Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Page Protection

 Administrator note page protected for a week to prevent edit warring. Please follow WP:BRD instead of edit warring. Further edit warring can lead to the participating accounts being blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting admin assistance. Users ChristianMJ and AsteriskStarSplat are making multiple reverts with out discussion.Mormography (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You left out the fact that you have reverted as much as Christensen and Asterisk has only reverted once. I have left a warning on your talk page and protected the article to stop this edit war. Also, for future reference, matters like this should be reported to WP:RFPP and/or WP:AN3, not the talk page of the admin norticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Beeblebrox said "You left out the fact that you have reverted as much as Christensen". Not what I stated. I stated " making multiple reverts with out discussion". I reverted with discussion as I understood the rules of wikipedia. I am requesting assistance because they are refusing dialogue AND I DID NOT revert again, so no, I did not pursue the edit war as I understood edit warring. Please advise. As it is now you have sided with them leaving the page protected in their preferred state and it is unclear that I will be block if after a week I edit again, as if I have done something wrong? I engage in dialogue, suspend my editing, and request help, but I am still being accused of edit warring??? If so, why should I even try?Mormography (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You are being report for edit waring.Mormography (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Mormography, but you are quite incorrect. I am not engaging in edit warring. I am neutral on these issues, but you have consistently ignored what has been noted or requested, which is to take things to the talk page. And just because people may not comment within some predetermined timeframe, doesn't mean that consensus has been reached. There can't just be demands or insistence that things are done to the liking of a single user, particularly when multiple other editors are reverting and in good faith, trying to generate consensus.ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Gordon_B_Hinckley_Edit_Warring

Thanks for the message, but you are quite incorrect. You are not neutral on these issues and you have consistently ignored what has been noted and requested, which is to take things to the talk page. This is easily proven. Having the time to make edits, but not discuss is a lack of discussion. There can't just be demands or insistence that things are done against a single user editing in good faith when a cabal votes against them with out discussion or consensus.Mormography (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talk • contribs) 03:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What is happening on that page is textbook edit warring. I will be protecting the page from editing in order to give you both a chance to discuss the matter on the talk page. If edit warring resumes after the protection expires, the next step is for one or both of you to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, Beeblebrox. I certainly understand the concern you have identified. I would just note that the user logging the complaints has been invited in each instance, across a couple of articles dealing with similar subject matter, to take things to the talk page and has chosen not to do so, has accused other good faith, long-time users/editors of being institutionally funded in support of a specific, non-neutral point of view, of developing a cabal to avoid 3RR issues, and apparently finds it cute to use a mocking form of using/mimicking words shared by other editors in follow up edits or reversions that have taken place, essentially trying to bull the way through, with seemingly no real intent to seek a consensus-obtained, sound and well referenced set of articles. It's always disappointing when all can't not only act in good faith, but also show reasonable respect to others across wp efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

ChristensenMJ, your statement: "to take things to the talk page and has chosen not to do so" is, as you know, a bold faced lie and the edit history proves it. You have chosen not to make a single edit to the Gordon B. Hinckley talk page with regards to subject matter. I have. As for the rest of your personal attacks, take a look in the mirror.Mormography (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Though attempting to move things, from several users and from several different locations, to this one doesn’t make much sense, I am happy to address the claims that have been noted as being incorrect. There are no bold-faced lies as charged.

I would also mention that there is no personal attack going on here. Though I am generally reticent to point out the things I did, they are merely statements of fact that show a lack of good faith editing and interaction, which will be shown here. Here are the things identified on my talk page, replicated above, in response to a message from Beeblebrox about edit warring.

