User talk:Padillah

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Padillah}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Expires Notes Pol430 46 32 2 59 16:47, 11 March 2012 3 hours' time

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Joseph Smith

Is that fixed? I went to bed shortly after moving the article, before I realized I somehow sent the move through twice, overwriting the entire article's history. If there's anything I need to do, please let me know, and thanks for looking after this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Foxe's Proposal not good.

Padillah, one of the big discussions (even Bushman agreed) of the past are that Joseph Smith's flaws exist but then the polemics have also stripped the article of his accomplishments. In this case John Foxe has attempted to strip the article of Adjwilley's fair proposal which states, "During his lifetime, he published the Book of Mormon, built cities and temples, and attracted thousands of followers..." In fact his proposal then goes on to include the divisions in the historic community. Why would anyone want to remove from the article's lead some of these main contexts? Adjwilley's original proposal is supported, fair, short, and succinct. I propose leaving it as is.--Canadiandy talk 15:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? "Though his character and achievements are widely debated..." That's worth noting? That's the most genial, lackluster, "almost-a-critique" as I've ever seen. The lead that Adjwilley proposed supports Smith in several aspects and then meekly mentions that he may have had some down sides according to some people. It's equivocating and says nothing. Heck the "character and achievements " of Christ " are widely debated" as well. You could say that about anybody or anything. How is that fair? How is that succinct? It's a way to get the Book of Mormon mentioned and to get credit for superlative acts that happened during his life. Foxe's proposal mentions Smith's religious leadership, his founding of the LDS church and his position as Prophet. Yet mentions none of the detractions that Adjwilley supposedly mentions. Why not stay with the shorter, actually succinct, lead? Padillah (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

First, according to LDS doctrine, Joseph Smith didn't "found" the church, Christ did, so this is actually POV. Yes, I also agree that Christ restored his church through Joseph Smith is POV which is why we need to be thoughtful in treating this matter with a mind to neutrality. Secondly, pointing out that Joseph Smith was a very polarizing figure is relevant. Billy Graham wasn't. Mother Teresa wasn't. In fact it is this strong polarization which has slanted much of the research available and made this article so hard to address in a fair and neutral manner. Third, Joseph Smith's being an LDS prophet is not unique considering that there have been 13 since. What is noteworthy is that he was the author of what is claimed to be God's revelations to ancient American prophets. I don't know many people who have done that. I'm fine with dropping the part about his achievements being widely debated, but ignoring his publishing the Book of Mormon is like dropping the ninety-five theses at the lead for Martin Luther. It seems to me that Adjwilley is doing an excellent job of presenting a neutral proposal which is both meaningful and fair. It would be a shame to run him out when he seems to be just what is needed. If you are suggesting Foxe is more fair-minded on this one I will be very disappointed.--Canadiandy talk 01:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the church has it's own doctrine but according to government records, Joseph Smith Jr. founded the LDS church. While Wikipedia may strive for neutrality raising dogma to the same status as reality is not quite neutral. I can find nothing in the Adjwilley lead that mentions his polarizing qualities. Besides, A description of those kinds of qualities would need to be much more extensive than a lead sentence allows. Third, since you brought him up, the lead sentence on Martin Luther does not, in point of fact, mention the Ninety Five Theses. It mentions his role in the Protestant Reformation and his being a theologian. I don't understand how you can feel that laying claim to being one of only 13 people in modern history is not slightly noteworthy. You do realize that there are 6.5 billion people on this planet, right? If all 13 prophets were currently alive they would constitute 0.0000002% of the entire population. There are more people with "one-in-a-million" diseases than there are prophets of the LDS church. I would hate to disappoint you. I don't mean to promote any editor over any other editor. I mean to say I think keeping the lead sentence short and direct is a better idea than trying to layer detail that would be better suited to the body of the lead. I have a sneaking suspicion there is a misunderstanding here on what is being presented. And I fully believe that this type of discussion needs to be had in the public eye of the Smith talk page. Padillah (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Third sentence at Martin Luther reads, "He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517." Maybe I misunderstand the word lead. I assume it means lead, or first, paragraph (I never said lead sentence). Sorry if I misunderstood. As to Adjwilley's lead proposal he wrote, "Though his character and achievements are widely debated...". That seems to mean he is a polarizing figure assuming debate is two-sided. My big question though is how anyone could drop The Book of Mormon from the lead. How is it not critically significant? --Canadiandy talk 19:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for leading by example, Padillah. Sorry if I got pushy. What impresses me most here is your humble ability to recognize an honest mistake and then work to correct it. This is what the article needs, fewer apologists and polemics and more fair-minded and ethical contributors. I think Adjwilley is another such contributor and would hope you and he could tune out me and Foxe and possibly Avanu (all three of us seem to edit from a POV which is not helpful which is why I am avoiding editing and even discussing at the article page). Anyway, you deserve a Nobel. Heck I'd kill for a Nobel peace prize.--Canadiandy talk 01:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A tasty pie for you!

This one is a humble pie, because your humble example has humbled me and been an inspiration to all of us at Joseph Smith. Canadiandy talk 01:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for your comments at Joseph Smith. I was beginning to feel lonely there for a bit, and I very much appreciated your input. I try to pay particular attention to your views, because from my perspective you seem to be an editor who doesn't have a horse in the race, if you know what I mean. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Process

Hey Padillah,

I'm working on the Hammock Camping article and would like to know what process we would need to follow to bring it to GA status. Never done it before.

Any tips?

--Canadiandy talk 20:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, I've never done it either. Steps I would take are to find and fix any errors that I can see (if I can tell it's biased then it's really biased) then ask for a GA review. I think there's an actual list of Good Article Criteria. Padillah (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)