Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Former featured article candidate Gordon B. Hinckley is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 11, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted

AsteriskStarSplat's Claim[edit]

"forgery cannot implicate, it can only appear to do so, so this more nuanced wording is better". - AsteriskStarSplat

This needs to be explain. The word implicate has nothing to do with something being a forgery or not. AsteriskStarSplat made revert without the requested discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talkcontribs) 12:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(→‎AsteriskStarSplat: this is not about me personally, this is about wording in the article, so this is a better section heading)

AsteriskStarSplat - Using edit summarries for discussion which is frowned upon in wikipedia. Are you familar with wikipedia concepts of edit waring? This section is not about the wroding, but rather your editing behavior. If I knew how I would request admin resolution I would. I have google how to, but do not see how. Overall what we have here is refusal to engage in discussion.Mormography (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AsteriskStarSplat - Section heading. Please see above regarding Mesevy's Claim. The heading is given because it was the user's claim. The heading name here is given likewise because it you personally making a claim via edit summaries wo discussion, like Meservy. Like Meservy you personally have either capitulated or refused to back up your claim. Unlike Meservy you continue to promote edit waring using efit summaries.Mormography (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence as it stands now is the original obtained after considerable debate and consensus, now in archives. The propsed changes makes the sentence akward, muddy, difficult to read. Give the debate history and the intense attention the verifable claims of the sentence brought, this mudding of the sentence is quite probably deliberate. Mormography (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A simple question. If something is a forgery, how can it 'implicate' something?
"Implicate: to show that someone or something is closely connected to or involved in something (such as a crime)" Merriam Webster dictionary[1]
Clearly a forgery can purport to implicate - to show a connection - but being a forgery, it cannot actually do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Answer:
A forgery can "show that someone or something is closely connected to or involved in something".
A forgery can "show to be also involved, usually in an incriminating manner"
A frogery can "imply as a necessary circumstance, or as something to be inferred or understood"
A forgery can "connect or relate to intimately; affect as a consequence"
A forgery can "indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated"
A forgery can "signify or mean"
A forgery can "involve as a necessary circumstance"
In short, as a native speaker of English, a forgery is noun that can do verb things like to imply, to show, to implicate, to incriminate. Words like incriminate, implicate are not defined as meaning prove beyond reasonable as appears to be the objection here. The ultimate proof that a forgery can do all these things is the fact that Hinckley bought the forgeries. If a forgery could not do these verb things Hinckley would not have bought them.
I repeat, the word implicate has nothing to do with something being a forgery or not. A forgery can even tell the truth, as that is what made this forgery so convincing. Though not well publicized at the time, Joseph Smith was in fact an active participant and principal organizer of an investor's treasure hunting venture. The forgery was designed to bring attention to this known reality (though not well known). Forgery can even be a forgery of a real document, such as Hofmann's Oath of the Freeman forgery. This dispute merely displays a discomfort for the reality of the Stowell Forgery situation.
I have no emotional attachment to the word implicate. Readability is the concern here. I the spirit of good faith I propose moving beyond this by replacing the word implicate with "brought attention to"


Now, AndyTheGrump, simple question: How long should the original plaintiffs (ChristensenMJ and AteriskStarSplat) be given to engage in dialogue? It has been over a month and they have refused dialogue.Mormography (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Mormography, There are no 'plaintiffs' here. This is a Wikipedia talk page, not a court of law. As for your arguments regarding what you think a forgery can show, they are of no relevance to article content whatsoever. We base article content on published sources, and not on contributors' personal opinions. Since I haven't read the relevant sources, I will not comment further at this stage beyond suggesting that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and original research, and then find a source which actually asserts that this forged document 'incriminated' or 'implicated' anyone in anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I would suggest that it might also be wise for User:AsteriskStarSplat and User:ChristensenMJ to also participate in this discussion - merely reverting without discussion is rarely seen as helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I am taken aback by how an edit I made on 5 January 2015‎ is being misrepresented - a single edit, where I disagreed with oversimplifying a sentence, and where I put it back to the most recent stable version. This could hardly be called edit warring on my part. If one looks at the edit summary, I clearly and properly explained my revert, and in no way was I using the edit summary as a place for debating of this issue. This was just a normal part of the wp:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The next thing that should have happened if anyone wanted that change to be put back into the article was to come to this talk page and discuss the edit, not the editors, and do so in a clear, concise, and calm manner. That hypothetical editor should have explained why they felt the edit was justified, and a collegial discussion should have taken place over a period of days (or even weeks/months, if needed). It's not up to me to open that discussion, especially when: (1) I made a single revert; (2) the revert was to a long-term relatively recent stable version of the sentence; (3) my reasoning was properly described in the edit summary (I did not just revert out of hand).
Also by what possible mathemagical process can I have delayed responding to this by over a month? This section was created initially on Friday, 16 January 2015, and today is Monday, 19 January 2015. I could have responded on the 16th, as I was well aware of the post and attempted to depersonalize the discussion; however I wanted to take the time to consider my response, and to not react in an immediate (more emotionally tinged) manner, as I was feeling personally attacked. To my great surprise, when I came back today, this discussion has been conflated into something completely out of proportion, discolored as of some sort of Battle Royale. Somehow I am now being described using wording implying that what I did was criminal, and I am some sort plaintiff in an legal case. To needlessly personalize this simple content dispute is completely uncalled for, and I find Mormography's actions on this talk page grossly antagonistic and inappropriate. Asterisk*Splat 16:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
After spending time with the difs, I see that the words "appeared to implicate" first appear in the article on 19 November 2014‎, so I was mistaken in using the descriptor "long-term" above. Asterisk*Splat 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If they are of no relevance then why did you ask the simple question? Anyways this was already hashed out in 2007 with broad consensus and ample references.Mormography (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand the current difficulties a secondary source is requested to describe the Stowell letter forgery contents vice wikipedia editors.