- Indicated things should be taken to the talk page – one example here

- Accusations that good faith editors are either institutionally-funded, approach things with “an irrational devotion” or have organized a counter cabal here

- One example of mimicking words of another user’s edit summary, in what seems to be mocking, given the other behaviors here

This is sufficient, but also comes from a user who has a long history of blocks, often due to edit warring, refusal to acknowledge the need for, and making attempts to build consensus, and often not acting in good faith, or allowing others the benefit of doing the same, as shown here. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hahh. LOL. You did not even address the original charge of bold faced lying: "You have chosen not to make a single edit to the Gordon B. Hinckley talk page with regards to subject matter. I have." I in FACT, moved this to the discussion page and you refused. Your response above proves this even more. You invested all your time to research me in order to find trumped charges to some how "implicate" me with falsehoods. Haha, there is that word again implicate. You see it can be used. What is disappointing is that you did not budget ANY of your time to move the discussion along. I offer solutions and you have now proven you are more invested in your anger. I am more than happy to analyze the source of your anger with you, but please can you move the editing concerns along? Mormography (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No bold face lies have been made or not been addressed. In trying to reference my edit summaries, yes they clearly say that the changes you were desiring to make should be taken to the talk page so that you could make a case for why they should remain. You never did that for a number of weeks. It was incumbent on you to make that case. I spent virtually no time looking at anything, the huge removal of content on your talk page was easy to see and it displays this is as a recurring pattern. Don't flatter yourself to think I have or feel any anger, couldn't be further from the truth. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You see, there you go again, only this time it sounds more like a confession. I will more than happy to continue your flattering of me with via email. Refusing to move on with the actual editing concerns works against your assertions.Mormography (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, you just don't get it, but that's OK. It doesn't bother me. The work of editing is incumbent on you to address. I am comfortable with the text as it shows now, so when ever the protection is lifted, it'll be your opportunity to make an appropriate case. I told you before I don't have strong feelings on this, but I do believe is more npov to reflect the wording as it's shown now, from good faith edits done a few months ago. So, I am thrilled to move on, no refusal exists as it'll be on you and others to appropriate sort it out. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, but you do get it, don't you? As you know it was incumbent upon you to address your desired change of the original that was arrived at due to broad consensus and discussion. You have failed to make a single case on the talk page why the original should be changed. I have addressed admin AndyTheGrump's concern. Good faith Option B it is then since you have suddenly flip flop and declared you have no strong feelings. Item resolved and option B will be the update when protection lifted.Mormography (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There's been no flip flopping. I didn't make the original edit that you're contesting, but I do believe it shares a more npov, so it's nothing to do with my desire, nor my personal responsibility to somehow justify it. It's presumptive to just assume what the outcome will be when the protection is lifted, that will be up to the community consensus. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you had a strong enough feelings on regarding which was the real original to result in what has been ruled a textbook edit war. Now suddenly you do not have any strong feelings on the subject. Flip flop. No, it was not presumptive at the time. AndyTheGrump had already ruled that all that matters is secondary sources. Only two sources have been presented and the only major complainant flip-flopped and said they suddenly did not care.Mormography (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why other discussions are being replicated here, but please note that discussion is what you do instead of reverting, not in addition to it. The two of you have reverted one another four times each since the beginning of December. Discussion of this situation only started one day ago.That unambiguously is edit warring. Also, please do not personalize disputes or make unhelpful accusations about supposed cabals, such talk only serves to inflame disputes, it never helps resolve them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Beeblebrox. I plea ignorance. What I have learned from my limited Wikipedia experience is that edit summaries are not the place for discussion. ChristensenMJ edit history indicates that he can not pled ignorance and must be aware of this. As soon as I understood that ChristensenMJ was declaring an edit war I took action to stop it. What I have learned from this instance is to recognize the declaration of an edit war sooner. Thank you for stopping it and I hope an admin can assistance when the protection is lifted.Mormography (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to try and claim limited WP experience, given that the repeated blocks and warnings about such things as edit wars. As noted above, this is clear from the historical talk page, which has been cleaned up, which is found here. My edit summaries were not any effort to have any sort of discussion. It was incumbent on the user to go to the talk page and make your case. This didn't happen for nearly 6 weeks. I declared no edit war. I respectfully don't believe that 4 reversions on 2 different articles, with other editors also trying to get the user to act in better over a 6+ week period constitutes an edit war. Again, there is no reasonable way the user can claim that somehow there was just no awareness, or a claim of innocent and being subjected to a declared edit war, which somehow needs to be better recognized in the future. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hhhuumm...To date you still have not addressed the supposed editing concerns on this talk page. Says it all. Send me an email if you wish to discuss the rest of the lies above. Mormography (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

