Talk:Black people and Mormonism

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


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black people and Mormonism. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black people and Mormonism. 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) 08:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black people and Mormonism. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Current status.[edit]

I've resubmitted the article for GA review in the hope of getting a review by someone less involved in the issue. I found the review by Signedzzz to be inappropriate given his current editing areas and the lack of good faith showed in the review.

This appears to be the official line of the Mormon church, which the (paid) nominator was no doubt instructed to promote, in contravention of policy. It seems highly unlikely that the editor will fix a problem they were paid to create, in any normal time-frame, so reluctantly I am forced to fail this.

. Signedzzz also added NPOV and Primary Sources tags, without any comment here on the talk page. The place to discuss tags is here on the talk page, not an uneditable GA review page. (and as a caveat because I am quite sure it will come up, I'm *not* a member of the LDS faith, I'm Jewish.Naraht (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Naraht: The review is here. You are free to edit it, although I can't think why you would want to, nor why you think I give a fuck about your religion. Try reading WP:AGF?zzz (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I have, didn't you see the blockquote from it? Please point me to where in the GA review process that it indicates that the GA review page should be edited once the review has been made. You obviously care greatly about the religion of the other proposer. I just figured I'd cut out the point where you accused me of being LDS. And the reason that the article doesn't deal with Joseph Smith is that the Pre-1847 content got moved to Black people and early Mormonism. I have, are you claiming that you haveAassumed Good Faith when it comes to "nominator no doubt instructed to promote" or did you have another point?Naraht (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
"I have, didn't you see the blockquote from it?" Explain. zzz (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That should have been "I have read it".Naraht (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Great. I won't go through each one of your statements; suffice to say, you need to read what you are commenting about more carefully. zzz (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Signedzzz I did read what I was commenting about, which is the unacceptability of the contents of your GA Review. Your lack of good faith that the editor could create such an article *and* was instructed in the manner to edit the page by the church is unacceptable and your *one* actual content comment regarding the lack of mention of Joseph Smith is because that section has been moved to another article. Black people and early Mormonism. Naraht (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC) (Fix template u reference)
Hi. I agree that the article doesn't currently meet GA criteria. Phelps (BYU) nominated the page and she is a former student worker of mine. I don't agree that I as a paid editor would be unhelpful in improving the page. I want the page to be historically accurate and NPOV. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

Naraht, never start a GA review for a nomination that you have made. Instead, follow the instructions in the failed GA template. I also question your statement that the last reviewer "had done extensive editing on the topic." Wikipedia guidelines say that anyone who has not significantly contributed to the article can review it. The reviewer only edited the article on the day that he failed it, and never before. That he may have extensively edited articles on related topics is irrelevant. Many GA reviewers have done that. In many ways, that's a good thing, because it means that the reviewer is more knowledgeable about the topic and can more likely determine whether the article has undue weight, comprehensiveness, broadness, and accuracy. Display name 99 (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99 Thank you for this reponse. My note there was to indicate why an immediate resubmission for GA. I'd be happy to remove that note in the GA2.
I agree that in some cases that work in the area may be useful, however in this case, his prior edits in the topic I viewed as problematic. Do you have an opinion on the text of the GA review?Naraht (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
You can't just delete the note. You've got to remove the whole page, or else people will think that the article is already being reviewed and pass it over. If you ask for the article to be reassessed, I advise you to include the edits you consider problematic, and explain why they are so. I did not intend to, nor will I now, offer any opinions on the text. Display name 99 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
So create it as GA3? The edits that are problematic are the previous reviewers notes and the NPOV and Primary that he added to the article. I would like the article reassessed as it *was*.Naraht (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE FAILED GA TEMPLATE. Display name 99 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The link for "Reassessment" doesn't seem to apply. The first sentence is "Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not." This indicates to me that Reassessment is the procedure if an article has been previously found to be a GA and someone believes that it no longer meets the criteria.Naraht (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

citing scriptures[edit]

When citing scriptures, it's important to cite a commentary to go with them, since it's tempting to interpret scriptures when citing them, which is original research. I've found some sources that discuss the scriptures used in this article. I'm going to be replacing scripture references with the sources that discusses the topic or ideally, the specific scriptures. Ten Commandments in Catholic theology is an FA, which occasionally references scriptures, but sparingly and with other references for context. I'll be using it as a model of how to use scriptures in a Wikipedia article. If you don't agree with my edits, let's talk. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll change some of these scripture references to footnoted references. But I'm unsure of what the best practice is. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)