Both Turley's Victims (page 100) and Tracking the White Salamander (Chapter 6 part B) quote Dawn Tracy's 29 April 1985 Salt Lake Tribune article. ""A letter reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit". Ergo in this case Dawn Tracy would be the secondary source.

The book Salamander " Dated in 1825, when Joseph Smith was only nineteen years of age, the Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell letter replaced the Anthon transcript as the earliest Smith holograph. More importantly, the letter described an occult means of finding buried treasure and portrayed Smith as a treasure digger" http://signaturebooks.com/2010/09/excerpt-salamander/

So quoted descriptions would be "reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit" or "described an occult means of finding buried treasure and portrayed Smith as a treasure digger" making the new sentence one of these. Take your pick, I find B to be more readable.

A. For example, the Stowell forgery "reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit" was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality.

or

B. For example, the Stowell forgery describing "an occult means of finding buried treasure and portrayed Smith as a treasure digger" was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talkcontribs) 10:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't really want to get involved here, as I think this is much to do about nothing, even boarding on Lamest edit wars territory. However, as I am an uninvolved editor of Latter Day Saint pages, perhaps a compromised solution can be had. It seems to me this Edit war over the words "appeared to implicate" and "implicating". To me the rest of the changes appear to be personal grammar choices, and irreverent.
The two sides appear to be between:
  1. Original wording - For example, the Stowell forgery—which appeared to implicate Joseph Smith in gold digging—was purchased by the church from Hofmann for $15,000 under Hinckley's direction; the sale was accompanied by a promise of confidentiality.
  2. New wording - For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality.
So some possible solutions (I am not advocating any of them, just suggesting ideas). Personally, I don't like the use of ";", so I would go with the new wording when it comes to the removal of ";", but using them or not is fine. However, I would suggest the following types of changes.
  1. Remove the offending wording all together. After all the "criticisms" from the sources that are directed towards Hinckley, the focus of this page, are that Hinckley didn't know it was a fake and tried to hide it, not the substance of the Stowell forgery. It seems like a bit of way to include an POVish statement on Joseph Smith. It would read, "For example, the Stowell forgery was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality."
  2. Remove "implicate"/"implicating", use "accusing". Joseph Smith has been "accused" alot of "gold digging". It is a fact that he has been "accused" of it. However, "accusing" seems to be a more NPOV term then "implicating". Therefore, it would read, "For example, the Stowell forgery, accusing Joseph Smith of gold digging, was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church on the promise of confidentiality."
  3. Remove the "Stowell forgery" from the mix. Again the focus of this page is Hinckley's actions, not Smiths. Hinckley was criticized for not knowing that everything Hofmann did was fake and attempting to hide documents damaging to the LDS Church. It would read, "Hinckley purchasing several documents critical of Joseph Smith from Hofmann with a promise of confidentiality."
Again, I am not advocating any of them, or am advocating the removal of the ";". I's just suggesting alternatives that may allow for a compromise.
However, to be clear, if I was forced to choose between the different wordings, the original seems to be more NPOV to me. AsteriskStarSplat and AndyTheGrump are correct. Forgeries cannot implicate anything, only appear to do so. Therefore leaving it as is seems to be the better choice between the two, as the original inclusion of the word "appeared" seems appropriate to me. --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I am all for comments made by Mormography, but editing my comments as done here is against Talk page guidelines. While it seems to have been done in good faith (i.e. addressing my suggestions), it made my comments completely unreadable and changed it's meaning. I suggest that comments made should continue below instead.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Here are the comments below as requested:

