User talk:John Foxe/Archive 4

a few thoughts

From a new editor on wikipedia I have a couple of thoughts about your joseph smith article. first, shouldn't that fact that he was a wanted criminal suspect many times over be mentioned in the summary section? When I look at the wiki entries for any celebrity or politician who had any criminal or suspected criminal dealings, be they HR Haldamen, richard nixon, charles manson, bill clinton, oj simpson, martha stewart or what-have-you, they all, regardless of their guilt or innocence, have a note about it in their summary paragraphs. Shouldn't the same be true of J smith if this article is to be fair and balanced (to quote the old attage)? the second thought I had was when I ran across this sentence: "Some secular scholars argue that the witnesses thought they saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes," or that Smith showed them something physical like fabricated tin plates, or that they signed the statement out of loyalty or under pressure from Smith." why are the scholars referenced as secular? if they're reputable scholars shouldn't it just read, "scholars argue" rather than "secular scholars argue"? Firstly, I highly doubt the only people who question the validity of the twelve witness' signatures are secular. I'd be willing to bet that some are christians, muslims, jews, et al. I don't see why this concern has to be relegated to secularists only. in fact I would say that to claim the scholars are secular requires proof in and of itself.

-Scottdude2000

Oliver Cowdery

I'm glad to see that my adding the category to the above article may have been what enticed you to participate in the deletion discussion. That was kind of my point—to do something to pique some curiosity—more than actually wanting the category applied to the article. Feel free to remove it: I think it applies to Cowdery, but I don't think it's mentioned in the article and as you've said there's no way to prove such a thing anyway. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that piques the interest and brings a smile to the face can't be all bad.--John Foxe (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

I have conducted a review of this article as part of the GA sweeps process. There are some issues which need addressing, which can be found at Talk:No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith/GA1. The article is on hold for seven days, so that these concerns may be addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've tweaked the few things you noted.--John Foxe (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite

Can you please cite the edit you made on June 23rd to Reformed Egyptian? Thank you. Wm.C (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to cite a source for something that has not happened. "No living Martians have ever been discovered on Earth." The statement remains true until someone can provide evidence that it is incorrect.

I'll move this discussion to the Reformed Egyptian page.

All the best, John Foxe (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wm.C (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sunday GAR

Billy Sunday has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you want to respond to and make the changes listed on the GAR/Assessment page. I took care of #1--deleted the word. I'll leave the other items for you, unless you would like me to make preliminary efforts/suggestions for you to consider. But I assume you'd rather make the edits.--Rocketj4 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent tweak in the "Conversion" section is nearly exactly what I had written at first. I added the second change, in the following sentence, because I didn't think you would accept the abbreviated version. I'm glad you did, and, as usual, your tweak is stylistically pleasing.--Rocketj4 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you've done as well.--John Foxe (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Wikipedia really needs intelligent and thoughtful editors like yourself, so I just wanted to say hello: please feel free to ping me on my talk page if I you think I can help with any issue. I always watch user talk pages where I comment, so you can reply here if you would like to have a discussion. Geometry guy 21:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind words.--John Foxe (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed

I saw you added the birthday of Laurence Morton. Do you have a source you could add to the article, please? Debresser (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's from the SSDI.--John Foxe (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chris Sligh

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chris Sligh. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sligh (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

Many sectarian Evangelicals reserve the term Christian for use as a synonym to Evangelical. It is not. Neutral sources which Wikipedia strives for don't take that parochial approach. Here are a few references to respected sources which use the term Christian more inclusively, including the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) in the mix.

• Yahoo Directory: "Christian Denominations and Sects"
• adherents.com: "Largest Branches of Christianity in the U.S."
• beliefnet: "Faiths and Practices" index off-site
• MSN Encarta encyclopedia: "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
• RSN (Religion New Service): Religion Backgrounders
• PBS (Public Broadcasting Service): "The Church: A Brief History"
• Encyclopedia Britannia Online
• BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
• World Council of Churches (WCC): Churches
• National Council of Churches (NCC): National Council of Churches’ 2005 "Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches."
• United States Department of State: International Religious Freedom Report 2004

Heck, even the sectarian (but broadly respected) Pew Forum broadly generally characterizes Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) as Christians. Obviously, usage of these broadly respected neutral authorities is not consistent your sectarian approach. Your personal opinion is a perfectly fine one to hold; it just has no place on a neutral site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russbales (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I concede.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Barrett (theologian)

A tag has been placed on Michael Barrett (theologian) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've replied.--John Foxe (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

116 manuscripts

Hi John, maybe it is me, but I just fail to see the reason for undoing my editing and labeling it "POV". If you want to share your insights about it with me I will appreciate. --Barbaricino (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statements of Martin Harris that you inserted are irrelevant to an article on the Lost 116 pages because:

1. There's quite a good Wikipedia article on Martin Harris, although I'm too modest to note its primary contributor.
2. Harris's belief in the veracity of Book of Mormon is not at issue in an article on the 116 missing pages. In 1828, he certainly believed in the authenticity of Joseph Smith's revelations.
3. Harris's comments about his role as one of the Three Witnesses differed through the years, and to insert comments from one period without those from the others would be misleading to the reader.--John Foxe (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, I was wondering what you think of removing the mention of Cowdery being a dowser on the Joseph Smith Jr. article? I don't think it contributes to the article about Joseph Smith, and it looks a bit out of place. You removed the mention of Cowdery being a rodsman in the 116 pages article and I was wondering if the same courtesy should be extended in this case? Thanks.

