Talk:Golden plates/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Move?

Should this article be moved to Golden Plates (proper noun), since these are not just any golden plates referred to in history but the Golden Plates, known for their role in the LDS movement? --Eustress (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What are the other "golden plates referred to in history"?--John Foxe (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Plates in general were used in several different cultures (e.g., bronze plates of the Romans). Some golden plates that come to mind were those of King Darius of Persia. Anyway, regarless of matters of historicity, I think it still makes grammatical sense to make this a proper noun. --Eustress (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with move. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings either way. I note, however, that the LDS website and Jeff Lindsay both use lower case.--John Foxe (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this argument happened previously on a talk page that I cannot find right now, it may have been on a different article, and the consensus was to keep it lower case. Twunchy (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

oppose. In academic texts, the term golden plates is never capitalized. It is a proper noun, just an uncapitalized one. COGDEN 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced

This entire article is written from the POV of the Mormon faith - unsurprising, since the Golden plates are a very LDS topic - but mention must be made of the "outside" perspective - that the plates are considered by many to be a hoax, the "translation" a hoax-within-a-hoax (judging from extant examples of the "language" Smith claims to have encountered), and so on. As it stands, this article reads like a LDS narrative - the LDS perspective is certainly important, but, this being Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, the entire gestalt needs to be accounted for. Badger Drink (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A considerable amount of evidence in the article suggests the spuriousness of the whole business. Wikipedia readers should not be considered ninnies.--John Foxe (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree, there are many viewpoints, for and against, included in this article to balance the sum total here. The theories you speak of are covered in their entirety. Most LDS readers would be pissed off at this narrative presented, and I occasionally am frustrated by the details herein, but if you contrast the official LDS narrative to what exists here you will understand the fact that this is not unbalanced, in fact it is quite scholarly. Thank you for your interest in this article but without details on what specifically is unbalanced we can proceed no further. I am removing the tag until details are provided. Twunchy (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This was the complaint I had when I first read the article. If you read it unknowingly you definately get the opinion at least that if it is not true it is clearly the majority opinion when in fact a severe majority believe them to be a hoax. As such I would think if anything it is overtly balanced to display a story as fact and to the point where details of the story itself are analysed minutely and there are only passing remarks to majority opinion regarding the concept as a whole. But the last thing I typed an opinion I was called a Morman hater so I stopped even trying. And well I'm just glad to see that more people see the issue I had.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Religious articles CANNOT be written from the "majority" perspective, without discrediting all world religions. This may be a drawback to dissent, but is a necessary balance to keep the sanity of any encyclopedia. Just remember that a "majority" of the world is neither Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon or Buddhist, so therefore there is truly no "majority" that exists. All articles therefore must be written "in universe" and then fleshed out with the "majority" viewpoints. There can never be a true NPOV with religious articles. Twunchy (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

While I will agree in that respect, every other faith mentioned has information based on thousands year old myths. This is dealing with a physical object which is easily debatable as opposed to "Jesus walking on water." The general consenus I get when I read articles of faiths (which is habit of mine) is basically this is what people believe to have happened, take it or leave it. If you read this article it reads as if they are telling you facts of what happened, not that it is a myth of a Mormon faith. For comparison Noah's Ark another story in another reglion regarding a physical object. It is clear from the beginning with the statement "the myths of Abrahamic religions." You read the article it makes it clear that it is a story from a reglion throughout also highlighting a section about fundimentism, which goes into details but also makes it clear that it is not a main stream opinion. I hold that these plates should be put under more harsh a light of existence mainly due to the fact that they were supposedly around during modren history, unlike say the ark. It seems even from the writings that people have gone out of their way to make them unverifible and having to be believed on faith (like the ark) when a simple display of the plates would have worked to expose the world to the new relgion. Instead they were locked away and only certain, males, were allow to lift them. It almost reads like a far fetched tale with the known facts, but we have people massaging the text to make it sound factual. You can read some of the details of how they were transcribed to the day. If someone put in the Noah's art article "On Tuesday March 5th 2305 BC is when Noah launched the Ark" you'd sound silly. Thats why they did not let the fundimentalist run the article but gave them their own section in it. Here, the myth gets it own section in the fundimentism. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your frame of reference is overly Judeo-Christian, that is, biblical. I'm sure you'd feel silly arguing that the majority of people don't actually believe that Mithras was born out of solid rock. In any case, it's best simply to discuss the nuts-and-bolts of the article before us. It's easy enough to slap on a tag. What specifically would you change to make the article less POV?--John Foxe (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please allow for discussion before deciding that the tag needs to be removed, as certain editors have been a bit too quick to revert it. Details are certainly provided. Badger Drink (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Badger, you have not provided anything specific. I am beginning to question whether you have read the article. IMHO, as a LDS, this article is a cesspool of anti-Mormonism and ignores "in toto" the history of Joseph Smith and relies almost exclusively on third party quotes. For example, in the introduction we find this sentence, "This reputed translation took place sporadically between 1827 and 1829, and consisted of looking into a hat containing a seer stone or stone spectacles, where he said he could see the translated words and characters." This is strictly the position of anti-Mormons; one of their favorite things. It has absolutely nothing to do with what Joseph Smith said about the process. Further, none, as in ZERO, nada, personne, etc. was present for the entire time Smith was supposed to have translated the plates. There are sources that supply three different methods: Urim and Thummim, seer stones, and direct revelation. All of this is ignored for the preferred anti-Mormon position. Have you counted the number of times qualifiers are used? Maybe you should; search for reputed, said, alleged, etc.

Someone stated above that they are accustomed to reading religious articles, please show me a single article that is so replete with qualifiers, that takes the anti- position as fact while ignoring the religion's position completely. I sense we may just be having some that are of a very narrow POV than a honest reflection of balance.

When placing a tag you must be explicit in your proposed corrections. Simply saying it is not balanced is not enough. Other editors should be able to review your position, make corrections, and then move on. You have provided nothing to correct and only provided your POV. If you do not do so, the tag will be removed. --^StormRider 02:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor who is just slapping tags on things, and not contributing is just trying to be disruptive is violating WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT. I hope this is not the case. If you wish for things changed, join the edit. If you wish to just slap tags, I will happily revert as often as necessary, because one editors opinion is not a consensus. If you wish to contribute and not just kick the bee's hive please dig in. Twunchy (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Stormrider, you asked people to count the number of times qualifiers are used, citing the words 'reputed', 'alleged', and 'said'. Well, I have. 'Reputed' is used once - you've just quoted the use in the phrase 'reputed translation'. 'Allegedly' is also used once, but as qualifying a codex from the Middle East, nothing to do with the LDS golden plates. 'Alleged' isn't used at all. 'Said' is used 151 times, but so what? It isn't a qualifier, and in fact we are asked to use 'said' and 'stated' "When a statement is unproven or subjective, or when a factual assertion is made without contradiction, use a form of the word say or state."

I also note that none of the section headings suggest that the plates are not genuine. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the article reflects a skeptical position. In my opinion, the article is clearly unbalanced. The only reason I am not replacing the tag myself is that I won't be around much for over a week. Twunchy, WP:3RR applies to this as does WP:AGF. dougweller (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, when "said" is used in English what is signified is that we only have their word for it. It is not proof of truth, it is proof only that someone said something. In the context of this article it is a preferred qualifier for the information following. How would you phrase it differently and still be neutral? Alleged and claimed (used four times) are words that should not be used in articles based upon policy.

Please give a specific edit and we will work with you, but broad brush stroke allegation is not effective. --^StormRider 16:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Stormrider, you are the one who wrote "Have you counted the number of times qualifiers are used? Maybe you should; search for reputed, said, alleged, etc." If you are now agreeing that you shouldn't have included 'said', great. So we are down to 1 use of 'allegedly' and 4 uses of 'claim', one of which says 'Smith never claimed' ('claim' can of course be used legitimately). I am simply making the point that you exaggerated the number of times qualifiers have been used. And of course when we talk about balance and undue weight, 'a specific edit' isn't the point. dougweller (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Stormrider's comment above reflects a very common LDS reaction, and demonstrates that this article is, in fact, quite balanced. We have people on one side saying the article is way too anti-Mormon. On the other side, we have people saying the article is way too pro-LDS. That's a pretty good indicator that we are somewhere close to fair coverage. My own perspective is that nobody who knows a lot about this issue and the literature can credibly say that this article is pro-LDS. But it's not anti-LDS either--it just happens to fairly address the historical record. Most LDS are not familiar with this historical record because in-church discussion of the golden plates focuses (as you would expect) on what are deemed to be "faith promoting" details of the story, and a lot of the messy details are left out. COGDEN 19:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Doug, please pick a paragraph of your choice in the article, bring it here and then edit it so that it reads like you want it. Then we can discuss your edits and either change the article or discuss why your proposal is unacceptable. Simply saying it is unbalanced accomplishes nothing other than to share your opinion. Providing specific examples of problems will result in an immediate change or the opportunity for you to gain a better understanding of writing in a neutral fashion.

WP:WORDS is specifically designed to ensure that certain words are not used because they impart a specific POV. It really is not difficult to read the guideline and use common sense in its application.

The ball is in your court. Either provide a example or this conversation is futile. --^StormRider 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Credibility of the plates

Foxe, I am not wanting to start an edit war, but the statement currently reads:

"Most discussion about the credibility of the plates centers on whether the witnesses (including Smith) who said they saw them were reliable, whether the text of the Book of Mormon is consistent with its reputed origin, and whether the book's historical claims are accurate."

This is a very broad statement that attempts to present that LDS discuss the credibility of the plates in only this manner. In reality, when LDS discuss the Book of Mormon they are focusing almost exclusively on the answer to prayer. I think what you really are trying to say is that among scholars that write about this specific topic they often review these areas. What this statement does not say is who is doing the discussion and under what context.

People who read the Bible don't believe it because they review the reliability of the early apostles, attempt to identify the early writers of the book, determine if all of the involved translators were reputable, and if the Bible actually is consistent with its historical claims. The reason they believe the truth of the record is completely different. You are attempting to put the conversation about why LDS believe in the Book of Mormon into a foreign paradigm that does not really exist.

You need to limit the phrase to the exact group that fits the claim. --^StormRider 20:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Foxe, the reference must support the statement you are making. Giving examples of one historian and an anti-Mormon does not equate or support the statement that "Most discussion..."; that is synthesizing an outcome that is not supported. --^StormRider 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bushman and Madsen say that the credibility of the plates is significant to the LDS. I suggest you find a citation claiming that the credibility of the plates, the witnesses, and the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon is a matter of indifference to the LDS, that the only issue the Church cares to discuss in regard to the gold plates is their relationship to prayer.--John Foxe (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request is irrelevant. You are synthesizing a position that is not supported by the two references you provided. The language that you are proposing attempts to limit the discussion to only a few areas and you have put Wikipedia in the position of saying "Most discussion...". Finding historians that have chosen to frame the conversation in this manner does not make the statement true; that is what synthesis is. The wording can be changed to read that Historian X thinks..., but we cannot say that "most discussion" is centered on any area unless a reliable, reputable references says exactly that.

The credibility of the story of Book of Mormon and the translation of from the gold plates is a valid area of research, but I assure that those who convert to the LDS Church do not think in these terms. We might be able to say, "Historians will often focus...", but I don't think you will ever find a reference that supports such a broad statement as what is currently written. Try and limit the scope to at least something that can be supported by the two references you have supported. If nothing else, we can say Bushman and Madsen have stated... --^StormRider 20:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think all we need here is a source that fully summarizes the current state of academic/apologetic discourse on the subject. I've tried to find something, and come close. It would not be improper synthesis, for example, if the source outlined the major or significant "authenticity"-related academic dialogues over the last decades, and it is non-controversial that those dialogues fit into each of the above categories.

As the the fact that most Mormons refer primarily to proof of authenticity via answer to prayer, that is true, but that "prayer-only" type of discussion is limited solely to religious literature, not academic literature. It's probably worth making a note that many (most?) believing Mormons feel that no academic evidence of golden plates authenticity is required, and that the plates' authenticity may be settled solely through prayer. This is not, however, the argument that Mormon apologists are making. So we might want to specify that the above statement applies to academic discussion, but that in Mormon non-apologetic religious discourse, the authenticity question is thought to be answerable through prayer alone. COGDEN 23:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd replace the sentence with the quotation from Richard Bushman, but that shouldn't preclude its reintroduction if you find an appropriate citation.--John Foxe (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no conflict between what COgden has said and what I have said above. It is a issue of scope or being overly broad. I am not sure why there is any kick-back to this; this is just simple, elementary editing and referencing guidelines for Wikipedia. This is not a controversial statement, but one that is not accurate and over-reaches. In a scholarly context, a historical context, I think it probably accurate, but I also think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find a reputable reference to support the statement. If that is the case, maybe we can simply quote the individual making the claim. I suppose the Bushman quote could also be expanded to include his faith-based opinion also if we think Bushman is the answer. --^StormRider 01:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I like the Bushman statement, but I think it would be nice to have another citation (from Bushman or someone else) that takes it just a step further, stating something like: critics and apologists battle back and forth over consistency and historical accuracy, while in purely religious contexts, Mormons consider the authenticity question answerable solely by prayer. COGDEN 18:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are mixing secular and religious topics. Converts to the LDS Church don't attempt to "prove" the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon from a historical analysis. Mixing the two can easily turn POV. It easily becomes "look at those stupid people thinking God actually talks to them." It is without doubt that LDS believe in personal revelation, that God actually listens and answers prayers, but I think the same thing can be said for all Christians. Am I wrong in this assumption? My request would be to be careful in your wording so that you don't sound condescending. Limit the conversation to historians and their interests. --^StormRider 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I beefed up the discussion of this non-apologetic religious perspective. See what you think. COGDEN 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting discussion

Copied from my talk page for further discussion by other users. -- Fyslee

Hello Fyslee, I saw you made a change to the format of Golden Plates. I reverted your change because it created unnecessary white space and made the format look worse. You then reverted by saying that it is "standard format" and that no more white space was created than other articles. Is there a required format for articles? If so, please direct me to that specific new rule/policy. If not, is there a new rule that put you in charge? Why would you revert when it is obvious another editor disagrees with your edit? I could your assistance in helping me understand your position or should we just revert each other? --^StormRider 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I reverted you was that I didn't find your argument very convincing. On another website with other forms of formatting, it might be a very different matter. To the best of my knowledge, there is no absolute standard, but a quick look around will reveal that whitespace (and sometimes an image, chart, or infobox) separating the TOC from the LEAD is the defacto standard being used. When one then comes to the Golden Plates article one gets an uncomfortable visual jolt since it is so different. It looked terrible on my screen, with text being pushed around and separated. Maybe that's why the defacto standard is as it is -- it makes no difference which browser or screen resolution one uses -- it will always look organized. I was just trying to make it look better by cleaning up the messy appearance, since readers are more familiar with that format. I wasn't aware that you were guarding and owned LDS articles, but it looks like you've gotten a barnstar for doing that. Whatever. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Continue discussion below.

I have copied the above discussion here so other users can weigh in. This is a matter of taste and other users deserve to be heard. I sense ownership issues are involved, since a long-standing LDS editor is guarding this article so closely, and has even received a barnstar for doing so. I'd like to see what other users have to say. Unless there are compelling reasons for doing so, I see no reason for why this article should deviate from standard practice. Being odd isn't a positive thing, and the LDS and other minority religious groups already should be learning that oddity isn't good publicity. This article is just one of many Wikipedia articles that shouldn't be seen as odd. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason most other articles have whitespace is because layman editors have created them and don't understand the minutae of Wikipedia enough to either care, or even know it's possible to manipulate it. This is a useless sidetrack, and has more to do with expert editors having been here (this is after all a former FA) and knowing how to manipulate the format of the screen. Whitespace is wasted space, and is unnecessary to this discussion. Twunchy (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good one coming from a relative newbie like yourself. Please get serious. Take a look at how all the experienced editors have formatted other articles in the Category:Featured_articles. I doubt you'll find many like this one. I'd like to see how this one was formatted when it was a FA. Please provide a diff from that time period. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You're just in a class by yourself I guess. If I'm a relative newbie to this article I think you should take a look at what it was 3 years ago, before I started here nearly 1000 edits ago (not counting the edits I made for nearly a year as an unregistered editor), I'm sorry I don't match your editing prowess. However you'd like to attack me, whatever, but seriously if you think this article lacks something, and needed your expertise simply because of "formatting" or the page layout that is apparently completely out of touch with the rest of Wikipedia, you're one superficial editor. How about some substance? Twunchy (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My first edit [1] here was September 2006, why don't you compare how far this article has come [2] since then. Twunchy (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Fyslee, I'm glad that someone touched on the major issue as I've seen it, ownership. But I didn't say that. I don't want to be called a Mormon hater again, it hurts my ego. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Twunchy, your relatively few edits at Wikipedia doesn't make you an inexperienced editor "to this article", but it certainly doesn't give you the right to boost yourself up by insulting other unnamed editors as "layman editors" who "don't understand"... Get the point? You were the one who started acting in a condescending manner and I'd rather you hadn't done that. Let's just get on with editing. I only noticed the different style that looks pretty messed up on my 24" screen and thought I'd try to help its appearance. As far as content goes, although I own and have read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, this isn't my area of interest, so I was only doing what I saw as an immedidate need at the moment. That's perfectly legitimate. We all contribute in our different ways. Well, nice to have been by and gotten a nice, warm, Mormon greeting. You've made me feel at home, although not as at home as when I used to visit my parents in Provo. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia fans, you can say you've seen it here first, an ideological conflict with ad hominems over whitespace. As both an article "owner" and a non-Mormon, I'm unsure whether I should side with more or less nothing.--John Foxe (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see this has gotten more play than it deserves. A few things, 1) Fyslee and I have not worked together before, but s/he has more than a few edits and has ample experience. 2) Ownership is a far different thing than watching an article; Fyslee you know better than to issue an accusation first before communicating; it is shortsighted and inappropriate, 3) this article is not unique on Wikipedia and the format is used elsewhere, 4) what is the purpose of TOCleft or TOCright if not to be used?

