Talk:Frank Sandford

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank Sandford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1 It is reasonably well written.

1. a (prose): b (MoS):

   Article needs an infobox, suggest Template:Infobox_ReligiousBio. The prose style could be much improved by becoming less chatty and more neutral. I am not happy with the subheadings Stepping out on faith and The scattering, they seem to indicate a lack of NPOV. I would suggest a good re-read of WP:MOS and associated articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

2 It is factually accurate and verifiable.

1. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I am unable to determine if the references are accurate as I have none of the books. One web link, reference #87 <http://www.shilohchapelmaine.org/history_of_shiloh.htm> is broken, a new source needs to be found. The Internet archive may help. It appears that the article contains no original research. The Books cited need ISBNs, the Thesis needs an OCLI identifier. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

3 It is broad in its coverage.

1. a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is broad in coverage and remains focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

4 It follows the neutral point of view policy.

1. Fair representation without bias:

   I do not believe that the article maintains a wholly WP:NPOV. Many phrases seem to be weasel words. Examples: the manner in which the money and volunteer labor was provided by supporters was nearly miraculous in any case, was obviously more mellifluous than, Inevitably Sandford encountered opposition., Almost before they knew what was happening, men began to fall victim to scurvy These are not neutral phrases. There are many more examples. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

5 It is stable.

1. No edit wars etc.:

   The article appears to be stable. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

6 It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

1. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   4 of the five images are from website or are photographs of an image in a book thus fail Wikipedia and Wiki Commons requirements. They have been tagged for deletion in Wiki Commons.

7 Overall:

1. Pass/Fail:

On hold until above concerns met. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm content with that decision. Better to have a well-sourced, well-written article such as this one, "chatty" though it may be be, than to be concerned about a GA rating. I'll leave technical improvements to others who may be interested in that sort of thing. Once the images are deleted, I propose this article be eliminated from consideration for GA status.--John Foxe (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have failed the article for its debatable writing style and lack of images. The reviewer has checked none of the paper sources, and it might be argued that if the images did not meet Wikipedia requirements, the citations are likely inaccurate as well.--John Foxe (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, actually it is up to the first reviewing editor to pass or fail, I have invited the nominating editor to respond here and they have 7 days to work on improvemnets. I am reverting your action. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not heard from original nominator, improvements have been made images have been removed or replaced satisfactorily. The prose style is still not WP:NPOV. Some of the recently introduced references may not be WP:RS, assume WP:AGF for others. Overall conclusion - FAIL. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of various points in the article

Hi John, Frank Sandford seems to be a polarizing and fascinating character from American history during the emergence of Modern America. I am intrigued by the information I find at this entry. I’m also an aspiring historian of religion in the United States. Perhaps Sandford needs to be given more credit by historians than he has yet received, and this site helps to show why. However, I am not sure what you mean by "we don't remove cited material without an explanation." I thought I did give an explanation. Abruptly turning to the issue of Sandford's girth in an article that focuses on his religious beliefs and actions surrounding them is incongruous at best. At worst it violates Wikipedia's policy about neutral point of view, and thus should be removed. Furthermore, the citation to Nelson's book is incorrect. Nelson does not discuss Sandford's girth or picture on page 421, nor on any other page that I can find. As such the comment is editorializing and a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Please find the correct citation or remove the line.

I also explained why I removed the reference to Sandford dying as an "unrecorded inhabitant." This phrase does not make sense (that's why I described it as nonsensical). What would a "recorded inhabitant" look like? And the part about Sandford not dying as a prophet in Jerusalem is also self-evident. To include it also infringes upon a neutral tone. However, I should add more on the "unrecorded inhabitant" part. Nelson actually says the following: "legal obligations were handled with privacy, recording the death of a man who had lived in the town for twenty-eight years without a record of his presence.” Thus, it is simply untrue to say he was an “unrecorded inhabitant,” if by that you mean someone who died without any record being made of his death. Nelson asserts otherwise, making it clear that the legal process was followed, but that it was handled privately, and that Sandford lived a private life while living in New York. I will also add that there is no mention by Nelson of a “Catskill village.” And the pages for this passage are 423-424, not 425-426.

I only fact checked a few citations, but continue to find significant errors. For example, Nelson clearly says on page 424 (citation 83 incorrectly has page 423) that there was no successor picked to lead Sandford’s movement, but that “the future leadership of the Kingdom would be shared and custodial.” This is very different from the claim that Abram led the movement, so needs to be fixed.

I have not fact checked everything, but given what I have seen there is a troubling trend, that of editorializing, inaccurate representation of Nelson’s work, and a lack of neutrality in the tone. I wonder if the last is a factor of the article primarily referencing Nelson, and none of the other sources? I do not currently have access to Murray’s Sublimity of Faith nor to Hiss’s dissertation (or to the book on the Coronet), but think it likely that use of those sources would help round out the picture of Sandford’s life a bit. Hiss should be a good source to start with, given that his dissertation had to be defended by a committee of scholars. I am curious to know how his work could add to the story here.

Most troubling of all, however, is your removal of additional information and context to the story. I explained it after you asked for an explanation, but you still deleted my additions, saying that “we” don’t remove cited material. Wikipedia is driven by a community of editors, and your reference to “we” suggests you are serving as arbiter over what should and should not be added to this entry. I hope that is not the case, because it is a violation if Wikipedia’s policy. I will also note that I added cited material. See Nelson, 215 for the additional information on the story of John and his fast. In addition, Nelson says nothing about a regimen of “severe whippings” for children who disobeyed. She does discuss John’s forthcoming whipping (but does not characterize it as “severe”), but the whipping never occurred. Again, this misrepresents her work, so I would ask you to fix it.

I am not interested in an edit war, so hope you will not remove any future additions I make that have a clear citation with them. I also hope you will fix the noted errors shortly. I will be glad to do this if it is not attended to soon.

Again, thank you for whatever role you played in bringing attention to this most fascinating of historical figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.16.189 (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Anonymous,

I'm pleased to know that you're a serious student of American religious history interested in Sandford. Usually an IP address is the sign of a passing vandal or some POV pusher who can be easily reverted and will never be heard of again.