--CABEGOD 00:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CABEGOD. I believe the mention of Cowdery's dowsing is important in the Smith article to demonstrate that, like Smith himself, all his early followers had a similar magic world view. All the best, --John Foxe (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of Cowdery being a dowser isn't in the magic world view area (Early Years section) which is only more evidence that it is out of place. Further, it was only in his youth that Cowdery was a dowser. Why does this matter? It would be as if I said: "John Harding did not begin teaching in earnest until March 1534, when he met John Foxe, an author and frog-catcher." Adding that Cowdery was a dowser is like mentioning that I played basketball in my youth in an article that isn't even about me. This isn't Cowdery's article. I hope you reconsider.

Thanks again, --CABEGOD 00:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Commandments (1833), the predecessor of the D&C, says that Cowdery's gift was "the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things...it is the work of God." The D&C changed "working with the rod" to "gift of Aaron" (D&C 8:6-7). So Cowdery was at least still a rodsman during the early years of the Church.--John Foxe (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That revelation was April, 1829 I believe? Cowdery was about 23 years old at that time? As far as mentioning that he was a dowser, I still don't believe it belongs in the Joseph Smith article. On another note - usually a "dowser" is someone finding underground water. Wasn't Cowdery seeking treasure ? --CABEGOD 22:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was April 1829 and Cowdery was 23.

Although today we usually think of dowsing as "water-witching," the definitions given both at Wikipedia and in the Oxford English Dictionary includes searching for mineral wealth. The first citation given in OED is, curiously enough, from John Locke (1691): "Not of the nature of the deusing-rod, or virgula divina, able to discover mines of gold and silver." (The real problem in terminology is my non-standard use of the word "rodsman" to describe a person who searches either for water or treasure.)

The point of mentioning that Cowdery was a dowser is to emphasize that early Mormonism grew out of the magic culture of the era, a thesis enhanced by D. Michael Quinn in his exhaustive (and exhausting) Early Mormonism and the Magic World View.--John Foxe (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar ... well deserved

		Barnstar for a job well done
		Thanks for all your hard work in a variety of difficult articles ... it is appreciated by users and editors alike. Keep it up! --Noleander (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i left a question just for you on the Joseph smith jr discussion page-

please read and my questions and help me understand your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmgcf (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wmgcf. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes.--John Foxe (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tilde tip. Thanks for answering my last question. I left another question for you on the J.S. pageWmgcf (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Foxe thanks for answering my question. I left another message for you on the J.S. page, I need to know what type of evidence in your opinion are valid to answer the point we are debating. 98.108.141.145 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zion's Camp references

The references you introduced to Zion's Camp do not yet state what books they are from, just the authors (Brodie and Bushman). I assume that you were referring to No Man Knows My History and Rough Stone Rolling, but I'll leave it to you to make the clarification. Thanks. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 08:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added those citations.--John Foxe (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Partial Apology

User John Foxe, at the suggestion of others, I have read the wikipedia guidelines about personal attacks. I recognize now that I did cross that line and I am sorry for going too far. Now, I need to say that in all fairness, I do believe that you (and I too, I am not exempt, see my talk page) are still exhibiting a conflict of interest as you edit the Joseph Smith article. Per the Wikipedia guidelines, "Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack," [1]

On my talk page I have spelled out the evidence that has led me to this conclusion. I know that I cannot prove that you have a conflict of interest, because we are using Avatars on the internet. What I do have is my opinion and the evidence I can see in your history. And I wouldn't bring it up if I didn't believe that a neutral observer would agree. So what I am saying is that I am sorry for the personal attacks, but if I feel that you have exhibited a relevant conflict of interest in your editing, I will call it out civilly. In fairness, you may do the same for me. Proudneutralmormon (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Civility is always appreciated whether at Wikipedia or in real life.--John Foxe (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith

Okay, sorry, John, I didn't realize it was delicate. I'll have a look at the talk page and/or leave well alone. Thanks for your note. SlimVirgin ^TALK contribs 19:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Routerone blocked for sockpuppetry

See User talk:Routerone - he even warned his IP sock! Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Salatin

My pleasure. Steven Walling 19:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Smith

Thanks John. Like in my past edits, I merely wish to draw the distinction (for the reader) of Smith being legally married to Emma for years, with children and a 'family life' on the one hand, and the many clandestine, secret 'marriages' on the other. These 'weddings' were not recognized by any court, and they were not marriages performed by anyone having the authority of the state to do so. A casual reader shouldn't lump Emma in with all the other women. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Olive Branch

Hi John. I appreciate your civility and respect your offer of an olive branch. I don't disagree we might get along together in another context. The sad reality, however, is that it would likely only be as a course of general civility. Yes human conflict is a natural part of our social reality. I don't deny that you are a friendly, well intended, and fun person. But I also don't want you to be misled that the work you do here is not highly offensive. The skepticism you use to demean the life of Joseph Smith and my faith are not acceptible no matter how civil their presentation. See, if I were to be sincere as a friend I would let you know why it was we didn't hang out together anymore. And, simply put, it would be your desecration of things that are sacred and important to my personal faith. And that's not just an extreme religious sensitivity. I would also stop hanging out with you if you used racist, sexist, or discriminatory speech as well. I guess I'm a bit of a prude in that way, but that is who I am.

Assuming you are a Christian, I wonder how you would feel if I were to offhandedly denegrate Jesus Christ? I would expect you to put me in my place, because friendship doesn't mean setting aside our values to fit in.

As one of our prophets, David O. McKay, stated, "It is a far greater compliment to be trusted than to be loved."

