that the subject should be mentioned but the quote was not appropriate. Removing it is the opposite of compromise as it leaves that segment of debate un-stated. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you need a source that says that belief in the plates is central to Mormonism.--John Foxe (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the sources, that should be an easy task and I did not state that the quote could not be used as a cite but rather that it should not be used as the opposing views voice on the subject or in the actual article inserted as a quote because of its nature.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of Order regarding statement: The plates are both a central belief among Latter Day Saints, but outside of the movement their existence is questioned. I do not believe this sentence is appropriate either as it is vague and employs an euphemism. It should be stated plainy for NPOV purposes: Outside the Mormon faith people do not believe in the existence or importance of these plates. Anything short of that leads to the conclusion that at least some segment of the non-Mormon world believes this, with is patently untrue. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I have euphemisms. It's not that non-Mormons "question" the plates' existence. They simply don't believe in them. A non-Mormon is, invariably, someone who does not believe in the golden plates. If they do believe in the golden plates, it is because they are a Mormon. I think that part of what Bushman was getting at is that the golden plates are only authentic to Mormons. From the perspective of most other modern readers, however, they are a fable. Even though Bushman is an apologist, I don't see a problem with citing him on that point. COGDEN 02:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As stated previously, his quote:"For most modern readers, the [golden] plates are beyond belief, a phantasm, yet the Mormon sources accept them as fact." leads to a conclusion. This quote leads that while most feel it is hard to believe, Mormons do not. Thus suggests that they are to be believed but more easily believed by Mormons than others. It offers the conditional modern for readers as to suggest that readers of the subject in Josephs time had a different opinion. States their opinion in vague terms such as "beyond belief" or "a phantasm". It does not make the explicit claim that most people, i.e. non-Mormons, do not believe in their existence whatsoever nor to they accept their importance as meaningful. Without that explicit language, it is hard to keep NPOV as it is explained in the articled that Mormons accept the plates as fact. And again, I do not believe it is fair to the voice of those who oppose to use a Mormon Apologist quote as it is clearly carefully crafted. Explicitness and plain speak is what this article needs not borderline weasel wording. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kirk, we've run into this problem before, and I think I can sum it up. If the person making the quote is a Mormon, it doesn't count in your book. Because the person is Mormon they are automatically POV and explicitly incapable of making a proper assesment or statement that is acceptable to you. The ultimate problem is that there isn't an author who has come into this subject without a bias. There is no scholarly laboratory studying Mormons, just for impartial analysis. Those who write, write because they have a reason either to further their religious beliefs or to knock down someone else's. The citations you have consistently asked for DO NOT EXIST. If you think they do please bring them to the table. You are asking for proof of a negative which is a logical fallacy. There is no one in the world, no book that has been published, no expert that has been interviewed that can prove the golden plates didn't exist. Anyone who has tried uses logical fallacies as fact, and therefore the argument is invalid. You cannot do what you are asking. Your assumption that these plates are bogus cannot be proved anymore than I can prove they exist. Therefore when at an impasse like this you resort to the best person who has made the best balanced statement. I think the conspiriting words you claim Bushman is making is just you being hypercritical. He made the statement that is needed better than anyone else that has put it to prose. To non believers, they don't exist, to Mormons they are dogmatic to their faith. Had a non-Mormon author said this, I don't think you'd be able to argue your point. Don't make a strawman out of a preeminent scholar on the subject so you can dismiss his claims. You can't have it both ways. Twunchy (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Point not taken. I did not say that quotes from a Mormon should not count toward any part of the article. My statement is that that quote is inappropriate to be used to defend non-Mormon. The reasoning was stating twice and you have not yet addressed that but instead basically accused me of hating Mormons and as such am unable to edit this page. I take offence to that. Please do not imply that I have a prejudice especially when I have been very clear with my reasoning. That statement does not met POV nor should an apologist be teh voice for those who oppose ANY issue, not just this one. It is like having a British Historian explain the outcome of the War of 1812 for the American side. Also if a quote is not available that plainy explains the position of the non-Mormons, one could paraphrase a quote or cite the quote in a sentence that plainly explains the situation. Encycopedias are not one giant series of quotes so it makes no sense to try to make this that way. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also remember that Wikipedia is not interested in "The Truth", only verifiability. See WP:The Truth to brighten this dour argument. Twunchy (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I reject the implication that I am arguing "truth" as opposed to verifiable fact. When I have posed an argument it seems the universal opinion (as, between you, John Foxe, and COGDEN) is to ignore the actual argument and to either accuse me of hating Mormons, not understanding the differences between my term or come up with some other form of red herring that does not address the issue that I brought up which is explicitness in the in lead of the article. I am only to conclude that you all are rejecting that we should be as explicit as possible when addressing points of contention in this article. Is this the stance you wish to take? Please answer yes you wish to reject explicitness or no you wish to be as explicit as possible. I will not be addressing any more red herrings until we get an understanding on this point. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kirkoconnell, going back to your previous statement, I think that it is overstating things to say that non-Mormons do not consider the golden plates to have any importance. A lot of scholars who think the plates are a fable still consider that fable to be quite significant in its religious and cultural impact, particularly its impact upon Mormons. Much like they might view Greek mythology, most of the Bible, or the story of Johnny Appleseed. But the statement that only Mormons believe the plates are authentic, while others consider them to be a fable, that is true. What to make of Bushman's use of the word "modern"? I don't think the above statement would change if you consider pre-modern readers. But certainly a reader from 1820s New England, who already believes in dowsing, scrying, treasure guardians, etc., is going to have a different take on the subject than a modern reader. COGDEN 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Point not taken. The importance of the plates is solely because they are important to the Mormons, not in and of themselves. Regardless, the importance of the plates can be excluded to non-Mormans can be completely excluded to be honest. The major point here is that terms like fable, phantasm, and beyond belief should not be used to explain the non-Mormon view. It should be explicit: The greater majority of people do not believe the story of the plates, do not believe that they ever existed and consider it solely a Mormon belief or myth. if a quote or citation is not available, plain language can be used to explain that point int he article as opposed to the questionable/vague text of an apologist to the issue. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between your word myth and the word fable. Nor do I understand your distinction between "beyond belief" and "solely a Mormon belief". Aren't we saying exactly the same thing? COGDEN 06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Before I go into explaining these differences I wanted to make a note here. This is an encyclopedia, not an english essay. Making sure that the information is as direct and as correct as possible is the goal, not just straight quote inserting whenever possible or using ambiguous terms whenever possible. The difference between the word myth and the word fable. Although often interchanged, a myth is something that would not be considered true or false but rather fact to a certain religious group. Example: Zeus is king of the Gods in the Greek myths. Most people do not accept him as such but to the ancient it was fact. A fable is a usually short story that is a lesson in morality. Like the Boy who cried wolf. They usually get confused because a lot of myths are lessons in morality such as the story of Jobe, if we need an example. I think it is clear that the story of the plates is meant as an explanation that one group accepts as fact while another does not, i.e. a Myth. Regardless of that, if you believe the term myth is too ambiguous then by all means do not use it. My fight here is to make this article encyclopedic and as plain spoken as possible. Which is why I disapprove of the term beyond belief because it is purposefully vague. It does not state that something is disbelieved by people but rather that the event itself is so grandiose that is shot into the realm of unbelievable but possibly true. Example: I cheered for the Saints but it was beyond belief that they would win the super bowl when they were down double digits at the half to the Colts. To non-Mormons, the plates are not unbelievable but possibly true. So to sum it up, no we are not saying the same thing. And when it doubt, make it explicit. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being hyper-technical. Keep in mind we are discussing what source to cite, not what language should be in the article. Bushman's quote supports what you want to say, so I'm a bit mystified why you think it's not a useful citation. I think the point we need to make in the article is that only Mormons accept the plates as authentic. The Bushman citation supports that, too. Plus, if I really wanted to get hyper-technical, I would point out that actually, most non-Mormons don't disbelieve the golden plates; rather, they haven't even heard of the golden plates and have no reason to think about them, and therefore neither believe nor disbelieve. COGDEN 07:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Point not taken. Side stepping issue. Do we want to be explicit and fact driven or vague and quote driven? Please address issue. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Failure to address issue. I am going to assume that after ten days and everyone involved with this discussion has edited other pages, some including this one, that you are now ignoring the issue regarding the lead. This leads me to be unable to continue to assume good faith in discusses and, again, has caused people to flee and stop editing this page. Well thanks for the attempt at discussion. I will wait, again, until you are ready to have a decent article created. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I haven't been able to understand what your issue is with the lead based on your above talk page comments. I don't disagree that the lead could still use some tweaking, but I just don't understand what you are suggesting. If you could just make some edits in line with what you are saying, maybe that would help clarify and distill the issues. I made a bold revision to the intro a while ago, in part, I thought, to address your comments, so now maybe it's your turn. COGDEN 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen your edits and frankly the lead is worse then ever. My point was very simple, do we here believe that at least the lead, if not the whole article, should be as explicit as possible when discussing the story of the plates. The lead now reads to matter-of-fact as if all the events actually happened when in fact the story of the golden plates can be summed up in three stories. One, as something that happened word for word as Joesph said. Two, this "vision" idea that everyone had a vision of the plates (both of which the Mormon community seem to bounce between). And finally three, that this did not happen and that the majority of people outside the faith believe it to be complete fiction. It seems that because I argued the one sentence that was somewhat explaining the opposing view was actually a quote by a Mormon apologist and it should not be included as the voice for those who opposed your solution was to remove it, and thus removing balance. I should note that I do not edit this article because of your (collective) ownership. I have found the best way to deal with ownership is to not intervene as the edit will be reverted. At one time I did try to edit this page but all my attempts were quickly reverted. SO I try to discuss when other people seem to have an interest in discussion. I think its funny that you (collective) haven't caught on yet that you have an ownership issue even though you have been shunning away every other editor who has tried to talk to you. So yes, I will not be editing but I will be monitoring to see if some other naive soul wishes to and try to support them (and revert the vandalism that happens from time to time). -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There are basically two perspectives about the plates: (1) that Smith had something physical (tin from the cooper shop? copper?) that he showed the witnesses, and (2) that Smith didn't have a physical object, and that the plates were only ever "seen" in visions. Modern faithful Mormons accept #1 and reject #2 (though there is evidence some historic Mormons favored #2). Secular and non-Mormon scholars are split between #1 and #2, and most authors don't choose between the two, because it's pretty speculative, though some scholars lean toward #2. These two perspectives, however, are not the end of the story, because there has been built up a large mythology (be it the occult mythology or the religious mythology) surrounding the plates, and that mythology is an important part of the topic. In fact, without the mythology, there really isn't much to say about the plates themselves.