It is my personal preference not to see white space and to have a clear flow of narrative, pictures, boxes, etc. It appears that we agree that an absolute format for articles does not exist and editors have a degree of flexibility when they edit. On the articles I edit, you will find this format, but I learned this format from reading other articles. TOC can be quite long on certain articles; readers will often see a short introduction and then have to page down several times before they actually begin to read. My reasons are as I have stated them: I don't like white space, I prefer to see narrative flow from beginning to end with all additions found within the narrative. I apologize if this format is disagreeable to you, but given that this is one of the articles on my watch list, I tend to think my opinion means something. If this article is now on your watch list then let's discuss a compromise, if not then please just allow other articles to look different than your preference. Does that make sense?--^StormRider 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a matter of taste and I can get used to the messy appearance, especially since I don't frequent this article. I'm pretty sure I have seen other instances of this format, though I don't recall it in the last few years. Twunchy might like to know that the format during the time this article was a Featured Article was as I propose, IOW I was just restoring that format. The FA status was lost on April 11, 2008, and this new and extremely unusual format was first applied here on Nov. 18, 2008 with the relatively recent rearrival of Storm Rider, so this is his own format he's protecting. He has attempted this before on other articles, with varying degrees of success, and has edit warred over the issue, so this isn't so much a question of ownership of this article, but of ownership of a particular format which he fights for.

As for separating the LEAD from the body of the article by whitespace, that is usually accomplished quite deliberately by the requirement for the TOC to be placed in this position. The LEAD and body are not meant to be read as a continuous flow, since the LEAD is an independent summary of the whole article which can stand alone both physically and figuratively. That's why it doesn't hurt anything for it to be alone at the top, as it is in all but a miniscule minority of articles here. It also ensures that all viewers, no matter what screen size, text size, or screen resolution, will see a clean and neat article, rather than text that snakes around the TOC and images, with left and right margins that suddenly shift to the right, then back to the left, and then back to the right.

This article has a rather short TOC, so a change back to the format used when this was a FA shouldn't be a problem, but one editor apparently won't allow a change, and I'm not interested in edit warring over it. I just want to give other editors a chance to realize what's going on and to provide their input. If Storm Rider wishes all LDS articles to look odd, so be it. It only serves to strengthen the impression of what many see as an odd sect, a reputation one would think members and editors would seek to change. I was just trying to help in that process, even though I'm not LDS myself. So be it. Storm Rider, you have certainly not removed the impression that this is your odd format you are jealously guarding, so I'll leave you alone. You asked if what you said made sense. Yes, it does, but it's not the only POV on the subject. Now you've heard another. If this format didn't cause unpleasant formatting issues that other articles don't cause, I wouldn't have tried to fix it. It would indeed be a pure matter of taste issue, but it isn't since it causes problems. You don't seem to care about those issues, so be it. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Great spin. It is a matter of taste except if it is not yours, then it is "odd", "extremely unusual format", "his own format he's protecting". Then attempting to say it is a "requirement for the TOC", which requirement does not exist, but good spin anyway; when all else fails make your position look normal instead of that of an odd sect that "jealously guarding" a weird position.

Finally, stick just to the first statement, it is a matter of taste. Your preferred method looks odd, out-of-date, and surely belongs to an odd cult of flying spaghetti mongers, but I digress.

There was nothing that needed fixing; you attempted to enforce your personal taste. I rejected it for what existed. Six of one and half-a-dozen of another.

I reject your silly spinning; it promotes edit warring and is infantile. Move right along and don't let that door hit you on the backside. Cheers. --^StormRider 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Admirable ad homs. When you can't deal with the criticisms, then make personal attack violations. You should be proud of yourself. You're a fine representative for your faith. Your reaction totally frees me to accuse you of having serious ownership issues regarding this format of yours.

This format is indeed "extremely unusual", and it is indeed "[your] own format that [you're] protecting." You installed it here and elsewhere, and have edit warred over it even before this occurrence where you reverted me twice. Your "digression" uses your own standards to describe the normal style used at Wikipedia, standards which are ... well .... your own. They aren't forbidden, but they are unusual. At least be man enough to admit that.

Well, I was done here, but will correct your lack of understanding of the TOC placement issue. You write:

• "Then attempting to say it is a "requirement for the TOC", which requirement does not exist,..."

Please don't misquote me by leaving out the essntial part, which is in bold:

• "requirement for the TOC to be placed in this position"

That requirement definitely exists, and here's what there is in our guidelines:

• "The lead section, lead (sometimes lede), or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading." [3]
• "Body sections appear after the lead and table of contents." [4]
• "The table of contents (TOC) automatically appears on pages with more than three headings. Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages. If you must use a floated TOC, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency. Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading." [5]

Note the warning and reasoning in that second sentence:

• "Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages."

"Avoid" doing it, and there is a "standard look of pages". It is obviously "possible" for you to "avoid" it, and you really have no compelling reason to deviate from the "standard look of pages", other than your own very personal preference which you are forcing on us.

In short, the TOC must be placed between the LEAD and the first heading. You deny that above.

Floating the TOC is allowed in some situations, but the "default TOC" (a precise quote) is not floated. Floated TOCs are rare on normal articles, but mostly used for lists. Here are the guidelines for when to float or not float the TOC. Again, the "default TOC" is not floated. "If an article will be adversely affected by the change, don't float the TOC." Your method screws up my viewing pleasure. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Hey Pot, meet Kettle! You are at least good for a laugh.

It is always interesting when editors attempt to cherry pick from guidelines and policies. Let's just quote the language from the guidelines and see what is actually said and what is false in the above diatribe:

The TOC can, in some instances, be floated either right or left using {{TOCright}} or {{TOCleft}}. Before changing the default TOC to a floated TOC, consider the following guidelines:

• A floating TOC should be used when it is beneficial to the layout of the article, or when the default TOC gets in the way of other elements.
• If an article will be adversely affected by the change, don't float the TOC.
• If floating the TOC, the TOC should be placed after the lead section of the wiki markup for consistency. Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing. See wikipedia:accessibility #Article structure
• When floating a TOC, check whether the page layout will be harmed if the TOC is hidden by the user.
• The TOC should not be longer than necessary, whether it is floated or not.
• The default TOC is placed before the first headline, but after any introductory text (unless changed by the page's editors). If the introductory summary is long enough that a typical user has to scroll down to see the top of the TOC, you may float the TOC so it appears closer to the top of the article. However, the floating TOC should in most cases follow at least the first paragraph of article text.
• Floating a wide TOC will produce a narrow column of readable text for users with low resolutions. If the TOC's width exceeds 30% of the user's visible screen (about twice the size of the Wikipedia navigation bar to the left), then it is not suitable for floating. (Percentages assume a typical user setup.) If text is trapped between a floating TOC and an image, floating can be cancelled at a certain text point, see Forcing a break.
• If the TOC is placed in the general vicinity of other floated images or boxes, it can be floated as long as the flowing text column does not become narrower than 30% of the average user's visible screen width.
• If the TOC is going to be placed in a long list page, it should be floated.'
• A left-floated TOC may affect bulleted or numbered lists. Where it does, float the TOC to the right, or do not float it.

The {{TOCright}} template was proposed for deletion in early July 2005, but there was no consensus on the matter. The archive of the discussion and voting regarding this may be seen at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/TOCright. The Manual of Style discussion can be found here.

That is the real policy and not a gerrymandered diatribe. To clarify, the TOC being floated here improves the readability of the article and is thus beneficial. It is floated in the proper location after the lede. Note the terminology "flowing text", which is something that I favor.

I have never "edit-warred" over the TOC being floated, but I have certainly reverted the changes made by drive-by editors that seem passionate that everything meet their singular perception of what is right and true. Use your common sense, there are few rules made in stone that we must slavishly follow on Wikipedia. Move on. Of course, maybe you need to have the last word, please do so. This silliness is done. Cheers. --^StormRider 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a good argument for the placing of the TOC, it should be in the usual place unless there are special circumstances. I see no special circumstances here.Verbal chat 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What would you define as special circumstances and sufficient to use TOC floating? --^StormRider 21:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removal seems to m to be removing bias.

This is the reason that was given: " removed an unnecessary sentence that I think might be productive of controversy and requests for documentation"

The sentence in question was "Between critics, apologists, and rank-and-file Latter Day Saints, there are many different views on the origin and authenticity of the golden plates."

So to avoid controversy, we will remove the fact that people have different views of the origin of the plates.

Yeah.... thats totally NPOV. Really. /sarcasm. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement is certainly true. The difficulty arises when a believer asks for proof that "rank-and-file Latter Day Saints" don't actually believe what their churches teach. How can it be proved? I've been aroud that bush a couple of times in the past.--John Foxe (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose re-wording the sentence would be out of the question? Maybe you are reading it differently than I, when I read that sentence I basically read that there varying views on the subject ranging fom critics to rank and file LDS. That seems like a fair point to me. Note: If having to "prove" something were a requirement for it to be entered into the article, over half of this article would disappear. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest swapping things around and being clearer as to who holds what view? something like: "There are many different views on the origin and authenticity of the golden plates. Critics believe that they are not authentic <cite to a typical critic>, while Mormons believe they are <cite to some official church document>". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

A statement like that is self-evident: Believers believe; nonbelievers don't. It's wasted words. Such a statement is only worth including if we can document that some "believers" don't believe.--John Foxe (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John, this is stating the blatantly obvious. Why do Christians believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Buddhists don't? --^StormRider 18:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You agreeing with John? Well paint me purple and call me an olive. Way to toss the red herring of comparing this thing to something completely different although to be fair I think Monty Python beat you to it. It SHOULD be stated that the plates have various, and VASTLY DIFFERENT, views regarding the origin of them. This is clearly just ANOTHER example of LDS purdging BS. And you guys talk about other people employing spin? lol Once you justified removing a NPOV warning because 4 LDS members disagreed. Then you compare apples to fish sticks and expect that to be an agrument. The problem is I could write some reasoning, you will naturally reject it and depending on how convincing it is will rate how much I hate Mormons proportionally to berate my agrument. No wonder I gave up on you guys. It is literally easier to get this article knocked out of Feature article status then to have a simple discussion with the lot of you. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

StormRider and I have occasionally agreed with one another, but it's certainly been atypical. Here's a suggestion, Kirkoconnell. Find a scholar not already cited in this article who's expended his energy trying to prove the golden plates a hoax. A citation to such a piece would be worth including in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

First problem, how do you prove a negative? I think you will find that to be a task that would "expend energy." Also I would easily agrue that this article is over sourced, overwhelming so. It seems like every half sentence is sourced to some source, usually biased. Where is the balance in the sources? Your sourcing goes beyond quotes and it seems that you interject sourced quotes as a way of getting a point across (mainly that the plates are definately real, shun the non-believers). I love the agrument that the two of you don't agree. Thats priceless really. Its true in regards to that you agree that vanilla is the best ice cream flavour just not on who makes the best vanilla. I just say the whole world doesn't eat ice cream and you avoid the topic all together. Yay valid conversation.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is obviously a huge problem with balance, sourcing, neutrality and ownership with this article. Please do not remove the single tag until the problem of balance has been addressed. The promise to editwar made by an editor above shows ownership issues, and along with possible WP:COI concerns this article is in dire need of more editors and eyes from outside in addition to its current list of editors. Verbal chat 21:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay reasonable discussion with multiple people!-Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Blueboar: Stating that critics believe ..., apologists believe ..., and Molly Mormon believes ... is not quite accurate and greatly oversimplifies the issue. Critics have a variety of views, including: (1) the plates were a hoax, and that they never existed; (2) that the plates were a hoax and they were fabricated from tin scraps near the Smith farm, (2) that the plates were originally a hoax but that Smith convinced himself they were real; and (3) that the plates never existed, but Smith believed they existed, and dictated the translation using a form of automatic writing. Apologists might believe (1) that the plates were a genuine historical artifact; (2) that Smith never had the plates, but translated them anyway; (3) that the plates were not real, but Smith's translation was inspired; (4) that the plates were just as real as any other mystical construction in early 19th century folk religion; (5) that the plates were real, but they are not necessarily a history of Native Americans; or (6) that the plates were real, but Smith's translation of them was not a translation in the literal sense. Rank and file members may believe all of the above, especially apologist argument #1, and also may believe that the authenticity of the plates is not important or should not be explored. There are sources for all of the above perspectives. COGDEN 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside of your weird numbering scheme, really you are showing broad beliefs that are fairly accurate. Most of the Critic do not believe they existed at all, if not all of them. List possible cases like Smith believing them or making fakes. Most apologist believe they did exist in some form: Whether it be meta-physical or physical. Explain the different reasonings. Thats seems pretty simple and well a logically progression of the agruments that should be presented regarding, well, any subject but in particular this one. But don't let logic ruin your reasoning. You haven't yet.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am getting the distinct impression we are talking with a troll. Absolutely no specifics offered just the constant whining that it does not meet his personal POV. Kirk, if you had a any knowledge of who you are dealing with when talking to Foxe and me you would at least pause and read the bloody article. We generally are on polar opposites. I consider him an anti-Mormon and I am a liberal LDS, but generally prefer to first see the orthodox position of the religion stated first. This article does not do that. It provides the anti-Mormon position first, and sometimes as the only position. Trolls stir up trouble, but offer nothing. So far you have whined and not once offered a specific suggestion. When it walks and talks like a duck...its a duck. --^StormRider 22:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I dislike giving way to the sort of bullying unreason that I've been witnessing here, I'm also unwilling to continue an edit war over the "unbalanced" tag without giving Kirkoconnell at least a few days to provide specific suggestions for improving this article. Ball's in your court, sir.--John Foxe (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not been too concerned about the tag and I haven't removed it from the article. What I object to is the placing of any tag without specific reasons for the tag. Sharing one's opinion that it is unbalanced, etc. is nonsense and is not a sufficient reason to add a tag. Were it the case every article on Wikipedia could be tagged. Tags are to be used to improve an article. Editors who place tags must expend at least the effort to specific explain what is wrong so that other editors can correct the problem identified. This editor has been repeated been requested to be specific. Not once has a single example been given; nothing specific that would assist others in improving the article. It is for this reason that I begin to think that we are dealing with a troll. I see no reason for anyone to continue this discussion until something specific is produced. --^StormRider 23:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If I am a Troll, I am of your creation. I would like to show how you basically ignore everything I say and dismiss it. Which is why I stopped trying to help this dismal excuse for an article. 1) I have stated that the origin of the plates, being so broading different between critics and apologist, should highlight said differences. The reply was that it would take too many agruments to explain that so any such differences are moot. Which, quite frankly, is just silly. So I suggested, sweet jesus yes I made a suggestion, that you can broad stroke each and than offer the minor differences within each point of view.

2) When I came to this article I clearly saw an issue of balance and ownership. When I expressed my concern I was basically told because I did not contribute I did not have an opinion that mattered. Since, other people independant of me have stated the exact same issues and you just dismiss them constantly. Maybe a third party reviewing the article, without any of the regular editors participating is better than the current edit warring and name calling. Sweet Jesus, yet another suggestion I've had, I'm on a roll.

3) I've stated previously that there are too many quoted items. It makes the article look like it is trying to hard to source things. I have never (and I maintain this as I have spent time looking) seen the kind of sourcing you have here. I have checked most other article and I am actually at a loss to find as many as you have here, and I have searched more complicated and longer articles. Todays featured article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_David_Friedrich regarding an artist which, justifibly given the nature of art, has a lot of references. It still has under half of the ones you have. My suggestion is that we try to pare that down especially in regards to the quotes sources which seem to be put in whenever possible bloating the text. My god, if I come up with another suggestion I think my head would explode.

4) I also suggest that we make it a policy, regard to disputes, that you get a third party involved. Currently all disputes seem to be put to a 3 to 4 person cabal to decide if they are valid. The same 3 to 4 people and well, all biased (whether they be LDS or just regular editors, both types of people are biased). Most articles I have disputes with (which by the way, if you bother to check my history I am a strict wikipedia policy and NPOV guy, not a Mormon hater as I have been accused at various times) as soon as I see the dispute is fundimental, regardless if I had majority consent I ask for third parties to review it because I do not hold that I know everything or have the best ideas. Most of the time anyway.