So I will respect you as a neighbor, but don't ask me to sit idly by and tolerate perceived prejudice in any of its forms.

Let me tell you about a guy I 'saw' on Wikipedia today. You will know him as 'No Brit.' He doesn't seem to be a Mormon. But at the same time he will stand up against the Mormon bashing attitudes present in the article editing on many of the Wiki pages here. Reminds me of the German citizens who risked their lives to protect Jewish citizens during the Holocaust. See, that is the kind of guy I would like to hang out with. And if I could offer an olive branch back it would be in the form of a letter that would read,

Dear John,

I am extremely disappointed in the way you have attacked my faith. But I want you to know I have confidence that you can change. And when you do, I'd look forward to hanging out with you again.

P.S. if you want your AC/DC CDs back you can come over and pick them up anytime.

Your Wikifriend,

Canadiandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take solace in the truth that it's a greater compliment to be trusted than to be loved—even though not by you at this particular moment. Not only don't I hate you, I don't even dislike you. If you'd ever like to talk privately, just drop me an e-mail. Your friend, John Foxe (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References for articles which repeatedly reference a single book

I noticed the new article you created, Robert Sheffey. Beyond the need to sectionize it, there is one other quality improvement you could make. Specifically, by separating the references into a Notes and a Bibliography section, you could provide a single full size citation for the book(s) referenced repeatedly throughout the article, while maintaining the shorthand in the Notes section and keeping them linked together. To do so, you merely need to use the {{Citation}} tag in the bibliography, then use the {{Harvnb}} tag for the inline references. Used correctly, the Notes section will link to the citation in the Bibliography below. For an example of how to use it, see Youth incarceration in the United States, specifically how it is used with the repeated references to Holman & Zeidenberg and Soler.

Note: I'm not saying it's a bad article without this change, but if you're going to do articles with a few repeatedly referenced sources it's a good organizational technique. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not skeptical of the new article in the least, and I fully understand that it's not only hard, but frankly impossible to do everything right on a new article. I was providing the information solely to aid you in your future contributions, not as a critique. Harvnb+Citation combo is not well known, but very handy for certain subjects. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your help.--John Foxe (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you mormons

Did you mean for that comment to sound bite-y and own-y? I can't tell if it was tongue-in-cheek or grumpy or honest or what. tedder (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was tongue-in-cheek and written with a smile on my face. Sorry the twinkle in my eye didn't make it across the ether.--John Foxe (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be. I just wanted to make sure and let you know it wasn't entirely clear- at least to me. OTOH, I don't handle ambiguity well, so that doesn't mean it's bad either. tedder (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

page needing some help

• Women and Mormonism

If the fact tags are removed, I'll end up removing all of the content instead. I figured you probably have mastery of the sources necessary to build it out. Thanks! tedder (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on this article. I've never edited there, but maybe when I get a chance in a few weeks I can look at it. Contemplating that article gives me visions of making both Mormons and women mad at me.--John Foxe (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your prompt response to my pseudo-review. Even your simple "I agree" is valuable feedback (and concise! I love concise feedback) that lets me know I'm on the right track. I hope you will continue to respond as I gradually continue pumping out more tweaks. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--John Foxe (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You too did well on Bellesiles. I've been tweaking it for a few days and think between us it is much smoother and more objective insofar as an entry on such a thing can be. I am going to try to give up on it now, having had enough of it for a long time. - thirdcamper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.114.142 (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort, and I too believe the article has been improved. I'm sure there will be more to take note of once 1877 begins getting reviews. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baalam

I saw your comment about Baalam, and it made me smile. In case you didn't know, LDS congregations recently studied Baalam in Sunday School, so the topic was fresh on my mind. :) Cheers. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, B. Pure coincidence, I didn't know Baalam was scheduled. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar !!!

File:Socratic Original Barnstar.png		Barnstar Award for Activism
		You have been awarded the "Fat Dude" Barnstar for your religious activism in various Mormon articles. Because of you, many religious Wikians can find sources of perceived truth.

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Keep up the good fight, bro. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Jones

I heard that Bob Jones made some racist statements and had connections with the Klan? I was wondering if you had an opinion on the matter? Thank you. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The various Bob Joneses (Sr., Jr., or III) or Bob Jones University?--John Foxe (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was the third Bob Jones. Know anything about it? I'm doing a research paper on influential religious leaders. While I'm on the subject... do you know of any racial beliefs of any of the Bob Joneses? --63.226.104.225 (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the three articles on the three Joneses. (They're often confused, even by journalists who should know better.) I think there's something about race in each article. But the only Bob Jones who had any kind of relationship to the Klan was Bob Jones, Sr., who died in 1968. Feel free to write me an e-mail if you have specific questions.--John Foxe (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How do I find your e-mail? It's not on the user page. Thank you for your help. --Suplemental (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's under "Toolbox" in the sidebar.--John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about mormons

Hi. I just created this account so I could ask you and others some questions about the Mormons. 1` If you believe Smith's plates were manufactured then where did he hide them? 2` How many people within Mormonism used seer stones or other objects similar to them? 3` Did Smith believe he could communicate with the deceased? 4` Who had the best claim in the Mormon succession crisis? 5' Is it true that Gov. Boggs will not have temple work done? Have a good day. Steve --Stevemccardell (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steve. I'm not the best person to ask questions like this because not only am I not a Mormon, I've never been a Mormon. Be happy to talk with you privately though. Feel free to write me an e-mail ("e-mail this user" under "toolbox"). All the best, John Foxe (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I will try and do that soon. --Stevemccardell (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is new information/research on 116 pages