I don't think the mythology should be presented as an alternative #3 to compete with #1 and #2. First of all, the mythology is compatible with either #1 and #2, and you don't have to decide between the two in order to tell the mythology. Second, the mythology is fringe material: it is purely faith-based and is not taken seriously by non-Mormons, just like the mythology of Jesus is not taken seriously by non-Christians, and the mythology of Klingons is not taken seriously by non-Klingons. That goes beyond saying (although I have no problem with saying it). So rather than presenting this material as a third alternative, you present it as mythology: you make it clear that you are talking about stories, rather than consensus fact. To the extent that consensus fact exists (such as that Smith dictated while looking at a stone in a hat), we can establish that. Other aspects of the purely religious mythology, such as what the angel said when he appeared to Smith, or the occult mythology, such as that Smith saw a toad in the box with the golden plates that struck him on the head, is important because it is a significant Mormon myth and part of the basis of Mormon (and anti-Mormon, for that matter) faith.

As to allegations of ownership, I don't remember the last time you made an edit, so I'm not sure what the circumstances were, and maybe I wasn't following. If you were unable to make successful edits at some time in the past, how do you know that your edits would be unsuccessful now, unless you try? Things change, and editors come and go. They also have time to take a step back and reevaluate. COGDEN 02:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

you make it clear that you are talking about stories, rather than consensus fact Agreed. Where in the lead is this made clear? There are three paragraphs in the lead and one sentence that explains Therefore, if the plates existed, they can not now be examined. and even that sentence is meant to explain why the plate could not be produced. So really it is the four words if the plates existed that make the entire lead balanced, in your opinion.

Things change, and editors come and go. Disagree. Things have not changed here. It is not an allegation of ownership, it is a demonstration. Another editor came in, tried to make an edit, we talked about it for a while, you (collectively) put it back the way it was a few weeks ago and now that person decided not to edit and has not be back. They do come and go though, that part is accurate.

I don't think the mythology... Fine, don't think. You quoted WP:Fringe and in it there is the section Reporting on the levels of acceptance which seems to clearly dictate the opposite idea that the article should clearly and explicitly explain the subject. Which is the question I have asked at least three times. It seems your opinion is that because it is not accepted by some it should be written as if the people who reads it knows it is the truth because those who do not believe it is will instantly reject it anyway. When looking over an article I read it and say what would a 14 year old kid think after reading this a library. If they read this article they would be of the impression that all the stories listed were fact. There is no tag on the page stating it is Solely in Mormon Beliefs or anything like that. If you do not read this article objectively and get the same opinion, my friend, you cannot be involved with fixing this article as you cannot see the problem. And maybe thats the problem. You have person after person telling you this page has NPOV problems but you seem to reject them out of hand or accuse the people of having a biased against Mormons. I don't. I just want an article that clearly states the subject in a non-biased, explicit fashion. You seem to think that by doing that you are creating a bias. If that cycle cannot be broken then I suggest we engage a third party or group within Wikipedia, namely WP:GA, so that a good article can be created. Isn't that our goal here? -Kirkoconnell (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no "third party or group within Wikipedia" to engage. WP:GA is a status awarded to an article, not an improvement committee. I have a couple of military medals in a drawer somewhere, but if I gathered all military medals ever awarded, it wouldn't contribute to ending the war in west Asia. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everyone can edit—but only if they choose to do so. And frankly, few people outside the LDS Church are even mildly interested in the nature of Joseph Smith's gold plates.--John Foxe (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Point not taken.WP:GAR is in place to assess if an article is good or not. People actually review the articles rate and what needs to be fix for it to be considered good. Also we could get 3pov involved or ask more experienced editors who have not edited this page to see if they can help. In fact I think it is an insult to the Wikipedia community to say there are no group to engage as their seems to be a ton that are willing to help improve articles.

Your analogy is flawed or does not compute, please revise or explain.

frankly, few people outside the LDS Church are even mildly interested in the nature of Joseph Smith's gold plates -> Is this meant to be justification for not explaining the plates in a straight forward explicit and contextual manner? If so, it is a very poor argument. You are saying that because no one will read or, anyone who does and is has to be a Mormon because all non-Mormons would not be interested. You point is mooted by my inclusion, a non-Mormon who is interested.

So do you see the problem yet? When you are faced with an issue you (collectively) team up and try to debunk it as an issue and then when you are unable to you just ignore the person. That has been the game we have played for two plus years here. If you goal is to get me to edit, fine I will. Remember that I am going to be explicit and I will give the article context, both for and opposed. That is going to completely change the article and frankly, I don't think you (collectively) will allow it. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think my non-Mormon credentials are pretty strong, having been personally censured by the Mormon Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research for my attempts to improve this article. (Well, it's my pseudonym that's been denigrated, so maybe the censure is pseudo-personal.)

My apologies if English is a second language for you, but clear writing is not one of your strengths. A better course would be for you to follow up the suggestion above that you could interest Good Article Reassessment or other experienced editors in taking a look at this article. I’d welcome their input.--John Foxe (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kirkoconnell, I for one welcome your collaboration here, and for it to be effective, I think it would help if you: (1) assumed good faith, (2) didn't lump everyone together as a collective "you", and (3) recognized when concessions are being offered you. Also, it would help if you provided specific solutions, rather than general complaints. For example, what particular "explicit and straightforward" text do you think belongs in the lead? COGDEN 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Plates

I don’t think the article attempts to adequately convey the final location of the plates. Academically speaking, where are they? I suppose we only have speculation. Additionally, we only have marginal and somewhat unreliable reports that others actually saw the plates (according to the article). More should be written and sourced about their “eye witness”. And what resulted from their eye-witness? Was it great signs or miracles? Changed lives? Let’s sincerely research this.