It's been awhile since I thought about the Sandford story, and I don't have the opportunity to check Nelson immediately. (The lack of an index in Nelson is also irritating—take that as a lesson, always do an index, even for your dissertation.) Give me a day or two to review the book and I'll be back with you. I also plan to move these posts from my talk to the Sandford talk page.

In the meantime, it would be helpful if you chose a screen name and created an account. You'll find that you're taken more seriously at Wikipedia if you do. Also, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end.

All the best, John Foxe (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've eliminated the "girth" sentence and corrected the Nelson citation to his death. There's nothing POV about mentioning that Sandford did not die in Jerusalem as he predicted. If someone tells you that God has told him something or other, and that information proves incorrect, it's not too much to gently remind bystanders that such a person is either crazy, a liar, or a blasphemer (and perhaps all three). I've tweaked the "successor" sentence, and added an additional footnote to Nelson to document the whippings. ("Spanking" is not conducted with a horsewhip.)

I've not seen Hiss's dissertation either. Nor have I visited Shiloh, nor seen the collection of newspaper articles Hiss deposited at Bates. It's on my list of things to do whenever I'm able to get back to Maine.

I appreciate your catching those citation errors. Jacques Barzun once wrote that "in the five centuries of printing few works have been letter perfect. And before Gutenberg, it was the copyists who provided the absurdities, one at a time, by hand."--John Foxe (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, Thanks for your work on the edits. I have to disagree with your assertion that there is no POV inherent with the "unheralded inhabitant" sentence. The article already tells us Sandford's predictions, and that he died in NY, not Jerusalem. It insults the intelligence of the reader to reiterate the point that his predictions did not come true. And it shows a bias of the author. Your defense for keeping the sentence further illustrates this, as you seem to want readers to come to specific conclusions about Sandford. Readers should be given the facts in a Wikipedia entry, and nothing more. There should be no "gentle" or "ungentle" reminders written with the intent to persuade to a particular conclusion about a person. You seem to be concerned that "bystanders" are not intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions.(Incidentally, I'm not sure what an "ungentle" reminder would look like if this is a "gentle" one.)

Your comment also seems to presume that readers believe in such concepts as God and blasphemy, and even lying as something pejorative. I would suggest you not presume this.

I think you have done a solid job of capturing Nelson's view, though I think more context from her book will be useful in spots. Of course NPOV requires that other published views be fairly represented along with Nelson's. Have you had a chance to access the Murray books? If I can access those sources and have time I will try and add those views so that the NPOV requirement is met.

Thanks again for the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.16.189 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Anonymous,

Again, let me suggest that you register for an account. Because you're using an IP, I know exactly where you are (and possibly with a bit of effort—which I'm not interested in exercising—I could figure out exactly who you are). A registered account provides at least a gossamer veil over your identity if you choose to have it so. (And again, you can sign your posts with four tildes. It makes you look like a newbie to make SineBot do it.)

Of course I disagree with your opinion about the concluding sentence as a reminder that Sandford's prophecy about dying in Jerusalem was not fulfilled. And it is a "gentle" reminder. A non-gentle one would include the words "crazy" or "liar." As you say, probably not "blasphemer" unless I could find something from Sandford himself that warned others not to speak in the name of God. (I'm sure there are readers who would claim to believe that lying is not "something pejorative"; but they're liars.) For instance, at the Joseph Smith article, it's not POV to have a statement about Joseph introducing the Word of Wisdom followed by another reminding readers that he didn't always follow it himself.

I have a couple of references to a Murray book in the article, but it's the Hiss dissertation that would be the best source to cite. At Wikipedia, Verifiability privileges peer-reviewed publications over those "with no editorial oversight" or those considered "promotional," as are materials published by The Kingdom such as the Murray book. So, for instance, at Joseph Smith, Jr., the works most often cited are Brodie and Bushman, not LDS publications. It may take me awhile, but I'm going to see if I can get a copy of the Hiss dissertation. If you did the same, I bet together we could make this Wikipedia biography a first-rate piece.--John Foxe (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, I’ve done some more looking at Nelson and at the Peters source and beefed up the story about John a bit. Please feel free to let me know if you think something should be tweaked. I also removed the line about the ocean liner never materializing for its lack of attribution. I don’t think Nelson mentions this, but please correct me if I’m wrong. I also checked the reference to whippings and fasts. Nelson only suggests Sandford as responsible for the beatings and whippings, so I don’t think it accurate to say he prescribed these punishments. Nelson says that parents were instituting these punishments, and adds that “apparently Frank condoned the beatings which began at this time.”

My suggested revision would be the following: “parents severely whipped or required fasts of sinful or rebellious children, and apparently Sandford condoned such punishments.” I thought I’d throw it out for consideration before actually making the change. Thoughts?

Also, I noticed that the info connected to footnote 49 needs a different attribution, as the fwselijah website does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. I am in the process of coming up with more info on the trial based on Peters work, and can probably get enough info from him to make the same material stand. Or it should be easy enough to find info in Nelson that says the same thing.

Lastly, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but your example about Joseph Smith is not a good one for NPOV, because there are published works which have pointed out the inconsistencies between what he preached and what he practiced. It is on this basis that it would be appropriate to make such a point, because in doing so you are only repeating already published material. However, your explanation for the “gentle” reminder in Sandford’s case was clearly rooted in an attempt to persuade people to a point of view, regardless of what has been published. I would humbly suggest that this violates the “editorially neutral” requirement of Wikipedia, as well as the following policy: “The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.” I will concede the inclusion of the line for now because I think it roughly characterizes what Nelson says about Sandford’s death, though I think she is a little more tactful in her commentary. It is on this basis that the line should be defended, and a little problematic if intended as a reminder of Sandford’s blasphemy, or insanity, or godliness, or whatever.

I will also suggest that if it is your desire to convince people about Sandford’s craziness, or whatever, that such a “gentle reminder” approach is likely to backfire. I believe an objective reader will see it as a little over the top, and possibly be turned off by what strikes me as the obvious effort of the author to convince people to accept a particular view. I believe it is better to let the facts speak for themselves. Respectfully, FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)FlorenceWhittaker

Welcome, Florence,

As you see, I tweaked some things. I didn't think whatever was going on with John merited a protracted discussion in the text, so I stuck it in the notes. As you said, the whole business is "murky." I also stuck the non-existent ocean liner in the notes.