side discussion on civility

Beeblebrox implied this when he asked that you not "personalize disputes", but didn't come out and say it explicitly, probably because he thought he wouldn't have to be so obvious. But if the obvious needs to be stated: Please don't say other users are lying. Views can differ and interpretations of motives can be different than actual ones. There's no indication that anyone in this affair is lying, you're just approaching things in different ways. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC) My approach is to call a spade a spade. A diversity of personalities is to be appreciated and record shows they are tolerated on wikipedia, just as you tolerated ChristensenMJ personality without criticism. Email me if you wish to discuss further.Mormography (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I don't really care if it is your preferred approach—in the name of civility, avoiding personal attacks and assuming good faith, I'm explicitly asking you not to call others liars or refer to their comments as lies. If you can't abide by those two core policies and one guideline, then perhaps you should reconsider whether you should be commenting at all. We tolerate a diversity of views and approaches, but we don't have to tolerate incivility or rudeness. Even when others have been uncivil to you, calling other users liars (or referring to their comments as lies) is a more extreme form of incivility that the community generally won't let continue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Double standard??? No matter, unless you have something substantive with regards the article edits, please use email. Last request. With regards to the falsehoods regarding my person, email is the preferred method. This page is with regards to the article edits. Beeblebrox was ruled an edit war in fact occurred. Please assist in stopping the "personalized dispute" by focusing on the edits. So, what do you think? Have I addressed ChristensenMJ susposed concern with the word 'implicated'? Have I addressed AndyTheGrump's concern with regard to source?Mormography (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I'm not interested in the substantive issue here. I'm interested in maintaining a civil environment and having users avoid personal attacks. These are issues of community interest, not personal interest on my part, so I'm not going to deal with them via email. If you can agree to withdraw the accusation of lies, the matter can rest. Otherwise, you can consider yourself on thin ice as far as behavioural standards. There is no double standard being applied—you are the only user in this matter who has explicitly stated that another user has lied. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Demanding a retraction violates wikipedias rules civility.Mormography (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I didn't demand anything. I said "If you can agree to withdraw the accusation of lies, the matter can rest. Otherwise, you can consider yourself on thin ice as far as behavioural standards." There is no demand and no compulsion. The choice in how you behave is yours. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC) This is now harassment. Cool off period 1 week?Mormography (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Feel free to cool off it you need to. I'm not harassing you; I'm trying to help you be aware of and comply with Wikipedia behavioural policies and guidelines. If you feel under siege, maybe it's because of something you said that was inappropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Nope. You have confessed no demand for retraction and that you are not interested in substantive issues here. So I am good. Are you interested in all editors behaving civilly or just me? Mormography (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Everyone, of course. Not everything has been perfectly civil (it rarely is), but you have definitely been the worst on this page as far as personal attacks go. (If you try to absolve yourself with an "everybody was being bad" argument, though, my kids would be quite happy to let you know what's wrong with that on multiple levels.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Oh,, so you did call me liar also when said "I'm not harassing you".  ;). Don't you think the kids would agree to just give it a week?Mormography (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC) No. I am specifically referring to use the word "lie", which you employed multiple times in referring to others' comments. If I said, "your claim that I am harassing you is a lie", then it would fall into the same category. It's all about being civil—saying what you want to say in a nice and polite way and disagreeing on substance or approaches without making ad hominem attacks on others. This shouldn't all be news to you—you've been blocked several times before in the past, and an indefinite block was removed in 2011 under the understanding that your behaviour would change. (If you want to cool off for a week, go for it, but I thought you said you didn't want to, so I'm not sure why you continue to bring it up. You don't get a free week to continue to be uncivil, if that's what you are meaning.