This does not all belong to the footnotes of the article, it is new information coming out of the Critical Text Project and is worth a mention...I find this of great mention! There hasn't been new information on this for a hundred years! Please restore some mention to the main article please! Twunchy (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why it should be of any importance to a Wikipedia reader?--John Foxe (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigot

Some have said you are a bigot?--Anti Foxe (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to join the fun, you have to play by the rules, one of which is WP:No personal attacks.--John Foxe (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday New York Times

Instead of removing one of the conflicting references, explain why one is wrong and the other is correct in a note. If you just delete it, than everyone who reads the New York Times must rediscover the error, if it is indeed an error. I have seen the opposite here, where multiple sources propagate the same error based on a Hollywood resume made to make a person look older or younger, or born in a nicer town. When sources conflict explain why then add "sic" to the offending word if it is actually incorrect. Do you have a copy of the death certificate? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the material about Sunday's death from the scholarly biography by Lyle Dorsett to the notes. Rarely is a contemporary newspaper story preferable to a work of scholarship, everything else being equal. The subject's not that noteworthy in any case.--John Foxe (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise is fine by moving it to the notes, we shouldn't ignore conundrums and make people re-research which is correct, have both and explain why one was wrong as you did in the reference. Excellent work. Do you also add your articles to Knol? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't done anything at Knol both because I feel comfortable writing anonymously and because history doesn't seem to be an emphasis over there.--John Foxe (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Dorsett is an academic historian, and his biography of Sunday is scholarly. However, it contains no footnotes, and consequently his assertions are often difficult to trace. In this particular case, all biographers, including Dorsett, have used "Ma" Sunday's autobiography as the source for Sunday's last day. She does say he collapsed in the afternoon, but on p. 35 she also says, "And Wednesday night Billy was called home to heaven." Her description of the events, on p. 36-39, clearly talk about it all unfolding after supper; after the doctor put the icebag on Sunday's chest, he says he must go because he has patients coming to his office between 7 & 8 o'clock. So, according to Nell Sunday, the New York Times was right: Billy Sunday died at night. Insignificant, yes; but accuracy is what historians should be looking for.Rocketj4 (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you've said about both Dorsett and Sunday's death. But the implication of the NYT article is that Sunday went to bed at night with "queer pains" and then died.

Interestingly, McLoughlin says only that Sunday "died after a third heart attack on November 6, 1935, at his brother-in-law's home in Chicago, across the street from a saloon." (292) It's like McLoughlin can't pull the curtain without one final, irrelevant sneer—and he provides nary a citation for anything in the paragraph, including the saloon.--John Foxe (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the full NYT article doesn't imply that at all. (I have it in front of me.) After the initial paragraph, the NYT quotes Nell, and she says, "Tonight I brought Billy his dinner ... He seemed all right. But suddenly at 8 o'clock he said: 'Oh, I feel so dizzy'." It's actually quite a full obituary, and complimentary. I recommend it. As for McLoughlin, I agree that he probably purposefully left in the saloon bit. (Who knows--there may well have been a saloon nearby in hard-drinking Chicago at the time.) He obviously wasn't fond of Sunday, and that unfortunately mars his otherwise very useful book. At least all the subsequent biographers liked Sunday, although Bruns uses some too-cool cynicism from time to time.--Rocketj4 (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have checked the whole NYT article rather than just assuming the quotation about "queer pains" was about all there was to it.--John Foxe (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrich Ames

Hello, John! The recent paragraph (and other edits) you introduced to the article are very appreciable; but the references given, [2][3] do not seem to meet WP:VERIFY. Unreferenced material on biographies of living persons can be deleted immediately - could you correct the citations to properly reflect the source material? I'd be happy to help if you need any assistance citing the source properly. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that does it. I forget that some folks don't know what GPO means. Of course, the Senate Intelligence Committee report is in general more reliable than anything else in the bibliography. All the best,--John Foxe (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. This should probably be used for the first reference - then the reader could check it out. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thanks for providing the link. Shows how old I am when my first thought is to cite a hard copy.--John Foxe (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! NP - BTW, my attention was drawn to the below section (this happens sometimes) and I commented on it: I'm sure you saw. I feel your pain a little on this one, and I would be very surprised if this editor isn't/hasn't been accused of ownership of the Adi da article. Out of 2,301 edits, 1008 are to that article: I've seen many accused of ownership, but this is extreme to say the least. Waiting for a response from him on the Joseph Smith page... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, John! Your recent contributions to the article have been impressive, and have certainly improved the content. I would like to revamp the references - make them all as standardized as possible into one or two styles. Some sources on the article are dubious as to reliability[4], and one you recently added[5] is listed as "Analysis" - did you mean "Assessment"? Again, your work on this article is commendable, and I am interested in getting it to a higher class. The reference work will take a little time - any questions, comments, threats? Cheers, John :> Doc9871 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war on Joseph Smith Page

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tao2911 (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a maxim in equity (called at Wikipedia "Unclean hands") that relief may be denied on grounds of misconduct in relation to the matter being litigated.--John Foxe (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arming America

I have started revising the Arming America page, which is a godawful mess. I invite you to help. Make that implore... This is too big a job for one person.

OK, I'll come over and check it out.--John Foxe (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Smith entry is excellent. As you work through Arming America, recommend you use small edits, entering them as you work, so that we don't foul one another up. I wouldn't want to do that to you, at least...

I just incised large portions of it, considering it irredeemably thick and verbose. It needs a new overhaul, but that will require rereadiing the book, reviews, and secondary literature. Feel free to do it in coming months with me.