As for original and new, 1 and 2 are reversed. There is the main disconnect. I agree regarding the semicolon etc Option 1: If the focus is that Hicnkley tried to hide, then the substance is useful to explain why someone might try to hide it. AndyTheGrump has already ruled sticking to the secondary sources makes all this irrelevant. Option 2: The fact that accused comes to mind as a n acceptable alternative proves there was nothing wrong with implicate in the first. It was only the power of suggest that made people think there was anything wrong with it. After considerable discussion in 2007 no one had a problem with implicate and no had a problem for over half a decade. If implicate is a problem, "accused" probably has more. Accusing sounds like a third party. The Stowell letter I believe is suppose to be one of the Smiths writing. Accusing also makes him sound innocent. The historical record now shows they never denied the gold digging and the Smiths were principal organizers (has suggested by the forgery - see Bainbridge), which is why the forgery was so convincing Option 3: Apparently consensus already addressed this 2007. Many documents were published with fanfare. Others were hidden. The example explains Oaks words such as "interest was global" and "epic proportions". As for whether or not a forgery can implicate see the retort above. Regardless, AndyTheGrump has already ruled wording nuances are irrelevant, secondary sources only matter now. Two have been offered, anyone have have another. Mormography (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

ARTEST4ECHO, as you know I did not edit your words, but rather responded to each of your items. Mormography (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I got it. Here in wikipedia editing your words meant something more specific than outside wikipedia, ergo, my statement "as you know" would not apply here. Got it. I will say with my experience now on wikipedia, I understand the thought behind the existence of edit summaries, but they appear to do more harm than good. So is the diff you link good enough for now, or does everyone need me to rehash my responses?Mormography (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately the issue at hand is which is more correct, since, as I suspected, a compromise seems to be imposable.
  1. For example, the Stowell forgery—which appeared to implicate Joseph Smith in gold digging—was purchased by the church from Hofmann for $15,000 under Hinckley's direction; the sale was accompanied by a promise of confidentiality.
  2. For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality.
Number 1, the current version, seems to be more NPOV to me. Forgeries cannot implicate anything, so inclusion of the word "appeared" seems appropriate to me to keep a NPOV view. Personally, after thinking about it I think that the whole "which appeared to implicate Joseph Smith in gold digging" should be gone. All that sentence is is way to sneak a POV statement on Joseph Smith onto a page about Gordon B. Hinckley, the actual focus of this page. However, I'm not going to argue about it.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