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Reaching the point of absurd. Cool off. Mormography (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I, too, am "good". If you're not clear on anything I've said, you can let me know (here or on my talk page) and I will try to clarify. There's nothing absurd about being nice to others. WP:CIVILITY is a core Wikipedia policy and one of its "five pillars", so one can't just blow it off as silly talk. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Aleays happy to help. You have my email. Mormography (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I don't use email for Wikipedia purposes (generally due to its lack of transparency/visibility to the community), so if I want to contact you, it will be via message on your talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC) OK. You are not allowed to contact me. Use my talk page and you will be reported. Cease and desist.Mormography (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Just so there is no confusion. That goes for your kids contacting my kids as well. Trust me, on multiple levels my would have educate yours.Mormography (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I'll use your talk page if I need to communicate with you. I'm fairly comfortable that the reasons I would do so would not be anything the community would object to, so you're welcome to report any use of it to whomever you wish, should it occur. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC) I did something’s well such was suspending reverts, opening discussion, and reporting the edit war. I most definitely could have done other things better, such as not taking the bait and letting it go. Choice of words most definitely could have been better. ChristensenMJ’s personal attacks were definitely the worst here and I have never used that fact as justification for mine. You however, are using my incivility to justify yours with demands for retractions, referencing prior axes to grind (bearing a grudge), belittling by comparison to children, and a harassing, near neurotic need for the last word instead of just letting it go. Yes you have done some things well, but surely civility would indicate some self-reflection, referring to your incivility as being nice to others condescendingly helping the individual comes off as NOTTHEM. Is it not the best interest of the community just let it go and lets all do a better job next time? Would not the community be better served by focusing further energies in substantive edits and issues moving forward?Mormography (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I'm not hanging on to anything. I thought my sectioning off of this discussion into a collapsible table was a good sign that the issue was put to rest. If you don't want me to say any more on the matter, the best way to ensure it would be to do the same. My bottom line here: don't call other users liars or characterize their comments as lies, even if they are rude to you. General and mild incivility is quite common here (or at least the perception of such—sometimes given the nature of written communication it's hard to separate perception from intent), but some things do cross a line, and that is one of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "If you don't want me to say any more on the matter, the best way to ensure it would be to do the same." It sounds like you are saying that you are required to have the last word. Is this correct? If so, why? Please educate me.Mormography (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I'm just saying that if you're anxious for the issue to go away, the best way would be to not make any further comments. When others make comments to me in a discussion I participate in, I typically do respond. I would likely stop responding to your comments if you weren't making new ones. :) I'm fine discussing things, it just sounded like you were wanting the issue to be dropped to focus energies elsewhere. For the sake of the community, of course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I have no issue. I wanted your harassment to stop, but you made it clear you have the power to get away with harassment according to insincerity to community guidliness. I get. So I was correct. My suspicions have been proven twice now. You have an uncivil, near neurotic need to have last word. This is not usually describe as discussion nor is using edit summaries, but you are the admin, so what do I know? Now that I understand, have at it.Mormography (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Once again, there haven't been personal attacks anywhere. As Good Ol’factory has tried to point out in this separate conversation, the issue of civility and WP decorum needs to be adhered to. When that failed to happen and continued, it was identified in a straight forward manner, attempting to keep it factual. Everyone's good faith contributions are welcome and is as important as the other pillars of WP. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I think I get the gist of what you are saying, ChristensenMJ. However it is a little confusing, in that Good Olfactory clearly disagreed with your statement "there haven't been personal attacks anywhere".Mormography (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I think calling others' comments "lies" constitutes a personal attack. Apart from that, I have seen some incivility, but nothing I would categorize as a serious personal attack. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

ARTEST4ECHO’s Claim

Using an edit summary ARTEST4ECHO declared “There has been no consensus to implement your changes.”