I disagree that mentioning that Sandford did not die in Jerusalem is POV. The reference to his identification with Elijah comes pretty early in the article, and I doubt the average reader would remember the prophecy if it weren't mentioned again. There's no editorializing. We don't say Sandford was demented or even wrong-headed, just that he died in upstate New York and not in the Holy Land. The reader can draw his own conclusions. We're only reminding him of what Sandford said earlier.

The citation to the fwselijah website is actually to a primary source, a newspaper account, reprinted there; and although you're right that citation to an authoritative secondary source would be better, there's no POV problem unless we suspect that there's been some deliberate inaccuracy.

Wikipedia has a feature called Third Opinion that we can make use of if we find ourselves at a dead end in discussion. The caveat is that it's operative only if no more than two people are involved. However, this article has been a backwater since I wrote it, so maybe just the two of us will be interested. (I'm really going to try to get my hands on Hiss's dissertation.)--John Foxe (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, A couple of suggestions/points. First, the role of parents in whipping children is an important fact to put into the story, and comes right from Nelson, so is substantiated. "Children were whipped" is also in the passive voice and generally to be avoided when possible, so a simple change to "parents whipped rebellious or disobedient children" would work, wouldn't it?

Second, I don't think Wikipedia policy allows unsubstantiated fact claims, even if moved to footnotes. How can you presume that the ocean liner "never materialized" unless a historian or published author makes that point? I think it should be removed. Without substantiation it is conjecture. Conjecture is not what footnotes are for.

Third, the characterization of the circumstances surrounding John's whipping as "murky" is more Peters description than me. I was not editorializing in stating that. Since this is the most recently published source on the event I think that his characterization should be added back in.

Fourth, the problem with footnote 49 is not that it links to primary sources. The problem is the facts that are presented in the article attached to that footnote, starting with "A prominent defector from the sect" and finishing with the footnote. These facts need to be verified from a reliable source, not fwselijah. And even if fwselijah was a reliable source for facts, I don't see any characterization of Sandford's actions there as "autocratic eccentricities." But again, I am working on reworking the faith healing part from Peters, so may be able to scrap the unsubstantiated facts and replace with info he gives. Otherwise they would need to be found in Nelson somewhere. (Or Sublimity of Faith. Fwselijah reproduces a portion of that book at that link.)

Fifth, the story of John's punishment should either be included in the article or not. I don't think it appropriate to allow you (or me) to have the final say over which facts are included and which are not in the main article. I would ask you to restore to the original text the portions you moved to the footnote. Just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia is a community of contributors, so for you to make that kind of decision on your own seems a bit out of line with the spirit of the community. I am also not sure why you changed what I wrote, and suggest you revert to that. When you add several exact quotes you also need to find the exact page for those quotes, especially when a citation includes info from two different sources. Since I was the one who synthesized the ideas from two sources it might be more work for you than it's worth to go back and link the exact quotes to the right page number and source, and then separate the info from Peters so that it is clear to the readers which info goes with which source. Thanks, FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)FlorenceWhittaker

I've eliminated mention of John's punishment as relatively unimportant in the overall story. I also did away with the long paragraph of detail about Harriman's and Sandford's charges and counter-charges. The crucial aspect of this section is Sandford's trials. As you said, "the story of John's punishment should either be included in the article or not." I think not. Its exclusion will both point the story better and eliminate one source of contention between us. Hopefully, you'll also think the rewording of the "whipping children" sentence better. But I'm at a loss what to do about the ocean liner. It's non-existence is not conjecture. There was no ocean liner.--John Foxe (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

John, Encyclopedias deal with facts based on published, reliable sources, and do not make stuff up because it seems true. On what basis do you claim to know there was no ocean liner? Unless you can find a source that notes that Sandford's ocean liner never materialized then you cannot state it as fact. For all we know Sandford's group bought one at some point. Or maybe he decided the Coronet was his ocean liner. This is at least plausible. Unless you can find a reliable source that notes the ocean liner never materialized then it is not appropriate to state it as a fact. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this. The only facts/views that Wikipedia allows are ones that have been published.

As to eliminating John's story, if you do that then you should also eliminate any mention of the charges of child cruelty, because it really makes no sense to include that and not include why he was charged with cruelty (the charges were based on how he treated John). As is the article misleads the reader to think that cruelty charges were brought because some parents in the community were whipping their kids. I am not suggesting you do eliminate the discussion of the trial, but on further reflection I recommend restoring the entire part of the story about John, so that the child cruelty charge and conviction can be discussed and it make sense.

Finally, please refrain from removing work that I have added to this article. I have added historical context in places where I daresay that most any serious historian will say is needed, but I have refrained from making it excessively long. I have been trained in this craft and would like to think I know something about it. Context is critical to understanding events, and it is sorely lacking in many spots. I am trying to make the article better, and hope that you can respect this. For you to make some editorial decision on your own, cut material which I have worked hard to find, and not explain which Wikipedia guidelines you are following in doing so is not appropriate. For you to say it is "unnecessary detail" is really not sufficient. Using that argument I could whittle the entire article down to one paragraph. Of course that would be silly, and I don't think either of us really want that. I believe my edits over the last 48 hours have been entirely in line with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. If you want to explain to me where I am not in compliance, please do so, and before editing any additions I have made. A little courtesy, please. Respectfully FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)FlorenceWhittaker

Continuation of discussion

Looking over Peters's citations, I notice that almost all of them are derivative of either Nelson or State v. Sandford.--John Foxe (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, Thanks for restoring some of the facts I added to the article. I take it as a good sign that we may be able to work together to make this a top rate article. I also appreciate where you have tried to improve the stylistic presentation of the facts. However, I would appreciate it if you would not make changes in substance before explaining why/how the facts I added violate Wikipedia content criteria rules, as found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria

For example, I don't know why you qualified Olive Mills' ailment to say "perhaps" it was spiral meningitis when I believe neither Nelson or Peters have qualified it. Nor do I know why you arbitrarily removed the fact that local newspeople and authorities were bothered by what was going on at Shiloh. That is an important part of the story for how it shows tension within the larger community. And now that John's story is back in it would be more appropriate to move all of it to the article. By splitting it up between the text and the footnote you have made a decision about which facts are more important than others. I'm not comfortable with this kind of arbitrary oversight. Again, Wikipedia is a community and I think we can respect our differences of opinion by allowing each member to include whatever facts they feel are appropriate in the body of the article, provided those facts meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.