5) FINALLY, I suggest that during any re-vamp that the article reflects other articles of faith (like say Noah's Ark) which explain the general outline and offer sections that clear denote the varying views and opinions. The current mix in this article leads one to conclude, almost exclusively, that this is fact, generally undisputed (which of course is not true). Even if YOU do not see it, other (again) independant people have made the exact same claims.

Well theres a repeat of all the suggestions I've made that you've either ignored or dismissed. I await your dismissal of all facts using red herrings and or non-sensical comparisons. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think that all of us long-time editors think you are a troll. Personally, I'm not happy with the edit warring, and I welcome your suggestions. I think the frustration here is that there have been too many drive-by "this article is anti-Mormon propaganda" and "this article is pro-Mormon brainwashing"-type comments, and I appreciate you taking time to leave substantive comments here, and hope you make more.

That said, let me respond to a few of your comments. Regarding #3, you say that the article is too well-sourced. I don't see how that is a problem. This article, above all articles, needs to be very well sourced, because essentially every element of the golden plates story is controversial. There is nothing in this field that is agreed upon, except what people have said in published sources.

That's why there are so many quotations. You can't say that Joseph Smith saw a toad in the box, but you can say that some of his associates said he saw a toad in the box. In this case, it is totally irrelevant whether Smith actually did see a toad in the box: nobody, either Mormons or non-Mormons actually believes that Smith saw a toad in the box, but the fact that Smith may have said he saw a toad in the box makes Mormons cringe and gives anti-Mormons fodder to ridicule Smith's story. Therefore, it's important both to say that people said Smith saw a toad, and to cite the sources. There are too many similar examples here to count. Many people don't realize how complicated the argument is here, and how fine a line editors have to walk to ensure WP:NPOV. A lot of this complexity has been hidden in footnotes, because it would ruin the flow of text.

Regarding #5, I'd like to get your perspective on whether the current Section 1 "Origin" does just that. The remainder of the sections are about what has been said about the plates, and I think readers are intelligent enough, given a section like Section 1, to know that the whole remainder of the article is based on the historical record of what people have said, and not some objective truth. After all, the remainder of the article keeps reminding the reader of that by liberal use of "Smith said..." or "Smith's arch-nemesis Y said...."

Regarding #4, I would welcome outside parties to become involved. Our goal is to get this article into shape to be re-featured, and to do that we need outside reviewers. COGDEN 02:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here, discussion! I am flabergasted! Well to address the first point, I would not say well-sourced. Over sourced is more like it. The quotes ARE NOT nessicary for the most part. It is enough to say "witnesses said" or something to that effect but I would think that Joseph said should be fine. The fact that the plates were never viewed will cause the ridicule to anyone without faith to be honest. I think a good guide is the Noah's Ark article because it deals with the same idea, a physical object with a lore around it that no one could verify. I think if anything adding those is creates POV by defination because it leads people to believe events more true because there are direct quotes. If we look at the Noah's Ark Guide a lot of the broad strokes of the story are explained with conclusions and wording sourced. The constaintly quoting is just unnessicary in this article and it really chaps it up. I don't know when the last time was that you read it but I read it from time to time and it just has no flow (which is why I recommand a full re-do). Also if you look at the focus the focus of the Noah's Ark is to explain teh story and then it gives sections for the Biblical literalist interpretations and Critical evaluation. Its about half the story, one fourth the pro and one fourth against. They have explicitly removed any "against" section and turned the story into a pro-favoured story. Seriously, how anyone can read the article and not see that it is not NPOV is beyond be frankly. Above this, there are actually attempts at further verifcation through un-opposed references to other plates. While they should not be excluded there is certainly questions as to why this information is added and no rebukes of the original story. Basically I just do not believe this article can be salvaged from whats here without a new direction and a template to go on.

I like where the first section is going. I think for the most part is it explaining the story and trying to merge the opinions on the subject and that is a possible apporach for each section. It seems to work here. Although I should note that the any article should relay on the intelligence of the reader. Stephen King never wrote a book so people who go on a killing spree, but it happened. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, you know as well as the rest of us, that if a statement is without reference in this article, someone will inevitably come along and fact tag the statement. It happens all the time, and so therefore EVERY darned statement here has been referenced indeed to death. I agree with CoGDEN that these references should stay, if we pare them down people will then hoot and holler about us REMOVING referenced statements. It's a catch 22 without them people holler, and with them the article is overstuffed, but if removed they holler. This argument will not be won by either side, the solution is left best at CYA. Twunchy (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As a non-Mormon (in fact, a never-been-a-Mormon), I feel obligated to respond to Kirkoconnell. We should be on the same side, Kirk. In my opinion (as I suppose in yours), the golden plates are concoctions of Joseph Smith's own fertile mind (and perhaps of his hands as well). But the problem with your criticisms of this article is that they're based on nothing but your own personal opinion. You provide no evidence for any of your objections, and your only specific criticism of the article is that it has too many references. I've been hanging around Wikipedia for more than three years now and have contributed to more than four hundred articles. Never before have I seen a complaint about an article having too much documentation. Furthermore, the presentation of your objections was careless in the extreme. In your last post alone, you made nine spelling errors, and the syntax was so unruly that I often found your sentences inscrutable. (The profanity I do understand.) My young friend, no one will take you seriously—either here on Wikipedia or in the real world—unless you present arguments with thoughtful documentation and with at least a tip of the hat to standard English writing.--John Foxe (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay so first I've made several comparisons to other articles, namely one that I would say is very simular to this Noah's Ark. Do not mistake failure to address the evidence presented to you as lack there of. I highly object to that characterization of me as "stating problems" especially since time and again I have gone out of my way to provide evidence it just seemingly gets ignored. As for the too many quotes and references, it is surely an opinion of mine as opposed to a must fix issue, I'll give you that, but there are paragraphs where every sentence is referenced even mundane things. The point with the amount of seems missed so I will re-phrase, the article reads like a ransom letter made from cutting sentences out of a newspaper.

Before you start High-Horsing me, how about you actually read and address my major concerns? As for knocking my spelling and "syntax", give me a fucking break. I mean this is the red herring BS that gets thrown in every time I, or others, try to engage in conversation. No wonder you only have 4 primary editors, no one else wants to put up with this bullshit and your ownership. There seems to always be some silly little non-point someone wants to make to dismss my entire agrument. The whole "no one will take your agrument seriously unless you present it in a thoughtful manner" agrument is just more BS. I did a point by poin breakdown of the problems I had with this articile, on your request by the way because you seemed to believe I just came on here in my spare times and said random sentences for fun. Instead of addressing ANY of them, like other editors did, you say "too bad you spelt stuff wrong, I'll ignore this." Truly pathetic response I must say.

P.S. I don't care how many spelling mistakes I have in these paragraphs.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Only five misspellings this time, Kirk, although you misspelled "argument" three times.

I find your objections to the article murky. You need to state your objections to the article clearly in standard English, providing evidence and noting how each problem could be improved. And then you need to put effort into making the changes yourself. Anyone can slap a tag. You seem to believe that if you ramble on about how no one pays any attention to you, the article will miraculously improve itself.--John Foxe (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You spelled "fucking" right!  :) Noah's Ark is a perfect comparison. It is a religious myth, and the religiosity of the myth is described in a fairly detailed manner. Since there is no physical, chemical, biological, geological or archeological proof of the myth of the Flood or Noah's Ark, it gets mentioned. But it doesn't require 40 paragraphs, because it is a discussion of the religious aspects. I think the same should go here. There is no physical, chemical, biological, geological or archeological support for the existence of these plates. It should be mentioned in the lead, and in one section. It shouldn't be a condemnation of Mormons (there are other articles for that purpose), it should be NPOV. And those pro-Golden Plate POV types should realize that there are reliable sources that indicate that these plates never existed. It is a matter of faith that they existed. I'm all right with faith (don't believe in it personally, but that's my fucking problem), but for this article to be neutral, it must balance the faith aspects with reliable sources, including real science that things don't magically appear out of the air. Except in Star Trek. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, OrangeMarlin, why not give it a shot yourself? Why curse the darkness when you can light a candle? Let's see you improve the lede. --John Foxe (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is a mess. Your cries of "you fix it" seem to acknowledge there is a problem, and there is a problem, so the tag should remain. There should probably be more tags, but for now there is more than enough to get one with to address just this one concern. It is a big job to fix, and hence cannot be done quickly by a single editor. The tag should remain to warn readers that there is a problem. This is not a drive by tagging, as many of us are engaging here. We can expend more energy on the article once the arguing over the tagging stops. Verbal chat 11:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. I have already made improving edits. I do not insist other people do anything, but I ask you not to be rude. Have you already been referred to WP:OWN? Verbal chat 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Foxe, please be civil. And "lede" is not a word, it's a affectation used by individuals who think it sounds cool, but has not relevance to an encyclopedia. Just saying. And as for your "why curse the darkness"? What does that mean? If it's some religious quote, you should know it will have little, and probably NO effect on my thoughts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil, although I've certainly been tempted. "Lede" has an honorable history that stretches back into the 15th century. The "candle" reference is supposed to be a Chinese saying, but a number of politicians have used variations in the twentieth century including John F. Kennedy and Adalai Stevenson.--John Foxe (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove the tag, but neither do I acknowledge that there's anything seriously wrong with the article. I don't insist that significant changes be made quickly. I do insist that small ones be made immediately and personally by Verbal, Kirkoconnell, OrangeMarlin. Otherwise, your diffuse meanderings about the inadequacy of this article is feckless. What, the whole article a mess, and you can't make a single constructive change?--John Foxe (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the article Marlin, you state that the non-existence of the golden plates "should be mentioned in the lead, and in one section." It is. I quote: "Smith said that he returned them to an angel, and they do not exist for researchers to examine." (there has always been a wording like this but I guess it used too big of words like "no longer extant") then the section on Origin and Historicity goes into all the theories about the falsities. So where have we lacked there according to your opinion? Wikipedia is a place where people are invited to EDIT articles, not bossing people around telling them what you think they should do. I have invited all people to edit this article. Those who wish to take no action cannot be taken as serious as those that have. Twunchy (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Twunchy, if you believe the sentence "Smith said that he returned them to an angel, and they do not exist for researchers to examine." accurately explains that scholarly evidence also exists that the plates never existed (which is the point being brought up), we are more far gone than I previous thought. As for John, well thank you again for not addressing my issues and tossing up a red herring or two. While I am more then willing to spend the time to re-write sections of the article I am not willing to do so under the sure-as-shit silly standards that are going to be any update. I mean look at the agrument over the TOC. Its a fucking TOC, go to any other page you see the same one except here because one person thinks it looks better mashed up. So yeah, I'm telling YOU what the problems are and giving you example to go on to guide YOU to fix it. Quite frankly, I do not have the time to edit articiles with ownership issues and I see it as a cop-out that you request then that we "fix" the page. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. Big fuss, big talk, can't be bothered to do any real work (or spell check).--John Foxe (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Twunchy, Angels are outside of the world of science, archeology, physics, etc. It's a matter of faith, which I concede should be a part of the article. The fact is, angels do not exist and cannot be proven to exist, so NPOV demands that the neutral position includes what can be verified by reliable sources. So if there's a reliable source, and I mean a peer-reviewed journal, that states that through scientific analysis, we can show that the plates existed and were carried away by aliens or angels, then let's add it. But the science of the plates indicates 1) they didn't exist in Palmyra, NY, 2) they didn't exist ever, and well, too much else to describe. But again, that should be all right with you, because you have faith that they do exist. I can't begin to analyze that rationally, so I won't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of non-existence. Show me that. Now. You cannot. That is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ex silentio, or "argument from silence" is commonly used in religious criticism when stating that a lack of proof disproves a religious belief. This argument is in opposition to the logical fact that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Arguments from silence typically are not useful as criticisms when specific theological positions are being discussed. And especially here, you may have OPINIONS of non-existence that may validly be discussed, but not evidence...aka hearsay. Twunchy (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Another look at your responses: "Angels do not exist." Prove it, show me a study, give me a scientific paper, a conclusion based on science. You cannot. Do you see the error? If there is no proof, the conclusion of non-existence is moot. Your pseudo-"scientific" arguments don't work within this sphere of influence. To prove or disprove matters of faith is futile on either side. Twunchy (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow Twunchy, if you want a debate on logic I am actually your man here but I do not think you want that. I'll tell you why 1) Argumentum ex silentio while a fallacy if used solely, it is considered valid for abductive reasoning. Why is this true in this case? Well you explained it yourself, you cannot prove a negative. Therefore it is the burden of the presenter of the information to prove the positive (in this case something exist). Now here is where you have fallen into the classic reglious agrument of argumentum ad ignorantiam, appeal to ignorance "which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is false only because it has not been proven true." The difference between the logic fallacies is that Silence is a fallacy if and only if a valid reasoning is not suggested or apparent. An ignorant agrument is always a fallacy because it is usually solely based on beliefs as opposed to sound reasoning. Again I can quote you: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but nor is absence of evidence evidence of something else. Please, lets not have a debate on fallacies especially if it is regarding the Mormon faith. If they were real, mr. Smith could have shown them and convinced the world. He may have had his reasons either they did not exist or he was told not to, either way there is no proof of them besides biased witnesses making them solely an articile of faith, much like the Noah's Ark. Any other discussion on the topic should be right dismissed as hypothesis or accepted solely as an articile of faith and this article should reflect that, like the Noah's Ark article does. And I read what you wrote John, at least you're not surprizing. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. At my age I have hardly any surprises left.--John Foxe (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well based on your argument you are correct in that I cannot prove that golden plates exist anymore than you can prove they didn't. I have admitted this in many discussions, and will again in this discussion. If you take the argument of ignorance to the logical conclusion though, you would have no article whatsoever. Believers cannot prove it, dissenters cannot prove it, so therefore nothing would be used at all because the burden of proof cannot be met by anyone. What I can say, is that at least 12 people attested to the existence of the plates, none of which ever recanted their witness. There is no evidence that someone looked into the box where Smith kept the plates and saw either nothing, or a set of phony plates. So what do we do here? The believers have sworn witnesses, the dissenters only have conspiracy theories. The burden of "proof" goes which way? Twunchy (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I bet they had the same problem with the Noah's Ark page I wonder how they solved that... Although if we are going to get into agrument I would first like to point out then men are flawed and 12 is hardly a convincing number. Maybe 1200? but I could convince 12 people I can walk on water, look at Chris Angel. The facts are this: if 12 people said that they saw someone committed a murder but there was absolutely no proof of it, a case for reasonable doubt could be made on hearsay evidence to a jury. Unlikely to work, sure, but its there. If you toss in that say, the guy who was murdered was a friend of all of them that leads more to a 50/50 split of reasonable to unreasonable doubt. Now if everyone had a vested interest that in the person being convicted, only one person claims to have actually seen the murder and the others are merely attesting to evidence he brought to them about the murder. That person say, enherits a fortune upon the victims death and moreso if the other is convicted. Oh, and of course the evidence he has has now disappeared. Do you think they would convict the man of murder? Of course not, he wouldn't even be charged with a crime because of the swiss cheese agrument of witnesses you propose. Also let me be clear that there could have every well been plates. But why wouldn't he show them off? convince the world? Why did he take to say that the translation maybe different from time to time? Why didn't he show the tools he used to read the plates to the world, surely they would be fine to show. Noah's Ark didn't happen in modern history with newspaper or even books. What about the fact that Native Americans are now known to be from Mongola and not Eygpt as said in the book? You can change the meaning now but thats what it joe Smith said before and now everyone knows that is not correct. Do we believe one made up thing and not the other? Its just so silly to even have a debate about objects that didn't exist. Unless you can prove they existed for sure, they have to be treated as if they didn't. They have the bones of Dinoaurs. No one has ever seen one but we can point to evidence. You want the word of 12 dead guys and one self made propheit to count and do not see how ridiculous that is in an agrument? But again, this is a red herring from the real subject, the balance of this article. Maybe we need to get 3POV on this. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we keep the debate on the merits of the article, rather than the merits of the golden plates. People on opposite sides of the issue can agree that a given treatment is well-researched and cited, thorough, and neutral. We are editors, and as such are supposed to act as if we are agnostic about the subject matter. COGDEN 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The plates as mythology, like Noah's Ark

I thought I'd start a new subheading on this topic, as it has cropped up both in edits and in the text above. The question is, should we frame the golden plates as mythology, and what analogies can we make with the Noah's Ark article, which after all still has featured status.