The summary is here:

Original After Considerable Consensus In 2007: For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality.

Desired Edit By Good Ol’factory 20 November: For example, the Stowell forgery—which appeared to implicate Joseph Smith in gold digging—was purchased by the church from Hofmann for $15,000 under Hinckley’s direction; the sale was accompanied by a promise of confidentiality.

The changes to which ARTEST4ECHO is referring were a comprise between the original and desired edit (the current) due to discussion on this page. On 12 December, following BRD Good Ol’factory’s unexplained edit was reverted. Good Ol’factory began the edit war and did not engage in the required discussion. But latter made it clear that he did not care about the content dispute: “I'm not interested in the substantive issue here.”

AsteriskStarSplat only indicated that the word ‘implicate’ is troubling, but then abandon the content discussion.

In noting ChristensenMJ refusal to address the editing concerns, ChristensenMJ responded “I am thrilled to move on, no refusal exists as it'll be on you and others to appropriate sort it out.“

Obvisouly if the word ‘implicate’ is the dispute the best solution is remove it. Simple enough. Even better is just to stick with secondary sources as AndyTheGrump and I have voted. Everyone else voted for not caring. Even the original editor Good Ol’factory indicated not caring. So that is two votes for secondary source and three for not caring (even the instigator).

Finally, ARTEST4ECHO declared “I don't really want to get involved here, as I think this is much to do about nothing, even boarding on Lamest edit wars territory”. So there is fourth and last vote for not caring. Ergo, in my mind that was pretty clear consensus. Two votes for secondary source, four votes for not caring.

Flip-Flopping the position of not getting involved here, ARTEST4ECHO, continued with edit warring by using edit summaries for commentary and refusing to explain on the edit page why there is not a consensus.

There still has not been a single discussion as to why secondary sources should not be used or why the word ‘implicate’ should not be removed altogether. Pretty much says it all.Mormography (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Again you mis-quote me or changed my words, which you have already done twice. I was offering a solution to your edit waring. What I said was "Personally I don't really want to get involved here, as I think this is much to do about nothing, even boarding on Lamest edit wars territory." Meaning the argument was silly as the changes you made shouldn't be made, but I didn't want to get dragged into an edit war. Then I said "However, as I am an uninvolved editor of Latter Day Saint pages, perhaps a compromised solution can be had." Then I attempted to find a compromise for you. I never said that I agreed with you and this was at the start of the conversion, not the end. I was not withdrawing from the discussion.

I even asked User:Beeblebrox to re-protect that page to prevent you from adding you changes (which he rejected), so I obviously don't agree that your edits should be included. To insinuate I agree with you is wrong.

Lastly, after you rejected any compromise, I made it clear that I believe the new version you are attempting to add is WP:POV and should not be made.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 22:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, I have not mis-quoted you. I was offering a solution to editors concerns. At first I made no changes to the original, I only reverted to the original which is not the current. The change I offered was an awesome compromise and you did not object to. I never said you said that you agreed with me. I said you did not respond and correctly quoted you in not caring, which explains why you continue to divert the conversation from compromise to false accusations of misquoting. Anyways you just confessed that you requested an Admin to protect the page instead of first engaging in discussion. Again, I never insinuated you agree with me, but that you clearly stated that you wished not to get involved in the discussion. Furthermore, you never made it clear that the compromise version I offer is anymore POV than yours of appearing-to-implicate. My removes the 'implicate altogether and uses secondary sources.

So, if you are in fact willing to in engage in discussion as you supposedly claim, why should we not use secondary sources and why should not the word implicate, that apparently bizarrely upsets you so much, not be removed.Mormography (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Truncating my statement to make it seem like I agreed with you IS mis-quoteing me. You have three times intentionally edited or modified my words in order to back up what you want them to say, when I was saying exactly the opposite.