Now, as to those guidelines, if you look at these rules, particularly the "Verifiability" rule, you might better understand what I was trying to say about the ocean liner never materializing line. I quote the pertinent portion: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I assume you believe Sandford's group never acquired an ocean liner either because Nelson says it, or maybe you have some inside information on the organization to which general readers are not privy. If the former, you need a citation from her book. If the latter, it is not a reliable source under Wikipedia's definition. Maybe by pointing this rule out to you I will have done a better job of explaining my concern than I did before.

While we are discussing rules, I would also like to gently point your attention to the "No original research rule." I think a footnote like that in footnote 27, pointing people to a primary source and a letter of Murray's from 1967 is bordering on a violation of this rule. I don't feel strongly that it is a violation, just suggesting that it might be. Whatever we write is supposed to reference published secondary sources, not primary sources. I do understand you could argue Murray's view is a secondary source, so maybe you included it on that basis. But if you rely on Murray there you should also use him more for whatever he says in Sublimity of Faith.

Lastly, I understand that Peters is derivative of Nelson and court records. But what is your point? This is what historians do, use secondary and primary sources to create a narrative. I do wish Peters had used primary sources only to write his segment. However, it is important to cite Peters as much as possible, because it establishes that the article is relying on more than one source. Too much use of Nelson lessens the persuasiveness of the article. And where they are in consensus helps us as encyclopedia writers because that information can be given more weight (per Wikipedia guidelines). Thanks for listening to my thoughts, FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)FlorenceWhittaker

Hi, Florence (nice choice of name by the way),

Let me take your questions out of order.

1. If Peters is basically derived from Nelson (and presumably the Fwselijah reprints of the 1905 trial), then quoting Peters instead of Nelson is simply smoke and mirrors. We're just pretending to the reader that we're "relying on more than one source." We need to get back to Hiss, whom Nelson says "did the grueling exploration of newspaper coverage on which I have been able to build." (435)

2. No doctor was ever said to have diagnosed Olive Mills. Nelson says she recognized the symptoms of the disease herself from having had spinal meningitis previously—which in itself is improbable.

3. I have no problem with briefly mentioning the antagonism of the town folk and local newspapers. But one of the problems with Wikipedia is that it's easier to add than to subtract, and the encyclopedia develops unreadable articles filled with nonessential stuff simply because that's the path of least resistance—you let me put in my stuff and I'll let you put in yours. Right now this article about Frank Sandford is best encyclopedia article about him bar none. The article can be improved, but it also can be degraded by excessive verbiage. My urge is always to shorten, trim, and cut.

4. I've been up against the "you-can't-prove-a-negative" problem at other articles, and there's usually a way to work it out. For instance, if I write that Sandford wasn't a Mormon (or a Martian, for that matter), and you argue that no secondary source says that, I'll first probably protest that if information of such significance were true, there would be a record of some kind. Eventually we'll probably work it out, and the article will end up with some awkward statement like "There is no extant evidence that Sandford was a Mormon." I'm hoping that Hiss or one of the newspaper articles may say something about the nonexistent ocean liner.

5. Even a very complex and contentious article like Joseph Smith, Jr. has some primary source quotations. They're not forbidden at Wikipedia, but you're right that it's best to avoid them when possible: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The reason I used Murray in that footnote is that I couldn't find the information elsewhere, and there's no reason to believe that Murray, a fearsome champion of Sandford, created the material for any apologetic reason.--John Foxe (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

John, 1. Some good points, thanks for responding. I appreciate the thoughtfulness in them. As to use of Peters, however, he does integrate primary source material with secondary, so it would be really useful to include those parts at minimum. However, under the logic of your argument I suspect we might say that much of Nelson is derivative of both Hiss and Murray, since she has those sources on her bibliography and most likely used them heavily. I don't have access to either of those sources currently so can't say for sure. Does this mean we should go back and excise out all references to her where she repeats an earlier source? Or is there something to be said for using sources which integrate other sources.

Nelson has written a 400+ page book, Peters a seven-page summary directed at "faith healing, children, and the law." To my knowledge, Peters has not used anything we can't see in Nelson or on line, nor has he come to any independent conclusions about Sandford. Nelson is a novelist, not a historian, so maddeningly, there are no footnotes (or index), but she does credit Murray, Hiss, and her dad (whom she says "has no substitute as a primary source").--John Foxe (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

2. As to the not being able to prove a negative issue, I believe that is why Wikipedia has the policy it does about only using facts that are cited in reliable sources. By following that rule you avoid such debates, because if it is really important for people to know that Sandford never acquired an ocean liner then surely those who have written about him would have noted so. Am I wrong on this? I would support the inclusion of the line if you can find Hiss stating as much, but not until then, because it violates the reliability requirement.

I'll drop the line about the nonexistent ocean liner. We can revisit the issue later.--John Foxe (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

3. As to primary source quotes, I'll just point out the "reliably published" phrase you quoted. This of course means you can repeat primary sources that have been published in reliable sources. Given the obvious bias of fwselijah, whatever material they furnish would not qualify. And if you look further at those same instructions, you will note the instruction that no interpretation is allowed of primary sources unless such interpretation is found in a secondary source. I think that's the rub here.