I have frequently made this comparison, and I think it's a good, though not perfect, analogy. Some things we can learn from Noah's Ark include the following:

• Both articles are about a controversial religious subject that has elements of non-falsifiability.
• Both articles contain sections on critical evaluation. However, in the golden plates article, most of the critical evaluation is dispersed throughout the text and in the footnotes.
• Both articles are mainly written "in story", meaning that the Ark article they are mainly about what people have said about these artifacts, rather than about the artifacts themselves. In both cases, this is the only thing that can be said about the subject matter, since the artifacts themselves either never existed or no longer exist for review.
• When discussing the artifacts themselves, both articles make liberal use of constructions such as "according to ...," "... said that ...," etc., in order to maintain WP:NPOV.

The analogy is not perfect, however, and there are some things that I would argue make Noah's Ark different from golden plates:

• While the golden plates are mythology in the LDS Church, most of the academic writing about the plates has not been from a mythological perspective. In fact, there has been very little written about the plates from the mythological perspective. Even in the LDS Church, while it is mythology, it is not seen or spoken of as mythology. Like most modern religions, the LDS Church operates on the basis of modernist philosophical underpinnings such as the "mythology", if you will, that mythology does not really exist--only truth and superstition exist. Likewise, most non-Mormon critical scholarship has been squarely from this modernist perspective. The only major source that could be said to address the mythology is D. Michael Quinn. I would not oppose more inclusion of Quinn-based material here, but we already have some of his thoughts, just not all in one place. And moreover, it doesn't seem appropriate that the viewpoint of one scholar (influential and well-respected though he may be) should cause a disproportionate side-show in this article.
• The majority of the Ark article is a meta-history of the Ark. We can't do this with the golden plates, however, because the plates are so recent in history that not much meta-history has had time to develop. Whereas there are numerous academic sources about how the mythology of the ark has changed over time and how it differs among Christians, rabbinic Jews, Muslims, etc., there is very little such academic record with regard to the golden plates.
• Most of the world religions subscribe to the Ark story, whereas only a tiny proportion of the world's population believes in the golden plates story. Therefore, it is relatively easy to find consensus on major issues except for the big one: whether it existed. For the golden plates, on the other hand, there is very little consensus. Sure, the "does it exist" controversy is there like in the Ark article, but there are also numerous other controversies due to the subject's much more controversial nature. The level of controversy in this article is more in line with Xenu, another featured article about an un-falsifiable religious subject.
• The Noah's Ark story is what it is. There is only one Bible, and not much disagreement about what the narrative is as we have it today. For the golden plates, however, there are numerous primary sources. Smith told the plates story many times to many people, and the accounts are not always consistent. Moreover, sometimes the witnesses were not always reliable, and whether a particular witness is reliable or not depends largely upon whether or not you believe the golden plates story.

So the question is, given the differences and different level of controversy between the two articles, what can we learn from Noah's Ark, and how can we keep the stability and thoroughness we have now, while at the same time improve the article's readability and turn it into something that both Mormons and non-Mormons can agree is a fair and "featured"-class treatment? COGDEN 01:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would add that with Noah's ark, we only have third party narrative, whereas with the Golden Plates we have not only first person narrative from Joseph Smith, but also from other witnesses and observers. Bytebear (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for this push to move the debate along. I actually argee with the analysis you put forward... I do not know how much I could add other then that the articile on Xenu really shouldn't be used as a guide. I mean, sure there are some un-falsifiable issues that are more simular then the Ark but for the most part but Scientology denys the existence of this article of faith which makes it an odd comparison given how forward the LDS church is in asserting that the plates have to be real. Just a thought there... but over all I think you summed up the changes that are required.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The LDS Church has, however historically tried to officially downplay or side-step much of the history of Joseph Smith, so in that sense there is a Xenu parallel. (That mentality is changing, by the way, among Mormon apologists.) But I agree that Noah's Ark is a more apt analogy. COGDEN 02:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So then let me insert my own stupid assumptions here:

• Proving the plates existence is neither within the scope of this article nor possible, therefore it does not matter to this article that proof is given or denied, because Wikipedia doesn't care if this is true or not. See WP:TRUTH. Twunchy (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually Twunchy I agree with you on that one. The article should be based on proving its existence. My only cavaet is that it should also not assume it.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Verbal seeks to change the first sentence in the introduction to read, "In Latter Day Saint theology, the golden plates are a set of mythical[2] bound and engraved metal plates from which Joseph Smith, Jr. said he translated the Book of Mormon, one of the sacred texts of Latter Day Saints. Although several witnesses said they saw the plates, Smith said that he returned them to an angel, and they do not exist for researchers to examine." The problem with this sentence is that within LDS theology they are anything but mythical. I have no problem with calling anything having to do with religion "mythical", but it is a patently false claim that LDS theology defines, supports, or every considers this belief to be mythical. --^StormRider 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

These plates are mythical, in teh technical sense, whether they existed or not. It doesn't matter that LDS adherents believe they existed, that is not at issue. If you want to remove the mythical status then you need an unbiased RS that they existed or are not considered mythical (and not just by LDS). Verbal chat 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the belief is real (one would hope, whether you think it is correct or not) - it is the plates that are mythical. Another parallel are the Catholic relics. Verbal chat 15:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the context of the sentence, which begins with "in LDS theology". In LDS theology the plates are not mythical (if you need references I can supply thousands to support this statment). In a secular world view they are mythical; understand that it is not stating that they are mythical per se that is the problem, but the sentennce in which you are forcing its use. Your edit makes the sentence define that LDS theology states they are mythical. This is an inaccurate statement; in fact it is patently false and a misrepresentation of LDS theology. Do you have any reference to support that LDS theology thinks the gold plates are mythical in nature? If not, please revert the sentence. It would be appropriate, if you think it necessary, to state it elsewhere and support the statement with a reference as to who defines the plates as mythical. It certainly would not be LDS doctrine, theology, and any of the LDS Church's writings. Do you understand? --^StormRider 15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

They are still mythical even in "LDS theology", by which we mean theology restricted to LDS - not theologians who are members of the LDS church. If this is unclear then it is that part of the sentence that needs changing. Please don't be patronising. Verbal chat 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to support the statement that in LDS theology they are mythological? If not, it is OR and POV. I will mark it with a citation request and then revert when no references are provided. --^StormRider 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It has already been reverted by another editor making adding the citation request impossible. Do not add it again unless you have a reliable reference to support the statement. I will also warn you that you are getting close to violating the 3RR. Please use caution in editing. Cheers. --^StormRider 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead should be concerned with a mainstream definition, not that of a minority of "LDS theologians" which you misinterpret. I fixed the problem by removing the ambiguity. Verbal chat 15:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your proposed edit is acceptable. The topic is Golden Plates and you begin by stating a POV rather than the typical introduction of the topic based upon its importance. The topic is only important to the churches related to the Latter Day Saint movement and thus articles typical address their perspective first. I reject your edit and ask you to bring it to the discussion page for further discussion. You have already violated the 3RR rule for the last 24 hours. Maybe it is time to talk rather than edit. --^StormRider 16:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't violated 3RR, and the edit is already proposed below. I have also asked for input from the fringe theories noticeboard. Verbal chat 16:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

New lead paragraph

I have proposed the following new lead paragraph:

“ The golden plates (also called the gold plates or in some 19th century literature, the golden Bible) are a set of mythical bound and engraved metal plates from which Joseph Smith, Jr. said he translated the Book of Mormon, one of the sacred texts of Latter Day Saints. Although several witnesses said they saw the plates, Smith said that he returned them to an angel, and they do not exist for researchers to examine. ”

which has been removed for spurious reasons. This edit addresses the status of the plates, and removes the POV of "LDS theologians," an ambiguous term which causes problems for some editors. Can anyone give a good reason as to why this edit is not preferable, or suggest further improvements? Verbal chat 16:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the topic have any importance to anyone other than the Latter Day Saint movement? I don't think it does. Generally, on Wikipedia editors introduce the topic based upon the relevance of the topic to group(s) to which it is related. In LDS theology in this case. It is best to begin articles in a neutral manner and with a minimum of spin or POV pushing. Deleting the prefix of LDS theology is spurious. I would keep the original sentence and then invite you to add a further sentence, supported by a reliable reference, that would put the golden plates in a secular view. Woul that be acceptable to you? --^StormRider 16:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to theology in general - and to people who study LDS while not being adherents. The version above is more neutral than using an ambiguous term that heavily implies the plates exist, and limits the lead to only discussing the views of adherents. The adherents view should be the most prominent, but it should be appropriately framed. The current version does not do that, and is not neutral. If this is not addressed an NPOV tag should be added. Verbal chat 16:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

One of my problems with the edit is that it does not mimic the pattern found in Noah's Ark that everyone is comparing this to. In that article the Ark is not called mythical in the lead; instead it says the ark "is a large vessel featured in the myths of Abrahamic religions." I do not see how saying the "golden plates are a set of bound and engraved metallic plates in Latter Day Saint theology" does not mimic this pattern. This is just as strong and as neutral a statement of existence or non-existence as the one used in the Noah's Ark article. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to rewrite it to say the Golden Plates are one of the myths of the LDS theology, I'm all right with it. We are not trying to specifically copy the Noah's Ark article, just use it as an example of describing a religious myth in a neutral manner. We describe the theology and biblical story, then show that it's really a myth. The Golden Plates are a myth, because angels, a mythical Jesus coming to the new world, and Moabites and Nephites are just plain mythological, and never existed according to all scientific and archeological evidence. So, to be NPOV, LDS adherents get their story. To the vast majority of individuals who are not LDS, we provide a balanced article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think when a sentence begins, "In LDS theology..." readers immediately understand that whatever follows only pertains to LDS theology or beliefs and is not an objective statement. It is a qualifier that directs readers to understand that what follows is a belief only. If you began the article with this statement about LDS beliefs and then followed it in the introduction with a statement that provides a secular view you maintain neutrality. Please consider just adding a sentence to clarify a secular view if you think it is necessary.

When I read religious articles I generally seek to understand the beliefs of the group. I never read them as if they were "the truth"; religion is focused on beliefs that adherents believe are true and not objective truth. I think I am similar to the normal reader. Readers should be respected and thought to be intelligent enough to understand that qualifiers such as "LDS theology..." or "They believe..." only relate to the beliefs of the respective group. It would be different if we did not have qualifiers and simply stated, "The Golden Plates were a an ancient record, written on plates of gold that Joseph Smith discovered and translated." That is POV and places Wikipedia in the position of making a declarative statement, which is not permissible. Experts, cited from reliable references, can make declarative statements, but Wikipedia cannot. I recommend sticking with a statement about LDS beliefs and then following it with a secular position. --^StormRider 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Orange, are you proposing that all religious articles begin with qualifiers that they are myth? Articles such as Bible, Christian Cross, Mary (mother of Jesus), Jesus, etc? The Jesus article does have a section that describes the mythological Jesus hypothesis, but the others are devoid of the term from my quick review. None of the articles on Marian visions has any qualifier of being myth. Mythic interpretation is used in Holy Lance, but not in the context that the item itself is a myth. All religions should be treated in the same manner without exception. Are you really saying that all religious articles need to follow this new direction of qualifying them as myth or is it just this one? --^StormRider 16:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Point not taken. The bible is a real book, the cross is more of an idea as opposed to a physical object, Mary (by all accounts) was a real person but the stories may have been changed about her and Jesus (as well by all accounts) was a real person. No one is able to rpove the ark or the plates were real. Ergo, point of comparsion not taken.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

@Orange:I realize we're using the Noah's Ark article just as an example. However, your response still doesn't answer my question (which I didn't state directly): How is the statement "is a large vessel featured in the myths of Abrahamic religions" more neutral than the statement "are a set of bound and engraved metallic plates in Latter Day Saint theology"? Showing that Noah's Ark or the Golden plates are a myth is also outside the purview of wikipedia. Your motivation for using "mythical" is also quiet different than the way it is explained by the footnote Verbal wants to use, ie for you mythical=nonexistence. Application of the word myth should not be based on our own perception of the existence/non-existence of the plates but should be based on previous application of the term mythical to the golden plates in the academic sense with supporting reliable sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we forgetting relative time frames here? When making comparisons to Noah's Ark, remember the time frame involved! The story of the ark is estimated to happen around 2400BC, that's 4400 years ago! Mythical status definitely applies to it. The Golden plates are extremely current, as compared here. Last time I was in English class, which was admittedly a while ago, the progressions through literature usually goes from folklore, to legend, then finally to myth as time passes. How do we reach mythical status on an artifact if only 175 years have passed, and the topic is still current, and there are truly reliable (and current) sources here??? What are we doing? Have we lost all sense of reason to placate an outspoken POV here? Seriously folks step back from the fable nonsense. Twunchy (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here is there are two differing standards on what qualifies as a myth. There is the myth as it pertains to literature, and then the "scientific" version which we are trying to use here. The problem being that most people will understand myth in the literature sense, not the other. When you think of myth, think the God of Thor or of Hercules, and Greek Mythology. This is what we all were taught in school as "Mythology". So to harken now to this word is truly a semantical sleight of hand that we have fallen into by the hands of Marlin, Kirk, and Verbal here. They want to use a misrepresentable term in it's "scientific" usage when the fact is most people don't understand the word as such. Remember the stories of Cyclops, or Cerberus? That's the problem here. Twunchy (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, if you read the Mythology page, this fits under the terms of scholarly or reglious myths. It is clear to me that the problem is if you use the word you believe it will down-grade the status of the plates to people who do not know what the word myth means. I find this interesting because you use the agrument "well people will know that we are talking about it as an article of faith" all the time when we say it should be made clearer in certain parts of the article. In fact, you are using that agrument as to why you shouldn't use the words myth or mythical as well. So what is it? Do we write it so that even an idoit can understand it or do we write it as an education article. I'll like you pick, but remember you cannot have it both ways.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless we all think that Zeus is throwing lighting bolts from Mount Olympus during thunderstorms, we should step back from the usage of the word "myth." This is a word that can be misconstrued VERY easily. Yes, we do have to occasionally write from a layman's perspective. If this were a scholarly article being presented to a well educated scholarly audience, I would have no problem with the technical usage of this word. But from a common man standpoint, mythology is filled with 7-headed hydras, Hades, the Fates, the River Styx, or Atlas holding up the Earth. Twunchy (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This topic most definitely falls within the definition found in scholarly parameters. However, readers come from a broad range of backgrounds and for the normal reader mythology is equal to falsehood. Verbal had been using as a reference this type of mythology clarification (however, it was OR and was not acceptable as a reference). Again, I see no need in making a statement, from a reliable source, providing a world view stating it as sacred. I often think these types of statements are obvious, but some editors like to use a belt and suspenders approach for religious topics they feel strongly about. --^StormRider 18:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR. I'd be interested in the opinions of more people who don't have a vested interest. Verbal chat 18:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I love how those who are not LDS claim higher authority, we with "vested interests" are apparently incapable of objective editing on this article. Sir, your vested interest is against this topic just as much as we who are for it. Your shit stinks too. Twunchy (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not anti-LDS and I am not vested in any pro or anti-LDS organisation, whereas several editors who have commented here so far are. I would like to hear more outside opinions, and I would never describe LDS as "shit", of any aroma. Verbal chat 19:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me express my appreciation to Verbal for trying to improve the article rather than simply grump about it. But in this case, I side with my Mormon friends. The word "mythical" is too easily misunderstood as "imaginary," "fictitious," and "fancied," definitions given in the American Heritage Dictionary. The irony of my taking this position is that in the past I've had several romps with Mormons who wanted to label non-Mormon opinion as "critical," a word that popularly means the views of a person "who finds fault" or who is "given to censuring."--John Foxe (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone like to suggest an alternative? The current lead cannot stand for various policy reasons and ambiguity as alluded to above. The version I have proposed, although it can be improved, is still better than the current. An alternative to "mythical" can surely be worked out. Verbal chat 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with the current version? Is it that we need, in the first sentence, to remind readers that outside LDS theology they are not considered real? COGDEN 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a source describing the golden plates as "mythical". There is probably a sort of mythology surrounding the plates, but very little has been written about that mythology, and this article does not discuss the plates from a mythological perspective at all. If it's not in the article, it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. Moreover, the golden plates are more than mythology. To LDS adherents, they are a real artifact or something mystical. To secular critics, they are a nullity or a hoax. Those two perspectives are the predominant ones in the literature. COGDEN 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above again. Verbal chat 19:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning what? COGDEN 19:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

←I think the "because of their faith in the Book of Mormon" at the end of the first paragraph is superfluous, and could simply be removed. Otherwise, the changes so far are much for the better. Verbal chat 20:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. I changed that phrase to "as a matter of faith." COGDEN 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to take a step back because I see a bit of hypocrisy here. Here is my point: Prove to me that Zeus is not real. We hear all this talk about how we cannot prove the plate or not real and that mythical is not a correct term because it invokes Zeus images.... but what if it does? I want to be clear in that I am not anti-anything. But I want this treated the same as every other article, not cherry pick words or methods because yours more "true" than another. Also, the stories of zeus are refered to as Greek mythology which defer from Myth. To quote "In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods". Therefore, scholars may speak of "religious mythology" without meaning to insult religion. For instance, a scholar may call Abrahamic scriptures "myths" without meaning to insult Judaism, Christianity or Islam." Now why all this nit-picking? This term "adherents believe." Seems simple enough but to get back to my point, if you are not going to use the term myth/ical, as it is in Noah's Ark and countless other reglious articles, because you think it will confuse people, you think you can use the term "adherents believe" without doing the same? It should be Mormon's/LDS members believe or someother term to denote the "adherents". -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between "adherents believe" and something like "Latter Day Saints believe" other than verbosity. "LDS members" and "Mormons believe" are not really correct because those terms exclude the Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ, which also believe in the plates. COGDEN 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How about followers of Joseph smith or I believe the term for all churches is "Latter Day Saint movement" although I could be wrong. Acatually I am convinced that all of the Latter Day Saint movement believe the plate myth, I mean story, I mean.... whatever we are calling it now. Also isn't it better to be verbose than to be ambiguous? I am going to tell you right now you cannot tell me people will mis-read myth as false and then say they will know meaning of who qualifies as an adherent or in some cases what it means. If you make the case that people are stupid as a rule, then follow said rule. Remember, I am not starting this line of thought, I am continuing it from others who are employing it for their own ends. Anyone want some cake? -Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The current lead paragraph reads as follows:

• The golden plates (also called the gold plates or in some 19th century literature, the golden Bible)[1] are a set of bound and engraved metal plates that Latter Day Saint denominations teach are the source of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s translation of the Book of Mormon, one of the sacred texts of that faith. Although several witnesses said they saw the plates, Smith said that he returned them to an angel; therefore, if they exist, they are not available for researchers to examine. Nevertheless, most Latter Day Saints assume their authenticity as a matter of faith.