That was "bold," but I support what you've done. You're right in attempting to emphasize the nature of the book itself rather than author. Hopefully there's no one out in the ether who's emotionally invested in what was there.--John Foxe 14:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tightened up the Bellesiles lead too just now and think it is better. Well, off again to leave this all alone. I hope it stays more or less intact, but it's like a garden. Just when you think it's tidy... By the way the signature you have above, is there a simple command to input it?

Right, it's four tildes. Or you can press the "pen" on the command bar above.--John Foxe (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha!--Thirdcamper (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the American Rifle reference, by the way. I may eventually get to it but am mostly interested in a measured, fair, accurate, and to-the-point entry on these topics rather than driven by any specific position on the historical questions at stake. I have tweaked these Wikipedia pages for the same reason others play solitaire or do the crossword.--Thirdcamper (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One last note: It might be that if you and I were to meet in person we would be on opposite sides of the political table, but it's been nice to tag-team in the right spirit on the articles.--Thirdcamper (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fun to edit at Wikipedia when you find others like yourself who are interested, first of all, in getting the story straight rather than grinding an ax. I also enjoy ordering information and making it useful to others. I've been known to tell folks that "Some people do crossword puzzles; I write book reviews." (You can read mine on the Rose book at Amazon.com) But it's probably imprudent to judge my politics thereby.--John Foxe (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the politics. (By the way I see you are a Vietnam veteran - my father was a Vietnam-era veteran but as a drafted medical doctor, surgeon, stateside, who did patch up a lot of wounded flown in. I was born on the AFB he was at, as he was Air Force.) I've a hunch that mine are fairly to the left of yours but who's to say? My view on the history in this case doesn't go much further than thinking that even if Bellesiles was correct he has set back the cause of his interpretation by several decades. Anyway, keep up your good work. I'm letting go of this stuff now. Back to other work.--Thirdcamper (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tidbit of trivia

I recently saw a Mormon friend of mine with Foxe's Book of Martyrs. It turns out, Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed to have seen those martyrs in vision, which is partly why my friend was reading it. "...after reading Foxe's Book of the Martyrs, Joseph remarked that he had 'seen those martyrs, and they were honest, devoted followers of Christ, according to the light they possessed, and they will be saved'" (pulled from lightplanet.com). Not entirely wiki-related, but due to your choice of username, in case you hadn't heard this one already, I thought I'd share. Cheers. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't known that. Thanks for passing the information on, B. Actually, these days everyone reads greatly abridged versions of Foxe. The whole thing is four times longer than the Bible, far longer than the Bible plus all the LDS scriptures. Fittingly, there's now a fine, fully searchable on-line addition, Foxe's Book of Martyrs Variorum Edition Online.--John Foxe (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know. My friend was certainly reading an abridged version; it was no more than 500 pages I would guess. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ringing the Bell

See if I have resolved our differences on the Bell. piece to your satisfaction (discussion and article text both will indicate). --Thirdcamper (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

concerning Talk:Michael Bellesiles

One theme is clear: academe is generally left and pro gun control and it takes blinders to ignore that. Looking back at Talk:John Lott Archive 2 you find this statement: "....the universities and academic institutions and journals tend to be hotbeds of "commie fervor" (i.e. anti-gun and pro gay marriage). Normally, of course, you'd think this would be a point in favor of leftist thought, rather than a black mark against education and the demonstrated ability to reason. Gzuckier 21:19, 5 December 2005" It is just a matter of fact: academics tend to self identify as leftist (liberal or progressive) and pro-gun control and are quite superior about it; a rightist pro-gun rights academic is an anomaly and is treated with disdain.

Bellesiles' thesis was just what the dominent academic community wanted to believe. True believers however attacked critics Cramer and Lindgren as part of some vast right wing conspiracy. Later academics also self-identified as left and pro-control started to question the probate research, but they tended to be apologetic about it, needing to say "I'm left wing" or "I'm pro gun control" or "I wish Bellesiles were right but...". The true believers ignored the existence of left-wing critics of Bellesiles and either ignored the probate research (which had been the "principle evidence" before publication) or minimized the errors ("just one table"). They then evoked charges of "McCarthyism" (and later "swiftboating") usually blaming the NRA as an all-purpose boogeyman. The source of Bellesiles' problem was not contradicting the NRA's "myth" of a gun on every mantlepiece: the problem was contradicting it with claims of 7% to 14% when other researchers found 40% to 77%.

It was a self-described leftist David Lloyd-Jones who wrote:

What Bellesiles had going for him was a thesis that many people -- myself emphatically included -- found attractive. I don't hold with book-burning, but I think we ought to consider burning Bellesiles at the stake as punishment for the harm he has done to the cause of gun control and to the credibility of America's left.

I and many people like me hate The Disney Version, so an academic thesis that dishes Davy Crocket is music to my ears. Of course I applauded, and so did many others. Some others gave him prizes, awards, and presitious positions and reviews.

Problem is, the people giving the awards and prizes were exactly the people who are paid to protect me from my own gullibility -- and from frauds like Bellesiles.

