User talk:John Foxe/Archive 3

Jim Berg article

I have altered the phrase "biblical truth" to that of "biblical thought" (and offered both "doctrine" and "teaching" as alternatives on the Talk page, wherein I gave reasons for this edit). I subsequently noticed that you recently reverted just such a change. Religious belief should not be stated as a "truth" - this is NPOV. I've left it to others to choose which of the alternatives (or, of course, any others which correspond in meaning) to use. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I removed the entire phrase since the meaning is clear from the previous sentence. I think, though, that you've confused me with someone else because my last edit to this page was eleven months ago.--John Foxe (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, and so promptly. I do apologise if I've mixed you up with someone else! I did notice that that revert was to get rid of several edits by an IP number and it would be easy to have missed a legit one there. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, sir. What is your problem? Why is it so important to you that Jim Berg look like a pillar of the Christian faith, while making Camille Lewis a quibbling dissenter? You, sir, need to grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.210.9.36 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no ax to grind here. I'm the one who added the reference to the Camille Lewis article in the first place. You waste your own time and the time of the community by vandalizing articles such as Jim Berg. If Camille Lewis is noteworthy by Wikipedia standards (WP:NOTE), then write an article about her. If not, there are plenty of other constructive things you can do to improve the quality of Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry Eyring

You missed my subtle humor, although it's good that you knew about whom I was speaking. I'm most definitely not a Mormon (and any review of my edits would tell you a good deal about my ethnicity and faith), but I did attend college where you mentioned. My point was back to you that stating whether or not you're a Mormon is irrelevant to the validity of your comments. High members of the Mormon church assisted me in my education and/or professional development, but it does not make me an expert on Mormonism (although, I am, but that's because of my minor in college). My point about the article is merely that it is not neutral and attempts to "prove" the existence of the Golden Plates with LDS references. The sources are primary and are, therefore, suspect. That's it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understood that you weren't a Mormon even before I checked your talk page and read your ringing religious endorsement of secularism. I made it explicit that I wasn't a Mormon (or an ex-Mormon) because, in that case, my views regarding the neutrality of Golden Plates could not be chalked up to religious bigotry. Otherwise, I don't understand how my not being a Mormon or ex-Mormon would increase my credibility on the subject.--John Foxe (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't matter if you're Mormon or not. My point is, don't say it. A lot of editors in backchannel communications believe that anyone who says, "I'm not thus and such" usually devalue their credibility. Although I am well-versed in LDS pseudoarcheology, theology, and culture, I rarely let anyone know it. Of course, when I casually throw out "Doctrine & Covenants", I guess I'm busted.  :) Anyways, I was trying to humorously advise you. Anyways, you don't have to tell anyone your background, because no one really cares. If you have a valid point about the validity or lack of validity of anything written, this place is a society of equals. If you're smart and well-read, you're just as much an "expert" as someone who has a formal title. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and usually do follow it. But I thought this particular instance unusual enough (especially with the number of editors who didn't know me from Adam's off ox) to make an exception.--John Foxe (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image in BJU infobox

You give me undeserved credit for aesthetic judgment. I merely have experience with the University Infobox. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Three Witnesses and Twelve Apostles

Hi; I'm a bit perplexed by your Bushman claim here in light of this. Were you just guessing when you said it wasn't in Bushman? Why delete this section outright rather than requesting a supplementary citation via the talk page (article's or mine) or though {cn} notations? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I looked at Bushman but obviously not hard enough. When you cited only an LDS rather than a reasonably neutral source such as Bushman, it was a red flag for me.--John Foxe (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I was just confused more than anything and wondering if you were seeing something I was missing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Move of material from Criticism of Mormonism article

The reason that material is being moved from the CoM article to the main related articles is because the CoM article is so bloated and plagued with POV issues. By moving much of the critical material to the main related articles, it's given a chance for more context and, perhaps, thorough vetting. The CoM as it stands is, in a lot of ways, just a POV fork. I hope that makes sense. And I agree with your edit at the Eight Witnesses article. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the notion that because one article is a POV fork, the situation can be improved by exporting the POV to other articles, such as Three Witnesses, that are relatively neutral and stable. In any case, most of the material that you've added is already here without the POV. But I'll stand down a bit on this one and let other members of the community have their say.--John Foxe (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

John Foxe artist?

