Talk:Golden plates/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV

I have added the POV tag to this article because it seems to me that this article has wandered from NPOV, containing many speculative and other elements that seem more of an anti-LDS POV i.e. not informationally motivated but critically motivated statements; elements that, although claiming to be sourced, they may be sourced from speculative literature. I would like input from both sides of the equation, LDS and Non-LDS. For the record I am LDS, but I am not opposed to critical elements but I think this article makes Joseph Smith seem like a sham and performance artist and that's POV in my book. Comments? Twunchy 05:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag. The page on the Fox sisters also makes them look like "sham and performance artists," so that in itself is not a POV problem. Instead of attacking the neutrality of the page generally, please discuss phrases and sentences that you believe to be incorrect. --John Foxe 11:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I will keep restoring this POV tag until input is gathered from sources other than the person (mr. John Foxe) who input all of these speculative statements. Please refer to wikipedia's guidelines as to the proper sourcing of statements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources . Speculative and controversial statments from a biography that is quite contested cannot be presented in this forum as factual and the basis of the absolute statements presented in this article. This is the epitome of POV. NPOV information is sourced from traditional sources, not inserting controversial statements from controversial biographies critical of the topic being presented. Please disclose your intentions and affiliations to be clear of conflicts of interest. My interest is in the accuracy of this article. Speculation is not welcome here.Twunchy 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's important to reveal what you believe to be speculative and what you believe to be "traditional sources." We are looking for facts here not speculation. --John Foxe 09:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have highlighted the statements that are in need of additional source verification. The primary source for all of these facts seem to emminate from one biography by Dan Vogel which is not universally accepted as being factual. It is quite to the contrary, the biography making these statements is a controversial book whose accuracy is quite debated (see http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=572), and by the nature of these statements it is quite speculative, being the opinion of the author of the book, not facts accepted by those who study Mormon Theology.Twunchy 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. We're making progress.

Dan Vogel's biography is not discredited simply because it's criticized by FARMS, the apologetic arm of the LDS Church. The Mormon Historical Association awarded Vogel its Turner-Bergera Best Biography Award in May 2005, and the John Whitmer Historical Association awarded him its Best Book award in September 2004. Presumably these folks know a bit about Mormon theology. Nevertheless, I've added citations from Grant Palmer and Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling that more than buttress Vogel.

Several of the statements you marked for citation are for you to change and document if they are incorrect: 1. That anyone but Joseph Smith testified that he translated the plates in the way he said he did. (No one else did.) 2. That Smith could not have made the plates himself out of tin. (He could have.) 3. That it wouldn't be difficult to run a mile with sixty pounds under your arm while fighting off a few assailants. (It would be.) --John Foxe 20:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a NPOV tag for that section, because it does seem exceedingly biased. Honestly, you are right. It would be difficult to carry a 60lb load while fighting assailants, however, the statements are one-sided, and do not express belief that one may be aided physically by the Lord. I think re-writing some of the text and adding the Religious side of the argument should clear things up. --Greg Vernon

I've removed the POV tag. Bias must be proved. Besides, Joseph made no claim of divine assistance during this incident. --John Foxe 12:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Biased must be proved? Well, as of right now two, seperate, people have complained that it isn't NPOV. I think, for right now, that is proof enough. Also, I looked to find a better tag, and their are several that could be used. (Weasel Words, Unencyclopediatic...) but NPOV covers them all. As I said, I'll work on a better written paragraph which won't be perfect, but, will eliminate the POV issues completely, IE, not just removed the criticisms GregVernon 17:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I could work with you if you'd say what's biased. --John Foxe 18:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be more apt to believe that you would help if you recognized that what is written simply isn’t NPOV.GregVernon 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please define what is biased. Maybe we can reach concensus about improvements; maybe not. In any case, it would be more reasonable than repeatedly declaring your unsubstantiated personal opinion. --John Foxe 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the above comment, I was late for a class so I didn't really think about what I was typing to much. Anyway, I would like your comments on the statement I have below, I think it still needs a little work but some of the issues where solved, IMO, with the statement below.GregVernon 22:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible Solution

This would be a *much* better description of the physical description of the plates. Any speculation to the authenticity shouldn’t go in this area.

According to Smith the “records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches [150mm] wide and eight inches [200mm] long, and not quite so thick as common tin. […] The volume was something near six inches [150mm] in thickness, a part of which as sealed.” (10). The plates where bound together with rings to form a book 6 inches think. Independent calculations concerning the mass of the plates have stated that they are roughly 60 pounds (13). Joseph Smith along with others (11) who have held the plates have also stated that they weigh roughly 60 pounds.

Now, we can add a new section for such critical remarks.

Some speculation can be made over the authenticity of the plates for a variety of reasons. First, Smith had access to large amounts of tin in his residence, which leads some to believe that he could have fashioned them himself. Second, Smith notes that he was chased by multiple assailants while carrying the plates. Due to the weight, roughly the same as a 6 year old child, running “at the top of his speed” would have become difficult, only compounded by being assaulted.