Arguing over and over and over until editors are tired of dealing with you, doesn't mean that there is a consensus reached. I was the last comment, NOT you. I said that, given what was discusses, and you lack of willingness to compromise, I agreed with all the other editors that your edits were inappropriate. To claim that I gave up on the discussion and you should get your way, when I was the last commenter is silly (See here you stopped not me)

I don't know how to make it any clearer, EVERYONE, including myself, thinks that your resent edit is inappropriate and Edit warring. Until such time that you can convince everyone that the consensus should change, the page should stay as it is right now. Continuing to pretend that we agree with you and changing the page is Edit warring. No one have "given up" as your claims above seem to indicate.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 14:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. Instead of actual discussion and answer your content concerns, more personal attacks and more false accusations. And you claim you have not stopped the discussion. Your paragraph has zero content discussion. Says it all. I don't know how to make it any clearer, NO ONE, is pretending that there is agreement and your edit warring discussion appears to be deliberate goading and uncivil behavior. Last chance to actually engage in discussion before moving to dispute resolution, which appears to be yet another deliberate delay tactic.

"So, if you are in fact willing to in engage in discussion as you supposedly claim, why should we not use secondary sources and why should not the word implicate, that apparently bizarrely upsets you so much, not be removed."Mormography (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You are pretending that there is agreement, see your own comment and edit here. You made the change saying "Per Discussion Page", pretending that there was a consensus, which the admin Beeblebrox blocked you from editing for doing it.

I have made my opinion very clear. This is not a "citation needed" issue, it's a POV issue. I agree with User:AndyTheGrump, User talk:AsteriskStarSplat, and User:ChristensenMJ, Forgeries cannot implicate anything, so inclusion of the word "appeared" is appropriate in order to keep a NPOV view, therefore the pages should stay as it is right now--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 22:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

More false accusations. Anyways moving on. You refuse to explain why the word implicate should not be removed. If it was in fact a POV issue that would be the best solution, an obvious contradiction, proving this is not at all about POV. I agree with the many, many editors that in 2007 saw no POV I agree with user:AndyTheGrump that best solution would be just to stick with secondary sources. You refuse to compromise and refuse to discuss ... moving on to dispute resolution.Mormography (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV “on behalf of the Church”

This phraseology (perhaps unwitting) interjects the article into the controversy. In my mind a simple 'purchased' without qualifier is sufficient. The most neutral phraseology would be “Church funds” if some sort of clarification is sought.

Many of the books address the controversy. For those interested a brief summary is copied below and the link gives more detail.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingch6b.htm

In the Salt Lake City Messenger, June 1985, p. 19, we wrote the following:

"Although the Church later claimed that it had possession of the letter, in a letter to the editor of theSalt Lake Tribune, May 6, 1985, the Mormon scholar George D. Smith said that it was his understanding that 'Gordon B. Hinckley, second counsellor to President Spencer W. Kimball, purchased the letter in 1983 in his own name from collector Mark Hofmann...'

"If President Hinckley bought the document in his own name, this must have been an attempt to give the Church deniability—i.e. the letter could be safely kept out of the hands of the public, and yet the Church could officially deny that it had it."

At Hofmann's preliminary hearing, the prosecution indicated that in the stipulated statement Gordon B. Hinckley had claimed that "Mark W. Hofmann was given a check from Church funds for $15,000 for the letter."

Mormography (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't start multiple threads on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV ‘implicating’

“a letter reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit". Dawn Tracy

Much of the discussion above raises concerns regarding the NPOV of ‘implicating’. Wikipedia standards favor secondary sources. The Dawn Tracy quote is not only a secondary source, but its use of ‘reportedly’ is much better than either ‘implicating’ or ‘appeared to impLicate’.

It should also be noted, that some editor added “The document was later found to be a forgery.” Just to make doubly certain the readers understood the document was a fake. Maybe ‘found to be a fake’ would be better?

Mormography (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't start multiple threads on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why this was even added