I propose the following:

• Latter Day Saint denominations teach that the golden plates (also called the gold plates or in some 19th century literature, the golden bible) are a set of bound, engraved, metal plates that are the source of Joseph Smith, Jr's translation of the Book of Mormon, one of the sacred texts of the LDS faith. Although several witnesses said they saw and examined the plates, they were not made available for public inspection. Smith stated that he returned them to the angel, Moroni, from whom they were first delivered. Most Latter Day Saints assume the authenticity of the gold plates as a matter of faith, but they are viewed as mythological, fantasy, or fraud by critics and those outside of the faith.

We should support the last sentence with references, but this serves as a basis for making it clear that the plates are a religious topic and those outside the faith have no reason to believe in their original existence. I think it better to first qualify who believes in them and thus began the paragraph by citing LDS churches. Thoughts? --^StormRider 01:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the general direction. It presents things in a more up front matter and is very honest to the general debate on the plates. I still think it needs a bit of work though. Fantasy seems a bit over the top, even to me. I can't see someone calling Jesus a fantasy for example. Also it still sounds too "matter of fact" for me. I think simply adding an adjective to describe that the plates are not a tangible thing may work. Obviously we cannot say mythical plates because of a known objection to it. And yes I know it is explained further in the paragraph that there are critics the sentence reads to me as "these are real, but some people think they are not" as opposed to the actual fact that most people believe they are a myth and LDS take them as fact. Also, i do not see the source issue for the latter part. It is like the statement "water is wet", clearly anyone outside the faith does not believe in the authenticity by defination. Just an opinion, but I think balance would suggest that be the over all read o the paragraph.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to draw upon any article for comparison, I would suggest looking at Ten Commandments rather than Noah's Arc. There are direct similarities between the two.

The key here is nuetrality. Wikipeida should take no stance (overt or implied) on whether the Golden plates did or did not actually exist. To achieve this, we need to word the article (and especially the lead) in terms of belief. Like the tablets of the Ten Commandments, It does not really matter whether the Golden Plates existed or were mythical ... what matters is that Mormons believe Smith found them and translated them.

May I suggest something more along the lines of:

• "The Golden Plates are a central element in the religious beliefs of the Church of Later Day Saints (or Mormons). According Mormon belief, the Plates were discovered and translated by the Church's founder Joseph Smith. ...." etc.

If the article starts off framing the issue in terms of religious belief, then the reader will better understand the context of what follows. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it has to be framed in terms of belief but thats where we diverge. The plates ARE mythical. That isn't the debate. The debate is should we use the word mythical in a sentence to describe them. Some people say no because they believe it is a loaded word and thats fine. Now we have to then describe what the plates are without using the word.. that describes what the plates are.

Also, point not taken on the Ten Commandments comparison. The Ten Commandments exist. They are real. The commandments themselves can be read out of any local store bible. We cannot exactly do that with the information on the plates can we? Maybe you mean the tablets which would be a comparison (I do not know if they would be better) but, guess what, there isn't an article on the tablets of the Ten Commandments (Indiana Jones fans will remember the Ark of the Covenant though). So if you employed that logic there should not be an article on the Golden plates.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

LDS believe you can read the Gold plates by reading the Book of Mormon. IMHO, it is a direct correlation to the 10 Commandments written on stone tablets by the finger of God, now recorded in the Old Testament. My proposal above we an attempt at compromise. My honest opinion is that the qualifier that others don't believe the story is obvious. Topics of faith all, by their nature, demand faith to believe. Buddhists don't believe Jesus was the Messiah; only Christians believe that otherwise they would not be Christians. LDS believe the Gold Plates story because they are LDS. Catholics are Catholics because they believe the pope is the literal representative of Peter on earth, etc., etc., etc. It is redundant to repeat that some don't believe, but those who don't believe topics of faith sometime demand that we state the obvious...that others don't believe.

Attempting to draw a clear distinction between big groups, Catholics, and small groups Mormons, is a red herring. A topic of faith is a topic of faith; it only matters that a recognizable group believes in something to state it so.

I do like the proposal by Blueboar; it is clear, it is concise, and it is accurate. --^StormRider 17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of a Red herring, thats classic brother. I'd like to look at the stated sentence "A topic of faith is a topic of faith" - Agreed. So what makes yours better than others? Why the special treatment? You seem to refuse to have yours treated the same way. Also you cannot read the plates, you can read Joseph's interruption of said plates. Remember, the testament story is considered a myth. So now you are in the vicious cycle: You do not want us to use the term myth but you want the article to be treated like myths. Wow, I'm really stuck on a forward motion from here. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have tried to make one religion better than another. I have provided many examples of religious articles that are not described as mythical. My objective is that each religion be respected and their religions presented in a neutral manner.

My statement above about a red herring was a response to your statement that, "...as opposed to the actual fact that most people believe they are a myth and LDS take them as fact." Of course LDS believe they are fact that is why they are described as LDS believe they are fact. That is also why I proposed the obvious, others don't believe they exist. Are you objecting that LDS groups actually believe they are real? It is a red herring to attempt to qualify the situation as only those crazy Mormons believe in their religion and look how many people aren't Mormon therefore it must be false. The logic leads to only the majority religion gets to be portrayed as real and every other religion as false. It is simply a poor paradigm.

The objective of the article is to describe what the gold plates are. It is not to first describe what others religions, humanists, etc. think of a religious story. Blueboar's suggestion achieves that objective. What you seem to be uncomfortable with is that Mormons actually believe something that you personally are convinced don't exist. That is the very essence of POV. It is your POV Mormons are wrong for having their belief system. You can have your POV, but that does not mean that your POV takes precedence. Neutrality demands that we first explain what the item is and why it is important. Bluebloar's suggestion does that. Do you have an alternative wording that we can discuss or not? Please give a concrete example so that we can move forward and come to concensus. --^StormRider 18:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought experiment: what if, in the Jesus article, we tried to say that Jesus was part of Christian mythology. I don't think that would fly. Yet, there is a much clearer case for the term myth being applied to Jesus than there is for the golden plates. After all, Jesus never wrote anything himself, and everything written about him was written long after the fact based on a preceding oral tradition. I don't absolutely oppose the use of mythology in some manner, but we've got to understand that the term is by no means necessary for neutrality, and could introduce WP:NPOV problems of its own. COGDEN 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT put words in my mouth. That is completely NOT my POV. Conversely, your point of view is that it is okay to refer to one reglious story as a myth and not to another. That is your position, which I do not share. My position is universial, unlike yours, and I believe it should be applied to all, unlike you. Also, as if it wasn't clear that you do not read my posts already, I have soundly dismissed the examples you presented because, quite frankly, they were poor examples. You have yet to provide a simular example where the references are clear that it is reglious believe. I would continue pointing out your red herrings but this talk has gone to the point of silly because you fail to see the flaws of your POV and just prefer to dictate that "I" have a POV problem and not you. That kind of reflection shows why ownership is killing this article.

As for COgden, Jesus would not be considered a myth. To put that in context that is saying Joe Smith is a myth. He is not. The question is "is the story regarding the founding, translation and disposing of the golden plates a myth?" and clearly yes. A simular example would be Jesus' Walking on water story/myth, although that article is somewhat poorly written and has a large section debuking the myth which would not be acceptable to most editors here. It seems like people are having a problem seperating a story from an object or how the myth is the joining of the two. The plates, while an object, are a story. This article is about the story of the object, golden plates. Like the Noah's ark, which is the story of the object "Noah's ark". A story about an object or person in a reglious context is a myth of said reglion. Easy as pie. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that the golden plates themselves are not a myth, but the story about the plates is a myth. Fine. However, this article is about more than just the story of the plates. It is about the plates themselves. Not much, comparatively speaking, has been written about the story of the plates divorced from the plates themselves. That makes this article much different than Noah's Ark, which is mainly about the story of the ark and how that story has changed across time and across cultures. COGDEN 01:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am saying the plates and the story are joined. This article IS the story of the plates and not just the plates themselves. If it was about the plates themselves it would say "They were gold coloured and written in a language said to be reformed egyptian and ga." How Smith obtained them, their translation, the opinions people have about them, the witnesses of them, etc, are all about the story SURROUNDING the plates, not just the plates exactly like the Noah's Ark article. If you do not believe that, lets just erase the whole aritcle then.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing a subtle distinction. This article is about the golden plates themselves, not about the story of the golden plates. By contrast, the Noah's Ark article is about the stories (myths) of the ark, i.e., the story and how it has changed over time and across cultures--not about the ark itself (except as incidental to discussing the real topic, the stories). It's a subtle distinction. Noah's Ark is what you would call a "second-order" article: an article about a story (myth) of an artifact (supported by sources focusing on the story of the ark). Golden plates, however, is a "first-order" article: an article about an artifact (supported by sources focusing on the artifact itself). There really is no significant body of sources about the golden plates' mythology yet--there are only sources about the golden plates themselves (except for maybe one source I can think of). You could say that those sources about the plates contribute to the mythology, but the sources are not about that mythology. COGDEN 18:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, you have been provided a number of proprosals for the introduction and have found fault with every one of them. The last was by Blueboar and was as follows:

• "The Golden Plates are a central element in the religious beliefs of the Church of Later Day Saints (or Mormons). According Mormon belief, the Plates were discovered and translated by the Church's founder Joseph Smith. ...." etc.

Please edit this proposal to something that meets your objectives so that we may discuss it. --^StormRider 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I was waiting for the "etc"... not to diverge from my fellow brother from the west, Blueboar, if you want my take on it, here it is:

In Latter Day Saint movement, the golden plates are a set of pre-Columbian, bound, and engraved metal plates said to be written in a language known as "reformed Egyptian." They were said to be buried in a box and protected by an angel named Moroni at Cumorah Hill, New York state. The myth of their discovery, translation, and return to the angel Moroni by the Church's founder Joseph Smith, Jr serve as the foundation of the movement's faith. Most Latter Day Saints assume the authenticity of the gold plates as a matter of faith, but outside the church their existence is subject to debate with critics believing the plates and the story beyond them are a hoax.

Maybe not prefect but I think that conveys the approperate amount of balance and explains the position of everyone involved. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any different from prior proposals, other than containing the word myth. Is the word myth really all that important? What about the word story as a more neutral substitute? COGDEN 18:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it makes both agruments explicit about the plates, which is really more honest representation. As for the word "myth" that is only a sticking point to me because it seems that the editors want it both ways: They don't want to use the word myth because they feel that basically people are too stupid to realize that it is in the scholarly sense and will instantly believe it to equal fake. Then they pose agruments that bascially beg the readers intelligence. Which is it? I say we write accurately. Others insist on writing for the idoit. Which is fine. But then they frame paragraphs as if they are fact or use complicated words, far moreso than the word myth. I think this duality is helping make this article biased. It is just opinion but I think ti is reflected in the others who have commented on how POV the article is.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What is curious is that Blueboar, an editor who I have never seen edit LDS related articles, comes in makes a proposal and it is completely ignored or not found to have enough spin to be comfortable to those editors that are crying POV. What will only suffice, it appears evident, is if ignore neutrality and imprint a strong POV of myth. Something that is totally lacking in almost all Christian religion articles.

We are then supposed to swallow that readers of this article will all be college educated and are capable of grasping the nuance of term "mythology" to be completely neutral and applicable to all religions, without using the term on all religion articles. Yes, people and I believe that little leprechauns will give me a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow.

I think we use the most neutral language proposed by Blueboar and move on. This appears more and more like individuals having axes to grind. --^StormRider 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth, again. I will not tolerate you projection assumtions. I explicited DID NOT ignore Blueboar proposal. I was asked to form a proposal, so I did. Notice, though, you've ignored said proposal. Saying something is a myth is being explicitly NPOV. What you are saying is it is a reglious story. Fact or fiction, it is a myth ergo believed by some and not others. As opposed to trying to word it as from the prespective that they are real or "truth" and there are deniers of said "truth". This fails POV because it poses one view as "truth" and that, although they maybe creditable there are still "non believers" of the "truth" as opposed to people who just do not subscribe to the myth. While I try no to assume the education level of the reader, what you do with this article is preach it has to be dumbed down in some areas and not in others. You cannot say myth because people are too stupid to know what it means. Writing matter-of-factly regarding the plates is acceptable because people will know you are refering to the myth/story and not fact. Again, I say which is it? The reason I phrase this is because the article basically reads as point for point facts of the matter, which is the POV. When I bring that up I hear the agrument "oh well people will know that it is LDS faith and not fact" but apparently they cannot know the difference between myth and fantasy. Until we sort this out, the article will NEVER be NPOV, which is the point constantly being brought up by the editors at attend this page. I apologize for thinking "big picture" here when editting because the problem with the article isn't just the lead but the lead will set the tone for the overhaul I expect is to be done. Once we get the frame of reference down for the article, the article can be remade. When we have people constaintly asking that their article get different treatment than Noah's Ark or other reglious articles regarding objects, we will stuck in the previously mentioned cycle.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) You have been told repeatedly that myth carries baggage, but you have rejected it each time prattling on about how it is treated differently here than elsewhere. First, myth is defined as: 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. 2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth. 3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth. 4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person. 5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

The definition of myth is absolutely clear that in infers fiction! IT IS POV; IT IS NOT USED ON ALL RELIGION ARTICLES; IN FACT IT IS USED ON VERY FEW ARTICLES ON TOPICS OF RELIGION! I reject your proposal because it is POV, because it strives to lead readers to your personal deduction that religion, and this topic in particular is false.

Noah's ark is a single article and I have never accepted anyone's attempt to force everyone to emulate it. Look at all religious topics and see how they are treated. I expect this one to be treated in a like manner and I have never advocated it be treated differently. You however have constantly harped about equal treatment, but have ignored every article that demonstrates neutrality. I think you have proved that you are not interested in neutrality, but in spin, POV, and proving to readers that they must accept your POV as the only POV possible. I think it is time to seek a mediator. There is no chance for you to see neutrality because for you neutrality does not exist unless it meets your POV. --^StormRider 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I have to say the lengths you seem to go to defeat your point point are amazing. Truly. I will use the defination you have provided. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. Traditional story? finding of the plates; Hero or event? Joseph Smith; With or without determinable basis of fact? Neutral; that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature? An Angel directing Joseph to the plates and taking them away when he was done of the translation. I think the term "like a glove" can be applied easily.

I mean I love how when spinning you accuse me of spin and/or God/Mormon hating. Truly. Although again I have to tell you to stop putting words in my mouth, especially if time and again I have refuted the EXACT thing you are claiming of me. I agree in that there is no chance for neutrality because you see unable to accept anything that would be deemed it. You reject trying to emulate another simular article. You reject wording that, as proven, to be the most neutral. You even go so far as to accuse me of purposefully being un-neutral when I am trying hard to be it, in light of your livid non-neutrality. You think it is a threat to me that you seek a mediator? I've asked and pleaded that one be brought in. I've removed myself from making edits so that you cannot accuse me of edit warring and I just pointed out the flaws in the article, which are unchanged.

You have to either word the article to be neutral throughout or change the matter of fact nature of the text. The language of the text is only acceptable if the article is framed as a story/myth from the begining otherwise it reads as a historical fact, which is POV. I have provided a valid example of what I mean, Noah's Ark I would like a valid of what you mean. All the previous examples have soundly invalided. I have yet to see an invalidation of Noah's Ark other then you would PREFER not to use it as a standard, which again is POV.