What is happening on that page is textbook edit warring. I will be protecting the page from editing in order to give you both a chance to discuss the matter on the talk page. If edit warring resumes after the protection expires, the next step is for one or both of you to be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the message, Beeblebrox. I certainly understand the concern you have identified. I would just note that the user logging the complaints has been invited in each instance, across a couple of articles dealing with similar subject matter, to take things to the talk page and has chosen not to do so, has accused other good faith, long-time users/editors of being institutionally funded in support of a specific, non-neutral point of view, of developing a cabal to avoid 3RR issues, and apparently finds it cute to use a mocking form of using/mimicking words shared by other editors in follow up edits or reversions that have taken place, essentially trying to bull the way through, with seemingly no real intent to seek a consensus-obtained, sound and well referenced set of articles. It's always disappointing when all can't not only act in good faith, but also show reasonable respect to others across wp efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
ChristensenMJ, your statement: "to take things to the talk page and has chosen not to do so" is, as you know, a bold faced lie and the edit history proves it. You have chosen not to make a single edit to the Gordon B. Hinckley talk page with regards to subject matter. I have. As for the rest of your personal attacks, take a look in the mirror.Mormography (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Though attempting to move things, from several users and from several different locations, to this one doesn’t make much sense, I am happy to address the claims that have been noted as being incorrect. There are no bold-faced lies as charged.
I would also mention that there is no personal attack going on here. Though I am generally reticent to point out the things I did, they are merely statements of fact that show a lack of good faith editing and interaction, which will be shown here. Here are the things identified on my talk page, replicated above, in response to a message from Beeblebrox about edit warring.
- Indicated things should be taken to the talk page – one example here
- Accusations that good faith editors are either institutionally-funded, approach things with “an irrational devotion” or have organized a counter cabal here
- One example of mimicking words of another user’s edit summary, in what seems to be mocking, given the other behaviors here
This is sufficient, but also comes from a user who has a long history of blocks, often due to edit warring, refusal to acknowledge the need for, and making attempts to build consensus, and often not acting in good faith, or allowing others the benefit of doing the same, as shown here. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hahh. LOL. You did not even address the original charge of bold faced lying: "You have chosen not to make a single edit to the Gordon B. Hinckley talk page with regards to subject matter. I have." I in FACT, moved this to the discussion page and you refused. Your response above proves this even more. You invested all your time to research me in order to find trumped charges to some how "implicate" me with falsehoods. Haha, there is that word again implicate. You see it can be used. What is disappointing is that you did not budget ANY of your time to move the discussion along. I offer solutions and you have now proven you are more invested in your anger. I am more than happy to analyze the source of your anger with you, but please can you move the editing concerns along? Mormography (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
No bold face lies have been made or not been addressed. In trying to reference my edit summaries, yes they clearly say that the changes you were desiring to make should be taken to the talk page so that you could make a case for why they should remain. You never did that for a number of weeks. It was incumbent on you to make that case. I spent virtually no time looking at anything, the huge removal of content on your talk page was easy to see and it displays this is as a recurring pattern. Don't flatter yourself to think I have or feel any anger, couldn't be further from the truth. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
You see, there you go again, only this time it sounds more like a confession. I will more than happy to continue your flattering of me with via email. Refusing to move on with the actual editing concerns works against your assertions.Mormography (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha, you just don't get it, but that's OK. It doesn't bother me. The work of editing is incumbent on you to address. I am comfortable with the text as it shows now, so when ever the protection is lifted, it'll be your opportunity to make an appropriate case. I told you before I don't have strong feelings on this, but I do believe is more npov to reflect the wording as it's shown now, from good faith edits done a few months ago. So, I am thrilled to move on, no refusal exists as it'll be on you and others to appropriate sort it out. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, but you do get it, don't you? As you know it was incumbent upon you to address your desired change of the original that was arrived at due to broad consensus and discussion. You have failed to make a single case on the talk page why the original should be changed. I have addressed admin AndyTheGrump's concern. Good faith Option B it is then since you have suddenly flip flop and declared you have no strong feelings. Item resolved and option B will be the update when protection lifted.Mormography (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There's been no flip flopping. I didn't make the original edit that you're contesting, but I do believe it shares a more npov, so it's nothing to do with my desire, nor my personal responsibility to somehow justify it. It's presumptive to just assume what the outcome will be when the protection is lifted, that will be up to the community consensus. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you had a strong enough feelings on regarding which was the real original to result in what has been ruled a textbook edit war. Now suddenly you do not have any strong feelings on the subject. Flip flop. No, it was not presumptive at the time. AndyTheGrump had already ruled that all that matters is secondary sources. Only two sources have been presented and the only major complainant flip-flopped and said they suddenly did not care.Mormography (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Thank you Beeblebrox. I plea ignorance. What I have learned from my limited Wikipedia experience is that edit summaries are not the place for discussion. ChristensenMJ edit history indicates that he can not pled ignorance and must be aware of this. As soon as I understood that ChristensenMJ was declaring an edit war I took action to stop it. What I have learned from this instance is to recognize the declaration of an edit war sooner. Thank you for stopping it and I hope an admin can assistance when the protection is lifted.Mormography (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It's disingenuous to try and claim limited WP experience, given that the repeated blocks and warnings about such things as edit wars. As noted above, this is clear from the historical talk page, which has been cleaned up, which is found here. My edit summaries were not any effort to have any sort of discussion. It was incumbent on the user to go to the talk page and make your case. This didn't happen for nearly 6 weeks. I declared no edit war. I respectfully don't believe that 4 reversions on 2 different articles, with other editors also trying to get the user to act in better over a 6+ week period constitutes an edit war. Again, there is no reasonable way the user can claim that somehow there was just no awareness, or a claim of innocent and being subjected to a declared edit war, which somehow needs to be better recognized in the future. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hhhuumm...To date you still have not addressed the supposed editing concerns on this talk page. Says it all. Send me an email if you wish to discuss the rest of the lies above. Mormography (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ARTEST4ECHO’s Claim[edit]