In other words, I think you're right correct on the bias of academe. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Naaman Brown. I'll use that quotation from David Lloyd-Jones when I get a chance to write up a paragraph on this aspect of the Bellesiles case.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrich Ames

I can't believe I just noticed this now, but with this edit, you inexplicably removed a sourced statement from the article: I restored it. We do not arbitrarily remove reliably sourced content from articles, John. I've yet to hear back from you on the referencing question from July 18, and I'm going to carefully look through your massive reworking of this article to ensure that you removed no other referenced content. Thank you... Doc9871 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was accidental. I should have at least put the quotation in the notes.--John Foxe (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the recent revert. Making it less specific isn't going to help the statement, but make it harder to understand in context. Thanks for responding :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most interested in literary style. I like sentences as tight as possible.--John Foxe (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with this. I like reliably sourced content from more than one source. I think we can work here... Doc9871 (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good.--John Foxe (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bellesiles

I agree with your edit here. Usually people only notify one when they disagree. You did well. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that kind word.--John Foxe (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some POV changes

Did you see these changes? tedder (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are complex changes. I'll be glad to help if I'm needed, but with Mormon topics, I usually stick to history.--John Foxe (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: Creightonian

Mr. Foxe, I know that I'm supposed to Assume Good Faith, but isn't it just a wee bit suspicious that the same exact edit has been made by more than one editor with a Creighton University IP address ? The skeptic in me is starting to believe that there is some sockpuppetry and 3RR stuff going on. Best, Duke53 | ^Talk 21:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a bit suspicious :)--John Foxe (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:NellSunday.gif

Thank you for uploading File:NellSunday.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to trade this image for another one with a clearer copyright status.--John Foxe (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and Christianity changes

Foxe, I've made some major changes in the Mormonism and Christianity article, and if you are interested, you might be able to provide valuable insight. COGDEN 02:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I've put the page on my watchlist without actually doing any editing. As usual my first instinct is to cut the number of words by half to make the article more readable. Beyond that, I think there should be some sort of definition of Christianity and a clear statement that Joseph Smith and the BoM clearly state that non-Mormon Christianity is apostate, the "great and abominable church."--John Foxe (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAIR is tracking your edits

Hey there - I ran across this on the Internet the other day - did you know that FAIR is tracking your wikipedia edits? I was pretty pissed off on your behalf when I saw this. [6] --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good wishes. I think COGDEN was probably more annoyed than I was when they started doing this. There's nothing we can do about it, and there are some compensating benefits:

• FAIR's objections to the articles are pretty marginal. In the past I've used their criticisms as a kind of advertisement for how sound they are. As one of my non-Mormon friends said after looking at the FAIR page, "What they don't object to is bad enough."
• FAIR makes COGDEN and me sound pretty impressive, a PR boost that may even discourage some unknowledgeable Mormons from editing those articles.
• The FAIR folks don't do a good job of keeping their objections up to date. For instance, if you check FAIR's red-lined problems at Joseph Smith, Jr., you'll find most of their criticisms have already been corrected.

All the best.--John Foxe (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a notation is added that the passage is correct per cited sources. This doesn't mean that FAIR necessarily agrees with the passage, only that it is correct based upon the source used.[7]

So in regards to honestly believing that FAIR was proving your work to be "correct", I would think again. Just because it is correct by cited sources does not mean it's neutral, for a matter of fact its still all the same subtle, negative spin. A PR boost of FAIR's pages will not make Mormons stop editing the articles, it will simply make them reluctant to read and trust them. It simply adds a tint of wikiskepticism to whoever happens to agree with FAIR overall. All it is achieving is simply damaging the weak and tiny entrails of credibility to which wikipedia has left in the eyes of academics. Routerone (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The FAIR commentary reflects well on the quality of those Wikipedia articles that they've critiqued. The fact that they admit that so much of the article expositions are "correct based upon the source used" is a major concession. Since the sources used are scholarly ones, the criticism boils down to declaring, "scholarship says this, but the Church says that."--John Foxe (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, the "information" you have provided is extremely misleading and presented negatively, its hardly a major concession as FAIR can provide answers to all the "negative" aspects you provide. Routerone (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. I hope lots of Mormons follow up each and every apologetic contention. Let the student of Mormonism decide for himself.--John Foxe (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this - I am starting to care a lot less about it. Wikipedia is a juggernaut compared to FAIR. If people who care about what FAIR has to say start to distrust WP, they do so at their own detriment. If FAIR wants to sit in the peanut gallery and criticize WP - who cares? Wikipedia has proven (IMHO) time and time again to be resilient and is constantly changing and improving - even on controversial articles. At the end of the day - WP gets used by hundreds of millions of people every single day and is more accurate as time goes by. FAIR spins the same crappy apologist arguments that were debunked years ago. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith, Jr. got about 74,000 hits in December. Google ranks the Wikipedia biography first and therefore above the Church's own website.--John Foxe (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers mean nothing, for all the views the article gets, a tiny percentage will actually sit and read the entire article. The church's official website excels in presentation and little fact bites, which are far more appealing and a much better PR alternative. Therefore what you say on wikipedia, makes little concession or even relevance to the average individual. Routerone (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since these contentions are nearly impossible to prove—although it would be neat to have a scholarly study—we'll have to agree to disagree for the time being. Sometimes when I'm researching a subject, I'll check out an official website first; but usually I start with Wikipedia as a more neutral source that has a bibliography of some kind to take me further on my way.--John Foxe (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Routerone - for a Wikipedian, you are pretty cynical about the usefulness of the Wikipedia. I think almost every other Wikipedian would be very happy about those statistics and wouldn't take such a dark opinion. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert warning from Storm

John, when I warn you an an edit heading that you already have two reverts and then you go ahead and revert a third time I assume that you are committed to edit warring. You are out of bounds and worse, you know you are. Just take it to discussion page. I have repeated discussed with COgden, but you have not attempted to discuss your position. -^StormRider 14:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Storm,

I don't think edit warring will be much of a problem at this article. There are just too many other folks interested in it for one reason or another. Plus, the Mormon Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research has provided this complementary assessment of other articles that COgden and I have edited together:

"These articles have been "stabilized" to a certain extent due to a collaboration between editor "COgden" who is writing what he calls "New Mormon History," and editor, "John Foxe" who is extremely critical of LDS views. This has both positive and negative effects. On one hand, vandals (both believers and critics) tend to be kept at bay. On the other hand, these article tend to be closed to any sort of significant revision. Thus, any editors who attempt to modify the structure of these articles in any significant way will be reverted by one of these two editors, who thus tend to become the arbiters of what is ultimately allowed into the article.