Sadly Storm Rider, while you may want to blame me for a third person point of view I would think that empirical evidence clearly is in my favour. Random editors sweep in and post the same objections that I have. You imply ownership and allow subtle changes but keeping the overall problem with POV soundly intact. I would go further and suggest that someone externally of the debate try to make some changes. I cannot without being labelled a anti-Mormon, a fact I am well aware of, so I appreicate any impartial attempts so long as they do not allow the previous debates to taint their view. Remember the loudest voices are not the more correct ones. On Wikipedia, they are usually the owners of articles. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We see absolutely nothing in common. You take a definition and force it to fit your POV. For example, ''a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. There is nothing traditional about finding the plates. Do you know of several other traditions where a 14 year old boy is told about what he needs to do, waits several years, visited annually, and then is finally given metal plates? Just because you call it traditional does not make it traditional. Hero; Sinbad, Hercules, Aeneas are heroes. Joseph Smith was an uneducated fellow from a poor agrarian family that was persecuted, in jail, and ridiculed for his religious ideas; hardly the stuff of hero worship. Smith, except for his religious teachings, has nothing to do with the concept of being a classic hero in any society. Explains some rite or phenomenon of nature; the plates have nothing to do with a phenomenon of nature. An angel, who did nothing but appear to Joseph fills the role of messenger, but not demi-god or god. Again, you are forcing the definition to meet your POV. Like a glove....yes, but one with no shape and no comparison.

I have not in any statements above accused you of being a Mormon hater. I have accused of having an axe to grind and of spinning. You reject completely neutral statements, like that from Blueboar, because it did not meet your specific POV and lacked the word myth included. You demonstrate no willingness to accept anything except that which meets your specific POV. That is anything but neutral. Why do you keep bring up emulating another article; you ignore every article I bring up, because you have found a single article that meets your objective. Meet the objective of all religious articles; don't just find a single one and then force everything else to it. What a farce. Just read the articles I have linked above. I don't need to repeat them.

A belief is not a fact. It is a belief. It is a fact that LDS belief certain things. Just because LDS believe them does not make them truth or fact; it makes them beliefs. Your insistence that stating LDS believe... because readers are so stupid they will think Wikipedia is saying LDS are true or factual is laughable. Readers are too stupid to understand beliefs but they are educated enough to know that mythological, in this context, is really a word that is applied to all belief systems is silly. Wikipedia does not use the word myth, mythological or anything else similar on all religious articles. It is not done and it would be highly irregular to single this article out for such wording.

No they are not random editors; they are all editors with a like viewpoint. Possessing a like-viewpoint does not equate to neutrality; it only means they have a like opinion. Please never make the mistake of assuming you are neutral because four others think like you.

Regardless, there is no further reason for both of us to further discuss the stupidity of the other. Suffice it to say that we are opposite ends of the same issue. I do not see you ever accepting a neutral position and you feel similarly about me. Again, I think it is necessary to seek a mediator. Without a skilled one that is trusted both sides, we will get nowhere. Would you agree to having a mediator come in? --^StormRider 02:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, this article was once a featured article, which means it has already gone through most of the vetting that is going on here. I would recommend reviewing that version, and understand that it has been reviewed by external moderators and considered the best that Wikipedia has produced. Link to featured article version: [6] Bytebear (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, this article promptly lost its featured article status because of objections I and others raised at that time. Also the vetting was done but the regular editors of the article and apparently rubber stamped from what I can tell, ergo its demotion. Ownership and POV were some of the main points brought up at that time. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it lost featured status because it is a controversial subject, and people were somewhat offended and shocked that it made it to the cover of Wikipedia, but that's just my opinion. Still, it has been vetted long before you got here, and I believe your views ar POV as well. Bytebear (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirk, you can go an review the history, very little of the article reflects my edits. I have made many edits to the discussion page in an attempt to gain neutrality over time, but my actual edits to the article are fewer and I suspect none of the them stuck. The article you see today is a reflection of two editors in particular: Foxe and COgden. Foxe is an editor with whom I conflict almost constantly on LDS articles. He has a tendency to take a very negative POV. COgden is a historian first, IMHO, and a LDS second. He is also someone with whom I disagree more often than not. While you and others think the article is too pro, I think the article is too negative. It includes a great deal of fringe stories that are often found in anti-Mormon literature and ignores the more prevalent history of the movement. If you found ownership then, it was not from me. If you find it now from me, then you misinterpret my objectives. This article is not a reflection of my idea of balanced or neutral article, but for far different reasons than you would state. What I find so suprising is that we are on opposite ends and still complain about the same thing. One thing is for certain, neither of us will be happy with the end product from this venture. --^StormRider 03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

While you and others think the article is too pro, I think the article is too negative. I'd say that is the most telling sentence that just about sums up my case. Thanks again for defeating your own point. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You either misread or are confused. I did not say I thought you were too negative or that others were too pro. Are you trying to portray yourself as neutral? --^StormRider 17:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would classify five points of view on this subject:

1. First, there is the anti-Mormon perspective, which would be the view of anti-Mormons, Christian evangelicals, and anti-religion people. These are the people who always come in and make drive-by comments like "how can Mormons believe this crap?" and "why is this even an article?" These people have a partisan view against the religion. There is a great deal of literature written from this perspective, but most of it is non-academic, rarely-cited in the literature, highly polemical, often inaccurate, and not of much use for Wikipedia.
2. Second, there is the secular historical view, which I believe includes John Foxe. These are people who are not partisans to the religion, and approach the subject from a purely naturalistic and historical perspective. They are more interested in portraying the history than in some partisan agenda of discrediting the religion. A fair amount of literature, including some of the most preeminent, has been written concerning the golden plates from this perspective, and you could call this the neutral non-Mormon perspective. The most prominent works in this category are Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History (I'd classify this here despite the fact that Brodie was a cultural Mormon), Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, and Riley, The Founder of Mormonism.
3. Third, there is an apologetic historical view, which includes me. These people are partisans to the religion, but approach the subject from a historical perspective. They are more interested in portraying the history than in using their academic work to convert the masses. Some of the most preeminant and authoritative literature concerning the golden plates has been written from this perspective. The most prominent works in this category are Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, a few works by D. Michael Quinn, and some of the writings of Terry Givens.
4. Fourth, there is the apologetic religious view, which probably includes Storm Rider to some extent, though he could be placed in the third category as well. These people are partisans to the religion, but are highly apologetic. They are interested in justifying and explaining Smith based on the historical record. Though sometimes polemical, they still operate in the field of academia and use academic methods, and are citable in academic publications. However, their work is not widely respected or cited by the academic community at large. This includes most of the work of FARMS. Probably, most LDS Wikipedia editors fit within this category, though LDS Wikipedia editors who edit in the religion space are probably not representative of Mormons at large.
5. Fifth, there is the pure religious perspective, which is the view of non-academic, rank-and-file Mormons. These people have less interest in apologetics, and are not typically familiar with Mormon history beyond what they learn in church. They have a strong interest in protecting the public image of Joseph Smith, and often do not understand the motivations of Mormons within category #3. Some of them like to read literature from category 4. Most Mormons probably fall within this category, and most of them would view the golden plates article as "anti-Mormon" because it differs so much from the traditional Mormon history.

This article, as it now stands, primarily focuses on the subject matter explored by sources from categories 2-3, where most of the most prominent and respected sources on the subject in academia. However, despite having editors from various perspectives here, and occasionally having un-helpful drive-by editors from categories #1 or #5, I don't think any of the long-term editors here have been insisting on pushing a particular POV. We all recognize that all of the above views have to be represented. So I don't see any balance problem here. In fact, if there is a balance problem, it is probably that not enough of category #4 is represented in the article. And I say that despite not personally agreeing with much of the academic work that goes on in #4. For example, I don't personally find any of the Book of Mormon archaeology research in #4 to be credible; likewise, I don't find arguments from #2 that Smith was a cynical con-artist to be credible. But that doesn't mean I'm going to keep such material out of this article. COGDEN 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So long as it doesn't transfer me out of Category 2, let me pronounce a hardy "Amen." Well said.--John Foxe (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Storm, I quoted you directly. It seems pretty unambigious. That plus this statement In fact, if there is a balance problem, it is probably that not enough of category #4(apologetic religious view) is represented in the article. from Cogden have convinced me that there is no point in continuing agrument. Either I, and the several indepentant editors who have tried to point out the POV in the article (which I saw actually floats between 4 and 5) are unable to view this subject objectively or Storm and Cogden are unable to view this subject objectively. I reason this given the relatively extreme gulf between our opinions. I and the other editors see clear signs of improvement required while you do not as well. Both camps claim neutrality, although I want it noted that I have yet to have a valid example of a relgious article of a simular nature written in a simular way as this (which was my challage from the begining). Because of these reasons I have to declare a slatement. The only approach from here is to ask for another, unbiased, pair of eyes to review and digest the article. Please make the request-Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that my statement that we might need more of #4 also implies that we will need more of #2 and #3 criticism of those #4 arguments, and vice versa. Inclusion of #4 (and its rebuttals) will in no way upset neutrality. And I think the proportion of time given to #4 sources should be roughly proportional to the amount of credence such sources are given in academia, which is quite a bit less than the credence given #2 and #3 sources. We already have some #4 material; I'm just saying we might need just a little more, here and there, especially in the footnotes. COGDEN 23:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately my lunch is taking a while to get here so I decided to take my mind off of it and address this with some numbers. I counted the sourced and rated them in three categories, 1-2 anti, 3 neutral, 4-5 pro. Here are the results: Out of 207 sources, 165 or 79.7% are Pro, most of them being 5. In this there are dozens of direct references to the book of Mormon as well as over 100 direct sources to Joseph Smith Jr. I found 8 Anti, or 3.86%. Most seemed to be by "Chase" and apparently he was very upset that Smith found the plates over him. Now I have found 34, or 16.4% (0.04% lost in rounding, FYI) that were either neutral or could not be determined either way so assumed neutral. I found on investigation that most of these were either members of the LDS or friends of Smith but I am assuming good faith because I cannot find direct overt pro attitudes. By your analysis, you need more slight pro references. This is where the debate fails. You not only have a problem seeing that there is a problem (remembering that the article lost FA status for a reason or two); you in fact believe the direct opposite view that most random editors believe there is. Basically, to give a metaphor, you are out of milk to go with your peanut butter sandwich, so you ask for more peanut butter. No point in talking anymore, lets get some different people in the debate. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You are counting primary sources, and you can't get around the fact that most primary sources are friendly to Joseph Smith. After all, it is Smith himself that told the story, and he was more likely to tell the story to friendly listeners. We are stuck with the primary sources, and no new ones can be manufactured. What would be a more telling statistic is to count how the above primary sources are cited by secondary sources in each of the above categories, and you will see that probably at least 75% of the above sources are cited positively by sources in categories #1-2. Probably about 50% of the sources are cited positively in #3, and about 25% of the sources are cited positively in #4. Only just a few of the sources are cited positively by #5. (Just my estimation--nobody has ever done an actual count.) COGDEN 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

....you can't get around the fact that most primary sources are friendly to Joseph Smith. After all, it is Smith himself that told the story, and he was more likely to tell the story to friendly listeners. Yes, you can. By making it obvious that it is a belief system constructed by Joseph Smith. Currently it reads as historical fact instead of historical heresay. Probably this probably that, I mean you are clearly making up numbers at this one. You said that the sources were even, I showed you they were not and then you said look at the secondary ones, they too source the biased materal and think that is somehow valid. If anything that means all or most the sources you have come from place, the guy who created the reglion. So even the supposed non biased or biased against people are quoting the biased text. Well that put my mind at ease regarding the unbiased nature of the article. *rolls eyes* -Kirkoconnell (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My guess, Kirk, is that your erstwhile allies have fled in embarrassment, and that your opinions are now yours alone to enjoy in all their orthographic and syntactical splendor.--John Foxe (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Or in the face of the extreme ownership/bias/lack of appreication for valid concerns they are unwilling to spend countless minutes trying to help the article. By the way John, thanks again for attacking my grammar and/or spelling and completely ignoring the context of my message. It really isn't annoying or silly. It is in fact charming that you refuse to enter yourself into valid debate. I appreicate that you feel that you have nothing valid to offer, and so you offer the invalid. At least you are up front with your intentions.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to oblige, Kirk.--John Foxe (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

John, you are just plain naughty; although you do make me laugh. Kirk, those of us who come as critics have to be willing to do the work to improve articles. We cannot take the easy path and simple criticize; we have to be willing to roll up our sleeves, use reliable sources, and then edit wisely. You might want to review some of John's edit history on this article. He spends more time editing then talking about it. He responds to those who criticize his edits, but if those editors are not willing to respond with other reputable references, he moves forward.

Interesting review of sources. Primary sources are neither pro or con. It seems pointless to me so I have not reviewed the work individually. If you think it is really valid, you still have some work to do. --^StormRider 16:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is Storm, I do not edit because I know every edit I would make would instantly be reverted. I have tried to discuss the issues but it seems everyone is unwilling to do so. I have stated lets look at making this article reflect a similar article and everybody says "well thats not a good example because"; I soundly defeat their logic and it is forgotten. I constaintly bring up points, soundly defeat rebuttals and than see nothing changes other than the subject. I bring up ownership and you say you don't have any but you refuse to accept any solution but your own and the fail to entertain others. Do not accuse me of not trying, you lot are just unwilling to accept this article is not up to standard and refuse any direction to help. Primary sources are neither pro or con. Well that seems to me to be a bit simplistic and frankly silly. Darwin would be considered pro evolution. Why is Joseph Smith, the propheit who profits (pun!) from the plates story not a biased source? If anything I would say he is an unreliable witness, especially when compared to Darwin who took great pains to catalog and record his findings so that they would be able to withstand the harshes critism upon independant review. Smith was unable to even produce to plates to unbiased sources.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing credibility with reliability. You can say that, from your perspective, Joseph Smith is not a credible source. However, under Wikipedia policy, he is a reliable source for his own stories, which is all he is ever cited for, just as L. Ron Hubbard is a reliable source for the story of Xenu. Nobody is citing Joseph Smith as a reliable source for the existence of the golden plates--just as a reliable source for his own version of the golden plates story. In fact, he is the ultimate, supreme source for that subject matter--you can't get a better source for the alleged contents of a vision than the person who says he had the vision. Is Smith biased? Of course, just as any source is biased in favor of their own position. But the article maintains neutrality so long as the article does not adopt Smith's opinion as its own, nothing is given undue weight, and it is made clear that the story is the view of Mormons, and not generally accepted outside of LDS theology. COGDEN 18:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Let's just say you have a POV about the matter and leave it at that. I do see a difference between the writings of Smith or Harris and the writings of Darwin. Darwin was a medical scientist by training and made deductions based upon his scientific analysis of nature. Smith and Harris were first hand accounts of a religious experience; they both, as well as others, stated they saw the plates. This is a quantifiablely different position than Darwin; Smith and Harris are a primary references to what is being described. Darwin was the leading scientist, one that blazed the trail, to support a scientific position. You are comparing apples and oranges. Smith and Harris provide only their word. We then look for secondary and tertiary references; those that have reviewed history and made deductions. Editors will often use primary sources to provide the story, but then make critical or supportive statements by using these other secondary or tertiary reliable sources. You just seem to be unable to see anything other than your specific POV.

It is true that your edits may be reverted, but that is just editing on Wikipedia. If you are not even willing to try, then a blog might be a more fulfilling experience for you.--^StormRider 17:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not accept your analysis that I have the issue with POV here and I refuse to leave it at that. You said primary sources are neither pro or con. They are infact inheritly so, which is my point. I assert that, given lack of evidence and their obvious POV on the matter, you can hardly say that that source is not pro in the agrument. As you state Darwin does not rely on "his word" so the facts he presents as a primary source, while biased, tend to be acceptable because they are defensible. The positions taken by your primary sources are not defensible and in fact everyone involved becomes an unreliable witeness upon any analysis of their position in the story. This shows the difference between these two primary sources, one relies on evidence the other on the lack of it. I am not comparing apples and oranges, I am comparing apples to apples. Just your POV does not allow you to see the bruises on the latter-day apple (pun!). Also I reject your opinion that Wikipedia is about editting when you know it will be reverted. Wikipedia is about putting the best information in the best manner and edit wars serve no one. I am trying to inject reason into the article. If I cannot persude you that this article is flawed, than my course of active is to recommand that we outline some points of contention and take them to an impartial group to decide on the merits of each point and the direction the article should take. As I see it, the major issue is the framing of the text as a matter-of-fact article reguarding a myth of a reglious body. I have not found nor you have provided examples that match a similar framing. I have provided the Noah's Ark example of the framing I (and ours) would like to see and while some have tried none of successed in refuting the article as a good parallel. Once we resolve this debate we can move forward. Until then you will constaintly assert POV on me and I will constaintly defend I myself as trying to improve the article by bringing it up to the standards of other articles. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I will repeat some of them and then add others: Holy Lance, Crown of thorns, Jesus, Christian Cross, Tablets of stone, Ark of the Covenant, Holy Prepuce, Nail (relic), True Cross, Qur'an, Mount Arafat, New Testament, Buddha, Book of Enoch; pick almost any article on religion, on religious beliefs, or religious artifacts and relatively few of them mention myth or mythology, etc.

