Talk:B. H. Roberts

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


Roberts was a staunch mormon supporter at any cost. He practiced sensational journalism in his time to discredit gentiles in power. You will see current censuring of this and similar sites from mormons who don't want this history added to each site. For best references go to Utah digital newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

B. H. Roberts did a lot of stuff! Why such a huge focus on polygamy in the first paragraph? Its mentioned about 3 times. Is that all he is remembered for? Certainly not! Why give people the wrong impression? I think a section down below about his polygamy would be better. Epachamo 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Because this article isn't a tract for the Mormon Church. It's about B. H. Roberts, who was a polygamist, and was refused his seat in Congress because he was a polygamist. Denying his marital status, or downplaying the impact it had on his political career, gives more of a wrong impression than burying the facts at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LayneJohnson (talkcontribs)

  • It is possible to overemphasize something. Epachamo's question was reasonable - fixing an article so it is well-balanced is not the same thing as making it a tract for Mormons. Get some perspective! Rabidwolfe 23:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Epachamo's question is certainly reasonable. But so was my response. Roberts was one of only two elected official in US history to be denied his office due to his religious practice. How can that be over-emphasized? Would putting that down at the bottom of the page be getting some perspective? The truth is Roberts is remembered as a polygamist elected to Congress everywhere except within the LDS Church, where he is remembered as a historical apologist writer. The article is balanced as it is. LayneJohnson 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, Layne - but your response was snarky and somewhat rude. Asking for a second look (I also think the article intro is basically fine as is) at the article is not the same as turning it into a tract for the LDS church, but you immediately jumped to the assumption Epachamo wanted to sanitize the article or something. Your response may have been reasonable in content, but not in form.Rabidwolfe 01:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That was eight years ago. The first paragraph now mentions "plural marriage" instead of "polygamy" which reads better. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC) -- I'm new to 'watching' the article.


Didn't he have views on evolution and fossils that the Council of the Twelve disagreed with? It talks about it in the article on the History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why does it not talk about that in here? It seems to have been a noteworthy part of his life. Dan 03:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? Perhaps in a "Mormon views on evolution" article, but what's the compelling reason to discuss it in this article? Rabidwolfe 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it matters because, again, "It seems to have been a noteworthy part of his life...". If this article is a biographical article about him, I would argue that that was a compelling enough reason to at least mention his views and dealings with the church about evolution. No need to get "snarky". Dan (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that such information is worth including here. The dispute between James E. Talmage and Roberts with some other members of the Quorum of the Twelve over evolution was a significant series of incidents during Roberts's tenure as a general authority, so by all means it should be included. There are entire books and journal articles written solely about the matter, so it's difficult to argue it's not noteworthy enough. Snocrates 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A wonderful balanced entry[edit]

I really enjoyed reading this piece. It was well done, and it showed the difficulties, that many of us in all different faiths face, in reconciling faith with scholarship.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that encouraging word.--John Foxe (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Name at birth[edit]

I seem to remember that Roberts's name at birth was not "Brigham", but that this name was later adopted by him in honor of Brigham Young. I can't recall even if his given name was "Henry Roberts" and he added the first name or if it was "Benjamin Henry Roberts" (after his father) and he changed his given name partly b/c his father left his family. Does anyone have any sources on his birthname that we could add? Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are my edits gone?[edit]

I included some information on the journal entry of a friend of Roberts' in which the friend related a meeting he had with Roberts at which time Roberts told him that he now believed the golden plates and the Urim and Yhummim were "subjective" not "objective" with Smith. I cited my sources and all. Why was it edited out? This seems an attempt to keep this information bottled up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see from the history your edits are still there. User:John Foxe made some changes, but the part you mention about "subjective" vs. "objective" is still there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on recent edit[edit]

I have been seeing two different versions of the same paragraph going back and forth (see here for both edits side by side). Both appear to be sourced, and I don't see how they contradict one another, although I may be just missing that. I am curious as to why each version keeps being reverted rather than possibly combined. I'd be interested to see a discussion on the edit. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The other party has so far refused to discuss why he insists on his changes—although I hope he may discuss his position here eventually. The information is roughly the same, but (if I may modestly say so) my version is much better written.--John Foxe (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That does the recent edit that changed values to "date = 1902-19-32" "date = 1907-19-12" & "date = 1907-19-12" possibly mean? It seems like some (semi)automation did not handle year ranges properly, and tryed to reformat those values in yyy-mm-dd format. Can't fix as article is semi-p. -- (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

File:BrighamHenryRoberts.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:BrighamHenryRoberts.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on B. H. Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)