Now, if you notice, I removed the reference to the “2 modern toolboxes”. That was pretty horrible. It’s exceedingly relative. For example: When I was a kid, I had a modern tool box filled with “tools” and it didn’t weigh nearly 30 pounds. Also, my neighbor happened to be a carpenter, and he had some really obscure tools, his box may have weighed 60 pounds, alone let alone two of them! I replaced it with the weight of a 6 year old because that is much more standardized and recognized through-out society. GregVernon 21:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry for editing this so much...)

OK. See what you think. I didn't use the six-year-old because all I could think of was a kid wiggling while I ran through the woods with him under my arm. --John Foxe 22:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that picture alot too. Honestly, I can't think of a better example. Perhaps we could use the statement "the weight of a sleeping 6 year old child". Obviously, the weight is the same, but that implies the child won't be moving much. Also, I still think that you have a valid criticism in that statement, it would be really tough to carry a 60 pound object while getting assulted, so it might be a good idea to have that in the article somewhere. IE, in the Criticism section along with the theory he could have created the plates with excess tin.

I suggest we let sleeping six-year-olds lie. Between two tool boxes perhaps.

I made a few changes and then moved the rest of the paragraph up to the "Story of the Plates" section.--John Foxe 00:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tone of article

Does anybody else feel that the tone and or content of this article is skewed towards giving evidence supporting the non-existence/fallibility of the golden plates? I notice that this has already been discussed quite a bit but as I re-read the article it seems that it cites much more cases against the possibility that the plates were what Smith claimed rather than an equal amount on both sides, and the tone of the article overall seems to be supporting the idea that Smith's claims to the plates are false. Could a few people please voice their opinions on the overall tone and content of this article? --nomoreink 10:37 21 Nov 2006

Mormons and non-Mormons contributed to this article over many months. If you think there are errors of content or tone, they should be noted specifically. If additional evidence should be provided, please provide it. --John Foxe 19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me Foxe. Truly, I have only browsed the previous discussion articles so I am sure I do not thoroughly know the history of this article as well as youself or many others do. However my reason for posting here was because I wondered what the opinions of other readers of the article are so I can better judge whether my thoughts were biased or correct, and thus worth posting. It would seem rather foolish for me to have immediately jumped in and start making assumptions and changing things in this article without first researching the matter a little (or a lot). I do appreciate your great amount of input on this article however, it has helped me reevaluate what was a rather biased point of view on my part.

I have compiled a list of things that in my opinion appear less than satisfactory in this article (not all of them related to the POV or bias issue) which after doing more research I will gladly share here. Thank you Foxe for your response to my post, although seeing your previous posts could have nearly guessed your response. At the moment I would appreciate input on this subject from others should they deem this subject worthy of comment, even if it is just to help me better understand the situation. Should I be capable of improving this article I am willing to help but I would rather do so constructively rather than rashly. --nomoreink 16:58, 21 November 2006

I appreciate your willingness to think through the issues in this article. Constructive is always better than rash. --John Foxe 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the opinion listed here by momoreink. this article is highly skewed, and Mr. Foxe repeatedly will revert anything he doesn't like. He is the de facto "owner" of this article and has moulded it to shape his skepticisms. I take offense to the fact that he has repeatedly removed the POV tag that I had tried to add to get better input added and more discussions. I have tried to flag the fact that there is a POV tendency to this article with many weasel words, quoting controversial literature as a mainstream source, and speculative material wherever it suits the purposes of Mr. Foxe, etc. but he removes any attempt to dispute the validity of this article. Be prepared to be reverted mercilessly by Mr. Foxe...he thinks he is the keeper of this article and I take issue with that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN for what Mr. Foxe does. Twunchy 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While I also feel that Foxe has (at least in part) tried to make himself "owner" of this article as Twuncy has said, I don't think that precludes that what he has written is totally incorrect. He obviously has not removed the items that support the validity of the Golden Plates on the page and thus appears willing to accept such given a worthy argument. However I do feel that there is still some bias in the article. It is obvious that there is much evidence for and against the reality of the golden plates and thus both sides of the argument must be accurately represented in the article. Yet it is my feelings that right now the argument is skewed. But the solution does not lie in attacking Foxe (Ad hominem), in the page on ownership you referenced it says "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of editors." Also, my purpose in this post is not to make a gathering to overthrow Foxe but rather to discuss if and how this article may be skewed and what we could do to improve it.

I would appreciate your help Twunchy if you were willing to read through the article a few times and maybe list some of the items you find controversial, then we can discuss them and decide what changes could improve. Doubtless Foxe has arguments supporting his sides but if we all work together I think we can remove some bias from the page. I already have compiled a pre-list of sorts, but since Thanksgiving break was coming on I haven't worked much on the subject. Anyhow, I would really be grateful for some help in improving the article. However I probably won't be able to do much myself until next week. nomoreink 15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)