That was rather unexpected...can you possibly flesh out the authorship section on your Joseph Smith Translation artwork, what medium, computer created etc?? I actually like it...how's that for a shocker? Well done. Twunchy (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I was more facilitator than artist. When we were discussing the copyrighted image, another editor wrote, "The image is used solely as an artist's illustration of an imagined scene. It could be replaced, without loss of information, by a free drawing you or I or Jimbo Wales could create, of a guy sitting on a chair and holding a hat before his eyes. Heck, that's not even very difficult to draw, I could do one in five minutes." That got me thinking of a younger relative of mine who has artistic gifts. She created the image in PhotoShop, but she didn't think it good enough to put her name on.

I was thinking about asking permission to use this this image, but you'll probably note the problems right away: Smith is on the stairs instead of upstairs, the space is way too large for the framed cabin in Harmony, and nothing that was dictated to Martin Harris is actually in the Book of Mormon anyway.--John Foxe (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this.

John, Just dropping a quick note to thank you for fixing the paraphrase in the Lost 116 pages article. I have found that most of my objections to added material stem from them being unsourced or inaccurate, and I greatly appreciate your willingness to include the actual quotes that eliminated the paraphrase. Any objections I may have had to the previous wording are gone now that the material is sourced. Again, thanks for fixing this. Please let me know if I can ever do anything for you in return. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (Billy Sunday) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Danite

Noting that you are knowledgeable about LDS history, I thought I might request that you look over a minor disagreement I have been having with Storm Rider at Talk:Danite. I have no particular knowledge of LDS history, but I happened to spot the particular edit that led to the discussion. If you have anything to add, I would be grateful for your input. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits on Joseph Smith Jr.

John, Your recent edits on Joseph Smith Jr. have been reverted. It seems that they show a great amount of bias. As explained on the talk page of that article, the fact that this information is there is not a problem in and of itself. The problem arises in the nature of this information. If allowed to stand, it would need to be countered with further verifiable information about the good things done by Smith. Additionally, by adding this information, whether that was your intent or not, you essentially cut off the opportunity of other editors to give input about this information. You have been a Wikipedian longer than I have, so I need not remind you that it is usually best to discuss full-scale edits such as this on the article talk page before the changes are made. This allows for input from other editors and ensures that additional information is included in accordance with WP policy and in cooperation with other editors. Lest you misunderstand my perspective, I will admit to you that I would have NO problems whatsoever with the included information, provided a countersource was provided to refute what it states, and/or provided that input from other editors was supplied prior to its reinclusion. Best wishes, and keep up the good work. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis and your understanding of Wikipedia policy, but I appreciate your interest and good faith.--John Foxe (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Golden Plates

You state poor writing; I think the previous writing was poor for several reasons. Why define associates? Aren't all associates generally friendly? Seems like you are attempting to lead readers to a conclusion, a POV. 2) The edits I have made come from highly respected historian Jan Shipps. If you think her writing is poor, please tell me your qualifications. 3) If you have a specific problem use the discussion page. 4) The article currently is written with the objective of leading readers to a POV conclusion; it does not just report facts. In summary, the article is in need of NPOV; too much of the language is POV and facts are missing from the history. --Voire Dei (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When I said your writing is weak, I meant weak stylistically. There's no problem with your sources or citations, but the information cited is irrelevant to the article. (If you'll review your message, you'll find several cases of poor syntax and two comma errors. I don't want to be too tough; perhaps English is not your first language.)--John Foxe (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nauvoo period

Just so you're aware, from Bennett to JSJr.'s killing, a group of us recently did a lot of edits in the last six months. I thought you should know this before you start the tweaking. I have been sitting waiting for you to get to these paragraphs and just thought you should know that a lot of work went into these sections. They include Bennett, polygamy, esoteric religious practices, the Expositor, and Carthage. We also went back & forth many times on the section of Emma, Smith children, Bennett abortions, and allegations made by Sarah Pratt - until we reached some kind of consensus. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. That material is by far the most off-target and poorly written section of the article. You know the old quip about the camel being a horse designed by a committee. Most of the material belongs (if it belongs anywhere) in other articles. I'll edit slowly (I don't have a choice), but I'll also be bold. Our objective is a logically organized synthetic biography of Joseph Smith, and I'm sure you'll feel free to step in whenever you think I've lost the focus on Joseph Smith—as you rightly did with my last edit.--John Foxe (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, even if I don't agree whatsoever. I'm just letting you know that there will be a whole lot of editorial wrangling if much is tossed out...at least by me. Sure be bold, but understand that your analogy about the committee isn't appropriate, as Wikipedia is written by many and not one. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you've like to see what Joseph Smith could (and in my opinion, should) look like, check out my handiwork at Fawn Brodie and Billy Sunday. And yes, there there was a considerable amount of "sniping" in the process of getting those articles together. But now they've been basically stable for more than a year.