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

The summary is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again you mis-quote me or changed my words, which you have already done twice. I was offering a solution to your edit waring. What I said was "Personally I don't really want to get involved here, as I think this is much to do about nothing, even boarding on Lamest edit wars territory." Meaning the argument was silly as the changes you made shouldn't be made, but I didn't want to get dragged into an edit war. Then I said "However, as I am an uninvolved editor of Latter Day Saint pages, perhaps a compromised solution can be had." Then I attempted to find a compromise for you. I never said that I agreed with you and this was at the start of the conversion, not the end. I was not withdrawing from the discussion.
I even asked User:Beeblebrox to re-protect that page to prevent you from adding you changes (which he rejected), so I obviously don't agree that your edits should be included. To insinuate I agree with you is wrong.
Lastly, after you rejected any compromise, I made it clear that I believe the new version you are attempting to add is WP:POV and should not be made.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 22:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, I have not mis-quoted you. I was offering a solution to editors concerns. At first I made no changes to the original, I only reverted to the original which is not the current. The change I offered was an awesome compromise and you did not object to. I never said you said that you agreed with me. I said you did not respond and correctly quoted you in not caring, which explains why you continue to divert the conversation from compromise to false accusations of misquoting. Anyways you just confessed that you requested an Admin to protect the page instead of first engaging in discussion. Again, I never insinuated you agree with me, but that you clearly stated that you wished not to get involved in the discussion. Furthermore, you never made it clear that the compromise version I offer is anymore POV than yours of appearing-to-implicate. My removes the 'implicate altogether and uses secondary sources.
So, if you are in fact willing to in engage in discussion as you supposedly claim, why should we not use secondary sources and why should not the word implicate, that apparently bizarrely upsets you so much, not be removed.Mormography (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Truncating my statement to make it seem like I agreed with you IS mis-quoteing me. You have three times intentionally edited or modified my words in order to back up what you want them to say, when I was saying exactly the opposite.
Arguing over and over and over until editors are tired of dealing with you, doesn't mean that there is a consensus reached. I was the last comment, NOT you. I said that, given what was discusses, and you lack of willingness to compromise, I agreed with all the other editors that your edits were inappropriate. To claim that I gave up on the discussion and you should get your way, when I was the last commenter is silly (See here you stopped not me)
I don't know how to make it any clearer, EVERYONE, including myself, thinks that your resent edit is inappropriate and Edit warring. Until such time that you can convince everyone that the consensus should change, the page should stay as it is right now. Continuing to pretend that we agree with you and changing the page is Edit warring. No one have "given up" as your claims above seem to indicate.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 14:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Awesome. Instead of actual discussion and answer your content concerns, more personal attacks and more false accusations. And you claim you have not stopped the discussion. Your paragraph has zero content discussion. Says it all. I don't know how to make it any clearer, NO ONE, is pretending that there is agreement and your edit warring discussion appears to be deliberate goading and uncivil behavior. Last chance to actually engage in discussion before moving to dispute resolution, which appears to be yet another deliberate delay tactic.
"So, if you are in fact willing to in engage in discussion as you supposedly claim, why should we not use secondary sources and why should not the word implicate, that apparently bizarrely upsets you so much, not be removed."Mormography (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You are pretending that there is agreement, see your own comment and edit here. You made the change saying "Per Discussion Page", pretending that there was a consensus, which the admin Beeblebrox blocked you from editing for doing it.
I have made my opinion very clear. This is not a "citation needed" issue, it's a POV issue. I agree with User:AndyTheGrump, User talk:AsteriskStarSplat, and User:ChristensenMJ, Forgeries cannot implicate anything, so inclusion of the word "appeared" is appropriate in order to keep a NPOV view, therefore the pages should stay as it is right now--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 22:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
More false accusations. Anyways moving on. You refuse to explain why the word implicate should not be removed. If it was in fact a POV issue that would be the best solution, an obvious contradiction, proving this is not at all about POV. I agree with the many, many editors that in 2007 saw no POV I agree with user:AndyTheGrump that best solution would be just to stick with secondary sources. You refuse to compromise and refuse to discuss ... moving on to dispute resolution.Mormography (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

BRD[edit]

BOLD Edit: For example, the Stowell forgery—which appeared to implicateJoseph Smith in gold digging—was purchased by the church from Hofmann for $15,000 under Hinckley's direction; the sale was accompanied by a promise of confidentiality.