Much is said about proposed textual corruption within Orthodoxy. However, the mainstream can produce evidence that humanity possesses a multitude of ancient Biblical manuscripts to cross-reference (Septuagint, Codex Sinaiticus, Targums, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.). Mormonism is lagging behind the power curve in this arena – we know that. Where is the seer stone? The plates? The written eyewitness accounts? How can we cross-reference anything Smith wrote? The article should unabashedly expand on the potential reliability (or unreliability’s) of source material.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.242.1.63 (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As to the present location of the plates, there are a few operative stories. Smith just vaguely said he gave them back to the angel, but didn't say where the angel keeps them. A few early Mormons said the angel keeps them in a cave filled with other records and artifacts, either in Cumorah or some nearby hill. Beyond these faithful stories, one speculation is that Smith made the plates out of tin, and if that theory is indulged, their present whereabouts is still a mystery. A competing speculation is that Smith never had any physical artifact and that the plates were only ever seen in visions; in that case, they would be nowhere. Between these two theories, there is no consensus, although scholars agree that Smith had something heavy that he kept inside a closed box and let people heft.

As to Smith's brown seer stone that he used to translate the plates, that is kept in a vault in Salt Lake City, and the public is not allowed access--although at least one of his other seer stones are available in a private collection. Those details are probably better discussed in seer stone (Latter Day Saints). As to the witnesses, there is a separate Book of Mormon witnesses article that goes into more depth. As to corruption of Biblical text, I don't think that's not really pertinent to this article. That's better discussed in Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. COGDEN 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

LDS promotion

I removed the following paragraph from the article because it seems to be a low-key effort to promote the LDS Church. The article already mentions the fact that the Book of Mormon is supposedly derived from the Golden Plates.

The Book of Mormon, purportedly derived from these plates, is the earliest of the defining publications of the Latter Day Saint movement. The churches of the movement typically regard the Book of Mormon not only as scripture, but as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, written by American prophets from perhaps as early as 2500 BC to about AD 400. "Praise to the Man" Gordon B. Hinckley, Church President from 1995 to 2008, mentions the millions who have believed in the Book of Mormon, Statistical Report 2007.

--John Foxe (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be plagiarized in any case. It's a good thing you removed it. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite "significance" section

The significance of the golden plates in the Latter Day Saint tradition:

"In addition, Joseph Smith once believed in the authenticity of a set of engraved metal plates called the Kinderhook Plates, although these plates turned out to be a hoax by non-Mormons who sought to entice Smith to translate them in order to discredit his reputation."

• This sentence smells of POV bias. There are no records to indicate Smith believed or "once believed" in the authenticity of the Kinderhook Plates. We can assume he did...but assumptions aren't worth a dime.

I think Bushman (who's our authority here) is perfectly clear that Joseph believed the plates genuine. If necessary we could attribute the sentiment to Bushman and the History of the Church within the text.--John Foxe (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no example with regard to the specific citation that Joseph believed the plates genuine? Perhaps I am looking at the wrong reference? I also think that if we're destined to mention Joseph attempting to translate the K-Plates that we should have a very brief opposing sentence or two ... perhaps the FAIRLDS on K-Plates view? Let me know what you think? --CABEGOD 02:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The quotations given in the notes are clear evidence that Joseph believed the plates genuine. Apologetic material from the web—which has not been peer reviewed—can not be given equal status with the scholarship of Bushman and Brodie. A sentence in the footnote attributing a different view to Mormon apologists would be fine.--John Foxe (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"For many Latter Day Saints, however, particularly within the Community of Christ, the significance of these plates, including the golden plates, has waned as increasing numbers of adherents have doubted their historicity."

• We should exclude "for many Latter Day Saints." As "many" is arbitrary. Keep it limited. Most Mormons probably regard the Gold Plates as significant...and we don't want to downplay this in anyway. I realize the next sentence tries to re-emphasize some importance of the plates, but the damage has already been done.--CABEGOD 04:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've written the sentences in an attempt to meet those objections.--John Foxe (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your change, and I think it fits nicely. Thanks. --CABEGOD 02:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Stragnite movement

Foxe, obviously, you'll revert my attempts to undo your edits (yet again). But before trying to twist Smith's story by making it look less authentic by adding in the "Strangnite plates". I'd like you to consider this evidence:

One of the witnesses to the “Plates of Laban,” Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang's movement and denounced it as mere “human invention.” Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had assisted Strang in the fabrication of the “Plates of Laban.”[13].

The difference is, one of the strangnite "witnesses" eventually denied it. This never ever happened with any of Smith's witnesses, which proves Strang to be effectively a hoax. Hence, you cannot compare it to the Golden Plate witnesses. Routerone (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What's impressive about the Strangite episode is that so many followers of Smith accepted this new prophet without a qualm--at least temporarily.--John Foxe (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Routerone changes

Although I believe it would have been polite for Routerone to have brought his recent changes to this discussion page, I also believe that they are of limited ideological significance. Nevertheless, I'd be glad to participate in a discussion about them should other editors care to weigh in.--John Foxe (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I also believe that the lead you created is of an ideological significance. I was hurt when I saw how harshly critical and overly skeptical it was. From the way it was worded, to what it was saying. Summary: I felt yours was POV, you feel mine is POV. I'll see if I can try and apprehend it towards neither view. Routerone (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I notice that you changed more of ideological significance in the lead than I first realized, so I've added back more of the original. Usually material in the lead isn't footnoted, but we can probably work around that convention if you believe the statements are contentious.--John Foxe (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than reverting all of my changes, which included citations, you could have added back the "Strangite" sentence. Nevertheless, the sentence you inserted is just as much POV as the one you eliminated. Besides, there would need to be a citation, a citation to a work of scholarship rather than the FAIR website.--John Foxe (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I will request FAIR for their source of information on their claim of the Stragnite witnesses denying it. As they have supplied a quotation from an individual, just not where it came from. However, to call my changes "ideological" is rash, and incredibly uncouth. I completely disagree, there is nothing ideological in the slightest. If it were "ideological" then I'm sure it wouldn't be mentioning a seer stone in a hat! Keeping it neutral is not "ideological", and nor is stopping you from swamping the page with rash, critical, disrespectful and overly skepttical remarks. Rather, that is "ideological" in my opinion. What I am doing is hardly, "point of view." In your opinion, making an article neutral seems to be simply just to bomb it with a fairly negative prose and worded theory. No other religious topic outside the LDS movement is treat as rashly as to what you are doing here. Routerone (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing insulting about the word "ideological." An ideology is simply the way one looks at things, a worldview.--John Foxe (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it insulting as I find it is quite a hypocritcal statement from you to accuse me of that. Routerone (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusing someone of having a worldview is an insult?