I'm indeed planning to throw lots out—anything not directly related to Joseph Smith—and you're certainly welcome to object. But one reason why Storm Rider takes such a dim view of my presence is that I'm both competent and persistent.--John Foxe (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Storm Rider - only that a lot of work went into those sections by a group of editors with differing views. I don't think there are two of us with the same background, interest in the subject, motives, etc. Consensus is all about working together, despite differences, to reach NPOV. There is also hardly a parallel between Fawn Brodie and JSJr as far as historical accomplishments and impact - hence their articles would be radically different. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to style, not content. Cooperation and hard work do not, unfortunately, translate into clear thinking and good writing.--John Foxe (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure everything will fall into place. I am neither a Mormon nor ex-Mormon, and like you (I am assuming) also have the ability to look at things objectively. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

May it be so.--John Foxe (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My, my, my, we do have a slanted perception. It would be better if you did not put words in the mouths of others. If you think that I have a dim view of you because you are competent and persistent you would be severely mistaken. I have a dim view of you because you have a negative POV and mostly ignore positive information about Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saint movement. You enjoy bringing up fringe positions and present them as mainstream thought. This is the type of dishonest approach that quasi historians take; there is no interest in facts, but rather take a hypothesis and only seek supporting information and ignore anything contradictory. All the while patting yourself on the back for such a good job. I respect history and strongly disapprove of reconstructionists. --^StormRider 19:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

joseph smith jr.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith,_Jr.&diff=236745507&oldid=236726055)

pardon me if i haven't seen it, but you moved a source out and didn't replace it. why? Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary source is in the footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of refs

Out of respect, I wanted you to know that the only reason I removed the references from the Emma Smith picture was that they referred only to the number of wives, NOT to Emma Smith's denial of existence of said wives. I replaced the "historians" line and the references are now associated with their consensus, not Emma's denials. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny

Do you expect me to call in the cavalry to take part in reverting your POV, long-winded edits? You have apparently solicited a Bpb Jones buddy to do this for me, whereas i have stood my ground in putting back things you've tossed aside as irrelevant to your own world view. A Sniper (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What would those things be? Could they be summarized in a sentence or two? I don't understand what's so special about these disjointed paragraphs and block quotations that you insist can't be modified. In my view, they're not offensively POV; they're just off-topic and poorly written. And for some reason you think they're critically important. Why?--John Foxe (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Foxe, I have tried to respect you, and if you read my posts to you in the past, I have made an effort. At first you thought I was a Missourian on some sort of mission. Your BJU user friend, on the other hand, went straight with the POV to conclude I must be a Mormon. You want to know why this page worked for all of the regular gang of users (some Mormon, some anti, some merely interested in history) in the past? This was due to our ability to allow for some sense of balance. If you check, you'll find I have mostly stayed clear of your edits in the earlier part of the article because I don't find them a problem, whereas others did. I felt you added rather negative trivia, but that's my opinion. For me, as long as they were balanced with the actual primary statements of the parties, that satisfied me. Quote from all the Mormons (Compton, Bushman, Van Wagoner) and ex-Mormons (Brodie) you want - as long as the next paragraph quotes the people themselves, because there are an adequate number of references to pick through. This might indeed leave the reader with a sense that JSJr. was a hypocrite, but so be it - these folks were certain of what they thought and believed, at least in that they left a trail of personal quotes. The paramount issue for me is that if you want to buy into the accounts - sometime based on innuendo, contemporary rumor and the like - about Emma doing this or Emma doing that, merely because agenda-driven historians have their own faith bolstered by their research, then write about it. No objection from me - but balance it with Emma's statements from the very beginning refuting this. That is why I'll keep on inserting her own statements, as well as JSJr's. Is that POV on my part? Perhaps if we continue editing this page at the same time, I'll feel confident enough to share my own thoughts on the subject of JSJr. and the Smiths with you without feeling like you have your own agenda - something to do with an evangelical Christian background? I don't hold it against you if that is the case, because I am still trying to hold out good faith, but at least it helps me understand you better. As you've noticed, most of the usual crowd hanging out at the JSJr. page have grown strangely silent... Sorry for the ramble, John, but I'm trying to be honest. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Missouri business was supposed to be a joke—which understandably you didn't find funny because you actually had been a Missourian. I don't understand what the big deal about Emma is. The Joseph Smith article is about Joseph Smith not about Emma.--John Foxe (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is my family, John. This man is my great-grandmother's great-grandfather. Emma is my great-grandmother's great-grandmother. I merely want to preserve their words, even if they fly in the face of the Mormon/ex-Mormon biographers. By the way: I know you were making a joke, and I'm fine with that. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now that's understandable. But the words of our ancestors cannot take precedence over historical truth. And the fact of the matter is that both Joseph nor Emma were lying. Most people who go poking about in genealogical records eventually discover the same melancholy truth somewhere along the line.--John Foxe (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

