Talk:Tree of life vision
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tree of life vision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Needs References?
editUser:Brewcrewer - How can you put refimprove tag on an article that is basically two quotes from a known source? What needs references? The story itself is quoted, then the interpretation of the story is quoted. The timeline of the occurrence is given in the Book of Mormon itself as well. If you are suggesting that it's not a reliable source, that argument is even bogus because this article is not saying that the story is true, it is just documenting what the story is in the work itself - i.e. "here is what the story is in the Book of Mormon."
Bhludzin (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since it's mostly quotes I didn't tag it as {{unreferenced}}. But the article has other information besides the direct quotes that's unsourced, that's why I tagged it as "refimprove." BTW, if you disagree with the tag, you can remove it. I won't make a fuss. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. If there is something unsourced that you strongly feel that I should get a reference for, let me know. I thought that maybe the Stela section could use tags, but there is a link to the article right there, and the Stela article is filled with references. I didn't want to bother recreating too much of that in this article.
- Bhludzin (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. If there is something unsourced that you strongly feel that I should get a reference for, let me know. I thought that maybe the Stela section could use tags, but there is a link to the article right there, and the Stela article is filled with references. I didn't want to bother recreating too much of that in this article.
Counterproductive Mass of Confusion
editUser:Descartes1979 - What is the purpose of what you have done here? What have you accomplished? You have taken something that is factual, simple and straightforward, and turned it into a complete mess. You took a straightforward article that displayed the story, followed by the interpretation, and removed the material completely, replacing it with selected POV quotes of opinions on the material and a multitude of tags requiring citations, references and sources. If anyone doubts this, please look at the article before User:Descartes1979 edits on June 23, 2008. I have never in my life seen a clearer example of someone with an agenda using the letter of the law to defy the spirit of the law. A person could have come to this article and learned something, now they will come here and be deflected by obfuscation. This is an example of eliminating that which is good about Wikipedia. Instead of enabling a person to come here and see what the subject is really about, you've managed to remove it and drown it in a sea of opinions and references. Adding more summary information would have been fine, but what you've done is equivalent to removing a picture of the Aztec Calendar Stone and replacing it with a summary that says "The stone is a carved object that Julia Guernsey Kappelman does not believe is Aztec." This is like playing an obfuscation game under the guise of NPOV.
Bhludzin (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Bhludzin, it was not my intention to cause confusion - I am just trying to improve the article. I believe that the tags and edits I made will help spur an improvement in the article. I also added a merge proposal in order to start a discussion on whether there is too much duplication of information with the First Book of Nephi article (which contains quite a bit of detail on this vision). Before I came on the scene, the article was nothing more than a copy paste from the Book of Mormon, it had no context, no explanation as to why it is notable, no third party references. That is not a wikipedia article, that is an entry for wikisource. No offense is intended, you made a great start to the article, but lets make this a better article and more interesting to non Mormon and Mormon readers. Lets think about what this article should be about: 1) What is it? and 2) Why is it important? 3) How does it contribute to Mormon theology? Let me know what you think. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Orphan Tag
editI'm removing the orphan tag. The article is linked to by: Tree of life, First Book of Nephi, Izapa Stela 5, and Vision (spirituality)
Bhludzin (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
references for future improvement
editI am coming across sources that discuss the first vision while I'm working on First Nephi. I'll put them here as a trail for future editors (which may include myself). There is extensive discussion in the commentary The Book of Mormon for the Least of These and in Joseph Spencer's Brief Theological Introduction (especially in Chapter 2, "The Remnant of Israel"). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)