I'd like to take special note of the following sentence that you've repeatedly tried to add to this article: "Despite Strang having claimed witnesses to his plates, one of them eventually admitted Strang's plates were a forgery." First of all, you've created a misplaced modifier, with the "one" referring to "plates" (so much for the supposed superiority of British over American education). Second, if you don't have a scholarly source for the statement, you shouldn't re-add the sentence until you do. (Why don't you do your own research rather than depend on FAIR?) Third, the POV implication of the sentence is that Smith's plates are somehow made more reliable by the defection of a Strang witness, a conclusion that violates logic and common sense--not to mention the waverings of Harris and the possible temporary defection of Cowdery.

Bring your objections about the article to this discussion page, Routerone. We can discuss them like gentlemen. If you can prove POV, fine, we'll change it. If we need to, we can bring in third parties. But attempting to change an article about a religious belief such as this one without prior discussion simply won't work.--John Foxe (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, do not insult me in bad faith. Firstly, I am a 17 year old student. You are an academic. However, the Stragnite sentence is not POV, that is your paranoid belief. Rather, the fact that you are trying to draw a parralel between Strang and Smith is an attempt to damage Smith's credibility. It is true that Strang is a proven fraud (I am going to ask for the source, and you wont give me time). Smith isn't. You have to consider that. Its not point of view to simply point out the fundamental difference as far as facts establish it. You're not having it. Simply because in reality Smith's witnesses never ever denied what they saw, despite falling out of favour with the church. Hence why you have to exaggerate and manipulate stuff to make them look delusional when in reality, they weren't. But if you are having such a fuss about it, like I said I will ask for the source, and remove that sentence until you obtain it. This "revert, revert, revert" culture has to stop Foxe. I should be entitled to change this page just as much as you are, you do not control it. Like you would like to think. Routerone (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

True, I don't control the article, but I do try to play by Wikipedia rules. For instance, I've never said that I'm an academic, and it's a violation of Wikipedia rules to attempt to reveal real identities. (We've been through this before at least twice.) What you need to do is bring to this discussion page any perceived POV, and we'll discuss it. If reason doesn't work, hollering ad hominems won't either.--John Foxe (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to ask for a WP:Third Opinion if you are.--John Foxe (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Article has been protected until either you both arrive at a consensus or agree to stop reversions until you have achieved consensus or compromise. This protection is not to endorse either version; I locked it at whatever version it was at when I noticed your edit warring. Syrthiss (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Changes

I added this subsection because the Routerone section was getting a little lengthy. We also need to discuss his changes/criticisms one by one. This is what I have gleaned thus far:

• Routerone objects to the "possibility that they were actually made from some material" statement.
• Foxe adds the sentence "Smith published the translation in 1830..." - is there a disagreement here?
• Foxe adds the ref tags. I don't think anyone has an objection to this change?
• Foxe wants to include the "witnesses testified to the existence of Strang's plates" statement. Routerone does not?
• Routerone wants to add a Strangite witness denying the S-Plates. Foxe opposes?

Feel free to correct me if I missed something or misinterpreted someone's view. --Suplemental (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Syrthiss's temporary protection.

Routerone, this is your opportunity to describe in detail what you believe to be POV about this article as it now stands. I promise that if there's something that's clearly POV or needs a citation, either someone will find a citation or the material will be eliminated. On the other hand, if you can't describe the nature of the POV in the article, then a neutral observer is likely to assume you have no legitimate grounds for complaint. Ball's in your court.--John Foxe (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ring binder

I wanted to add something about how similar they were supposed to be to a modern ring binder. I think this is helpful in visualising them. This is coincidental of course, since ring binders were not invented until after Joseph Smith was dead.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sealed portion

It should be noted that at least one group claims to have got the sealed portion translated.--MacRusgail (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User: Routerone (or User: 81.104.115.231's) latest edits

Routerone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.104.115.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what the deal is with him signing in and out

and editing under both accounts, but I feel that his massive edits to the article must be discussed here before they are allowed to stand. Sourced material just can't be deleted on a whim. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I will admit editing as an IP and I made that clear from the beginning on the edit summaries, as I havent tried to use it as an "alternate individual" for self support, I cant see anything wrong with that. And discussing edits was never on my agenda please note. If I feel something needs to be done here on wikipedia I shall simply do it. I'd like you to remember that "discussing edits" is certainly not a constitutional rule here on this website. Remember WP:BOLD? This is not a dictatorship. Routerone (talk)

And to justify my edits. Firstly, I added the long overdue information on James Strang, secondly I corrected some spelling and grammar. Thirdly and most importantly, I have eliminated what I personally feel is negative, misleading and very poorly rendered information. Some of the "theories" cited that I removed in this article were either too secular, bad interpretations of sources or theories which stunk of nonsense and contradicting to other theories being honest. I merely cleaned up and neutralized what I saw as rusty knife against the church. I do not endorse with the vile mis-information articles like this are providing. This is an encyclopedia, not the ultimate "spin machine". Routerone (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

See above: "Sourced material just can't be deleted on a whim". Duke53 | ^Talk 22:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Says what exactly? Like I said its not a "constitutional rule". Duke53 I'll have you know I view that the way the most of the sources in that article have been used in an extremely dubvious manner which makes the information included wholeheartedly worthless. Until the "arbitrators" learn to interpret the sources neutrally and fairly (without synthesis) then I believe I have absolutely no reason to draw any sort of rational agreement with the content of this page. Routerone (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How you view the way sources 'have been used' means little or nothing here. WP says that you find sources to support your views and add them to the article, NOT to delete sourced material that you don't 'agree' with.