John, I have read your work every day without any tit-for-tat editing or edit warring. I chose to step back. However, if you're going to simply revert whatever it is I change, merely because you believe your words are somehow superior, (what is it you call it? Your 'handiwork'?) that is assuming ownership. I merely tweaked what you yourself placed in the footnote after the last edit war. No changes were made to any of the references in the section this week, at least not by me that I recall. All I have done is change your inference that ES's statements were all in later years to reflect the fact that it was actually every time ES went on record. The footnote is specific to this sentence. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine: She lied repeatedly while Joseph was alive as well as after he was killed.--John Foxe (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your POV. It still doesn't change the fact that she said these things throughout her life. A Sniper (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't challenge what you've written. It's just a footnote. No big deal.--John Foxe (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I also think we've nailed the section re: Law, though I'll keep making sure Smith's own words are within the article and not tossed to the footnotes. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits

John, I appreciate you adding/returning those edits (re: the Expositor, Bushman, etc.). Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure—and my duty. Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with the new paragraph on ES - however, could you please allow for Bushman to be cited in the text as to the 'religion' quote? I appreciate that you included her continued belief in JSJr., which is supported by primary sources, but the truth of the matter was that by 1860, she was again involved in religion, this time at the side of her son. This is found in Launius, RLDS Church History, and of course the publication her son edited. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it a bit. See what you think. I don't have a copy of Launius, so maybe you'd like to add that reference to the footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment Roger Launius is the only respected, credible historian from the CofC ranks (other than Mark A. Scherer and Richard Howard) - I have Launius and will dig it up. It isn't that I don't trust Bushman on the subject, but (no offense to LDS editors) the LDS writers have historically downplayed Emma's own religious activity post-JSJr. as it doesn't necessarily fit into their official narrative. Neither did her rejection of Young, non-Trinitarian plurality of gods, Masonic-styled closed temple worship, blood atonement, Adam-God, polygamy, etc. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

This is the third time I have felt you've crossed the line into article ownership. Do you believe you are the only editor, and only your wording, phrasing, use of language, etc. is the ONLY way? You snip at other editor's work for no possible reason (and I'm not talking about arguments over use of quotes, etc.) so as to make the article your own. You have stated that you're proud of your handiwork at other articles, and that is fine. However, you are not always correct, sir, and this is the third warning that you tend to drift occasionally into this terrain of thinking that you are always the better writer. Please be aware. A Sniper (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Modesty forbids a felicitous reply :)--John Foxe (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

BJU

Your recent editions in the BJU have been mentioned in the Editor_assistance/Requests by User:Westie Boy. You might want to have a look there. --Maniadis (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Witnesses and Three Witnesses