Primary sources at fwselijah are not unreliable because they were republished there. It's the original publication in a newspaper or whatever that determines what's "reliable" or not. Now, if we suspect that the documents have been unfairly edited at fwselijah or that there's been a POV interpretation of those sources, you can argue that point on a case-by-case basis. For instance, a major primary source for early Mormonism is a five-volume set of Early Mormon Documents edited by a noted scholarly skeptic of Mormonism; but I've never seen the documents challenged on that ground.--John Foxe (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I'm skeptical that the "reliably published" requirement in Wikipedia's policy really means whether they were reliably created or not at time of original publication. How would Wikipedia editors have the expertise to judge this? I think that's why Wikipedia confines use of primary sources to those that have been published by some kind of historian, such as the "Early Mormon Documents" you referenced. However, I'll drop the point for now because upon looking at the source at fwselijah it does not seem plausible that it was doctored in some way.FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Finally, I have not been able to find any place on Wikipedia that says an editor's role is to shorten the length of articles and cut out information that has been added when such information is in line with the rules of Wikipedia already cited (verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view). Can you correct me if I'm wrong? There is a dangerous precedent set if one or more editors decide it is their job to decide what is "nonessential." Would you allow me to cut information I find "nonessential" that you have written? I suspect not. I certainly hope you don't hold the view that only you can decide what is essential and what is not. That is not what Wikipedia is about.

I certainly would allow you to cut information you found nonessential if there's no POV involved in the cuts. In fact, you did so less than 48 hours ago when you cut my line about Sandford's inability to write snappy titles. I think I could cite the idea to Nelson, but I let it go. The only caveat is that you can't cut material in a POV fashion, which happens all the time over at Joseph Smith. In short, our goal should be to follow the direction of the Manual of Style that "Writing should be clear and concise."--John Foxe (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain more about what kinds of cuts you support without any discussion, especially when there is "no POV involved in the cuts"? I cut your line about Sandford's snappy titles because I didn't think it was how Nelson characterized it, so violated the Verifiability rule, and also seemed to violate the NPOV requirement.

Speaking of verifiability, does Nelson qualify the Mills' illness by saying that it was "probably" spiral meningitis, or is that a qualification you added. I fully agree with you that it is dubious it was spiral meningitis if Olive Mills was the only one who diagnosed this. However, I don't think it is fair to add skepticism unless Nelson is clearly skeptical. To do so would be editorial interpretation, which is not what we are supposed to be doing. Thanks, FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

On Mills' illness, Nelson has these curious sentences: "a deep and unusual ache settled into the back of her neck....It was a symptom she recognized from a bout years before with cerebro-spinal meningitis....Meningitis was deadly. Patients seldom recovered from it regardless of the treatment." (125) Is Nelson deliberately, if elliptically, casting doubt on Mills' story? Nelson gives no other source for the diagnosis of meningitis.

As for the nature of cuts, Wikipedia editing guidelines suggest that large proposed deletions or replacements be discussed first—which is exactly what we've been doing (and in a very civilized fashion, I might add). Obviously your removing the "snappy titles" line didn't bother me, and if you considered the line POV, so much the better. (The idea was Nelson's. She called the name of Sandford's first organization "cumbersome," the name of his monthly magazine "an extension of the already cumbersome" and the name of his Bible school "another mouthful." I'll take credit or blame for the phrase "snappy titles.")--John Foxe (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

John, Thanks for the explanation on the meningitis. I can see where you're coming from on that and am satisfied to let it rest. I'm also glad you think that we are following the guidelines for deletions and replacements, because I wouldn't want you to think I'm trying to be a renegade and just change things willy-nilly. I have tried only to remove content that is not in line with Wikipedia's content criteria. You've done a lot of good work on this article and should be commended for it. I will add, however, that my perception has been different from yours about your approach to editing, and that I have been frustrated because you have cut facts I added, and justified it in the name of streamlining without discussing it with me first. For example, you cut the information on Nathan Harriman that I added, and then after I restored it you took out substantive information. For instance, you removed Harriman's quote where he casts Sandford's ideas as some sort of Old Testament religion. This is a substantive fact, so removing it is not just a stylistic edit. You have pointed to the stylistic guidelines as justification for this. However, I will point out that all of those guidelines concern style, and not substance. My impression is that you don't clearly understand the difference between these two kinds of editing. I have some experience having worked as an editorial assistant on a journal with scholars of various types, and there is a clear distinction between making edits on their writing so it is easier to understand (you have done some of this with my writing, and I thank you for it) versus removing facts because an editor thinks they are unnecessary and the writing is long-winded. At the very least removing sections or substance would only be done with their permission, and as the one who included the facts to begin with they would have the last word on whether to include it (unless my editor decided not to run their article at all because they are intransigent and never take suggestions).

Another point relating to edits of style versus substance has to do with removing material from the text to the footnotes. This is not a stylistic point that I could find anywhere in the manual you pointed me to. That makes sense, because moving facts to a footnotes is a substantive change, not a stylistic one. I think we both know that readers look at footnotes less frequently, so when you move material I have found to a footnote it looks like you are trying to bury facts I have added. I do not want to think this of you, and given your stated belief that you think you are abiding by the guidelines I would like to think that you did not intend this shifting of information to come across that way. So I hope you will appreciate my telling you that those kinds of edits do appear to be an effort on your part of emphasize some facts over others, and to make substantive changes to my work.

Again, you seem like a reasonable guy/girl, so I hope my explaining how I have perceived some of your edits will only help us in coming to some kind of consensus/understanding, and allow us to move forward together in raising the quality of this article. Thanks, FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a reasonable guy—and a safe one too, old enough to be your grandfather. Now, the following may sound like arrogant sermonizing, but I don't mean it so: if editing decisions at this article depended on experience and paper credentials, mine trump yours hands down. (How many scholars in your experience could write an encyclopedia article this literate without any outside editing?)

But for both good and ill, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Viewing the process negatively, Larry Sanger recently said, "Wikipedia has very few practical constraints about people behaving according to normal rules of politeness and fair dealing. They've got a zillion rules, of course—that's part of the problem—but there is no easy way to rein in the bad actors."

