User talk:John Foxe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