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

DISCUSION:

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: Joseph Smith WAS long rumored to have been a principal organizer of a gold digging schemes using magical means/deception. It was further rumor he was even formally accused of such disorderly behavior in the civil courts. Many supposed transcripts with similar, but slightly varyingly words were produced with no historical agreement to their veracity. However, the LDS canon (Mormon Scripture) the Pearl of Great Price denies these charges with Joseph Smith himself suggesting that he was merely a day laborer for someone involved in gold digging. All involved in the Mormonism movement vehemently denied the charges, the most famous denial being from probably the most famous Mormon Apologist Hugh Nibley in 1961 “if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith.” However, in 1971 the court’s billing for the trail were discovered and authenticated, the examination of Joseph Smith on the charges Glass Looking in fact occurred suggesting know copies of the transcript were not invented as previously argued. At the time Hinckley bought the Stowell forgery, though know to academics, these facts regarding Joseph Smith were not widely known by those involved in the LDS movement. Today even the Wikipedia Joseph Smith Article itself makes reference to the trial: “The Book of Mormon brought Smith regional notoriety and opposition from those who remembered his money-digging and the 1826 Chenango County trial.”

ARTICLE EDIT DISCUSSION: No one has argued or made edits to “turned a "forged document" into "proof of misconduct” of Joseph Smith. The Stowell forgery in and of itself provided no information to historians other than further validation of current understanding. However there is now POV attempt to hide the now undisputed historical consensus that Joseph Smith used the same magical stone to lead a gold digging expedition that he used to produce the Book of Mormon. Though an article is meant to be written for a ninth grade level reader who should understand what it means to be a forgery, it appears the power of suggestion will now require the phrase ‘appear to’ to precede any verb follow the Stowell forgery. This is interesting given that the current protester had previous suggested that accused is OK without the qualifier ‘appear to’. Nonetheless, ‘appear to’ is no matter and the sentence can be broken up into two and have the POV removed. Suggestions follow.

For example, the Stowell forgery appearing to describing "an occult means of finding buried treasure" and portraying Joseph "Smith as a treasure digger"[13] was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality.

For example, the Stowell forgery appeared to bring further attention to Joseph Smith’s gold digging activities. Hinckley purchased it from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality using $15,000 of church funds.

Mormography (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, you have cited no sources for the above. And secondly, it is simply gobbledygook to assert that a forgery 'implicated' Smith. It didn't, because as a forgery, it couldn't. Forgeries, once they are known to be forgeries, are clearly not trustworthy sources on anything. This is elementary common sense, and your apparent inability to comprehend this simple fact is evidently your problem. It is not however Wikipedia's since we aren't here to provide lessons in elementary logic. I suggest you stop wasting people's time with this nonsense before o?ur patience is exhausted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we have moved beyond the 'implicated' question. I noted no objections to the suggestions which address your concerns with 'implicated'. Correct/incorrect?
Sources for what? If you are referring to the historical background, then I think we have identified the root of the disconnect and this indeed all about POV nothing to due with the word 'implicated'.Mormography (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
O.k. if you aren't proposing to use the confusing 'implicated' phraseology, WP:BRD is an irrelevance, and the wording needn't have been raised here again. As for any specific new proposed wording, you need to actually propose specific text. Not give us your personal unsourced historical analysis. And try to write more clearly - I can't figure out whether the 'examples' above are proposals, or what they are supposed to be. The first is ungrammatical, and the second is simply confusing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It sounds that we are in agreement that removing 'implicated' altogether is the obvious best solution to the current BRD situation. Can you elaborate on ungrammatical and confusing?Mormography (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can't see what the problems are, I will have to suggest that you are unsuited to editing an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
And incidentally, if the NPOV tag you have just added relates to this issue, you will need to give a clear explanation of why the existing section violates WP:NPOV policy. Simply asserting that you'd prefer wording to be different isn't sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I did. "However there is now POV attempt to hide the now undisputed historical consensus that Joseph Smith used the same magical stone to lead a gold digging expedition that he used to produce the Book of Mormon." The editors are trying to hide the fact that JS was in fact involved in gold digging by inserting POV language that imply the charges were all false against the actual historical consensus. ARTEST4ECHO discussion history indicates this as well. It is not my personal historical analysis, it is the actual historical background. What source material do you have to challenge it? Either way, the mere fact that you are challenging it is indication that the historical background and is pertinent and necessary to achieve NPOV.