Certainly we may find ourselves differing, but I pledge to remain as polite as any sinful man can. And if the two of us get to an impasse, we can get a Third opinion. You'll find my greatest interest at this article is not in pushing some ideological agenda but in getting the clearest, cleanest article possible. That means that we ought to be able to explain why a quotation is necessary when the information in it might better be summarized or be relegated to the footnotes.--John Foxe (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

John, Sorry if you thought I was trying to pull some sort of rank about editing decisions. I was not. I was only trying to use my experience to explain why I think you don't understand the rules upon which editing decisions are supposed to be made. It was not intended as a personal attack (I don't know how you know anything about my age or credentials, but I'm not interested in arguing about them so will let it drop). I'm suggesting you don't fully understand the editing rules of Wikipedia, not that you aren't as capable of an editor as myself or anyone else. You did not respond to the substantive points I made about these rules. Again, there is nothing in the style manual which suggests you can cut quotes or any other substantive facts in the name of "streamlining." I understand it makes sense to explain additions, but you seem to have decided it is your right to reverse additions when you don't like those explanations, without waiting for any consensus to develop on the matter. I have explained my additions but you have still cut them. I will also point out that I don't see you following your own rules, because you have added multiple facts and quotes to the article within the last week without giving a substantive reason for adding them. I have not called you on it because it is not a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines as far as I know.

I understand that some material is better left relegated to the footnotes, but I can't figure out how you make that decision, and again do not think it your right to move it there whenever you see fit. For example, why wouldn't you allow a little more detail about the kinds of accusations Nathan Harriman made against Shiloh, since those accusations seem to have been seminal in later criminal charges? Even more, why would you relegate Sandford's responses to those criticisms to a footnote? An article on Sandford should not silence or mute his perspective. It's kind of important to know how Sandford defended himself.

Your tendency to make cuts to my additions as "unnecessary" has had the effect of my wondering whether additional research on this is worth it. I think Hiss's dissertation could add valuable insight to this article. I found the dissertation listed in an online catalogue as over 1200 pages in length. Given this, I suspect that using Hiss could lengthen the article by three or four times its current size. However, what is the point of doing all that work if you are just going to cut it because you think it "unnecessary?" FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I do think a third opinion would be useful at this time. If for some reason I am totally misunderstanding Wikipedia's rules of editing then I would like to be told that by a third party. Thanks, FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think if you take a look at the Third opinion page, you'll realize that at this point, we don't have a specific issue to submit. Why don't you describe here in the discussion why you think all that "he said" "he replied" stuff is necessary.

On Hiss's dissertation: Yikes! I had no idea that it might be that long. But perhaps it contains lots of newspaper articles and the trial records as appendices, which would be handy. (Note that Hiss couldn't publish his dissertation; length doesn't necessarily indicate quality.)

On consensus: Consensus is a tricky concept when there are just two of us. I checked WikiDashboard and was surprised to find that although I had made 71% of the edits to this article, you had already made 6% yourself. Those statistics indicate comparatively low interest in Sandford. The article got only about 600 hits last month compared to 50,000 for Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I would suggest the specific issue is when it is appropriate for one editor to delete, cut out, or move to a footnote substantive material added by another editor, when such material meets all Wikipedia content criteria guidelines. I think if you look back at our discussion and edit history you will find some significant disagreement over this issue. Harriman's critique of Sandford and Sandford's response through the newspaper is one specific example where we seem to have some disagreement on this. Thanks, FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Are the words of Harriman important?

You haven't explained the reason why you want to include this material, which I find useless. Why is it important?--John Foxe (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I explained it briefly when I made the edits. Understanding Harriman more fully is useful to understand those who opposed Shiloh, as Harriman seems to be one of the larger critics. Including a few phrases of his specific language is useful to understanding how he was bothered. And including Sandford's response is important because it is an article about him, so knowing how he responded to public criticism in a newspaper is also important. FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Harriman is important. Nor do I understand why his or Sandford's specific language makes a difference. The trials would have taken place if Harriman had been in Timbuktu.--John Foxe (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Harriman publishes his diatribe against Sandford in the paper, and claims child cruelty in it against John. This has no connection to the trial?

Harriman and Sandford's words help add to the overall narrative of Sandford as an enigmatic and polarizing personality. It also adds a little more depth which adds color to the story, spicing it up a bit. FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, to me it's just rambling distraction for the reader. I don't believe there's any reason to mention Harriman outside the notes, and both his and Sandford's comments are trite and add nothing to the story. Classic footnote stuff at best. What was important for a newspaper reporter a hundred years ago is not necessarily of interest today.--John Foxe (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I have now explained why Harriman is important at least twice. Obviously you do not accept my explanation, which is fine. But what is not fine is for you to delegate to yourself the authority to remove substantive material just because the explanation does not meet your subjective view of what is necessary and what is not. And I'm not sure why material I add must meet your approval when you are not seeking approval of material you add. I strongly believe that a neutral third party will agree with my view, that to simply remove material because you think it unnecessary and not because it violates the Wikipedia's content rules, is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. And I am afraid we are going to be in need of a third party opinion on a frequent basis if you continue to assume this authority. I hope you will reconsider this approach. FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd just save up a bunch of objections, and we can bring in a third party toward the end of the revision process. To my mind you've not provided a reason for either Harriman's importance or the inclusion of the quotations.--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Beliefs on Healing

This section of the article is currently inaccurate, and in some significant ways: "Sandford insisted that sickness was "the fruit of sin" that could only be removed by confession and "prevailing prayer." Those who lived in "perfection through the power of the Holy Ghost" should enjoy health in every organ of their body, although some Satanic illnesses were so severe that they required the laying on of hands to cast demons out of the sufferer"

I have checked the citation on this and find that Nelson says something far different from this passage as constructed. She says that Sandford started repeating Dowie in condemning doctors and pharmacies, insisting that Satan had caused all illness and disease. Nelson contrasts this view with the larger evangelical community, which "often talked about sickness as 'the ultimate fruit of sin,' in the words of one spokesman, 'the penalty of violating God's laws,' a notion not entirely in conflict with the perceptions of the medical profession of the day. Everything considered, if you were sick, you had better find out why, beyond the physical cause. God might permit illness as a way to discipline and instruct, but those who lived in absolute trust lived inn victory over Satan's onslaughts." In other words, Sandford was departing from mainstream evangelical Christianity, which said sickness was the fruit of sin. Sandford instead was saying it was the fruit of the devil or it might be permitted by God. Whatever the cause you needed to find it out.

Thus for Sandford there were multiple reasons a person may be sick, but it was important to follow the directions the disciples had been given to lay hands on the sick and cast out devils.