Don't know how 'constitutional' it is, but IT IS the way WP is going to have it done. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So "how I" view sources is irrelevant? But how you view them has a higher significance? Despite me picking fault with the sources in question which undermines their authority and thus their overrall significance? I have every right to challenge the content of this page, being "sourced" does not make it untouchable. Plus as for "finding sources that support my viewpoint", I've actually being doing such in some of my edits, having just resolved a long running issue in regards to James Strang with sourced books. Routerone (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's both polite and Wikipedia policy to talk over major changes first.--John Foxe (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Only when it suits you Foxe. You seem to think you can make any major changes you want to these pages, yet when anyone tries anything different you continually revert and attempt to make your methods of editing and article control "constitutional". I dont accept your "authority" at all. I am doing what needs to be done to these pages and sorting them out for once and for all, its long overdue. Routerone (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Foxe, I am on WP so infrequently these days that I think that we ought to ask for help here (before the article reads like an lds tract prepared by Intellectual Reserve). Since there is a definite repetitive pattern to this editor's disruptive behavior perhaps admins should be the ones to deal with him. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing and improving pages is hardly "disruptive" in nature, is it? And although you cant stand the idea of it being an "LDS tract" perhaps you cant stand the idea that if it is neutral, then it will sound like an LDS tract. For instance look at this BBC, article on church history [14]. No ridiclous critical tone or theory. Thats the way articles should be here, not the manipulated mess you are promoting. I will champion my cause, and continue to do so. Routerone (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that many Mormon related articles in WP are crafted with a strange complex twist - seemingly trying to hide an anti-mormon bias, it is important to follow the WP rules. It will be long slow slog (singular points, sentence by sentence, sometimes word by word) but I wish Routertone all the best in the endeavour - don't let them grind you down.Rockford1963 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Routerone, it's both polite and Wikipedia policy to talk over major changes first. As Rockford1963 has indicated, you need to explain every significant change here first. We've been through this drill before, and you have a significant history of disruptive edits that I will not hesitate to make use of in my request for assistance.--John Foxe (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that Router is now on a 1-week block for edit warring.[15] If he turns up under that IP during his block time, you should take that fact to the blocking admin or to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even in Router's version of the article, there is no shortage of criticisms and questions regarding the plates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Routerone. I have to say I do welcome your honesty in regards to your editing. The funny thing is when I tried to work with Foxe and others in the past to try to fix the article and make it more encyclopedic we could never seem to agree. At least pretty much everyone who edited this page before seems against you, so you at least are making us work together on this. So I guess thats a good thing. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

81.151.60.159 another address for User: Routerone ?

81.151.60.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It looks like it might be, please notice the 'BJU' reference in this edit summary:[16]

"Nobody should read the bewildering and maggotted half-truths and lies which is contained on this page.

The line above contains more truthfulness, neutral point of view and accuracy than any wackjob BJU professor can spin on here."

Duke53 | ^Talk 01:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Jung University? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My W.A.G. would be Bob Jones University, which might indicate that 81.151.60.159 was a sockpuppet for User: Routerone. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• All these IP numbers are confusing but it appears to me that there is a meatpuppet / sockpuppet situation going on here ... has he edited from more than one 'unacknowledged' account ? He 'takes credit' for one of the numerical accounts; is that playing according to the rules ? How many accounts are editors allowed to use ? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• 81.151.60.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An account he admits he uses.

• 81.104.115.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The one with the 'BJU' reference. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• The two IP's emanate from the British Isles, but it's too wide a range to impose a rangeblock, so if any IP or redlink tries to get around the Routerone block, then it should be reported for sockpuppetry - and which might result in extending Router's block, so he had best not do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Time for some page protection ?

replaced content with 'It appears this article has dissapeared, how queer :(') Diff 1

[17] Diff 2

[18] New editor's contributions

[19] New editor's locale : > ) Duke53 | ^Talk 03:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Things must change

After having an extremely unjust and rash block imposed on me in regards to editing this page, I have returned. May I question, where has freedom of editing gone? the traditional liberty of wikipedia? My edits were not inapropriate or controversial. I'd like to remind the arbitrators of this page that when dealing with non-controversial wholescale changes to this page (such as the ones I made) they ought to follow the "standards" that they have imposed on me by bothering to discuss and debate and gain approval for an actual reason to revert such edits, rather than jumping in and hitting the revert button and claiming authority over what is said and done on this page, now that is fundamentally worse than editing non-controversially without "concensus", which in reality is not an actual problem at all (its just an excuse to stop anyone not on their side editing).