Furthermore The statement "on behalf of the church" is very POV. The whole senario was embroil in controversy of suspression. The church denied possession of the Stowell forgery, because the church in fact did not have it. The church had no record of it because no one in the church was aware of it aside from Hinckley himself. It was not until after Hofmann broke his promise of secrecy that Hinckley released it to the church. So what ever it is that someone was trying to clarify, the most NPOV way to state it would be "using $15,000 of church funds". Mormography (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So no actual sourced explanation of how the section violates WP:NPOV policy, just an illiterate assertion that you think that other contributors are trying to hide something? At this point, since you apparently lack the required skills in the English language to contribute usefully to this article, and clearly fail to understand even the basics of Wikipedia policy, I see no reason whatsoever why I should engage with you any further. You have no consensus whatsoever for any change to the article as it stands, and quite obviously aren't going to get any. I suggest you direct your attentions elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Cop-out. I provided sources in abundance above and the citation that the church did not have the document is right in the article itself. I even provide two secondary sources regarding the Stowell forgery as you originally requested. I will provide the entire text of the Stowell forgery later. Anyways, you could not elaborate how breaking into two sentences is worst grammar and more confusing than using hyphens and semicolons. Though users using rampant incivility (paragraph above) to accuse others of not understanding Wikipedia policy is interesting.Mormography (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No skin off my back. I find the hilarity of users complaining the word 'implicate' cause NPOV problems, then when a user suggests ways to remove the word those same editors insist on using the word. Hummmm, wouldn't have anything to do with bad faith or personalizing would it? Editors complain that the word 'implicate' cause NPOV issues, I put the tag on and suddenly 'implicate' doesn't cause NPOV issues. Very interesting. Anyways, with regards to the understanding Wikipedia policy, secondary sources are always preferred this type of situation, as you used to understand.Mormography (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try one last time. If you wish to propose a change to the article, please provide the following, in plain, unambiguous and grammatical English:

(a) The exact words (if any) you propose to remove from the article.
(b) The exact words you propose to be added to the article, together with an indication of where exactly you propose to add them.
(c) The sources you are citing to support the proposed new text. Sources which directly support the proposed material, in unambiguous terms not needing reference to other sources or prior knowledge of the topic.

This is all that is required. We don't need your historical analysis. We don't need rambling discussions about what other contributors have already said. And we don't need lectures in 'civility' from someone who assumes bad faith on principle. AndyTheGrump (talk)


No problem. I have done the requested many times here and can do them again.

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

ADD IN PLACE OF REMOVED: For example, the Stowell letter is a historical forgery "reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit". Using $15,000 of church funds, Hinckley purchased the Stowell forgery from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality.

SOURCES: Dawn Tracy's 29 April 1985 Salt Lake Tribune article. 1985 SLT articles are not online, but Turley’s Victims is searchable with Goolge Books and page 100 quotes the article. The second sentence is sourced with current citations in the article. The exact phrase of Church funds is from the preliminary hearing which is also not online, but is quoted by other authors. See section below. I do not see a need to add quotes around “Church funds”. Do you? It does appear to be the most NPOV phraseology. Mormography (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Any yet again you have come up with confusing phraseology. How is the reader to understand what "reportedly written by..." is supposed to mean? Who reported this? The sentence doesn't say. It states that the letter was a historical forgery (why 'historical'?) but then leaves the reader in the lurch. We tell them that the letter was forged. We tell them that someone reported that Smith had written it. Are we saying that Smith was reported to have forged the letter? It could certainly be read that way, but frankly it is hopelessly ambiguous. And it leaves the reader wondering whether Hinkley knew it was a forgery when he bought it. Totally confusing. I suggest that you look at your wording again, and rewrite it so it can be understood by someone who doesn't know anything about Stowell, Smith, the content of the letter, and the fact that it was a forgery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Most of the concerns above are addressed by the paragraph itself. Some reworking of the paragraph may help.

BEFORE: The Mark Hofmann document forgeries, bombings, and investigation occurred during this time. "The news interest was global" and "the whole episode achieved epic proportions."[11] Several books[12] describe the arrangements for acquiring supposed historical documents for the church by Hinckley and others. For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality. However, two years later, Hofmann leaked its existence to the "Mormon intellectual underground."[13] Upon press inquiries, church spokesman Jerry Cahill denied that the church possessed the document.[14]Hinckley corrected Cahill and released the letter to scholars for study.[15] The document was later found to be a forgery.