Sir, I am not the best writer in the world. I also admit that you have done much research and are surely knowledgable regarding the LDS movement. However, it is blatantly obvious in your writings that you have a bias, as do I. I don't need to remind you that in everything you write, you seem to have one goal in mind: to draw readers to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is false. For instance, the FIRST thing that you write under "Oliver Cowdery" is that, like Joseph Smith, he was a treasure seeker. I do acknowledge that there are sources that confirm that they seeked for treasure with the rods. I onced worked for five months installing security systems. But if someone were to ask my friend about my life, the ABSOLUTE LAST thing out of his mouth would be that I worked with security systems... unless he was trying to persuade someone to believe that I robbed a house. I don't even know why I'm bothering to tell you this; i'm sure you don't care. You will probably still continue in your endeaver to prove the Book of Mormon false. I don't judge you; you're probably a really great person who is full of love. JUST KNOW THIS. As you have, I have also spent COUNTLESS hours reading, studying, researching, and pondering all the anti-Mormon claims and POV's. I have read the works of the Tanners, Tom Kellie, and MANY others. However, I have also looked at the other side of the coin, insomuch that I have read the Book of Mormon with an open mind and did take upon myself the challenge given in Moroni 10:4. Take it from someone who has impartially educated himself on the matter: You need to read It and take the challenge. :) I know you will not be disappointed with the result. I will pray for you tonight, that you will soften your heart. Take care.--Joelechols (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

All men (especially me) are biased, fallible, and sinful. On Wikipedia, one partial way of compensating for this human fallibility is to demand that information posted be both relevant and based on a reliable source (WP:RS). Your work for a security company would normally not be notable. But it would be highly relevant if you were accused of burglarizing a house. Likewise, as you've admitted, Cowdery had a magical world view before he met Joseph Smith. If Cowdery had gone on to win a seat in Congress or invent the air conditioner, his early practice of magic would be a curiosity. But as a witness to the Book of Mormon, it is of obvious significance.--John Foxe (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey John. Thanks for offering me your help. It took a while to figure out how to make a citation, create internal links, etc. It will be easier knowing that I can ask someone who's knowledgable. I noticed you made some changes to the article, and I appreciate it. Have a great day.--Joelechols (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome.--John Foxe (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Carl McIntire

"Overthrow" was the publication of the Youth International Party (originally named "The Yipster Times"). The Y.I.P. was a revolutionary anarcho-socialist group known for street theatre pranks (Two of their leaders, if that is the proper term, were Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman), but their publication featured surprisingly in-depth (if politically biased) reporting. I came across the article in an old issue of the publication while going through some old documents. I recognized the portion about Carl McIntire and how he tried to establish an off-shore gospel station. I thought the information was worthy enough to add to his biography. "FTA" was a group called "Free The Airwaves", which tried to establish a co-operative of pirate radio stations. Thank you for asking. Unidyne (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting and curious.--John Foxe (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Text removal

Thanks for helping to clean up E. B. Grandin. I agree that the section should have been either tagged (to encourage others to provide citations) or removed (which you did), but in the future I would encourage you to post large-text removals to an article's talk page (as I did here) and use a more descriptive edit summary (you put "tweak" for an entire section deletion) in order to help the community achieve consensus and to avoid any appearance of deception. Best wishes in your future editing! --Eustress (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I assure you there was no intent on my part to deceive. Thanks for your interest. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

BH Roberts - Nephite Story

Do you have a copy of the book? I changed it to match BYU's Mormon lit database, which gives the alternate title.

I don't have a copy, but the LoC should be the gold standard for book titles. Perhaps a later edition used the alternate title after the book had been turned into a play.--John Foxe (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Feeble attempt at a new Wikipedia Policy

I'd love your input for a new policy for Wikipedia regarding religious articles. Take a look at what I've started and lend me any input you wish. It's at Wikipedia:Religion. Thanks, Twunchy (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I appreciate what you're trying to do and in principle would like to help, but I think my own strength is getting down in the trenches with nouns, verbs, and participles.--John Foxe (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Golden Plates

Thank you for refactoring you talk page comment. Best, Verbal chat 21:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: How did you manage "-2 deleted edits"?? I'm in awe of that feat. Or there is something wrong with the action count :) Verbal chat 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it must be a technical glitch. All the best,--John Foxe (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandford

Hey, nice work on the Sandford article. I've nominated it for GA status. There is one sentence that I took out that you put back in. Its not a huge problem, but why in an encyclopedia does this need to be mentioned?

"Sandford had, of course, not died as Elijah in Jerusalem, but as an unrecorded inhabitant of a Catskill village.[82]"

Thanks for nominating Frank Sandford for GA status. Once I got going, I felt I needed to write Sandford up as best I could because the few print encyclopedia entries about him were both short and inaccurate.