All these topics are based upon beliefs, without exception. Beliefs are simply beliefs; we report them not as myths, but as the beliefs of certain peoples upon the earth. The New Testament exists today, but not a single original document exists to verify its provenance came from the first apostles; not a single one. Yet millions believe the New Testament to be the word of God and Wikipedia does not describe it as myth. The Stone Tablets upon which the original Ten Commandments are unavailable for inspection and thus prove that God wrote them, but we do not describe them as myth. The Ark of the Covenant is not available for inspection, but the Judaism continues and we do not describe them as myth. The Gold plates are not available for inspection, and we again do not describe them as myth nor should we. They are nothing more or less than part of the beliefs of the Latter Day Saint movement.

There is no validity to the argument that "things" within religions must be availer for inspection in order to identify an object as "real". In fact, you cannot examine anything of Christian history with any degree of certainty that it is the bona fide original (or any other ancient religion today), but we don't describe any of them as myth.

I have said on muliple occasions that it is time for a mediator. I would welcome it. If you want one, invite one. If not, don't. The article is not perfect, but I can tell it is far better than what today than you would produce alone. As an aside, maybe you should spend some time reading religious articles on Wikipedia. It really is not difficult to find any of the articles I listed and it is amazing how few of them every use the word myth. --^StormRider 06:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat depressed by your latest attempt to justify yourself simply because you failed to produce a single comparible article, and you listed a lot. I read them all and here are the points of failure.

Holy Lance - refers to it as legend and the sole account of John. makes it clear that it is a reglious object and in fact states that there is only the one account in all the gospels. Also, there are no claims of mystic powers regarding the lance. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

Crown of Thorns - Again, no mystic powers are suggested by the thorns. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

Jesus - rejected on the basis it is not comparible. You are comparing an object based on a reglion to the creator of reglion, two completely different things. The article makes a very strong case that facts about his life are inconclusive. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

Christian cross - Again, already dismissed. This is a symbol. May as well be a happy face drawing for this discussion and frankly shows a lack of attention to the task before you. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

Tablets of stone - Article is just not comparible at all. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Only several paragraphs long. Point not taken.

Ark of the Covenant - Clearly references them by and as Biblical account. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

Holy Prepuce - Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Makes clear reference to fraud: 13 around at one time. Makes no claim of universal mystal powers. Point not taken.

Nail (relic) - Refered to mainly as a symbol. Given no mystic powers. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

True Cross - makes it very clear that the belief is questioned by even most christians planted doubt inthe article itself. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

Qur'an - Not even entertaining it. Regards itself explicitedly as a guide, clearly not the case in the story of the plates. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

Mount Arafat - Not even three paragraphs long. Refers to an actually hill and has actual pictures of it. save to say, if you could provide those for the plates, I wouldn't be here. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

New Testament - The book itself is inheritly stories put together through meetings over hundreds of years. Has a clean up tag. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Makes no claim of mystic powers in its own history and founding. Point not taken.

Buddha - appears to be an index or disambiguation page. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

Book of Enoch - Clearly states it is considered non-canon and falsly attributed. No mystic powers involved regarding the book. Not a (former or otherwise) FA article. Point not taken.

NOTE: I never claimed that the word myth was a requirement. I gave two choices, use the word clearly and keep the framing (with minor touch ups) or overhaul the framing of the article completely. Most of the articles presented were framed in an impartial manner and were explicit in explaining, constaintly, that these articles were articles of faith. None read like they are an historical account of exactly what happened to the hour.

None of these compare in the least to the Noah's Ark article itself let alone the subject to subject comparisons. I mean this is getting silly at this point. You've made every attempt but honestly just put out non-sense answers and expect me to swallow them. I am always, point to point, countered everything you said with valid reasoning and examples. You have yet to counter a single one of my agruments, of which I have many.

Several times you did not just claim the article needed a mediator, you said you were going to get one. I was and am calling your bluff. Anyone who would assert ownership on an article would not let a mediator come near it. Anyone who had the interest of impartiallity would have just gotten one on first threat. I guess we know where you stand here. I'm glad you've failed every test. Like John, you are full of no surprizes. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I missed where I said I was getting one; please show that to me. Also, I give up. It does not matter what you are provided you seem capable of inventing your argument from whole cloth. Who cares if an article was FA? How and when did that become a topic in anything I have ever said? Kirk you create crap, invent obstacles that don't exist, and refuse to understand what a topic of faith is. This is a waste of time. --^StormRider 01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I invent obstacles? Oh please. I am just asking for one example of what you propose. I give one example of how I think this article should be. You are unable to provide a single valid article for discussion and so just accuse me of "creating crap" and not understanding a topic of faith. For Christ sakes, this is a Wikipedia article not a Sunday Mass. There are precedents to go by and ways to doing things. If you believe I am just inventing shit up to bother you, I'm sorry. And thats why I see ownership more and more as an issue because by now you should have taken stock in the content of this page with dozens of people saying they beleive it to be biased. You just dismiss all of them and fail to address any challange presented to you. Also, this was an FA article and I assume the goal is to make it one again. I'm sorry if that is not your goal. Maybe thats the problem, the goals we are trying to achieve. I am asking that the article be held to a high standard and ... well I guess your goal is to not hold it to any standard. Maybe thats our differences as opposed to impartial positions. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also... I think it is time to seek a mediator. There is no chance for you to see neutrality because for you neutrality does not exist unless it meets your POV. --StormRider 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC) and Would you agree to having a mediator come in? --StormRider 02:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC) this of course after I said getting a mediator is not a threat because I've asked if you had a problem with my proposals you should get a 3rd POV on the matter. See, not making stuff up. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New section about sources

I've added a new section regarding sources about the golden plates. I think this is important, given the complexity of the sources, to have some kind of overview as to where the information in this article comes from, why there is disagreement, and why LDS Church members tend to focus on just one of the narratives, etc. COGDEN 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say I sighed when I saw you had made the article even longer than it already was. Perhaps, if you really believe this section necessary, you could wait to flesh it out after you have the necessary citations in hand. Respectfully but wearily, John Foxe (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The intent was to respond to a number of criticisms of the article back when the article was under review, and it addresses two issues: (1) it frames the text that follows, and make it clear (for readers that apparently just don't get it) that the discussion is about what people have said about the plates (which is all we know about them), and they should not expect some chemical analysis of the plates or crayon rubbings of the engravings; and (2) it gives some context to the large number of citations, and why the citations sometimes agree, and sometimes disagree on the golden plates story. I'm not generally concerned, in the long run, about the length of articles, if the additions are meaningful. If necessary, we can split out one or two of the sections into sub-articles, and leave only a summary. Even with the addition, the size is only 43K, which is large but not gigantic. We could also move out the "Other metal plates" seciton, which I've always thought was a side-show and maybe should be moved to a new article called something like Metal plates and Mormonism. COGDEN 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your intent, and if the additional words serve the purpose, that's fine. But when I am searching for information and run into a WP article that seems excessively long to the eye, I'll write it off as poorly constructed and head back to the browser to see if I can find something tighter and more succinct.

Also, the dichotomy between the testimony of believers and non-believers is more muddled than you've suggested. Was Martin Harris a believer or a non-believer? He was one of the Three Witnesses, yet reputedly at one point, he also denied that any of the Witnesses had seen the plates.--John Foxe (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an easy standard, though. If a witness was a doubter at some time in their life, and a believer at other times, then you might have two different accounts: one of a doubter and one of a believer. Harris, however, was always a believer. The times when he reportedly said he didn't see the plates, he wasn't saying they didn't exist, only that he had seen them in a vision rather than with his physical eyes. I think it's pretty easy to tell who is a believer and who is not. The most difficult example I can think of is Willard Chase, who you'd think was a disbeliever because he said Smith was unreliable and a liar, but actually if you read his statement in Howe, and other comments about Chase by other witnesses, it's clear that he was a believer--he just thought the plates were rightfully at least partly his, because the stone Smith used to find them was, in his view, Chase's own. COGDEN 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you're right. But the uninitiated want to know whether Book of Mormon witnesses understood the gold plates to have had a physical reality. Harris's remarkably varied testimony about their physicality and his talk of seeing treasures slipping back into the Cumorah hillside make the believer—non-believer dichotomy less significant than might be imagined.--John Foxe (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not set on adding the section, necessarily, but it just seems like there's something missing that is needed to give meta-context to the stories that follow. If there's some other way to do that, that's what I'm trying to get at. Maybe I'll try to play with it some more and see what comes out of it. This also might be a good place to discuss apologetics and criticism other than about the plates' authenticity. COGDEN 23:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, where do we devolve to now?

I tend to interject only on occasion here, and since I cannot claim but some mere touch ups and a few thorough copy edits to this article, I am no defining force in these discussions. I'll give you my opinion...I think the arguing has gone on long enough. I think it could be time for a mediator, as discussed above, but I admit that I am wary of this path. To inject a mediator will be messy for all parties here. Mediators are not always impartial, because in fact no one is. If this goes down the mediation route we could indeed run into someone who wishes to assert their own views upon this article, the result being either good or bad for either party. Imagine a Mormon editor being assigned as mediator Kirk. Or an Evangelical Christian being assigned as mediator Storm. I'm not saying they can't be impartial, but oh, the possibilities when Pandora's Box gets opened.

I propose that instead we write down line by line objections, and address them systematically. If no one is willing to do this, then mediation was moot in the first place, because it deals in specifics, not in generalities. So therefore, the argument of "the whole article stinks" or "there's nothing wrong with this article" doesn't work in mediation. There would need to be specifics, and many of them. Here's my take...Kirk, you have not attempted many edits here, and mainly have kept to the talk page, I think this is a mistake. Storm has done some revising of the article in the past, though not as extensive as it may appear. I do not view Stormrider as an owner of this page, but he is passionate about LDS articles in general, so I can see the point. I think both of you have lost faith in each other and so therefore, your bickering is not going anywhere, and in fact I think it has pushed most of the other people here out of the discussion entirely. So when at an impasse, let's find common ground instead. Kirk, please give a few examples of what is right with this article, and Storm, please present an example of what you find wrong with this article. If we can't do this then obviously no one is being objective. Twunchy (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have lost faith in Storm but it is because of one point. I asked for a counter example to Noah's Ark with I believe clearly tackles the subject of a reglious well and impartially, to the point where it is deemed a feature article. All I have gotten frankly is bullshit answers, from all of you, stating some silly rebutal which fails any sort of logic never tackling my challange. The four people who edit this page regularly do not believe the any of the four people show ownership. Well, and MacGyver will sure as shit defuse the bomb with 2 seconds left. I mean sure if I was the only person who said anything then fine I would say maybe I am over the top here but you are getting constaint drive by editors saying "this article is not NPOV" and all you do is agrue them to shut up and move on. I am not going to let you steamroller over me with non sense debate. I could have stopped long ago and pointed to the numerous, and I mean numerous, examples of ownership (remember the TOC debate?) but you are unconvinced. I am at the point now that if Joe Smith himself came back and said on Fox News at 6 him and God talked it over and they think this article is not NPOV you would have BS non sensical reason not to believe him. Face it, people think this article is POV. Regardless of your opinion. Now I would make edits but it is clear to me any edit I would make would be reverted. Ergo, I am trying to provide direction. Take it or leave it. But I am not going to accept non sense because you don't have a case. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not here to take crap from you Kirk, I am trying to restart honest debate. Please highlight a specific problem statement, quote it here from the article, and we shall address it. If you don't, you are going to push yourself to the point of irrelevance. If you refuse, then there is nothing more that we can do here, we will be forever at an impasse, wasting words and time for naught. This is not my POV, this is exactly what you would get in mediation. If you will not bring up specifics, then the threat of mediation was all hyperbole anyways. Twunchy (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirkoconnell, what's your take on Xenu, and do you think the article is neutral? Also, what about Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Intelligent design? COGDEN 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are they about controvisal reglious objects? No. Xenu is a figure in a reglion, the Early life of Jospeh Smith seems historical and Intelligent design is a concept. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But can't we apply the lessons of those articles to this one? They are each controversial articles. Xenu, in particular, has no historical record other than what L. Ron Hubbard said about him. Much of the early history of Joseph Smith is about the golden plates. Intelligent design is a very controversial subject that suupporters want to call science, but opponents want to call religion, so they can't even agree on what to call it. But in all of the above cases, editors have reached an equilibrium without taking sides. I think Xenu is particularly relevant, because it's all about the stories. It's even less historical than the golden plates. Nobody every claimed they've seen Xenu, or measured his dimensions or weight. And Hubbard is the sole source. COGDEN 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Other opinion needed

I've removed the "imbalance" box. If there are other editors besides Kirkoconnell who believe the article POV, let them step forward and argue that case.--John Foxe (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree: There has not been any specific charge, that can be properly addressed, that has been brought up by those who added this tag. Twunchy (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah thats right. I suppose you are going to tell me I put that there? Not once did I please that banner there. It was always other editors. You just happen to have scared all the other editors away with your goddammed ownership and refusal to listen to reason and now are trying to use me as a reason to remove it. Oh please. You guys are just too silly. Not yet has anyone met my challange of a similar article or precedent. Not a one. Two of the three editors believe the article is actually negative instead of positive. I mean seriously, that shows the lack of presective you have. All everyone does as assert I have POV, try to explain why that is, and fail miserably. I just treat this article like I would treat any other. It gets no speical treatment from me, can you said that? Hell no.

Well I guess I won't have to worry about one thing, this will never be a featured article again at this rate so maybe there is no point of discussing it further. I guess no one likes to hear their baby is ugly.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Explicit Critisms that were over looked or dismissed.

Critism: I find it rather worrying that there are no 'controversy' sections anywhere on Mormon pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithi81 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Response: ignored. Dimissed as an issue of sourcing by a "drive by editor"

Critism: this article reads like a LDS narrative - the LDS perspective is certainly important, but, this being Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, the entire gestalt needs to be accounted for. Badger Drink (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Response: Wikipedia readers should not be considered ninnies.--John Foxe (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Critism: I also note that none of the section headings suggest that the plates are not genuine. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the article reflects a skeptical position. In my opinion, the article is clearly unbalanced. dougweller (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Response: ignored

Let me respond here: Consistent with WP:NPOV, no section heading should ever suggest that the golden plates do not exist. Rather, they should be neutral--neither suggesting they exist nor suggesting they don't exist. I think the current headings walk that line pretty well. COGDEN 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Critism: I sense ownership issues are involved, since a long-standing LDS editor is guarding this article so closely, and has even received a barnstar for doing so. I'd like to see what other users have to say. Unless there are compelling reasons for doing so, I see no reason for why this article should deviate from standard practice. Being odd isn't a positive thing, and the LDS and other minority religious groups already should be learning that oddity isn't good publicity. This article is just one of many Wikipedia articles that shouldn't be seen as odd. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Response: Berated Fyless with "The reason most other articles have whitespace is because layman editors have created them and don't understand the minutae of Wikipedia enough to either care, or even know it's possible to manipulate it."

I'm not sure, but I might have been the "long-standing LDS editor" referred to above, but nobody has ever demonstrated ownership by me. I certainly have contributed a lot of content to this article, but I don't think I have ever engaged in any edit wars, or jealously guarded any particular language or content. I'm generally ecstatic when other editors make contributuions here, and most of my edits over the last year or so have been responding to comments by people such as Fyslee.

I think the real reason most "outsiders" don't edit here is a practical one: they don't know the subject matter very well, or the sources, or don't have access to the sources. It's not that they have been prevented from editing--it's just that they haven't edited. John Foxe is one "outsider" who does happen to know the subject matter and the sources, and nobody has stopped Foxe from contributing here. COGDEN 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Critism: Twunchy might like to know that the format during the time this article was a Featured Article was as I propose, IOW I was just restoring that format. - Fyslee

Response: I reject your silly spinning; it promotes edit warring and is infantile. Move right along and don't let that door hit you on the backside. Cheers. --StormRider 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Critism: May I suggest swapping things around and being clearer as to who holds what view? something like: "There are many different views on the origin and authenticity of the golden plates. Critics believe that they are not authentic <cite to a typical critic>, while Mormons believe they are <cite to some official church document>". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs)

Response: A statement like that is self-evident: Believers believe; nonbelievers don't. It's wasted words. Such a statement is only worth including if we can document that some "believers" don't believe.--John Foxe (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I agree with John, this is stating the blatantly obvious. Why do Christians believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Buddhists don't? --StormRider 18:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As for why I don't edit: "I have certainly reverted the changes made by drive-by editors that seem passionate that everything meet their singular perception of what is right and true." StormRider 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that more concrete enough for you? At the end of the day the whole prespective of this article is flawed. Its hard to give an example because you can almost pick any paragraph and show the bias in it. That is why I proposed a restructuring to be simiular as the Noah's ark article. This article tackled the POV questions and provides sections for each persons tastes. I have said if you do not want to use this format, show me a comparible article with the currently used format that is a feature article and about a reglious object to show precedent that this article is done in a unified manner. None has never been presented and all articles presented failed the minor compatibly standards I set up.