AFTER: The Mark Hofmann document forgeries, bombings, and investigation occurred during this time. "The news interest was global" and "the whole episode achieved epic proportions."[11] Several books[12] describe the arrangements for acquiring supposed historical documents by Hinckley and others. For example, the Stowell forgery was initial assume authentic, but later found to be a fake during the bombing investigation of Hofmann. It was "reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit". Using $15,000 of church funds, Hinckley purchased the Stowell forgery from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality. However, two years later, Hofmann leaked its existence to the "Mormon intellectual underground."[13] Upon press inquiries, church spokesman Jerry Cahill denied that the church possessed the document.[14] Hinckley informed Cahill of the document's existence and released it. Hofmann was later arrested for murder and the ensuing investigation discovered that the Stowell forgery, along with many others, were fraudulent historical documents produced by Hofmann himself.

Mormography (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You lack the necessary skills to usefully contribute to an English-language encyclopaedia. I have nothing further to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ahh ha. You just proved this was never about the edits, just incivility. Your inability to backup your personal attacks says it all. The after is clearly better than the before and addresses most the NPOV. Will be making one adjust to above to remove all the NPOV later.Mormography (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that comment by ATG was out of line. (I haven't been following this but just saw the comment now.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is too much text on a simple issue. Others purchased the works since the church obviously had a conflict of interest. Whether at the behest of the church or not, it doesn't matter, because those purchasers did the right thing as part of the transaction - asked that they be independently authenticated and research the sourcing and discovery - which was impossible while in the hands of the forgers, but was made possible because they promise of cash for the forged documents forced them to reveal information and details that led to the confirmation that they were forged. And guess what happened when they were subject to independent verification and research... --Trödel 15:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

simple issue: If it is a simple issue, then why did Oaks say "The news interest was global" and "the whole episode achieved epic proportions."
Behest or not doesn't matter: I am not following. The Stowell forgery was not independently authenticated, it was hidden. You may be referring to the Salamander letter, which Hofmann sent Lynn Jacobs to sell to Hinckley. Some of the books suggest that with Lynn Jacobs in the mix, a secret purchase was impossible and that Christensen was commanded by Hinckley to buy and donate the Salamander letter to the Church, but to never write a book about it, all at burdensome expense to Christensen. Mormography (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
First there is no five day rule, there is a rule of active discussion. There wasn't an active discussion. Second from the way I am reading this talk page, the group, albeit small does not agree with your interpretation of the "dispute". For all the years Hinckley was in the first presidency this issue is already taking up 1/3 of the section. This seems like too much to me. I don't see any reason to change the text as you suggest. Can we now remove the tag o shame because one editor does not agree with the rest? VVikingTalkEdits 01:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sighhh, I am unaware of a rule that declares five days an inactive discussion as you assert.
You have not answered a single question. For example, If it is a simple issue, then why did Oaks say "The news interest was global" and "the whole episode achieved epic proportions."? This contradicts your assertion that text of an episode should have a corresponding ratio to length of time in office.
Please elaborate, what is that you believe is my "interpretation of the "dispute"" You and Trodel are the first to disagree regarding the NPOV and neither one have grounded your assessment with any intelligible assertions. Multiple parties here have agreed to the word 'implicate' being troubling, why should it not be removed? Why should the article take sides regarding the "on behalf of the Church" controversies.
This talk page shows repeated concerns regarding the confusion the wording creates regarding what/who/etc of the forgery. Roughly 40 words are being recommended to an article of of nearly 2300 words to clarify. Why does this really bother you?
By declaring "simple issue" and "for all the years" you and Trodel are reinforcing the POV concerns, not addressing them.Mormography (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit made to resolve issue. --Trödel 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Blatant edit warring. Reverted to original. Discuss proposal before editing.Mormography (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. A single edit cannot constitute 'edit warring'. Please explain what was wrong with the edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Extremely few admins would back you up on that.Mormography (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Either explain what was wrong with Trödel's edit, or I will revert you. Feel free however to find these imaginary admins of yours... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I already have explain above. I am not required to repeat myself. Revert and you will be reported.Mormography (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
You have given no explanation as to what was wrong with the content. Either do so, or I will revert. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit War Report[edit]

NPOV “on behalf of the Church”[edit]

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

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

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

In the Salt Lake City Messenger, June 1985, p. 19, we wrote the following:
"Although the Church later claimed that it had possession of the letter, in a letter to the editor of theSalt Lake Tribune, May 6, 1985, the Mormon scholar George D. Smith said that it was his understanding that 'Gordon B. Hinckley, second counsellor to President Spencer W. Kimball, purchased the letter in 1983 in his own name from collector Mark Hofmann...'
"If President Hinckley bought the document in his own name, this must have been an attempt to give the Church deniability—i.e. the letter could be safely kept out of the hands of the public, and yet the Church could officially deny that it had it."

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

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

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

NPOV ‘implicating’[edit]

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

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

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

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

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