Nelson also says that Shiloh did a lot of quiet praying, even as the more noisy prayer was becoming more popular. I don't see any mention by Nelson in the cited section that confession and "prevailing prayer" were essential to deal with sickness. Neither does she say that Sandford believed those in "perfection through the power of the Holy Ghost should enjoy health in every organ. What she does say is that "the Shiloh hospital stood for 'perfection through the power of the Holy Ghost . . . and for 'health throughout every organ of the body." Thus the hospital symbolized this, even as some members still got sick. Since sickness might have been something God permitted, it was NOT always the fruit of sin.

I'll try and come up with a suggested revision when I have time. FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow Sandford here, but when you come up with a revision, I'll check it out in Nelson. Thanks for catching those errors in my descriptions of the trials. I must have been napping. Actually, Nelson put me off in that chapter by reproducing so much of the trial record.--John Foxe (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My proposed change would be this: Sandford felt compelled to follow the Bible with its proscription to deal with sickness by calling church elders for prayer, and criticized those who called physicians instead. Whatever the exact cause of illness--permitted by God for discipline, or an attack from Satan--Sandford insisted on imitating the disciples by laying hands on the sick and casting out any devils involved. Dealing with the devil led to loud prayer, including shouts, as a way to combat the devil. Called "prevailing prayer," this style was not without its detractors. Thoughts? FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your idea seems closer to Nelson than what I wrote. I'll switch out what's there for a tweaked version of your idea.--John Foxe (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I think it important to restore the sections I wrote which explain how Sandford believed his methods were in imitation of the Bible and biblical characters. "Sandford taught" instead of "Sandford insisted on imitating the disciples" makes him sound like he is just doing his own thing, and not at least in his own mind imitating his heroes. I hope it was not intentional to make him seem to be doing his own thing. In fairness to the record I think that info should be restored. FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nelson says nothing about "imitating the disciples" or "his heroes." (And I'm sure you're aware that although James was an Apostle, he wasn't one of the Twelve.) Besides, the phrase "believed his methods were in imitation of the Bible and biblical characters" is vague. What don't you like about "Sandford taught that receiving treatment from physicians violated the teaching of the Bible"?--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I agree that "believed his methods were in imitation of the Bible and biblical characters" is vague. And I never suggested use of this phrase, but rather "Sandford felt compelled to follow the Bible with its proscription to deal with sickness by calling church elders for prayer, and criticized those who called physicians instead." I think that is specific enough. I've tweaked the section to more accurately reflect what Nelson says. The problem with "Sandford taught that receiving treatment from physicians violated the teaching of the Bible" is that it is also vague, leaves the reader wondering what possible Biblical basis there is for such a belief, and seems factually inaccurate. What teaching of the Bible? As Nelson points out, Sandford relied on the biblical teaching to call the elders for prayer. Sandford criticized calling physicians instead of elders, but I think it a misinterpretation of Nelson to say he said the sick must call in "only" elders. The fact that later on in the same paragraph there is a reference to doctors clearly shows that Sandford was not against physicians, albeit employed in unconventional ways, simply against looking to them before the elders prayed. You are quite right that Nelson doesn't specifically say Sandford imitated disciples. I thought it was appropriate given her mention of Sandford's focus on a verse discussing apostles/disciples laying on hands and casting out devils. However, I have excluded the reference out of deference to the point. FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Felt compelled" is both indefinite and passive and so therefore weak writing. "Follow the Bible" is vague because Sandford was basing his teaching on only one verse in the Bible, James 5:14. Neither James nor Sandford said to "first" call the elders. In Sandford's practice doctors were sometimes first called, then the "elders" came to pray.--John Foxe (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I've tweaked the sentence in response to your comments. I hope the result is satisfactory. FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that was an improvement.--John Foxe (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

John, Your most recent edit on the healing passage has removed the nuance that was there before and confused things a bit. I thought we both had agreed from discussion above that Sandford used doctors at Shiloh. Thus the statement that Sandford "criticized Christians who sought treatment from physicians" is overly simplistic and thus misleading. What is true is that he criticized those who called for a doctor's help instead of the elders. It's pretty clear in Nelson that the issue Sandford had was with people who trusted doctors in place of elders. From what I can tell in Nelson it was a matter of priority. I thought what I had there before was clear enough, but if you think you can come up with a better way of putting it then feel free to. And next time could you give an explanation for why you change something of substance that I added? Thanks, FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Doctors provided no treatment at Shiloh. Nelson says, "Doctors would be permitted at Bethesda for diagnoses and consultation, but no medications would be provided, not so much as a headache powder or a laxative." "In view of Shiloh's position on medical care, the idea of a hospital on the grounds aroused great public curiosity. What was it for?" (122, 119)--John Foxe (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

John, I believe your response shows you are defining "treatment" more narrowly than the medical profession does. Treatment does not have to include the prescription of drugs, but could include something as simple as bed rest. And the passage as it stands is still misleading, as it implies doctors were not consulted at all on medical issues when they most definitely were. Diagnosis and consultation are parts of medical treatment. Perhaps "Sandford criticized Christians who sought drugs from physicians, although he did not prohibit diagnoses and consultations." That makes it a little clearer that doctors were used, even if in nontraditional ways. FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the word "consultations." Anything beyond that needs proof in the sources. If one has say, cancer, diagnosis and consultation are not treatment.--John Foxe (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Article Length

Florence,

It just struck me that in talking about Hiss's monstrous dissertation, you suggested that "using Hiss could lengthen the article by three or four times its current size." But there are limits to the size of Wikipedia articles (though these are often honored in the breach it seems) listed here. Depending how you figure the KBs, "Frank Sandford" is already at, or beyond, the suggested upper limit—a good Wiki-reason to cut rather than add.--John Foxe (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