All the best, John Foxe (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My revert

I reverted your good-faith edit because I thought the extra wording was helpful in establishing context especially to those unfamiliar with Mormonism. But I'd be happy to discuss it on the talk page if you challenge my reasoning. Best wishes, alanyst ^/talk/ 23:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith Jr. Time for Semi-Protection?

Mr Foxe,

I monitor the article on Joseph Smith Jr. for vandalism and egregious POV edits. I find myself reverting such things every few days. It seems to me that there are a cluster of IP editors who focus on the article. I am thinking of requesting semi-protection for that reason. Noting that you are a major contributor to the article, I would like your opinion on taking such a step. If you think it unnecessary or otherwise undesirable, I will not make such a request.

Regards, Lovetinkle (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rare IP editor who makes a constructive edit at Joseph Smith, Jr., and I'd be happy to have semi-protection. But you guys are so good at reverting, I'm having to do it less frequently these days. Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection requested. Thanks very much for your input. Lovetinkle (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I tune them out as Mormon smokescreen."

"Frankly, Les, every time you start citing Wikipedia rules, I tune them out as Mormon smokescreen." [8].

Did you really say this?BobJo2112 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I did. Hope that was dumbest thing I've ever written on a Wikipedia discussion page. (I've fixed the link.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret news

Ran an 8 page story the other day in regards to Mormonism and wikipedia articles; you are being mentioned in it personally and are recieving crticism from even Bushman himself.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700105517/Wiki-Wars-In-battle-to-define-beliefs-Mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-Wikipedia.html?pg=1

Regards, Routerone (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... you are being mentioned in it personally and are recieving crticism [sic] from even Bushman himself."

Golly gee, Mr. Foxe, I hope that you don't have many sleepless nights worrying about this! Best. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Press Original Barnstar.png		The Press Barnstar
		Keep up the good fight, brother. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I'm honored that Richard Bushman would take time to critique the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. He's both a fine scholar and a fine person. I'm encouraged by his concluding comment that the article is "a picky piece that isn't inaccurate, but it sort of lacks depth." Few encyclopedia articles exhibit depth—that's the nature of such articles—and way too many are inaccurate. It's great to have a senior LDS historian vouch for the essential accuracy of the piece.

Nevertheless, the author of the Deseret News article, Michael De Groote, implies that the Joseph Smith biography is basically mine, and he does not give proper credit to the dozens of folks who've worked on the article through the years, among whom COGDEN should definitely be named. I take my hat off to you all.--John Foxe (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in the newspaper article that stood out to me was the term "... isn't inaccurate"; if that was criticism then I think you've done just fine. Best. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Thanks for letting the rest of us help you with 'your' article" ... :>)

Did Joseph Smith ever work as a hired farmhand?

You have (effectively) reverted BFizz once and me twice, against the clear evidence cited by me and BFizz on the talk page from the sources. Page 47 and page 52 of Bushman both refer to Joseph working for Stowell doing farm labor; they have been directly quoted for you. Your denial of the plain language cited and your willingness to edit war to keep out cited facts that you don't like are very good reasons for you to step away from the article for a couple of weeks to reacquaint yourself with NPOV. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bushman's language is unclear. If he is suggesting that Smith worked for Stowell as a farm laborer, he provides no evidence. (The citation refers only to the court trial.) Perhaps Bushman is only suggesting that Smith worked on his own family's farm.--John Foxe (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page 48: "Josiah Stowell Sr. employed him [Joseph] to do farm chores and perhaps work in his mills....When he was not employed by Stowell,... Joseph worked for Joseph Knight, Sr. who ran carding machinery and a gristmill in addition to his farms....Joseph Knight Jr. said his father thought Joseph Smith Jr. was "the best hand he ever hired." Please self-revert. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Smith worked as a farmhand outside his home seems to derive solely from his mother's remembrances, and she was very sensitive to the charge that the Smiths spent all their time engaging in the practice of folk magic. There's no proof that Smith worked for Joseph Knight as a farmhand.--John Foxe (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BJU GA?

Have you ever considered nominating Bob Jones University for GA? The article is extensive and fairly well-sourced, although it could possibly use some updating. I think with moderate effort it might pass. PrincessofLlyr ^royal court 19:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I've made it a practice not to nominate articles on my watchlist for GA status. In fact, I once sabotaged the GA nomination of an article so that certain phrases I especially liked wouldn't have to be changed. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will not debase your article by submitting it for nit-picking. Cheers, PrincessofLlyr ^royal court 21:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to have you nit-pick anything I've been working on. You do good work. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about recent editing behavior

In this edit summary you said that reverts ought to be explained, even though the prior edit was explained with a "see talk page" note that provides at least some hint of the reason. Five days ago in this edit summary you reverted with no explanation whatsoever.