I also appreciate the improvements that you made in the article. I agree with virtually everything you did. But I do think that final sentence helps remind the reader that Sandford never recanted his identification with Elijah, and it also helps explains why The Kingdom dwindled to curiosity status after his death. As Nelson says, unbelievers saw Sandford's death as "irrefutable proof that the man had been a false prophet, the whole movement forced into admitting it had been based on a delusion." (423)

Four of the images used in this article are not fair use or licensed correctly and have been nominated for deletion at Wiki Commons. Please see your user page there. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning.--John Foxe (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to your reversion of my editing of Noahs Ark Zoo Farm article

Hello John Foxe

My point is: I have never come across a supporter of Darwinian evolution who supports any variety of creationism. Your sentence implies that it is only the Bushes' preferred variety of creationism that they object to. That is not the case. In my experience it is "any" such non-scientific approach.

As Andrew Billen states in this week's Times: "[Conor] Cunningham [theologian presenting TV programme "Did Darwin kill god?"] can believe what he likes but, whereas our world is one big museum of evidence for evolution by natural design, for the existence of God there is no evidence at all."

This article as it stands seems very biased in favour of the views expressed by the proprietor of this zoo. With the growth of articulate Atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens et al) I think it is unfortunate that anyone who tries to present a balanced view in this article gets very swiftly censored.

Peteinterpol (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in censoring anybody, but your use of the term "pseudo-science" to describe creationism is POV. Likewise, you provide no authority for the belief that criticism of Bush's creationism stems from his presentation of creation as fact. The criticism, in my opinion, arises from Bush's large and impressionable audience, a situation that always annoys opponents of creationism. Of course, neither you nor I could say such a thing in the article without citation to authority.

Your point about the last sentence is well taken. I'll rewrite it, avoiding mention of young earth creationism. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"No reason given for changes"

Hi John. I hope you don't mind if I offer a bit of mild criticism. I've noticed recently a few reverts you've done over at Joseph Smith, Jr. where your edit summary simply says, "No reason given for changes." I don't think that's a valid reason for reverting, and it carries a rather strong suggestion of article ownership: "Any changes must be approved by John Foxe if they are to last". If the change violates a WP policy, of course it should be reverted -- but then you should refer to that as the reason in your edit summary when you revert. If the change degrades the article in some other way, it's okay to revert it -- but I think the onus is on you to explain why the change was unacceptable; a legitimate improvement to an article does not have to be justified. And it might be a little kinder to newcomers if you offered to discuss it or to seek wording that can satisfy both of you, so they feel that they've had a chance to participate in the editing of the article. In the cases I've seen, I've actually agreed that the changes you reverted were inferior, but quality of the edit isn't what you've been citing as your revert reason. Thanks for considering this, alanyst ^/talk/ 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try not to use that phrase in the future. Nevertheless, I think it's helpful for new editors to understand that if they want to be taken seriously at Wikipedia, they need to provide an edit summary. Further, discussing wording with newcomers at Joseph Smith, Jr. would require gobs of time to little purpose. If the same editors should return with an edit summary (which virtually never happens), I'd be much more willing to talk out changes and seek compromise. (But it would certainly stabilize the article if I could enforce a rule that "any changes must be approved by John Foxe.")--John Foxe (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr reverts

Dear "John Foxe"! In my five years on Wikipedia, you are the first person to accuse me of vandalism. In your revert [1] you removed my sourced attempt to bring at least some semblance of balance to the lead section of Smith's article.

Please explain yourself: 1. In what way does my edit constitute vandalism? 2. How does my addition of two short sentences constitute a "major change"? 3. What do you mean by "undocumented editions" in your revert summary? 4.Why should you (obviously biased in this matter) be the ultimate censor of permissible content in this article? (Before you answer please read WP:OWN.)

Thank you for your time. -- Marcika (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I aimed with a shotgun to correct a host of miscellaneous changes yesterday, none of which I believed improved the article. Your edits, although they covered aspects of Smith's life already mentioned, were certainly good faith, not vandalism and not undocumented. I apologize for lumping you in with the others.

As a non-Mormon but knowledgeable about Mormonism and Joseph Smith, I certainly wish I could be the ultimate censor of this article; but no non-Mormon could ever be such, Wiki rules or not. As I said on the talk page, if you have specific evidence of bias in the article, please provide it. Personally, I think article's pretty NPOV.--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)