John, Where do you figure out the KB size of an article? And I find the info on article length to be confusing, as one place discusses a suggested limit of 32 KB while another talks about articles that are over 400 KB. Either way, it seems like these size limits are less necessary now that you can edit individual sections. And there are many Wikipedia articles longer than this one, so I'm not too worried about the size limits. The problem as I see it with being constrained to a KB size is that you have done some good work by using Nelson, yet it seems that Hiss is the more scholarly (and therefore to be more trusted) source. At the very least use of Hiss is required to meet the NPOV requirement of Wikipedia. But I would be hesitant to add material from Hiss at the expense of cutting what you have done. That being said, there probably is something to be said for trying to keep the article size from tripling or quadrupling if at all possible. FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The KB size is given at the top when you're in edit mode. Right this minute it's 43KB. I agree that Hiss is probably the most reliable source, everything else being equal; and although I wouldn't say it was necessary to use Hiss to meet NPOV, I'm sure his dissertation will be helpful. Nevertheless, I have no problem cutting the current article to make room for new material. My interest here is the most reliable information, presented succinctly, in good literary form.--John Foxe (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Early Life Section

John, Please do not arbitrarily move sourced material from the article to a footnote. At the least this is bad Wikipedia etiquette, at worst a violation of Wikipedia's rules. I do not know why an additional two sentences giving more of the why and when about the event that Sandford would probably see as one of the most important in his life is worthy of reducing to a footnote. Also, by restoring the line about Sandford becoming a Christian "a few weeks after" attending a revival meeting the narrative is now contradictory. Hiss makes it clear that Sandford converted the night after first attending, not a few weeks later. FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the date of Sandford's conversion into the text and removed the "few weeks after" line to end the contradiction. (I'm not sure whether Hiss or Nelson is correct about the timing of Sandford's conversion. Nelson says, "For a week he vacillated." Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

3O discussion

Hello, y'all didn't provide a section link in your request for a third opinion, so I'm not sure what exactly you'd like an opinion on. It's not a big deal, but I'd appreciate if either or both of you would clarify. Thank you. --Danger (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll confess to suggesting to FlorenceWhittaker that if the two of us worked ourselves into an impasse, we could ask for a Third opinion, but personally I don't think we're there yet. Perhaps she has a different opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. I did a close read of the first few sections last night and wonder if y'all wouldn't mind some copyedit-y goodness after this issue is resolved. --Danger (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What, my writing isn't flawless?--John Foxe (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought that, in order not to intimidate readers with perfection, I might add some errors to make the article more accessible. --Danger (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Lon Ussurisk

OK, I am a rank newbie, and being one ,I mistakenly used the sandbox and asked for a review of the bulk (apologies) my comments presented here over 3 years from the last comment posting. Perhaps my concerns are still relevant. My comment is obviously not NPOV because it is in the realm of "original research". But my motivation is from a reader's feeling that the article is NPOV in a major way for the reason pointed out in this talk page posted by John Foxe, 4 Aug. 2010 observig that the citations almost all are from Nelson or State vs. Sandford. The tone of the article seems to rely solely on critical record of Sandford and even confined to the negative part of a "chartismatic" character. Perhaps teh citations are exhaustive and there is no record of the characteristics of a positive nature. Perthaps there are none that meet the standard of secondary sourcing. I will attampt to find some. In teh meantime, pease see in my comments, personal knowledge that the reported abuse of John, if true, were not traumatically debilitating. There must be something positive that can be said about Frank Sandford, if not just a single citation about how he was able to exercise such power over people for such a log duration. That said, the following is why I have a 'feeling' that the NPOV standard is not met as teh article stands or at least until a sincere effort is mde to find some redeeming secondary source quality to the eccentric Sandford: Request review at WP:AFC Frank Sandford

[Personal note. This is my first foray into Wikipedia in an editing capacity and I was not aware of secondary vs. primary source policy or any other editing guidelines. I have anecdotal personal experience with John Sandford interesting to other serious editors, perhaps, as an epilogue for to the Frank Sandford article. I met with John Sandford in intimate small family gatherings 25 years ago in Trout Lake, WA. There is a happy ending to the description in the article about the prosecution of Frank Sandford for what could have been traumatically debilitating child abuse. John lived into his 90's and exhibited a quite well adjusted and happy countenance until is last days. What is really interesting, imo, is the transition of the son as a child from indoctrination into cultish premillenialism by a raging father to his rather radical and certainly self-discovered transition to a gentle doctrine of universal reconciliation.] There is also at least one center on the West Coast, Forks, WA and past attempt, 1974-1976, to establish one in Trout Lake, WA with intent to establish an intentional spiritual (Church of God Seventh Day) community by families, Skerbitz, Clark, (Frank) LeBert and Philip and Rowena Sandford, the son of John Sandford and granddaughter of John. <personal conversations> John, when in his 90's and his wife (?) visited the young Sandfords periodically from their missions to the Southwest and Mexico in an old car and Airstream travel trailer. The elder Sandfords periodically visited until their deaths. John Sandford was an absolutely joyful and delightful man full of memorized hymns, multiple verses. Never did the assembled group of visitors hear the same hymn twice. John spoke of his reading the Bible cover to cover 36 times and delighted in quoting scripture. He and his wife traveled with a former Baptist minister, Mr. Sperling. The three missionaries had deduced after all their collective years in biblical studies what would have been regarded as heresy by apocalyptic Frank Sandford. They gently espoused a doctrine of universal salvation (reconciliation), in much the same language as Pope Francis was quoted in Vatican Radio website: http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445 The Sandfords and Sperling offered many biblical citations much as Ernest L. Martin who makes a case for universal reconciliation through grace here: http://www.tlchrist.info/univrsl3.htm The Martin complications of future resurrections they did not mention. They did emphasize 1Corinth 12:4-7 repeatedly emphasizing the “all in all”. <personal conversation> 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” <KJV> [Ed. note. The John Sandford son and granddaughter are a married couple and still friends and reside in Trout Lake and can be contacted. From them I will get John's wife's name and their age at death. I don't know if there is a way to include any of this new material into the article or if there is any interest in it enough to justify my additional pursuit. Let me know if I can help. I am now living between Ussurisk, Primorye, Russia and Trout Lake, WA] Lon Ussurisk Subject/headline Lon Ussurisk (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are personally interesting, and I hope they can be preserved somewhere in some more permanent form. But because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, your recollections, to be cited here, would first need to appear in some secondary source (perhaps a thesis or dissertation) because of the Wikipedia rule that prevents original research. If I can personally be of any assistance, please feel free to contact me.--John Foxe (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)