In our recent dialogue on the Joseph Smith Jr. talk page you promised to admit error if anyone found a citation to someone other than Lucy Smith about Joseph being hired as a farmhand, and you gave no other conditions for that promise. I met that condition by citing a secondary source already deemed reliable for the article. You then reneged on your statement because you said the primary source cited by the secondary source was too recent to have been authoritative, though the scholar who used that source evidently had no problem relying on it.

Just above, you stated that you deliberately sabotaged a Good Article nomination to avoid other editors' alterations of your phrasing. I can only hope this is a joke but you gave no indication that it was.

These incidents are part of an increasingly apparent pattern of article ownership, POV pushing, obstructive editing, and double standards that runs counter to the ideals of Wikipedia. It undermines other editors' willingness to engage in good faith dialogue and collaboration since doing so would put them at a disadvantage. It increases the likelihood of antagonistic conflict.

This is my perspective. What is yours? alanyst ^/talk/ 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try to explain my edits. Sometimes I’m too hasty or think the community will understand why I did what I did without explanation. I also make mistakes. But when I see a “see talk page” as an explanation for an edit, I expect to see an explanation on the talk page. I looked and didn’t. Not a hint.

Your attempt to pretend (by concealing the date) that a 1946 letter was a primary source about Joseph Smith’s employment was frankly unethical. (From the quotation in the secondary source, I doubt the author was trying to prove the point that we were debating, but it was also a questionable citation on his part.) I should have been more explicit that I wanted primary source evidence, but I think you understood by my mention of Lucy Mack Smith’s memoirs that I wasn’t going to be satisfied by a secondary work. Thus your citation of the 1946 letter without mentioning the date. As I said on the talk page, under Wikipedia rules, you had the right to proceed as you did, but I hold the high moral ground.

I sabotaged the GA nomination of Frank Sandford because I believed the folks who wanted to critique it were clueless about both the subject and good prose style. The article has remained stable for a couple years now, and it’s an article I’m especially proud of. Gold stars are for elementary school.

As a “never-been-a-Mormon,” I’m almost alone at articles like Joseph Smith, Jr., and most editors have pro-Mormon agendas. I try to be polite, and I think I achieve that goal most of the time. If I’ve appeared obstructive or too aggressive, I apologize.--John Foxe (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response. Now I understand what you meant by having the higher moral ground; that side remark bemused me at the time. I must admit I'm taken aback by your assumption that I intentionally concealed the date of that 1946 letter. Not so; rather, it didn't occur to me that it would be a relevant factor. I thought that you were indeed asking for any citation, whether primary or secondary, since you didn't qualify your request; and because Newell and Avery (a reliable secondary source) declared as fact that he was hired as a farmhand and to cut timber, you could not reasonably object to their conclusions. In other words, Newell and Avery, and not endnote 29 in that book, was the source I furnished in response to your challenge.

For my part, I felt that you were unwilling to accept any source that suggested Joseph was employed as a farmhand because you had already concluded otherwise. You seemed to be changing your standards for what constitutes acceptable sources according to whether you agreed with the citation, and this seemed as unethical to me as the 1946 letter "concealment" appeared to you. It suits your personal beliefs very well to have Joseph's employment be exclusively treasure-seeking, just as it suits many LDS editors' beliefs to have his involvement in folk magic be incidental at best. Thus you scrutinize statements by Bushman or Newell and Avery and conclude that their evidence is so weak that they must have gotten it wrong, but fail to apply the same level of scrutiny to statements by Bushman, Quinn, or Brodie that align with your personal characterization of Joseph Smith; and many LDS editors make similar mistakes in the reverse direction. My position is that we can't substitute our judgment for that of the scholars, respecting the interpretation of primary sources and use of them to make statements of fact. Our editorial discretion can't extend that far, or else we'd have a free-for-all dissection of every source not only at that article but across all controversial Wikipedia articles; the very concept of "secondary source" would be meaningless. (It is, however, appropriate to discuss the meaning of a secondary source's words to decide whether they are statements of fact or else speculative or subjective views; and of course it is also fine to argue whether a source is reliable in a particular context.) This is why I reject your disqualification of the "farmhand" statements by Bushman and Newell/Avery.

Regarding the revert and edit message matter: I see now why you missed the prior explanation by Firinne on the talk page. It appears that User:Firinne is the new name of the recently renamed user account formerly known as User:w7jkt, and due to unfortunate timing of the rename relative to their comments on the page, their talk page rationale was signed under the old account name while the revert was done under the new one. It makes sense now why you thought they were new to the conversation. That said, re-reverting needn't have been your reaction. You could have asked the user to point you to the rationale they referred to in their edit summary in case you missed it. You could have left their edit in place while engaging in further dialogue on the talk page. Your choice of reverting in this instance, combined with your habit of doing so when someone makes an edit you disagree with (sometimes even when they supply a reasonable rationale), leaves the impression that you are the self-appointed gatekeeper of the articles you edit, reverting or permitting according to your whim. Notwithstanding that, your civility in the topic area has for years been outstanding, and I do appreciate that tremendously. You do a lot of good work and you bring a valuable point of view to the Mormon related articles. You certainly compare favorably to editors who only seem to want to disparage or provoke those who hold the opposite point of view. alanyst ^/talk/ 08:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of such misunderstandings are long-time friendships destroyed. I'm gratified that you had no intention of trying to palm off a secondary source as a primary one. As you've rightly stated, at Wikipedia we're at sea unless we depend on secondary sources, and whether or not Joseph Smith ever worked as a hired farmhand is a controversy for some other forum. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

temple garments and Joseph Smith

Is this something under your knowledge domain? Thanks, tedder (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. I know about Buerger's book but haven't read it.--John Foxe (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]