Hence If anything, I do believe that those who repeatedly reverted me on an inapropriate means should have been blocked for WP:3RR, not myself. I merely tried to edit the page properly, they revert on an unfaithful basis and I get punished for it? But nonethless, my attempts to sort out this page will not cease. In my opinion this article is a manipulated, highly negative, completely dross piece of spin, completely void of any encyclopedic content whatsoever. It is a blatant attack, containing many faulty arguments, exaggerated synthesis, the critical interpretation of neutral sources, and contradictory critical theory. I have change set in my sight. It wont be dont by sheer force or what some would like to say "illegitimate" means, but it will be done and it shall be done. If anything, I only question the mere principle of how long it can be resisted. Routerone (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hence If anything, I do believe that those who repeatedly reverted me on an inapropriate [sic] means should have been blocked for WP:3RR, not myself." Perhaps the best way for you to proceed is to learn WP rules; nobody but you did anything wrong here, no matter what you 'believe'. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You did, you inapropriately reverted non-controversial or disruptive edits without cause. That is very much blatantly WP:3RR. Consider it. Routerone (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well report me for it then; the edit history is still there. If you are so sure that there was a violation by me then you owe it to yourself to make this report. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a week ago. Which being honest, leaves me dry of motivation to bother doing it. But let that be a warning to you in future. although I'll go much more cautiously about my edits this time to make them feel more "legitimate" to people. Routerone (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll file your 'warning' in its proper place.

Wikipedia has accepted policies and frameworks; each time you decide to ignore them I will be taking the appropriate steps to correct the situation; feel free to do the same if I violate those rules. You will follow the same rules and regulations as the rest of us, no matter how you 'feel' or what you 'believe'. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

James Strang and his plates

Two other sets of plates, called the Voree Plates and the Book of the Law of the Lord, were said to have been translated by James J. Strang, one of a number of church members who claimed the right of succession after Smith's death and who became the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite).

First of all, I propose additions to this bit. Whilst I appreciate the fundamental significance that these plates did have in the early history of the Latter Day Saint movement. I would like to the propose the additon of some cited information into this part:

• I'd like it mentioned that James Strang's plates, unlike Joseph's, were proven fradulent. Strang's plates had "witnesses" like Smith's, however, one of Strang's witnesses wholeheartedly admitted that Strang's plates were fradulent. When I looked into this, I was provided with a number of sources which back up this claim:

*Roger Van Noord, King of Beaver Island: The Life and Assassination of James Jesse Strang (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 33-35,97, 102, 163, 219;

*Doyle C. Fitzpatrick, The King Strang Story: AVindication of James J. Strang, the Beaver Island Mormon [sic] King(Lansing, MI: National Heritage, 1970), 34-38;

*Milo M. Quaife, TheKingdom of Saint James: A Narrative of the Mormons [sic] (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1930), 2-8, 16-19, 92-93, 185-189.

I did attempt to add this into the page. It was reverted. I cant see any reason to oppose it. Clearly, the "strang" bit is being used to undermine the authority of Joseph Smith's claims. Adding this useful information in, would certainly improve and enrich the article. Routerone (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Strang's plates were proven fraudulent because they were available to be examined. Joseph's weren't. It could also be argued that both Cowdery and Harris at least temporarily rejected their belief in the golden plates. The important aspect of Strang's adventure to LDS history is that anyone who was anyone in the LDS movement immediately jumped on his bandwagon after Smith's assassination.--John Foxe (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but consider this, the denial of Strang's plates were direct it comes from a full, 100% clear quotation. In regards to Cowdrey and Harris "denying them", the only evidence you used is a minor glitch in regards to commenting on their association with the religion. You have to add your own synthesis in regards to those to individuals to draw such a conclusion. For what you are mentioning in regards to them doesnt mention the plates anyway. Thus there is no direct evidence they ever denied it, its very disputed, so it shouldnt be mentioned. Whereas there is direct evidence straight from the individual that Strang's witness did deny it. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that "they were there to be examined". Routerone (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My point is that Strang's importance arises from the early support he gained from Smith's followers, especially members of Smith's own family. Strang lost that support not because his plates were revealed as frauds but because he was a dictatorial son of Belial who couldn't keep his hands off the women.--John Foxe (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My point was not that James Strang is "insigificant" if you re-read what I said, I said I understand his importance to the early history of the latter day saint movement. But my point was, simply that I wanted to add in a sentence regarding the fact of what his "witness" turned round and said. I do not want add an opinionated spin on it saying "whilst smith's witnesses never denied it" in my proposed addition. I just want to add about the denial of his plates, with those sources. I never said they "lost him support". Is this much to ask Foxe? Routerone (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem so long as it's in a footnote. But the witness's denial has nothing to do with either the support that Strang gained from early Church members or their subsequent abandonment of him. That is, the matter is irrelevant to the point made in the paragraph, that early LDS members were attuned to the importance of buried metal plates.--John Foxe (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be a problem anyway? I will not accept it as a footnote. I did not once say it the "witnesses denial" had any connection with Strang's support actually. The concept of mentioning such a denial in the paragraph is to show the reader the very inclusion of "Strang's plates" into the article is not being used to descredit Joseph Smith. As a compromise, it is worth mentioning that the Witnesses denied it to support an alternative viewpoint and interpretation that although Strang's plates were fradulent, they still managed to descredit Smith's authority at the time. Nonetheless, wouldnt you say it gives an impression people were easily fooled more back then? It certainly does. There is a benefit to both pro-LDS and Anti-LDS by including such in the page Foxe. I dont want to make a "connection" between Strang's support and the denial by adding it. Perhaps we could re-word the sentence to fit in both meanings? Routerone (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me. I have no problem with adding to the Strang sentence the information that Strang's plates were, like the Kinderhook Plates, fraudulent. Is that what you're after?--John Foxe (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be correct. Routerone (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.--John Foxe (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what is meant by denying. If I understand, the witness did not deny the plates, but rather admitted seeing them, but suggested they were fraudulent. The Voree Plates article does not describe how the plates were examined and proven to be a fraud as John Foxes suggests. If true, would that article not be the place to include such information first?Mormography (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between the Voree Plates and Joseph Smith's is that all scholarly secondary sources agree that the former were fraudulent. We don't have to worry about the witness testimony per se; at Wikipedia, it's trumped by the secondary sources.--John Foxe (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not realize that the Strangites had no scholars. Please list for me the non-believing scholars that believe the golden plates are what Joseph Smith claimed they were.