Now with that you accuse me of being POV for wanting the same standards from another article applied here. This is why I am passionate about this, I HATE being called POV espeically when I approach this subject in no different manner then I would any other. Can I get examples from articles that have had this debate before and would be concerned superior to set a precedent for how this article? Yes Noah's Ark. Can I find a counter example? No. Therefore the article who direct itself toward the superior article. Now enter in the fact that I and at least 5 other read the page as having serious POV problems you would think that would deter you. No it does not. You have no precedent with you and you do not have the support of the "non-constaint" editors. Believe it or not, you are not setting the precedent for articles in this nature. Indeed you are falling into the very common ownership and deny it completely just dismiss the other editors, more experienced editors, by telling them to "Move right along and don't let that door hit you on the backside." But I have the POV. I, who is trying to use a precedent that you reject for no valid reason, am the one who is POV. Damm right I get mad when you dismiss my argument on that bases, esepcially when it the owners of the article who are doing it. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Enough of vague generalities about the whole article being flawed. You say, "you can almost pick any paragraph and show the bias in it." OK, pick a paragraph and show the bias in it.--John Foxe (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead in paragraph:

The golden plates (also called the gold plates or in some 19th century literature, the golden Bible)[1] are a set of bound and engraved metal plates that Latter Day Saint denominations believe are the source of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s translation of the Book of Mormon, one of the sacred texts of those faiths. Although a number of men testified that they saw the plates, Smith said he returned them to an angel. Therefore, if they exist, they are not available for researchers to examine; and most Latter Day Saints assume their authenticity as a matter of faith.

There was even talk about changing it but the current example is a parse of those talks: all of the Mormon talk was replaced with the term LDS denominations but none of the critisms were entered. The attempt at "NPOV" basically says "More than likely they exist but that doesn't matter because LDS members take it as a mater of faith." The fact the plates have never been independently verified is missing. The fact that the plates are widely considered a hoax in the non-LDs environment is missed. Any and all controversy is skipped, even though it would seem a major point of discussion that the plates carry a large amount of controversy with them. The article itself barely makes passing references to these facts, which were in teh article at one point or another and were slowly parsed out. Of course for NPOV reasons. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph says "Latter Day Saint denominations believe," "Smith said he returned them to an angel," "they are not available for researchers to examine," and "their authenticity [is] a matter of faith." To a non-believer like myself, the non-corporeality of the plates is as clear as a bell. There's no bias. Although it would be nice to include a flat statement like "the plates are widely considered a hoax," we'd need to cite a authority who makes some statement like that. Find that authority, and I'll work with you to get it included.--John Foxe (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why we can't just use Noah's Ark as a template

As background, Kirkoconnell has suggested using Noah's Ark as a template and re-writing this article according to that template. What follows is an explanation as to why that will not work: Noah's Ark contains the following content in the following proportions:

• The ark narrative itself: 385 words (8%) (one source: the Bible)
• Claimed physical properties of the ark: 489 words (11%) (interspersed throughout various sections of the article--differs by religion)
• Different religious perspectives of the ark narrative: 1971 words (43%)
• Historical development of ark-related scholarship: 926 (20%)
• "Ark-aeology": 154 words (3%), the rest has been split into a sub-article
• Critical/apologetic dialogue: 681 words (15%)

By comparison, the present article contains the following content in the following proportions:

• The golden plates narrative itself: 3635 words (58%) (tens of sources)
• Claimed physical properties of the plates: 1912 words (30%) (separate section--does not differ by religion)
• LDS religious perspective of the golden plates narrative: 298 words (5%)
• Historical development of plates-related scholarship: 0 words;
• Golden plates archaeology: 0 words; however, the subject is treated in one of the sub-articles
• Critical/apologetic dialogue: 459 words (7%) in a separate section, the rest is interspersed throughout the text and footnotes, and contained in two sub-articles.

Structurally, the Noah's Ark article discusses the very small amount of available material on the narrative itself, spends nearly half of the treatment on various religious perspectives on the ark, summarizes "ark-aeology" and refers to a sub-article, and then includes 15% on critical/apologetic dialogue. Golden plates, on the other hand, begins with the critical/apologetic dialogue section, which it summarizes and refers to two sub-articles. Then, it devotes most of its time to the narrative and claimed physical properties of the artifact, ending with a short section about the LDS religious perspective.

There are a few of obvious differences here. First, the golden plates article has much more subject matter to relate about the narrative itself. I'm sure Noah's Ark would provide more information about the claimed properties and story of the ark itself if such information were available, but all we have is the Bible, and that isn't much. Were we to follow the same pattern in the golden plates article, devoting only 385 words to the Joseph Smith story of the plates, there would be gaping holes, not just in content, but in neutrality as well. The story of the plates cannot be told neutrally in only 385 words.

Second, you will note that in Noah's Ark, there is only a small amount of critical discussion, and that discussion is all put off until the end. In golden plates, the there is a prominent critical/apologetic section at the beginning, and then critical/apologetic material is interspersed throught the remainder of the text. Plus, the reader is referred to further information in two critical/apologetic sub-articles (and the sub-articles of those sub-articles). Following the Noah's Ark pattern would require that we move the critical/apologetic section to the end, and remove critical/apologetic material throughout the article, which is not a good result.

Third, Noah's Ark devotes nearly half of its text, to different religious perspectives on the ark independent of the narrative. In golden plates, there is really only one main religious perspective (and a few less prominent variations), and that religious perspective is the last section of the article. It would be impossible to recreate the sort of religion-by-religion comparison that exists in Noah's Ark.

So overall, I don't see how Noah's Ark helps us much as a template for this article. Any attempt to follow the Ark article would either (1) delete valid content, or (2) de-emphasize any critical perspectives. The only lesson I can see from Noah's Ark that might be useful here is to include a short section on the development of golden-plates scholarship, which Ark has, but Plates doesn't. However, you got to understand that as with the Ark, most Plates-based scholarship is going to be apologetic. COGDEN 20:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean I could sit here and go though this non-sense of an agrument but really I just do not have the time to agrue anymore. Shit boys, I actually have a life. I mean you removed the unbalance tag when more people clearly stressed their belief it was unbalanced than believe it isn't on the basis that you believe there is no agrument in the face of dozens of them. Than you come up with this "comparison" and seemingly reject the Noah's Ark example by precentages as opposed to looking at the structure of the article and the sections. Thats like dismissing a building layout because of the colour of the paint. It does not need proportional, just to have the similar secction format and flow. But reasonable agrument is beyond the whole lot of you. I mean if i soundly defend your points you just come back with 'you're biased and hate mormons" and move on. I decided its just best to check in from time to time and make sure this little turd doesn't end up on the FA waiting list again. Although I doubt that will be a problem given you seem completely undedicated on improvement to that point anyway. And if you go ahead and try to glout about I will come back again. I mean if need be I can sit here and show you the error of your ways. But its clearly futile at this point. This is not an admission of anything other than you people are completely silly and unable to work with. Jez, and I wonder why the other editors stopped trying with you too? Fucking ridiculous. The whole lot of you. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevance achieved. Fare thee well Kirk. Twunchy (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Kirkoconnell: I think you have me confused with other editors. I, for one, have never dismissed your arguments in the way you suggest. In fact, maybe you haven't been following, but during all this discussion, I have been editing the article as your proxy, making edits I assume you might have made yourself, had you been actually editing the article. At the same time, I have presented substantive arguments that you not dismiss as "pointless to refute" the same way you complain other editors have dismissed your arguments. Not everybody wants you to just leave. Though I think your arguments are overblown, It's better to address your arguments now, and accommodate you as best we can now, rather than later when the article gets re-reviewed for featured status. COGDEN 07:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

While I will admit you have been more welcoming than others in terms of debate it is clear to me that there is just a fundamental lack of appreication for Wikipedia processes, and I would go so far as to say policy (but I didn't want to be one those pasting policy statement people). I appreicate your effort but the fact is your anaylsis of the subject somewhat shows your inability to review unbiasedly. i am not trying to be dismissive but as I remember at one point you said this article is balanced simply because it has people defending it, an agrument (needless to say) is lost on me and I would say the regular Wikipedia editor. Every other simular example I ran into has been ownership as opposed to balance. But to get back to why this has driven me to stop agruing, we have reached a forest and the trees point of this debate. I and other editors are seeing trees, and everyone who edits this page sees the forest. Not that one is better than the other but it means we cannot have a debate until one of our focuses change. The only solance I have is that while I see trees, I'm not the only "drive-by" editor to see them. In fact most do so I know that I am not alone in my analysis (which is further enforced by the previous FA status change). So, like I said, I'm willing to stay out of the debate on subject matter until someone's focus changes and unfortunately mine isn't going to and I doubt yours (not just you in particular Cogden, but everyone) will. So we are at an impass and I am just not going to devote time into debuking every point that is trying to be made. You just reach further and further, almost endless in your justifications not to change anything. Which is another example I have only seen with ownership cases. Not that I conclude there is it ownership, at least by all, but at some point you stop calling it a duck-looking and duck-sounding animal. And this is my point. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My justifications are not designed "not to change anything". Over the last few days, I have myself made quite significant changes to the article. My arguments are directed at why your suggestion won't quite work the way you suggest it could. There is advantage to being "among the trees," because you know what lurks there. But that doesn't mean I can't also step back and see the whole forest from a "general's" perspective. Which is why I presented the agruments above. Simply using Noah's Ark as template might sound like a good idea when you look at the article at a distance, but when you get in among the trees, and start planting and chopping down trees, you see that sometimes, good forestry plans just don't work with the set of trees you have available.

I can see why it would seem that there is an ownership problem here, but that is illusory. I haven't been watching this article constantly over the last months, but I know that whenever I'm actively editing, at least, nobody's input is just simply ignored or blocked out. All the bluster on this talk page doesn't really translate to ownership of the actual editing. Really, the issue is that there are not enough people editing, because few people really know much about Joseph Smith's history. Even most Mormons don't really know this history, and are just learning about it since 2006, when the first "Mormon-friendly" non-hagiographic biography of Joseph Smith was published. COGDEN 17:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Relatively boring inquiry

This page has become so exciting! My question will seem quite banal and boring in comparison, but perhaps someone can bear with me.

The question is quite simple: why is this page called "Golden plates" rather than "Gold plates"? I realise gold plates does redirect here, and for most purposes the names are interchangeable, and with my google search I get approximately the same number of exact matches, with "gold plates" beating "golden plates" 115,000 to 106,000.

But, when I refer to most Latter Day Saint-oriented sources, they tend to use "gold plates". That's the usage in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, mormon.org, most instances in FARMS, etc. The exception seems to be that "golden plates" seems to predominate in most RLDS (Community of Christ) sources.

So really, I'm just wondering. I'm not even proposing that it be changed. But is there a rationale for using "golden" over "gold", or would anyone even want it to be reversed? Does anyone care? — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, more's accomplished on WP articles when they remain "banal and boring."

The reason why this article's called "Golden plates" rather than "Gold plates" is because that's what Hawstom called it when he created it in 2003. I certainly wouldn't have any objection to a retitle.--John Foxe (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We can revisit that. There are arguments both ways, such as the following:

golden plates

1. The term "golden plates" is less generic and more specific than "gold plates". We would never have to add a parenthetical to "golden plates", whereas for "gold plates" we might have to amend the article to something like "gold plates (Latter Day Saints)".
2. On Google Scholar, "golden plates" appears 610 times in articles or books also referring to "Joseph Smith", whereas "gold plates appears only 472 times.
3. On the sunstonemagazine.com domain, "golden plates" appears 69 times, whereas "gold plates appears 58 times.
4. William Linn's secular (and somewhat anti-Mormon) 19th Century Mormon history uses "golden plates" about twice as often as "gold plates"

gold plates

1. "Gold plates" is how Joseph Smith described them in his 1838 history (JSH 1:34, 64).
2. On the byu.edu domain (which includes FARMS), "gold plates" appears 1500 times, whereas "golden plates" only appears 742 times. (Note, however, that some--probably a small number--references to "gold plates" refer to sets of plates other than Joseph Smith's gold plates, like the "Orphic gold plates".
3. On the lds.org domain, "gold plates" appears 1410 times, whereas "golden plates" only appears 452 times.
4. The article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (LDS-centric) is entitled "Gold Plates".
5. Richard Bushman and Woodbridge Riley both use "gold plates" more frequently than "golden plates" in their biographies. (However, Bushman used the terms about equally in his work Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction)

If there is any trend to be seen here, you might argue that while both usages are widespread, non-apologetic scholarly usage somewhat favors "golden plates", whereas LDS Church religious and apologetic writings somewhat favor "gold plates". Also, a few early Mormon writers I checked such as David Whitmer used both terms about equally. I'd say it's kind of a toss-up. COGDEN 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a very nice analysis; thanks for reproducing it again if this has been discussed before. As I said, I'm not keen to change it, but I was curious is there was a pre-existing consensus for the current name. I agree that probably either could work. Because of that, there's probably no reason to change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good analysis, COGDEN. To my mind, the deciding factor is not having to add a LDS parenthetical to "golden plates." Thanks, John Foxe (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

why the balanced view point in the lead?

I find it interesting that the lead of this article includes the view point of non believers. I don't think that is right or wrong but it is interesting to compare it to other articles on wikipedia which are also a matter of faith. For instance the lead of the article on the Virgin Mary doesn't point out that lots of people believe that it is unlikely that she was a Virgin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.47.169 (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should. I certainly wouldn't object to that being included on that page (surely it mentions it somewhere on the page).
-K10wnsta (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, that would more or less be an issue of semantics. If there was some doubt as to whether or not she, as person, existed at all, then that would certainly warrant inclusion in the lead. But I don't think that's really an issue. The gold plates, on the other hand, well, the claims and circumstances of their existence bear all the hallmarks of flim-flam.
-K10wnsta (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, virtually every single article on LDS topics is highly critical and wrote in a style to try and dissapprove it is much as a possible. Where as in topics related to other religions, virtually everything is treated as a virtual fact and it they are not overran by criticism from extremely biased and tedious books that qualify as a source because they are " published books" full of POV and opinion related claims rather than actual fact, (I can verify this with this site [7]) Nobody fills all the catholic articles with criticism from a bunch of books dissapproving their doctrine do they? So why should it be an exception to only us? Routerone (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of Mormon articles on Wikipedia. The current state is a long established status quo, since the advent of the internet actually, has this type of dialogue been happening. It's just a very fun place for those who disagree with the LDS Church to be very vocal about things to the point where every statement gets challenged, and rebutted, and re-rebutted until the article becomes a mess of POV and counter POV statements meant to "balance" the article. Any amount of what either side may consider to be hooey must be balanced by an equally negative or opposite amount of hooey. This is the true meaning of NPOV right? <sarcasm>. Regardless if you have any input on how to better phrase things please bring them up and we shall start surely a lively debate. Twunchy (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought to consider from a friendly non-Mormon (mostly quoting from Mormonism and History): Jan Shipps has written, "Mormonism, unlike other modern religions, is a faith cast in the form of history." Although traditional Christianity is likewise a history religion, few primary sources survive from two or three millennia ago, and biblical places such as Jerusalem, Jericho, and Bethlehem, are acknowledged to exist by scholars of every religious persuasion. By contrast, locations of Book of Mormon places are disputed even by Mormons, and the existence of those places is not acknowledged by any non-Mormon scholars. Lots of primary sources exist for early Mormonism, and Joseph Smith can, in part, be credited with encouraging their creation. Martin Marty, a Lutheran scholar of American religion, has observed that LDS beginnings are so recent "that there is no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness." Those are the cards you've been dealt.--John Foxe (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem that exists for Mormonism is how young it is relative to most other world religions. As a result, documentation and eyewitness accounts of its claims are much more abundant and reliable. Similar issues frequently come up in claims of Jehovah's Witnesses and particularly Scientology. Articles pertaining to a religion specific are generally not subject to the same scrutiny (beyond a single controversy/criticism section) as they are simply detailing its formation and beliefs - it can't be said the religion doesn't exist.

Everything about the Golden Plates existence consists of extremely anecdotal evidence offered by unreliable sources (ie. people with a great deal invested in claims of their existence). To be encyclopedic (not to mention intellectually responsible), the article directly assessing them must make this very clear. As part of a religion's base article, these details are largely protected from such scrutiny as they are simply specifics relating to the beliefs. Once these details become the subject of standalone articles, establishing their veracity (or what a religion claims about them) often flies in the face of what most consider a neutral point of view. Or rather, the NPOV is that they didn't exist (or the religious claims associated with them are not verifiable).
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

K10wnsta, that is a while thought it and logical agrument. Which is why I believe it will be promptly dismissed or refuted. I wouldn't be surprized if soon you were accused of hating Mormons. Usually conversations tend to devolve that way. Thats cool though, I stopped trying. I just keep this article on watch so I can debate whether it should be an FA again. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)