This sort of bickering regulates WP to stating the obvious. Strangites believe in the plates, non-Strangites don’t. How inane.

In case you have not noticed, assuming the plates were fraudulent is not very scholarly.Mormography (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think much ought to be made in this article about the Voree plates. However, I'm not sure that there is really a basis to treat the Voree plates vastly differently than the golden plates. There are, of course, some important differences between the two: Setting aside the issue of their authenticity (which Mormons/Strangites accept as a matter of faith, but which all non-Mormon scholars discount), nobody can prove to historical standards one way or another whether the golden plates existed, although we have the Anthon transcript which is said to be a partial transcription, and several witnesses who apparently may or may not have seen them only with their "spiritual eyes"; whereas there is historical certainty that the Voree plates existed, and we even have a transcription showing that whoever made (forged?) them put a lot of thought into them (see this blog post by John Hamer). So the consensus non-faith-based view of the golden plates is that they are probably either a forgery or they didn't exist, while I'm pretty sure that the consensus non-faith-based view of the Voree plates is that is was probably a forgery, although a pretty good one by 19th century standards. COGDEN 01:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've pushed the additional comments about the Voree plates into a footnote. My take on the difference between the Golden Plates and the Voree plates is that there are fine scholars who believe the former were of God, e.g. Richard Bushman, whereas there are no scholars who believe the same of the Voree plates. Nevertheless, as I've said before, it's often easier to get consensus by cutting rather than by adding, and there's no need to say that the Voree plates were fraudulent.--John Foxe (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really decided what I think the best solution is for treatment of the Voree plates in this article, but I just wanted to make the point that for neutral consistency, treatment of the Voree plates shouldn't be vastly different from how we treat the golden plates.

I think that the lack of scholars who believe in the Voree plates is a result of the fact that the Strangites are such a small sect, and it is unlikely for such a small sect to produce any scholars. Since there are 13+ million LDS Mormons, the faith is statistically likely to produce many mainstream, citable scholars. If Richard Bushman were a Strangite, then he would almost by definition believe in the authenticity of the Voree plates, but his view would be a matter of faith rather than history, just like his belief in the golden plates is a matter of faith, and he doesn't claim otherwise. COGDEN 10:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My whole point in removing the "fraudulent" portion of that section was that no one has conclusively proven those plates to be fraudulent. I apologize for the "yelling" in the edit summary of that particular edit; that was me getting carried away, and it was wrong. While I am not a Strangite (or any kind of LDS), I studied their history and claims for a few years about two decades ago, and I never heard anywhere that anyone had scientifically examined the plates or otherwise proven them false. The issue of scholars who believe in plates vs. the lack thereof takes on a whole new dimension when one steps back and looks at the entire scholarly community worldwide, and their take on any LDS claimed gold plates. Yet, this of itself proves nothing, either way. I simply objected to the blanket statement that Strang's plates were "fraudulent," that's all--and it sounds like that objection has been accepted. I think the new text (including the recent pushing of material into a footnote) is just fine. - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Witnesses in the lead section

The same statement in regards to the Book of Mormon Witnesses is repeated twice in the lead paragraph:

• "or whether the witnesses of the plates based their testimony on what they had seen in visions, is the subject of debate and speculation"

• "Smith eventually obtained testimonies from a number of claimed witnesses saying they had seen the plates, although it is unclear whether these witnesses saw a physical object or a vision"

I think its quite disruptive and confusion to the narrative for it to be set out in this fashion. In the first quotation above it mentions about speculation in regards to the witnesses testimonies but it is not until several paragraphs down that the concept of the witnesses is mentioned to the reader. The "vision" part is repetitive. Would it be possible to elimate at least one of these sentences from the lead? It's an awfully negative prose, but one that doesnt need to be mentioned twice. I'd like to consolidate both statements into one for the sake of easier understanding. Routerone (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that two mentions are unnecessary. (They're probably the remnants of some long forgotten edit war.) I've tweaked the lead paragraphs both for substance and for style.--John Foxe (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caractors_large.jpg

Is there any reason to have the same picture listed twice in the article?

It seems that the same point is being made twice. One copy should be removed.

-Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Routerone is back with his same old M.O.

Apparently he still feels that he doesn't have to use the talk page when making his edits ? How many times do we have to go through this with him ? Duke53 | ^Talk 12:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting lengthy rationales in the edit summary is not the right way to do things. He needs to bring those rationales here before making changes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am an uninterested party - but at first glance I couldn't disagree more. Remember WP:BOLD - a person should be able to make an edit, even a controversial one, with a good edit description without having to hash it out on a talk page first. If there is disagreement, it will get reverted, then it should be taken to the talk page for discussion (to avoid a revert war). Now if this guy you are talking about has a history of ravaging the article in spite of consensus, then I see what you are saying. Again, an uninterested party here so forgive me if I don't know the full story. I guess I had to say something because it infuriates me when I make good edits to articles and have them reverted outright for no other reason than another editor thinks it should be discussed first. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay then; maybe you should have investigated his history here, or simply looked at his last edit (which prompted this section); all he did was revert a section where the previous editor had been invited to discuss it here.

You are right, you don't know the full story; it is comforting to know that you had to say something here, though. What exactly were you 'disagreeing' with ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. (I was disagreeing with this statement by Baseball: "Putting lengthy rationales in the edit summary is not the right way to do things. He needs to bring those rationales here before making changes." - all things being equal, that statement is essentially an antithesis of WP:BOLD.) But no more from me - I will defer to you guys understanding of the history and pattern of behavior for the guy you are talking about.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)